Abstract
With the development of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching in Indonesia, we have become more aware that the use of the communicative language teaching (CLT) does not always suit all English teaching situations. Teachers have also discovered that there is no single teaching method that deals with everything that concerns the form, the use, and the content of English. The approach is in many ways a commitment to eclecticism in practice. English teaching should be partly communicatively oriented, so students can acquaint themselves with appropriate language usage. This article tries to search for the appropriate teaching model for the Indonesian context. Although the CLT has been applied in some public schools in Indonesia, some barriers are often found in its implementation. Eclecticism is an alternative that could be tried.
Introduction
The general debate regarding how education is conceptualized, and the question of whether learning is a process of mastering abilities and knowledge “acquired” from the previous generation, is reflected in contemporary thinking in second language learning. The communicative approach or what is known as CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), learner-centered instruction, and task-based teaching are three concepts in second language learning that have been influential over the past two decades. The three concepts are part of the interpretative view of education. This viewpoint conflicts with another that assumes that learning is a process of acquiring abilities and knowledge transmitted from teacher to student. The interpretative tradition regarding learning, which is strongly rooted in the humanistic psychology tradition, argues that in order to allow learning to occur, students must reconstruct abilities and knowledge for themselves, the two of which are not easily obtained from external sources.
A second, quite significant paradigm shift in language teaching occurred in the 1970s when language and language-teaching experts adopted a new viewpoint regarding language itself. In the previous era (the 1960s) language was seen as a set of systems of rules and the main goal of language learners were to approximate the native speakers of the language they were taught. The priority for a language learner was to master the language structure, and in the learning process, emphasis on the language meaning itself was seen as a lesser goal. In that era language teaching emphasized syntax and grammar, ignoring or at least minimizing vocabulary development and semantics. However, in the 1970s, the conceptualization of language teaching became richer with the appearance of new ideas which are based on humanistic and experiential psychology. Linguists saw language more as a system of meaning expression rather than an abstract system of syntax rules.
The Indonesian Context
There are three important issues related to the context of English teaching in Indonesian public schools: the role of English in the people, the national curriculum of English language classes, and the practice of English language teaching in public schools.
The context of English language teaching in Indonesia is inescapable from its role, considered more as a foreign language rather than a second language. In a setting where English is a foreign language, students usually learn with low intrinsic motivation; English may be deemed irrelevant with students’ needs because the language is not part of their everyday life. In this setting students usually learn in one large class consisting of 40-50 students with a limited number of meetings. On the other hand, in a setting where English is a second language, students have high intrinsic motivation because the language is a part of everyday life. By living in a second language environment, students have a higher chance to use the language whether to communicate with others or for professional needs, as in searching for a job. Even though the use of English in Indonesia – whether written or spoken – is increasing as evidenced by print and electronic media, the language still has not shifted its position from being a foreign language to becoming a second language.
Meanwhile, the curriculum for English classes in Indonesia has undergone many changes over the years. It started with grammar-translation (1945), followed by oral (1968), audio-lingual (1975), communicative (1984), and finally meaning-based (1994). In 2004, the government published a new curriculum – the 2004 Curriculum – which is more well-known as the Competence-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi – KBK). Within two years of the implementation of the curriculum, in 2006 the government published another curriculum, the Unified Education Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan – KTSP), by Ministry of Education Regulations number 22, 23, and 24 of 2006, each regarding content standards for elementary and middle education units (Regulation 22, 2006), passing competence standards for elementary and middle education units (Regulation 23, 2006), and the execution of said regulations (Regulation 24, 2006). As an example, for a middle school-level English class, in contrast to the 2004 curriculum which sets standards for competence, indicators, and core materials, the 2006 curriculum only sets competence standards with the intent to give teachers the freedom to develop themselves with their own creativity instead of being tied down to the curriculum.
No empirical research as of yet has been conducted that evaluates the effectiveness of the changing curriculums on student learning results or even the increase in teachers’ competence or performance. In the meantime, despite the lack of empirical research that compares the effectiveness of learning English in courses and formal schooling, it has become a public understanding that learning English in courses is believed to be more effective and beneficial to students than learning through formal schooling. English language courses have expanded quite significantly, from those that are managed by official foreign country representatives such as The British Council, Indonesian Australia Language Foundation-IALF, English First-EF, and others, to private ones managed by individuals. While schools still struggle with teaching grammar and committing language rules to memory, courses instead stress speaking skills, with more meetings compared to classes in schools. Some courses even go as far as to advertise claims of “fluent speaking in three months” to draw consumers. Not only that, some courses utilize native-speaking teachers to accelerate speaking skills. Usually, programs with such teachers are offered at a steeper price compared to ones with local teachers, even though native speakers may not be any more competent. More often, the people appreciate inexperienced or even unskilled English native speaker teachers than local instructors who are fluent in English, experienced, and skilled in this field.
