Backlashes against CLT

     Two of this week's readings focused very heavily on the shortcomings of Communicative Learning Teaching(CLT) and how it is received in the world. Before these readings, I had a relatively positive view of CLT, thinking that it seemed very useful in the classroom.  Last week, when we discussed China attempting to rid schools of CLT, I figured that this was largely due to some ill-informed political move.  After reading the provided article by Guangwei Hu, I was able to see the counter-cultural argument that he brought forth, and how Chinese schools were not wrong for sticking to traditional methods.  Along with Hu's article, Stephen Bax provided a contextual argument that build upon the notion that CLT is becoming a "universal method" that needs to be dethroned.  Together, these articles showed that while innovative methods may be very educationally rewarding for learners, they are only effective in certain contexts.  This idea can relate back to many concepts that we have previously discussed.

     

     Hu links the backlash against CLT to Chinese Culture.  This culture exists on a societal level, as well as an educational level.  Educationally, Chinese schools followed very Confucian ideas, believing that students and teachers were on separate levels.  This largely contrasts with CLT, believing that student interaction is key.  The teacher-centered classroom is a dominant factor in Chinese classrooms.  Some people may criticize these teacher centered methods, but often fail to look at the cultural aspect.  In the conclusion of Hu's article, Hu states that it wold be counterproductive to restructure the Chinese educational system around CLT.  He brings up the idea of an autonomous approach vs. an idealogical approach. (Hu, 102)  By adopting the autonomous attitude, one is assuming superiority of effective pedagogy over all other realms.  It is the ideological attitude that allows one to have a better sociocultural understanding of the educational world around them.  By realizing that different approaches work in different environments, a teacher can teach his/her students more effectively. This last idea relates largely to contexts, which was the focal point of Bax's article.

     Bax's article gave me a much better insight on the Hu reading, highlighting the idea that proper approaches to teaching are contextual.  As I mentioned before, prior to reading Hu's article, I didn't know why CLT would be rejected in some schools.  Perhaps you could say I was under the assumption that CLT was a somewhat superior method, given its ability to promote "real life" language. Bax addresses this opinion I had, along with the opinion of many other educators.  Bax explained the notion that CLT was considered the "best method."  If I have learned anything from this course so far, it is that no one true method exists, nor does one sole approach, unless that approach would be a skeptical, multi-perspectival view that is apt to change to certain situations.  The overarching idea that I drew from Bax's article is that different approaches work at varying levels, given the environment.  Whether it's "learning needs, wants, styles, and strategies" (Bax, 285) or sociocultural factors that are heavily rooted in ideology, a teacher must be flexible and adaptable to whatever learning environment he or she enters.    Certain methods may seem like a perfect fix for one situation, and be counterproductive in another.  In order for a teacher to effectively reach their students, he/she must grasp this concept and be able to look at the educational sphere through a multicontextual lens.