Name : Herdino Yanuari

NIM : 2017404017

Class : 3 TBI A

OUTLINE

Grammar Transactional Method vs Communicative Language Teaching

1. Thesis : CLT and GTM have some differences aspects, such as accurate of grammar, theacer's
role in theaching, and focus of learning.
2. Accurate of grammar
 CLT method does not pay attention of grammar
 GTM method pay attention of grammar
3. Teacher's role in teaching
 CLT method focuses on students
 GTM method focuses on theacer
4. Focus of learning
 CLT method focuses on oral / speaking skills
 GTM method focuses on writting skills.
5. CLT method is better that GTM method.

Grammar Transactional Method vs Communicative Language Teaching

Teaching is an important part of any academic process since it facilitates the transfer of knowledge from
one person to another. However, in order to ensure that the learning process is effective, teachers must
be familiar with a variety of teaching approaches and how to use them effectively. An understanding of
the TEFL methodology is useful for ensuring quality outcomes in the education system. Good execution
can make it easier for students to acquire the knowledge needed for productive purposes. In order for
teachers to adequately understand the various teaching methodologies that will be used, they must
critically compare and contrast learning methodologies such as the communicative language teaching
with the grammatical translation method (McDonough & Shaw, 2003). They should contrast various
aspects of this learning methodology in a broad capacity. In the last, CLT and GTM have some
differences aspects, such as accurate of grammar, theacer's role in theaching, and focus of learning.

The first difference between these two methods is how accurate the use of grammar is in language
learning. CLT aims to make meaningful communication and language use the emphasis of all classroom
activities, with communicative competence as its major goal. On the other hand, in the GTM classroom
purposes to increase linguistic competency through translation and structural understanding. GTM
stands out in its treatment of students by carefully enforcing grammar norms. CLT is more
accommodating and considerate, while it is more rigid and remedial. Students in the CLT classroom are
encouraged to express themselves in the target language without regard for precise grammar. As a
result, the issue of CLT prohibiting the teaching of grammar arises. In the last, the CLT method does not
pay much attention to grammar, in contrast to the GTM method which has to really pay attention to the
grammar structure.

Secondly, CLT methode and GTM method also have difference in the teacher's role in teaching. Aside
from the grammar issue, some teachers also dispute the teacher's position in the CLT classroom (Rao,
2002). In addition, CLT classrooms make extensive use of student activities in which students play a
prominent part in the learning process. This is not the same as pupils participating actively in a GTM
classroom. Students are asked to conduct board work, give sentences using rules, and analyze language
faults in the GTM classroom. As a result, the translation operations necessitate active engagement on
the part of the pupils. In a CLT classroom, however, learners direct a later discussion of language
functions by participating in activities that demand realistic use of the target language. Furthermore,
teachers solely act as facilitators in CLT, unlike in GTM, where the instructor is at the focus of
instruction. They guide and monitor students while they complete activities, and they provide feedback
at the end of each one. This implies a significant distinction between the two. In conclusion, in the CLT
method, the learning focus is on students, while in the GTM method, the learning method is focused on
the teacher.

The third difference between these two methods is regarding the focus of learning. In CLT the
assessment is done orally, whereas, in GTM, the assessment is done in written format. (Gass & Selinker,
2008). CLT was derived from approaches that gave importance to speaking skills. However, he also
explains that CLT is not limited to speaking. It includes listening, reading, and writing skills. Listening
easily comes along with speaking strategies, while reading and writing go hand in hand as learners write
manuscripts or reflection papers based on what they have read. On the other hand, GTM focuses on
writing skills. In this Method students are directed to make texts based on grammar rules. Therefore, in
GTM the method focuses on writing skills while in CLT the method focuses on oral skills.

In conclusion, CLT method is better that GTM method. CLT is the most widely utilized method for
teaching second languages because of its numerous benefits. CLT has outperformed GTM and other
recognized approaches in terms of promoting overall competence in the target language. Many modern
approaches and methodologies are based on CLT, with some modifications to the strategies or devices
used. The popularity of computer and Internet learning, in particular, suggests that CLT principles will be
revised in the next years.

References :

McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: a teacher’s guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.

Rao, Zhenzhui (2002). Chinese students perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities
in the EFL classroom system. Journal of English Education, 30(1), 85–105.

Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. London, LDN:
Routledge.