The praxis of English language teaching in Indonesia varies from schools that teach English well to those that lack such a quality. Generally, these schools can be divided into three groups.
First are the public and private schools in major cities which are able to teach English effectively. Schools in this group have advanced English laboratories, teaching materials on par with the international standard, quality teachers, communicative teaching methods, students learning in ideal but not-too-large groups, and even the use of English as a teaching language in other classes. Students in these schools tend to have good communicative competence, so the national exams do not become a problem for them and the school. Most of the students in this group of schools also take English courses outside of their schools. Quite often, these schools require a certain TOEFL score as part of their standards for passing.
Second are the public and private schools that do have adequate language laboratories, sufficient teaching materials, and quality English teachers, but are hindered by the government policy regarding the national exams so that the only purpose for English classes is to help students answer the questions on the exam, especially for students of the last grade. The communication aspect of the students’ learning of English in this group is often ignored. Moreover, schools in this group have very high numbers of students in a single classroom, between 40-50. Only a small portion of students also take English courses.
Third are the schools that do not have a language laboratory, have many students in a single classroom, do not have sufficient teaching materials, have low-quality English teachers, and use ineffective teaching methods. Students learning in this group of schools usually have low learning motivation and low starting competence, which they may carry even up to graduation. Schools that fall into this group are private schools in the outskirts of towns or public and private schools in villages, rural areas, and remote locations.
The majority of schools in Indonesia fall into the second and third groups. Teaching English in these schools are not effective for a variety of reasons including lack of facilities, unavailability of materials, low-quality teachers, many students in a single class, non-communicative teaching methods, and stiff and exam question-answering-oriented curriculums, among others.
The factor of Indonesian culture as part of Asian culture is often considered as a barrier in creating a communicative form of English learning. In this context, “culture” means the relationship between teacher and student, viewpoints on learning, and communication patterns. The formal relationship between teacher and student where the teacher is assumed to be a superior, omniscient figure while the students are a group of individuals who must obey and receive the teacher’s explanations as they are clearly will not create a communicative learning environment. The high-considerateness nature of Asian communicative patterns where students are not encouraged to interrupt, must respond positively, and speak in a flat intonation, also make it less likely for communicative interactions to occur in language learning. Coleman (1996) sees that the learning process in an Indonesian class is highly related to two Javanese local cultural products: shadow puppets and the greeting at a wedding reception or other celebrations. According to Coleman, the classroom English learning process is not unlike that of the shadow puppet show. The teacher is analogous to the actively-talking puppeteer (dalang) and the students are analogous to the large audience that freely relaxes, eats, drinks, and even sleeps, only to awaken and pay attention during the funny and active parts. Such is also the case with the wedding reception greeting: not much of the audience pays attention. For Coleman, English language classes in Indonesia are just rituals. What is interesting is that when Coleman interviewed several English language curriculum experts in Indonesia, including Sadtono, the experts do not consider such classroom behavior as to be a problem.
The Communicative Approach: Between Concept and Reality
This method is also called Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The goal of teaching with this method is to use the language as a medium of communication. Learning stresses interaction, conversation, and language use rather than “about” language. Topics discussed in class usually consist of general ones familiar to students, such as TV programs, daily activities, or newspaper ads; topics could also relate to other classes a student has, such as mathematics, history, or literature. However, the topics are only used as discussion materials to practice using language as a medium of communication, not to study them.
CLT was recognized in the early 1960s and into the 70s. This learning model surfaced as a reaction to what could be called a failure of previous teaching models, namely the structural situational and audiolingual methods. This period was a period where second language teaching practitioners spoke about the “going communicative” jargon, where language teaching must be stressed on the communicative competence aspect. Additionally, CLT appeared as a response to developments in linguistics in the 70s, and at the same time a response to the need for a new method in second language teaching, expressed by a group of European linguists who were a part of the Council of Europe (Richards, 2001:37).
CLT stresses that language teaching is more than just knowing about grammar, vocabulary, and phonetics. Language learning needs to develop the communicative competence, which is the ability to use the language being learned in social interactions. Communicative competence does not mean setting aside the role of grammar, but instead it is a combining of several competencies, among them grammatical competence (covering language structure), sociolinguistic competence (covering the ability to understand the social context where the language is used, including the goal of communication), discourse competence (covering the ability to understand the message presented in the language), and strategic competence (covering the ability to create good communicative tactics to begin, respond, and end conversations).
