Communicative lang=
uage
teaching in reading comprehension
Juan Elías Yucailla
Recibido:08-10-2020 / Revisado: 26-10-2020 /Aceptado: 13-11-=
2020/
Publicado: 05-12-2020
Resumen DOI:
https://=
doi.org/10.33262/concienciadigital.v3i4.1.1486
Introduction. Comunicative Language teaching (CLT) is generally believed to be used to teach
language for communication and interaction purposes. Therefore, it seems to=
be more
suitable in developing speaking skill. The possibility of applying CLT in t=
he
development of other skills such as reading comprehension has not been
sufficiently explored. Research Ai=
m.
The purpose of this literature review is to examine communicative language
teaching and its impact on reading comprehension presenting a case for the
consideration at Unidad Educativa Liceo
Policial Chimborazo. Methodology. Two electronic databases were searched with a
limitation of forty years to reflect the most relevant information. Lists of
relevant research were also examined. A total of 32 articles were selected =
for
review. Two themes lead the literature review: ‘Communicative language
teaching’, and ‘Reading comprehension’. Key
Findings. It was found that
communicative language teaching gives the teacher the opportunity to design
programs to explore other aspects of language like reading. Conclusions. Based on the literat=
ure
reviewed and its preceding discussion, it is concluded that, even though,
communicative language teaching has been criticized for focusing more on the
communicative aspect of language learning, this method in Ecuador is likely=
to
bolster most students' academic performance rates and improve the overall
reading rate of the country.
Key Words: Communicative language teaching (CLT), reading
comprehension, language learning method.
Resumen
Introducción.<=
/b> Generalmente
se cree que la enseñanza comunicativa del lenguaje (ECL) se utiliza para
enseñar el lenguaje con fines de comunicación e interacción. Por lo tanto,
parece ser más adecuada para desarrollar la habilidad de hablar. No se ha
explorado suficientemente la posibilidad de aplicar (ECL) en el desarrollo =
de
otras habilidades como la comprensión lectora. Objetivo. El
propósito de esta revisión de bibliográfica es examinar la enseñanza
comunicativa de la lengua y su impacto en la comprensión lectora, presentan=
do
un caso a consideración en la Unidad Educativa Liceo Policial Chimborazo. <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",se=
rif'>Metodología. Se
realizaron búsquedas en dos bases de datos electrónicas con una limitación =
de
cuarenta años para reflejar la información más relevante. También se examin=
aron
listas de investigaciones relevantes. Se seleccionaron un total de 32 artíc=
ulos
para su revisión. Dos temas encabezan la revisión de la literatura:
"Enseñanza comunicativa de la lengua " y "Comprensión lectora". Resultados. Se
encontró que la enseñanza comunicativa de la lengua le da al maestro la
oportunidad de diseñar programas para explorar otros aspectos del lenguaje =
como
la lectura. Conclusiones.
Con
base en la literatura revisada y su discusión anterior, se concluye que, au=
nque
la enseñanza comunicativa de la lengua ha sido criticada por enfocarse más =
en
el aspecto comunicativo del aprendizaje de lenguas, es probable que este mé=
todo
en el Ecuador refuerce las tasas de rendimiento académico de la mayoría de =
los
estudiantes y mejore la tasa de lectura general del país.
Palabras clave: Enseñanza comunicativa de la leng=
ua (ECL), comprensión lecto=
ra, método de aprendizaje de =
lenguas.
Introduction.
Communicative langu=
age
teaching is a communicative approach to the teaching of language that empha=
sizes
interaction (Lee & VanPatte=
n,
1995). The ultimate goal of interaction driven is to enable the learner to
interact effectively. Reading is integral to the academic journey of a stud=
ent.
The ability to read and comprehend text determines the achievements a stude=
nt
can realize in every subject. Reading skills need to be developed through
practical approaches and strategies. Teaching reading comprehension affects
learners' ability to get a perfect understanding of the text they interact
within academia=
(Richards, 2005). An
education system with low academic performance levels could be facing the
challenge of poor reading comprehension skills. The research work that the
paper embarks on seeks to analyze communicative language teaching and its
impact on reading comprehension at Unidad Educativa Liceo Policial Chimborazo.
