Audio-lingual Method versus Communicative Language Teaching

Introduction

The Communicative Language approach is aimed at training students to use language fluently while the Audio-lingual method’s objective is to teach English with accuracy (Richards & Rodgers, 2016). The audiolingual method (ALM) is considered the traditional approach of language learning while communicative language teaching (CLT) is categorised as the community approach of language learning. Based on learning experience, I have found that these approaches share similarities in teaching oral skills through dialogues. Despite this, there are key differences between these approaches.

This assignment aims to discuss the similarities and differences between these two approaches based on my learning experience.

Similarities

Exclusion of grammar structures in language learning

The primary similarities between the ALM and CLT is the exclusion of teaching grammatical structures.

According to Yoo (2016), in the ALM and CLT grammatical forms and structures are not taught. This was evident in my experience of learning these approaches. I was not taught grammar rules explicitly. This experience is supported by Yoo (2016) as grammar is taught inductively. On the other hand, in Richards and Rodgers (2016), audiolingual method is observed to completely disregard grammar explanations while the CLT approach addresses grammar if it arises in the classroom. Here, in my learning experience depending on the content, the teachers made the pedagogical decisions based on the method. For instance, I observed that in ALM, the teachers did not teach grammar while in CLT, grammar was integrated in some parts.

Hence, it is evident that both the ALM and CLT approaches teaches grammar implicitly.

Differences

Role of teacher and students

Yoo (2016) remarks that the role of teachers and students in the ALM and CLT approaches differ significantly.

In my learning, the teachers’ role in ALM was the central figure where I was the imitator of the teacher’s behaviour. On the other hand, in the CLT the teachers were are facilitators. Here I assumed the role of a communicator. In this context, as a student recipient, the role of an imitator was rigid and daunting as I did not want to err while as a communicator I felt more comfortable in expressing orally. In my opinion, the two approaches to teaching created a climate that allowed me to switch between the roles. It is an impossible task here to determine which role I preferred as both the roles had different objectives.

In the end, my role and the teachers’ role in the two approaches are different because of the context and the techniques involved in the ALM and CLT approach.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ALM and CLT approaches are similar in terms of their inductive grammar focus. I observed that the two approaches had limited emphasis of grammar. The differences in these methods lies in the role that teachers and I assumed in this approach. Ultimately, these approaches focused on training me to communicate in everyday speech.

References

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching 3rd

edition. Cambridge university press.

Yoo, J. (2016). A Comparative Review of Audio-Lingual Methodology and Communicative Language Teaching in Second Language Instruction. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS), 2(4). Retrieved from: http://www.eijeas.com/index.php/EIJEAS/article/view/85