In the teaching praxis, CLT requires several conditions: content focused on language knowledge relevant to students’ needs, a cyclical (not step-by-step) content order, division of content into several activities and tasks requiring communicative interaction, a relationship between said activities and tasks, and learning goals chosen by negotiation between students and the teacher. CLT can occur if communicative activities happen while working in pairs and groups, language input is authentic language used in everyday life, students are compelled to dare to produce genuine language and meaningful communication, and classroom tasks are oriented to prepare the student to be able to use the language outside of the classroom.
Conceptually, CLT seems to be the ideal learning model, especially if the target of foreign language teaching is to use the language. However, CLT is more suited for teaching English as a second language rather than as a foreign language. The application of the communicative approach (and thus CLT) in teaching English as a foreign language is often criticized by language teaching experts, mainly because CLT was first developed in western, English-speaking countries, which when applied in a developing country, the method becomes inappropriate for the local context. The problem encountered in the application of CLT in developing countries, specifically Asian ones, is that the method conflicts with the social, cultural, and economic conditions of the subject country. The difference in eastern and western communication style and the difference in classroom conditions, teaching facilities, and teacher quality are some examples of the particular problems faced.
Some cases of the application of CLT can be found in Asian countries. The following are such cases, including the problems:
• Deckert (2004) found that the failure of the application of CLT in the United Arab Emirates was caused by excessive teacher talk and teacher and student perceptions about effective English teaching. Observations showed that excessive teacher talk in explaining to and correcting students causes them to miss opportunities to actively participate using English in communication.
• A research by Gahin &Mayhill (2001) showed two roadblocks in the application of CLT in Egypt. First are extrinsic barriers covering economic factors which include low wages, lack of resources, and large classes without adequate facilities; pressure from parents, students, principals, and supervisors cause teachers to sacrifice an ideal CLT syllabus. Second are intrinsic barriers covering cultural factors which include passive-student traditions, negative-to-group-work attitudes, and influences of colleagues in other, teacher-dominated subjects. Furthermore, the ability of teachers, in particular 41% of English teachers of which are non-specialists lacking in pedagogical performance and speaking, as well as inconsistencies between syllabus and exams also contribute to the intrinsic barriers.
• Zhang (2004) in CLT in China: Frustrations, Misconceptions, and Clarifications, mentions a few cultural barriers in applying CLT across mainland China, such as the unsupportive environment where English usage lacks, the inability of teachers to communicate using English, and the examination system which still focuses on grammar. Even though China has now economically shifted to liberal capitalism, the remnants of communism can still be found in education, like in permanent and unchangeable class seating, which does not allow group work to happen – a requirement for CLT to occur.
• Liao (2004) adds that the Chinese local cultural context, as agreed upon by other researchers, is Confucianism, which assumes the teacher as the central figure that must be honored and that students must passively listen to the teacher. This general Asian culture prevents genuine communication from happening in class, making it a hindrance in the application of CLT.
• Miller (2000) in “Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Communicative Language Teaching Methods”, RELC Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, concludes that the perceptions of students of English teaching academies in Taiwan regarding CLT are influenced by several factors such as their experience as student teachers, their Chinese culture, and their learning experience as language learners. Their perceptions vary, from those that view CLT positively, to those that see it negatively. Those with positive perceptions are optimistic that CLT will increase the English communicative competence of Hong Kong students because students will learn English more actively, CLT is appropriate to the goal of language learning which is as a medium of communication, CLT makes the learning atmosphere more fun, and teachers will increase students’ interest in learning English, among other reasons. On the other hand, those with negative perceptions are pessimistic that CLT is hard to apply in the Hong Kong context because classrooms are small while the number of students are large, grammar is hard to teach with CLT, CLT slows down the learning process, CLT needs preparation and teachers do not have the time, examinations do not support CLT, and students have low communication skills, among other reasons.
Eclecticism: From Method to Principle
The failure of the application of CLT in some Asian countries because of such context incompatibilities has brought up the idea that CLT has to be modified to suit the Asian, and especially Indonesian, context. As a method, some of the principles of CLT need to be modified so that it can be applied in our socio-cultural context, like small classrooms with students of various skill levels, the position of English as a foreign language, the custom of students learning in a traditional class, the custom of teachers using traditional teaching methods, the lack of quality teaching materials, and the low quality of teachers in English or English teaching skills.
What is needed to be applied in Indonesia right now is an eclectic teaching method. Gone is the era where learning is tied to only one stiff teaching method. Methods were criticized because of their claim of universality with no consideration of the uniqueness of certain groups so that they lose their context. The CLT method that is needed is one that adopts good foreign language teaching principles that result from research and observation.