Therefore, the paper presents a strong case for the consideration of
communicative language teaching in reading comprehension.
Methodology
A search of the
literature was conducted to gather research surrounding the chosen topic. T=
wo
electronic databases were utilized, which included Google Scholar and Proquest. Filtering the research question before begi=
nning
the literature search was important to ensure findings were accurate, preci=
se
and relevant (Jaffe & Cowell 2014). Search strings were created from the
research question following preliminary trial-and-error searches. These sea=
rch
strings were combined using the Boolean operators ‘AND’ or ‘OR’, and consis=
ted
of “communicative language teaching” (or “communicative approach” or “readi=
ng
comprehension”, (or “reading skill” or “reading ability”). To reflect the
highest level of general development of the paper, it was considered to
incorporate literature reflecting the development of communicative language
teaching, from as early as 1981, up to more recent times. Various websites =
were
also accessed to ensure all relevant literature was found. Reference lists =
of
relevant literature and literature reviews were screened to ensure all note=
worthy
literature was included in the review.
Results from the
literature search yielded 318 articles. After reviewing the titles, 98 arti=
cles
appeared relevant. The abstracts of these articles were reviewed and 43
articles were found to be relevant to the literature review. A more detailed
review of these resulted in 11 articles being discarded. Of the remaining 32
articles, 10 were set in communicative language teaching and 22 were set in
reading comprehension. Studies emanated from around the world were research
studies and literature review.
The review of the
literature identified two leading themes: Communicative language teaching, =
and
reading comprehension.
Key Findings=
To get an effective
communication, one needs to have the ability to read and comprehend text. T=
he
concentration on language use through interaction and use of the different
skills within the environment results in students' improved ability to
communicate effectively using a particular language.
The use of
communicative language teaching is not a straitjacket, it occurs in a non-m=
ethodological
system by which predetermined programs and materials are established for
students. It gives the teacher freedom to design programs for every lesson;
emphasizing on how best the learners will acquire the skills necessary to
explore other aspects of language like reading.
Communicative
Language Teaching
Learning institutio=
ns
that have embraced communicative language teaching have in place mechanisms
that allow students learn the language in question through interaction among
themselves (Spada, 2007), as we=
ll
as with their language teachers in the context of interrogating text writte=
n in
the language they are studying (Spada, 2007). Additionally, communicative language teaching is evide=
nced
in the nature of interaction between students and teachers outside the
classroom setting, concerning the students' language (Littlewood & William, 1981). The critic=
al
factor in communicative language teaching is the interaction between
instructors and students (Littlewood & William, 1981) and the interacti=
on
among learners in the context of language learning.
Communicative langu=
age
enables learners to freely share experiences about various aspects of their
lives with fellow learners in the context of language learning, making lear=
ning
more exciting and engaging for them (Savignon, 1987). Instructors embrace
communicative language teaching and offer guidance to students outside the
realms of the grammatical demands of a language, outlining a broader approa=
ch
towards the learning of language. The eventual effect is that learners can =
gain
critical language skills applicable to all situations (Savignon,
1987). It becomes easy to appreciate aspects of writing in a language that =
does
not strictly adhere to grammatical rules, such as poetry.
Interaction among
learners is an aspect of communicative language teaching. Instructors encou=
rage
learners to engage in interactive sessions with each other as much as possi=
ble (Savignon, 1991). Learners get to share their pers=
onal
experiences in the context of language learning and the learning environmen=
t.
Then the student's effect is that their studies will not solely focus on th=
eir
ability to learn the instructed language, but also to make their learning
experience a worthwhile contribution towards their overall academic journey=
(Savignon, 1991).
Therefore, it is more probable that the overall ability to perform in all o=
ther
instruction areas is improved thanks to communicative language teaching.
The primary objecti=
ve
of learning a specific language is to conformably and effectively communica=
te
in the language of instruction. Other forms of language learners tend to fo=
cus
more on grammatical competence (Nunan, 1987). Therefore, teachers play the strict role of instructo=
rs.
