article · European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
Communicative language teaching focuses on fostering practical communication and meaningful language use. Evidence from past research indicates that this instructional approach brings several key benefits, including the development of communicative competence, language proficiency, cultural awareness, learner autonomy, and problem-solving abilities. However, the methodology also attracts significant scholarly critique. Reported limitations include an overemphasis on fluency at the expense of accuracy, as well as a lack of explicit instruction in grammar and vocabulary. Furthermore, the approach can leave students underprepared for formal writing and standardised examinations, whilst failing to address individual learner differences adequately. Reviewing both the documented achievements and the structural drawbacks provides educators with a comprehensive perspective to inform the design of balanced language curricula.
Language instruction techniques shape how effectively learners function in multilingual and professional environments. While practical interaction encourages conversational confidence and autonomy, neglecting foundational grammar can disadvantage students in formal testing and professional writing. Recognising the trade-offs between fluency and accuracy helps teachers build curricula that prepare students for both casual communication and academic demands.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway or commercial readiness level, focusing instead on pedagogical insights for classroom teachers.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
This article presents a comprehensive review of communicative language teaching (CLT) in language education, considering both the positive impact of the approach and the criticisms raised by scholars. CLT has garnered significant attention in language education due to its emphasis on promoting effective communication and meaningful language use. This systematic review presents an impartial and well-rounded analysis of the pros and cons of CLT, citing previous studies in the literature review. It highlights the positive results of past research, demonstrating how CLT can enhance students’ communicative competence, language proficiency, cultural awareness, learner autonomy, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. However, other studies have criticized CLT, raising concerns about its lack of explicit grammar and vocabulary instruction, insufficient preparation for formal writing, standardized exams, insufficient attention to individual learner differences, and emphasis on fluency over accuracy. By presenting both perspectives, this article aims to provide educators with a balanced understanding of CLT’s potential strengths and limitations, guiding them in designing effective language teaching practices.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.6.763
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