Methods have been criticized for claiming universality of application as well as uniqueness in their individual properties and particular insights. … [M]ethodology should comprise putting into practice certain general principles of good language teaching derived from research and observation. (Rodgers, 2004: 2-12)
Foreign language teaching methods in classes should not be tied to just one method, but instead teachers can apply different methods at one time to adjust with their students. When a teacher wants to apply a foreign language teaching method, what matters is that they apply the principles of that method, not the method itself. Even the Grammar Translation Method sometimes needs to be applied in certain class contexts.
The following are foreign language teaching principles that teachers, writers of teaching media and materials, and even developers of foreign language curriculums can expand upon (Vale et.al. 1991).
• Students will learn a foreign language best if they are treated as individuals with their own needs and interests, they are given a chance to participate in communication by using the language in various activities, the communicative activities given to them are comprehensible and relevant to their needs and interests, they focus on various language forms and skills, as well as various learning strategies to support language acquisition, they are aware of the role, function, and nature of that language, they are given appropriate feedback regarding their achievement.
• Students will learn a foreign language well if they are given a chance to arrange their own conversations.
• Students will learn a foreign language well if they practice using the language in the cultural context of that foreign language.
By applying the above principles, teachers are challenged to apply CLT which is appropriate to our context. For example, to treat students as individuals in a large classroom consisting of 40-50 students is not an easy task. However, teachers can group them into several groups based on their English proficiency level. What was applied to Vietnam (Pham, 2005) can also be applied in the Indonesian context. Considering that one of the requirements of CLT is “real communication”, Pham thus required conditions like directing real communication to answer the teacher in an “oral symphony”, knowing that the students preferred to converse as a single large classroom instead of doing group work. Similarly, in China (Liao, 2000), the CLT model was complemented with innovations such as task-based exercises that stress teacher-assisted exercises which then impacted communicative competence. Liao adds that teaching can be started with listening exercises. Thus being the case, there is a need to increase usage of learning media such as audio, video, and pictures.
Conclusion
The communicative approach to language learning (CLT) is needed for teaching English in the Indonesian context, mainly because the approach stresses the importance of the communicative aspect of the language. However, research has shown that there are a few barriers in the implementation of the approach in several Asian countries, such that it brings up the idea that CLT should be modified to suit the local context. For the Indonesian socio-cultural context, teachers are challenged to be able to apply CLT so that it can be used within our socio-cultural context like large classrooms, the position of English as a foreign language, the custom of students learning in a traditional class, the custom of teachers using traditional teaching methods, the lack of quality teaching materials, changing curriculums, and the demands of a national examination.
References
Coleman, H. (1996) Shadow puppets and language lessons: Interpreting classroom behaviour in its cultural context in H.Coleman (Ed) Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Competence-Based Curriculum. (2004) Competence Standard of English Lessons for Junior High Schools. The Indonesian Department of National Education.
Deckert, Glenn. (2004) The Communicative Approach: Addressing Frequent
Failure English Teaching Forum Journal, Vol.42, No:1 (121-143)
Gahin, G & Myhill, D. (2001) The Communicative Approach in Egypt: Exploring the Secrets of the Pyramids TEFL Journal, Volume 1, No: 2 ( 72-81)
Krashen, Stephen D. & Terrel, Tracy D. (1993) The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon Press
Liao, Xiao Q. (2000) How Communicative Language Teaching Became Acceptable in Secondary Schools in China. The TESL Journal, Vol. 6, No:10
Miller, Lindsay. (2000) Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Communicative Language Teaching Methods RELC Journal, Vol. 31, No:1 (1-22)
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 22. (2006) about standard of contents for primary and secondary education
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 23. (2006) about standard of graduates’ competence for primary and secondary education
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 24. (2006) about the implementation of Ministry’s Regulation No.22 and 23 (2006)
Pham, Hoa. H. (2005) “Imported” Communicative Language Teaching: Implications
for Local Teachers English Teaching Forum, Vol 43. No: 4 (2-13)
Rogers, Ted. (2003) Methodology in the New Millennium English Teaching Forum. Vol. 38, No: 2 (1-14)
Vale, D., Scarino, A. & McKay P. (1991) The Eight Principles of Language Learning in Pocket all : a users’ guide to the teaching of languages and ESL. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation
Zhang, L. (2004) CLT in China: Frustration, Misconceptions, and Clarifications Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL Vol X, No: 9
Zhenhui, R., (2001). Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts The TESL Journal, Vol. VII, No: 7
With the development of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching in Indonesia, we have become more aware that the use of the communicative language teaching (CLT) does not always suit all English teaching situations. Teachers have also discovered that there is no single teaching method that deals with everything that concerns the form, the use, and the content of English. The approach is in many ways a commitment to eclecticism in practice. English teaching should be partly communicatively oriented, so students can acquaint themselves with appropriate language usage. This article tries to search for the appropriate teaching model for the Indonesian context. Although the CLT has been applied in some public schools in Indonesia, some barriers are often found in its implementation. Eclecticism is an alternative that could be tried.