Additionally, the assessment of learners concentrates on the mastering of
grammatical rules and demands of language. A student can easily pass a test=
in
a language but still be a poor communicator when the same language is used =
as a
communication tool. Communicative language teaching appears to concentrate =
more
on the contrary=
(Liao, 2004). The
ability to effectively communicate in the language of instruction is primar=
y to
any other language teaching objective and learning. The role played by the
teacher significantly differs from other forms of language learning, with t=
he
teacher being more of a facilitator than an instructor. The teacher guides =
the
students towards the mastery of language, facilitating interaction within t=
he
learning environment.
Communicative langu=
age
learning occurs in a non-methodological system whereby predetermined progra=
ms
and materials are set for learners (Thompson, 1996). On=
the
contrary, the focus is on learners' oral and verbal skills before they are
introduced to reading and writing in a language (Thompson, 1996). Based on the students' circumsta=
nces
and the nature of their learning environment, the teacher is free to design
programs for every lesson; on how best the learners will acquire the skills
necessary to explore other aspects of language use.
Reading
Comprehension
Reading comprehensi=
on
refers to one's ability to process written text, get meaning out of it, and
relate such text with the knowledge already inherent in the reader. A stude=
nt
with high reading comprehension prowess reflects several fundamental skills=
(Hiep,
2007). First, such students know the meaning of words found in the text and
understand it based on the writing context. Secondly, students with good
reading comprehension skills can easily follow through the organization of a
passage and point out references and antecedents across the passage (Hiep, 2007), draw inferences, point out thought emana=
ting
from the passage, and answer any questions posed from the passage read.
More complex reading
comprehension skills are reflected in the learner's ability to appreciate t=
he
use of literary devices in written text and the situational mood of text (Sato & Kleinsasser,
999). Such skills enable the
learner to get more out of the text, including tone of writing, reference
points, assertions, and inflections.
The most significant
aspect of reading comprehension is the reader's ability to interrogate text=
and
establish its purpose for writing such text (Belchamber, 200=
7). A
student who can point out the intention that the writer had while coming up
with a piece of text and gauge the writer's point of view on a matter has
demonstrated high levels of communication comprehension skills (Belchamber, 2007). Additionally, the ability to draw
inferences about the author is reflective of high reading comprehension ski=
lls.
Communicative
Language Teaching in Reading Comprehension
Communicative langu=
age
teaching has gained worldwide acclamation concerning its effectiveness in
language learning and critical language skills (Galloway, 1993). The paper aims to contribute to the improvement of readi=
ng
comprehension rates in Ecuador. With communicative language teaching being
recognized and appreciated as a significant contributor towards effective
language learning (Galloway, 1993), constructive criticism of the approach is necessary to establish
whether it can effectively impart reading comprehension skills in students.=
Communicative langu=
age
learning is appreciated for its practical approach towards language learnin=
g.
Interaction between learners and teachers and learners and fellow learners =
is
highly encouraged (Revell,
& Flavell, 1979). Teache=
rs of
language within communicative language-based curricula have a practical
understanding of language learning and approach it in the same manner. Howe=
ver,
linguists have developed many theories on language learning and how students
are likely to acquire relevant language skills (Revell, & Flavel=
l,
1979). The theoretical
understanding of language learning differs significantly from the practical
understanding of language that teachers in communicative language teaching
have. Among the weaknesses that such theories point out in communicative
language teaching is the approach assumes knowledge that is non-language
specific=
(Sreehari,
2012), which could impact the learner's ability to gain practice reading
comprehension skills.
The theoretical cri=
ticisms
of communicative language teaching are inaccurate. In as much as the method
focus on the practical understanding of the language, it does not prevent t=
he
mastery of knowledge that is language non-specific (Jacobs & Farrell, 2003). As pointed out earlier in the discussion of communicati=
ve
language teaching, the approach towards language teaching does not have a f=
ixed
system of instruction with defined material; students are guided by way of
interaction; allowing them to explore various aspect of language in their
learning environment (Jacobs & Farrell, 2003). The ability to make educated guesses increases =
with
heightened interactions between learners and teachers in the context of
language learning
(Dörnyei, 2009). Reading comprehension among students =
will
improve drastically in such circumstances, making communicative language
teaching remains the most effective approach towards developing reading
comprehension skills.
