CLT and learning opportunities

What I like the most about both readings is that they bring down to earth the theoretical principles that structure these two proposals. In both readings it is very easy to point out some of the main advantages and disadvantages each of the models face.

 The article on Communicative Language Teaching is a very good sample of how many teachers conduct their classes with a communicative orientation. The authors do a very good job in relating the different activities and stages in the class to the principles of CLT. As teachers, reading this from a critical perspective can help us understand some of the benefits and flaws of CLT as they are enacted in the classroom. Clearly, focusing in communication instead of focusing on more formal aspects of the language is probably the greatest virtue of this approach. However, it is very clear that the teacher they observed fell into some of the flaws of CLT, just as probably many teachers still do. Things like the authenticity of the types of communicative exchanges held in the classroom, the relevance of the topics discussed in class activities to every single student, the total disregard for explicit teaching of linguistic structures are potential flaws of the implementation of the CLT model, particularly in the case of teachers who are unaware of such pitfalls, and who do not draw on other theories or their own expertise to tweak their teaching strategies.

On the other hand, chapter 3 presents us with practical ways on how to incorporate Kumavaradivelu’s proposal in the classroom. The way I see it, this proposal is permeated by many of the principles of the CLT model, but incorporates much more socially-engaging and meaningful activities than the ones presented in the article by Larsen-Freeman. Particularly, if we consider what constitutes communicative activities, according to advocates of CLT: information gap, choice, and feedback. It is very easy to notice that these tenets are included in Kumavaradivlu’s approach, but they are enacted at a mucho more socially-situated level. It seems very much as an update of CLT to me. Additionally, the whole center of argumentation of the chapter ‘Maximizing learning opportunities’ is also a principle used by many teachers who adopt (and adapt) communicative strategies to teaching. However, this model is not void of flaws either. In particular, the activities proposed are clearly suitable for ESL purposes where exposure to the native language is easily found outside the classroom. The sample activities proposed by Kuma as macrostrategies do not take into consideration EFL contexts where such resources and opportunities are not available. One may argue that these activities can be somehow 'adapted to EFL context but doing so would require, in certain contexts, the teacher to arrange for a big amount of logistics and procedural stuff, which could make socially-engaging activities like these much more difficult to implemment.