Introduction
The general debate regarding how education is conceptualized, and the question of whether learning is a process of mastering abilities and knowledge “acquired” from the previous generation, is reflected in contemporary thinking in second language learning. The communicative approach or what is known as CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), learner-centered instruction, and task-based teaching are three concepts in second language learning that have been influential over the past two decades. The three concepts are part of the interpretative view of education. This viewpoint conflicts with another that assumes that learning is a process of acquiring abilities and knowledge transmitted from teacher to student. The interpretative tradition regarding learning, which is strongly rooted in the humanistic psychology tradition, argues that in order to allow learning to occur, students must reconstruct abilities and knowledge for themselves, the two of which are not easily obtained from external sources.
A second, quite significant paradigm shift in language teaching occurred in the 1970s when language and language-teaching experts adopted a new viewpoint regarding language itself. In the previous era (the 1960s) language was seen as a set of systems of rules and the main goal of language learners were to approximate the native speakers of the language they were taught. The priority for a language learner was to master the language structure, and in the learning process, emphasis on the language meaning itself was seen as a lesser goal. In that era language teaching emphasized syntax and grammar, ignoring or at least minimizing vocabulary development and semantics. However, in the 1970s, the conceptualization of language teaching became richer with the appearance of new ideas which are based on humanistic and experiential psychology. Linguists saw language more as a system of meaning expression rather than an abstract system of syntax rules.
The Indonesian Context
There are three important issues related to the context of English teaching in Indonesian public schools: the role of English in the people, the national curriculum of English language classes, and the practice of English language teaching in public schools.
The context of English language teaching in Indonesia is inescapable from its role, considered more as a foreign language rather than a second language. In a setting where English is a foreign language, students usually learn with low intrinsic motivation; English may be deemed irrelevant with students’ needs because the language is not part of their everyday life. In this setting students usually learn in one large class consisting of 40-50 students with a limited number of meetings. On the other hand, in a setting where English is a second language, students have high intrinsic motivation because the language is a part of everyday life. By living in a second language environment, students have a higher chance to use the language whether to communicate with others or for professional needs, as in searching for a job. Even though the use of English in Indonesia – whether written or spoken – is increasing as evidenced by print and electronic media, the language still has not shifted its position from being a foreign language to becoming a second language.
Meanwhile, the curriculum for English classes in Indonesia has undergone many changes over the years. It started with grammar-translation (1945), followed by oral (1968), audio-lingual (1975), communicative (1984), and finally meaning-based (1994). In 2004, the government published a new curriculum – the 2004 Curriculum – which is more well-known as the Competence-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi – KBK). Within two years of the implementation of the curriculum, in 2006 the government published another curriculum, the Unified Education Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan – KTSP), by Ministry of Education Regulations number 22, 23, and 24 of 2006, each regarding content standards for elementary and middle education units (Regulation 22, 2006), passing competence standards for elementary and middle education units (Regulation 23, 2006), and the execution of said regulations (Regulation 24, 2006). As an example, for a middle school-level English class, in contrast to the 2004 curriculum which sets standards for competence, indicators, and core materials, the 2006 curriculum only sets competence standards with the intent to give teachers the freedom to develop themselves with their own creativity instead of being tied down to the curriculum.
No empirical research as of yet has been conducted that evaluates the effectiveness of the changing curriculums on student learning results or even the increase in teachers’ competence or performance. In the meantime, despite the lack of empirical research that compares the effectiveness of learning English in courses and formal schooling, it has become a public understanding that learning English in courses is believed to be more effective and beneficial to students than learning through formal schooling. English language courses have expanded quite significantly, from those that are managed by official foreign country representatives such as The British Council, Indonesian Australia Language Foundation-IALF, English First-EF, and others, to private ones managed by individuals. While schools still struggle with teaching grammar and committing language rules to memory, courses instead stress speaking skills, with more meetings compared to classes in schools. Some courses even go as far as to advertise claims of “fluent speaking in three months” to draw consumers. Not only that, some courses utilize native-speaking teachers to accelerate speaking skills. Usually, programs with such teachers are offered at a steeper price compared to ones with local teachers, even though native speakers may not be any more competent. More often, the people appreciate inexperienced or even unskilled English native speaker teachers than local instructors who are fluent in English, experienced, and skilled in this field.