The function of
language comes as the number one concern of communicative language teaching.
The primary purpose of any language is communication. Communication is effe=
cted
through written text or speech (Wu, 2008). To communicate effectively, one needs to have the abilit=
y to
read and comprehend text. Communication cannot be complete unless one decip=
hers
the message passed across in whatever form (Wu, 2008). The concentration on
language use through interaction within the environment results in students'
improved ability to communicate effectively using a particular language;
therefore, communicative language teaching is the most effective tool for
language teaching.
The focus on the us=
e of
language in communication has been criticized due to the ease with which fo=
rmal
gaps in language learning can be left out, such as the integral aspect of
grammar of a specific language that students use quite often in their
communication. The criticism assumes that teachers ignore aspects of gramma=
r in
their teaching practices whenever they adopt communicative language teachin=
g (Holliday, 1997). T=
he
assumption is entirely inaccurate. Even though the focus does not tend to f=
ocus
on the intricate aspects of drama, the interaction with teachers and learne=
rs
present the opportunity for the guidance of students in their studies, with=
the
teachers aware of formal aspects of a language, and therefore integrating t=
hem
as part of the interaction that occurs in the context of learning (Holliday,
1997). Therefore, it is not to assume that a practical approach to language
learning that focuses on such language's function ignores the structural
aspects of a language. Understanding the function of a language and using s=
uch
language in any context is vital towards being able to read the text and de=
duce
meaning and relate such meaning to the pool of knowledge already at an
individual's disposal.
Communicative langu=
age
teaching is appreciated for its focus on the realization of communicative
competence among learners. They encourage interaction among students and
between students and teachers set the stage for communication in a language=
and
subsequent perfection of communication skills in a specific language=
(Woods & Çakır, 2011). Communicative competence and readi=
ng
comprehension are directly related. Being able to communicate competently
indicates high abilities concerning reading, understanding, and relating to=
the
text. Proficiency in communication has been criticized for not being a dire=
ct
reflection of mastery and understanding of a language (Al-Arishi, 1991). Such criticism tends to ignore t=
he
purpose of language, with the language being preferred as a communication t=
ool
over any other secondary purpose or objective. Communication language teach=
ing
is, therefore, the best approach towards improving reading comprehension sk=
ills
among learners.
The discussion on
communicative language teaching highlighted the lack of defined structures =
for
teaching language and requirements for teachers in the model of language
teaching. There are no prescribed
syllabus versions for communicative language teaching; or guides for both
students and teachers to be used in the context of such learning engagements
(Holliday, 1997). On the contrary, teachers are given the leeway as
facilitators to create an environment where learners will engage teachers a=
nd
their fellow students in the learning of language. An integral part of lang=
uage
has been seemingly ignored by this aspect of communicative language teachin=
g,
grammar. Grammatical rules are different between languages and require
well-defined structures and requirements and syllabus to teach effectively =
(Jacobs & Farrell, 2003). Communicative language teaching is criticized for possi=
bly
leading students away from an integral part of the language; grammar. Teach=
ers
are viewed as allowing any form of communication in the context of instruct=
ion,
as long as there is the ability to derive meaning in such communication.
Written communicati=
on
tends to adhere to the rules of grammar. Reading comprehension relates to t=
he
reader's ability to understand what is written, make meaning out of it, and
relate it to the world around them. Communicative language teaching seems to
aid different aspects of reading comprehension (Dörnye=
i,
2009). The ability to communicate helps in understanding the meaning of wor=
ds
that one comes across. It is, therefore, easy to read and understand what a
written text talks about. The ability to get meaning and relate the text to
one's circumstances is boosted further by the interactive nature of
communicative language teaching (Dörnyei, 2009)=
. As
learners interact with each other, they get to appreciate their circumstanc=
es
and other people's circumstances. Therefore, relating any piece of informat=
ion
they come across to contemporary living becomes easy, which is an essential
aspect of reading comprehension.
