This post references this article (pdf).

As we know by now, CLT says the goal of language-teaching is communicative competence (as described in this article, linguistic, pragmatic, discourse, strategic and fluency). Many pros think it’s the most effective of current approaches.

However, CLT doesn’t distinguish between EFL and ESL environments. In the former, real-life target language is largely unavailable. For that reason, and also cultural reasons, many Chinese EFL teachers still think grammar, vocab and reading need to remain the focus, since there’s little need for using English for oral communication.

Still, English in China has become increasingly important in business and academic settings since the early 80s, so these older teaching methods — and resistance to CLT — will not likely survive. How do people in China acquire communicative competence? Some teachers have been introducing into classrooms for the last twenty years, slowly, so it’s not a totally new practice there. But (per Hutchinson and Waters) “We cannot simply assume that describing and exemplifying what people do with language will enable someone to learn [the target language].”

And CLT does have its problems. “Where there is no guided focus on form, learners are likely to have difficulty with accuracy since learners tend to focus on what to say rather than how to say” it. Harmer suggests that CLT has become an umbrella term for learning sequences that aim to improve students’ ability to communicate, regardless of techniques used, and even if techniques include drilling and focused language work.

As I’ve read elsewhere, these are principles of CLT:

• Focus on language use rather than form
• Fluency and accuracy both important
• Students (not teacher) are focus of lesson
• Classroom activities engage students in authentic and meaningful exchanges
• Communication involves integration of different language skills
• Learners encouraged to be autonomous and responsible
• Focus on cooperative learning

However, the authors point out that these notions are very Western. “In contrast to Western practices, the traditional Chinese language study focuses more on forms rather than communication; more attention is given to structural correctness while personal creations and interpretations are not heavily promoted or valued; teachers, not students, are the center of the lesson, and classroom relationships are based on distance and formality; Chinese English teachers are keenly aware of their responsibility for students’ success in [sic] English course.”

So an approach like CLT can make Chinese teachers and learners very uncomfortable. Students have the extrinsic motivation of wanting to pass exams or get jobs, and may see this approach as too “soft.” They want grammar instruction, they would rather interact with the teacher than each other, and so on.

An additional problem with CLT is that it’s hard hard non-native English speakers to teach, with its emphasis on linguistic, pragmatic, discourse and strategic competence: areas somewhat unfamiliar to the teachers. That increases their workload and could diminish their efficacy, and of course they have language proficiency issues of their own to deal with.

Still, the authors see a place for CLT in China. The field there is getting used to it, and the need is there for communicative competence. What remains to be seen is how fully the field will embrace it, and to what level Chinese native teachers will be able to handle it.