The praxis of English language teaching in Indonesia varies from schools that teach English well to those that lack such a quality. Generally, these schools can be divided into three groups.
First are the public and private schools in major cities which are able to teach English effectively. Schools in this group have advanced English laboratories, teaching materials on par with the international standard, quality teachers, communicative teaching methods, students learning in ideal but not-too-large groups, and even the use of English as a teaching language in other classes. Students in these schools tend to have good communicative competence, so the national exams do not become a problem for them and the school. Most of the students in this group of schools also take English courses outside of their schools. Quite often, these schools require a certain TOEFL score as part of their standards for passing.
Second are the public and private schools that do have adequate language laboratories, sufficient teaching materials, and quality English teachers, but are hindered by the government policy regarding the national exams so that the only purpose for English classes is to help students answer the questions on the exam, especially for students of the last grade. The communication aspect of the students’ learning of English in this group is often ignored. Moreover, schools in this group have very high numbers of students in a single classroom, between 40-50. Only a small portion of students also take English courses.
Third are the schools that do not have a language laboratory, have many students in a single classroom, do not have sufficient teaching materials, have low-quality English teachers, and use ineffective teaching methods. Students learning in this group of schools usually have low learning motivation and low starting competence, which they may carry even up to graduation. Schools that fall into this group are private schools in the outskirts of towns or public and private schools in villages, rural areas, and remote locations.
The majority of schools in Indonesia fall into the second and third groups. Teaching English in these schools are not effective for a variety of reasons including lack of facilities, unavailability of materials, low-quality teachers, many students in a single class, non-communicative teaching methods, and stiff and exam question-answering-oriented curriculums, among others.
The factor of Indonesian culture as part of Asian culture is often considered as a barrier in creating a communicative form of English learning. In this context, “culture” means the relationship between teacher and student, viewpoints on learning, and communication patterns. The formal relationship between teacher and student where the teacher is assumed to be a superior, omniscient figure while the students are a group of individuals who must obey and receive the teacher’s explanations as they are clearly will not create a communicative learning environment. The high-considerateness nature of Asian communicative patterns where students are not encouraged to interrupt, must respond positively, and speak in a flat intonation, also make it less likely for communicative interactions to occur in language learning. Coleman (1996) sees that the learning process in an Indonesian class is highly related to two Javanese local cultural products: shadow puppets and the greeting at a wedding reception or other celebrations. According to Coleman, the classroom English learning process is not unlike that of the shadow puppet show. The teacher is analogous to the actively-talking puppeteer (dalang) and the students are analogous to the large audience that freely relaxes, eats, drinks, and even sleeps, only to awaken and pay attention during the funny and active parts. Such is also the case with the wedding reception greeting: not much of the audience pays attention. For Coleman, English language classes in Indonesia are just rituals. What is interesting is that when Coleman interviewed several English language curriculum experts in Indonesia, including Sadtono, the experts do not consider such classroom behavior as to be a problem.
The Communicative Approach: Between Concept and Reality
This method is also called Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The goal of teaching with this method is to use the language as a medium of communication. Learning stresses interaction, conversation, and language use rather than “about” language. Topics discussed in class usually consist of general ones familiar to students, such as TV programs, daily activities, or newspaper ads; topics could also relate to other classes a student has, such as mathematics, history, or literature. However, the topics are only used as discussion materials to practice using language as a medium of communication, not to study them.
CLT was recognized in the early 1960s and into the 70s. This learning model surfaced as a reaction to what could be called a failure of previous teaching models, namely the structural situational and audiolingual methods. This period was a period where second language teaching practitioners spoke about the “going communicative” jargon, where language teaching must be stressed on the communicative competence aspect. Additionally, CLT appeared as a response to developments in linguistics in the 70s, and at the same time a response to the need for a new method in second language teaching, expressed by a group of European linguists who were a part of the Council of Europe (Richards, 2001:37).
CLT stresses that language teaching is more than just knowing about grammar, vocabulary, and phonetics. Language learning needs to develop the communicative competence, which is the ability to use the language being learned in social interactions. Communicative competence does not mean setting aside the role of grammar, but instead it is a combining of several competencies, among them grammatical competence (covering language structure), sociolinguistic competence (covering the ability to understand the social context where the language is used, including the goal of communication), discourse competence (covering the ability to understand the message presented in the language), and strategic competence (covering the ability to create good communicative tactics to begin, respond, and end conversations).