Conclusions
·&nb=
sp;
Reading comprehensi=
on
is essential to the overall success a student registers in academia.
·&nb=
sp;
A learner's success=
is
hinged on their overall academic performance, heavily affected by the abili=
ty
to read and understand written communication. The use of communicative lang=
uage
teaching in Ecuador is likely to bolster most students' academic performance
rates and improve the overall reading rate of the country, which is current=
ly
one of the lowest in Latin America.
·&nb=
sp;
Even though
communicative language teaching has been criticized for focusing more on the
communicative aspect of language learning while ignoring other aspects of
language such as structure, it aids in achieving the primary objective of
language use, which is communication. Additionally, it is not accurate to s=
tate
that communicative language teaching ignores various aspects of language, s=
uch
as grammar.
·&nb=
sp;
Language teachers a=
re
professionals, trained professionally by professionals such as linguists. I=
n as
much as they adopt an interactive approach towards instruction in language
teaching, other aspects of language are still accorded significance due.
Reading comprehension will drastically improve with the incorporation of
communicative language teaching.
Bibliographic References
Belchambe=
r, R. (2007). The advantages of communicative langu=
age
teaching. The internet TESL journal, 13(2), 122-149.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The 2010s Communicative language teac=
hing
in the 21st century: The 'principled communicative approach'. Perspectiv=
es,
36(2), 33-43.
Galloway, A. (1993).
Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction and Sample Activities. ERIC
Digest.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: U=
nity
within diversity. ELT journal, 61(3), 193-201.
Holliday, A. (1997). Six
lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching. Language
Teaching Research, 1(3), 212-238.
Jacobs, G. M., & Farre=
ll,
T. S. (2003). Understanding and implementtng th=
e CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. RELC journal, 34(=
1),
5-30.
Jaffe R. & Cowell J.M.
(2014) Approaches for improving literature review methods. The Journal
of School Nursing 30(4), 236-239.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatte=
n,
B. (1995). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. Volume 1:
Directions for Language Learning and Teaching. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 860
Taylor Station Rd., Blacklick, OH 43004-0545; toll-free: 800-722-4726.
Liao, X. (2004). The need =
for
communicative language teaching in China. ELT journal, 58(3),
270-273.
Littlewood, W., & Will=
iam,
L. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambrid=
ge
university press.
Nunan, D. (1987).
Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT journal, 41<=
/i>(2),
136-145.
Revell, J., & Flavell,=
R.
H. (1979). Teaching techniques for communicative English. Macmillan.=
Richards, J. C. (2005).
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language tea=
ching
(CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83<=
/i>(4),
494-517.
Savignon<=
/span>, S. J. (1987). Communicative language teaching. <=
i>Theory
into practice, 26(4), 235-242.
Savignon<=
/span>, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: S=
tate
of the art. TESOL quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.
Spada, N. (2007).
Communicative language teaching. In International handbook of English
language teaching (pp. 271-288). Springer, Boston, MA.
Sreehari<=
/span>, P. (2012). Communicative Language Teaching:
Possibilities and Problems. English Language Teaching, 5(12),
87-93.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some
misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT journal, <=
i>50(1),
9-15.
Woods, D., & Çakır, H. (2011). Two dimensions of teacher know=
ledge:
The case of communicative language teaching. System, 39(3),
381-390.
Wu, W. (2008).
Misunderstandings of Communicative Language Teaching. English language
teaching, 1(1), 50-53.
PARA CITAR EL
ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.
<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Yucailla Tixi, J. E. (2020). Communicative language teaching in reading comprehension. ConcienciaDigital, 3(4.1), 116-125. https://doi= .org/10.33262/concienciadigital.v3i4.1.1486
El
artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no
necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Conciencia Digital.=
El artículo =
queda
en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en
otro medio tiene que ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Concie=
ncia
Digital.
[1] U.C. Liceo Policial, Riobamb=
a,
Ecuador. juan.yucailla@educacion.gob.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-4005
www.concienciadigital.org