In the teaching praxis, CLT requires several conditions: content focused on language knowledge relevant to students’ needs, a cyclical (not step-by-step) content order, division of content into several activities and tasks requiring communicative interaction, a relationship between said activities and tasks, and learning goals chosen by negotiation between students and the teacher. CLT can occur if communicative activities happen while working in pairs and groups, language input is authentic language used in everyday life, students are compelled to dare to produce genuine language and meaningful communication, and classroom tasks are oriented to prepare the student to be able to use the language outside of the classroom.
Conceptually, CLT seems to be the ideal learning model, especially if the target of foreign language teaching is to use the language. However, CLT is more suited for teaching English as a second language rather than as a foreign language. The application of the communicative approach (and thus CLT) in teaching English as a foreign language is often criticized by language teaching experts, mainly because CLT was first developed in western, English-speaking countries, which when applied in a developing country, the method becomes inappropriate for the local context. The problem encountered in the application of CLT in developing countries, specifically Asian ones, is that the method conflicts with the social, cultural, and economic conditions of the subject country. The difference in eastern and western communication style and the difference in classroom conditions, teaching facilities, and teacher quality are some examples of the particular problems faced.
Some cases of the application of CLT can be found in Asian countries. The following are such cases, including the problems:
• Deckert (2004) found that the failure of the application of CLT in the United Arab Emirates was caused by excessive teacher talk and teacher and student perceptions about effective English teaching. Observations showed that excessive teacher talk in explaining to and correcting students causes them to miss opportunities to actively participate using English in communication.
• A research by Gahin &Mayhill (2001) showed two roadblocks in the application of CLT in Egypt. First are extrinsic barriers covering economic factors which include low wages, lack of resources, and large classes without adequate facilities; pressure from parents, students, principals, and supervisors cause teachers to sacrifice an ideal CLT syllabus. Second are intrinsic barriers covering cultural factors which include passive-student traditions, negative-to-group-work attitudes, and influences of colleagues in other, teacher-dominated subjects. Furthermore, the ability of teachers, in particular 41% of English teachers of which are non-specialists lacking in pedagogical performance and speaking, as well as inconsistencies between syllabus and exams also contribute to the intrinsic barriers.
• Zhang (2004) in CLT in China: Frustrations, Misconceptions, and Clarifications, mentions a few cultural barriers in applying CLT across mainland China, such as the unsupportive environment where English usage lacks, the inability of teachers to communicate using English, and the examination system which still focuses on grammar. Even though China has now economically shifted to liberal capitalism, the remnants of communism can still be found in education, like in permanent and unchangeable class seating, which does not allow group work to happen – a requirement for CLT to occur.
• Liao (2004) adds that the Chinese local cultural context, as agreed upon by other researchers, is Confucianism, which assumes the teacher as the central figure that must be honored and that students must passively listen to the teacher. This general Asian culture prevents genuine communication from happening in class, making it a hindrance in the application of CLT.
• Miller (2000) in “Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Communicative Language Teaching Methods”, RELC Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, concludes that the perceptions of students of English teaching academies in Taiwan regarding CLT are influenced by several factors such as their experience as student teachers, their Chinese culture, and their learning experience as language learners. Their perceptions vary, from those that view CLT positively, to those that see it negatively. Those with positive perceptions are optimistic that CLT will increase the English communicative competence of Hong Kong students because students will learn English more actively, CLT is appropriate to the goal of language learning which is as a medium of communication, CLT makes the learning atmosphere more fun, and teachers will increase students’ interest in learning English, among other reasons. On the other hand, those with negative perceptions are pessimistic that CLT is hard to apply in the Hong Kong context because classrooms are small while the number of students are large, grammar is hard to teach with CLT, CLT slows down the learning process, CLT needs preparation and teachers do not have the time, examinations do not support CLT, and students have low communication skills, among other reasons.
Eclecticism: From Method to Principle
The failure of the application of CLT in some Asian countries because of such context incompatibilities has brought up the idea that CLT has to be modified to suit the Asian, and especially Indonesian, context. As a method, some of the principles of CLT need to be modified so that it can be applied in our socio-cultural context, like small classrooms with students of various skill levels, the position of English as a foreign language, the custom of students learning in a traditional class, the custom of teachers using traditional teaching methods, the lack of quality teaching materials, and the low quality of teachers in English or English teaching skills.
What is needed to be applied in Indonesia right now is an eclectic teaching method. Gone is the era where learning is tied to only one stiff teaching method. Methods were criticized because of their claim of universality with no consideration of the uniqueness of certain groups so that they lose their context. The CLT method that is needed is one that adopts good foreign language teaching principles that result from research and observation.
Methods have been criticized for claiming universality of application as well as uniqueness in their individual properties and particular insights. … [M]ethodology should comprise putting into practice certain general principles of good language teaching derived from research and observation. (Rodgers, 2004: 2-12)
Foreign language teaching methods in classes should not be tied to just one method, but instead teachers can apply different methods at one time to adjust with their students. When a teacher wants to apply a foreign language teaching method, what matters is that they apply the principles of that method, not the method itself. Even the Grammar Translation Method sometimes needs to be applied in certain class contexts.
The following are foreign language teaching principles that teachers, writers of teaching media and materials, and even developers of foreign language curriculums can expand upon (Vale et.al. 1991).
• Students will learn a foreign language best if they are treated as individuals with their own needs and interests, they are given a chance to participate in communication by using the language in various activities, the communicative activities given to them are comprehensible and relevant to their needs and interests, they focus on various language forms and skills, as well as various learning strategies to support language acquisition, they are aware of the role, function, and nature of that language, they are given appropriate feedback regarding their achievement.
• Students will learn a foreign language well if they are given a chance to arrange their own conversations.
• Students will learn a foreign language well if they practice using the language in the cultural context of that foreign language.
By applying the above principles, teachers are challenged to apply CLT which is appropriate to our context. For example, to treat students as individuals in a large classroom consisting of 40-50 students is not an easy task. However, teachers can group them into several groups based on their English proficiency level. What was applied to Vietnam (Pham, 2005) can also be applied in the Indonesian context. Considering that one of the requirements of CLT is “real communication”, Pham thus required conditions like directing real communication to answer the teacher in an “oral symphony”, knowing that the students preferred to converse as a single large classroom instead of doing group work. Similarly, in China (Liao, 2000), the CLT model was complemented with innovations such as task-based exercises that stress teacher-assisted exercises which then impacted communicative competence. Liao adds that teaching can be started with listening exercises. Thus being the case, there is a need to increase usage of learning media such as audio, video, and pictures.
Conclusion
The communicative approach to language learning (CLT) is needed for teaching English in the Indonesian context, mainly because the approach stresses the importance of the communicative aspect of the language. However, research has shown that there are a few barriers in the implementation of the approach in several Asian countries, such that it brings up the idea that CLT should be modified to suit the local context. For the Indonesian socio-cultural context, teachers are challenged to be able to apply CLT so that it can be used within our socio-cultural context like large classrooms, the position of English as a foreign language, the custom of students learning in a traditional class, the custom of teachers using traditional teaching methods, the lack of quality teaching materials, changing curriculums, and the demands of a national examination.
References
Coleman, H. (1996) Shadow puppets and language lessons: Interpreting classroom behaviour in its cultural context in H.Coleman (Ed) Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Competence-Based Curriculum. (2004) Competence Standard of English Lessons for Junior High Schools. The Indonesian Department of National Education.
Deckert, Glenn. (2004) The Communicative Approach: Addressing Frequent
Failure English Teaching Forum Journal, Vol.42, No:1 (121-143)
Gahin, G & Myhill, D. (2001) The Communicative Approach in Egypt: Exploring the Secrets of the Pyramids TEFL Journal, Volume 1, No: 2 ( 72-81)
Krashen, Stephen D. & Terrel, Tracy D. (1993) The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon Press
Liao, Xiao Q. (2000) How Communicative Language Teaching Became Acceptable in Secondary Schools in China. The TESL Journal, Vol. 6, No:10
Miller, Lindsay. (2000) Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Communicative Language Teaching Methods RELC Journal, Vol. 31, No:1 (1-22)
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 22. (2006) about standard of contents for primary and secondary education
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 23. (2006) about standard of graduates’ competence for primary and secondary education
National Education Ministry’s Regulation No: 24. (2006) about the implementation of Ministry’s Regulation No.22 and 23 (2006)
Pham, Hoa. H. (2005) “Imported” Communicative Language Teaching: Implications
for Local Teachers English Teaching Forum, Vol 43. No: 4 (2-13)
Rogers, Ted. (2003) Methodology in the New Millennium English Teaching Forum. Vol. 38, No: 2 (1-14)
Vale, D., Scarino, A. & McKay P. (1991) The Eight Principles of Language Learning in Pocket all : a users’ guide to the teaching of languages and ESL. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation
Zhang, L. (2004) CLT in China: Frustration, Misconceptions, and Clarifications Hwa Kang Journal of TEFL Vol X, No: 9
Zhenhui, R., (2001). Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts The TESL Journal, Vol. VII, No: 7
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar