Communicative Approach As An English Language Teaching Method: Van Atatürk Anatolian High School Sample
Communicative Approach As An English Language Teaching Method: Van Atatürk Anatolian High School Sample
Communicative Approach As An English Language Teaching Method: Van Atatürk Anatolian High School Sample
net/publication/316913199
CITATIONS READS
2 6,894
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Developing a Turkish Grammatical Competence-Based English Course Book Prototype Allowing Accessibility to Universal Grammar during Parameter Setting Process
View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Emrullah Şeker on 25 December 2017.
T. R.
THE UNIVERSITY OF YUZUNCU YIL
THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
M.A. THESIS
Emrullah ŞEKER
VAN - 2010
II
T. R.
THE UNIVERSITY OF YUZUNCU YIL
THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
M.A. THESIS
Emrullah ŞEKER
Supervisor
Assoc.Prof.Ilker AYDIN
VAN – 2010
III
….............................................................ANABİLİM DALINDA
Baskan ….............…........................................................................................
Üye (Danışman)…...........................................................................................
Üye....................................................................................................................
Üye …..............................................................................................................
Üye....................................................................................................................
CONTENTS
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. V
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 6
2. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH ....................................................................... 11
2.1. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................... 11
2.2. PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CLT TEACHING ............... 15
2.3. TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ROLES IN COMMUNICATIVE
LANGUAGE TEACHING .................................................................................... 18
2.4. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF CLT CURRICULUM .............. 20
2.5. THE CRITICISM OF THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH ................... 21
2.5.1. PERCEPTION OF ENGLISH ................................................................. 22
2.5.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE ............. 22
2.5.3. THE UNREALISTIC REPRESENTATION OF ENGLISH ................... 23
2.5.4 THE MYTHICIZED IMAGE OF THE NATIVE SPEAKER ................. 23
2.5.5. REJECTION OF L1 ................................................................................. 24
3. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH IN TURKISH EDUCATION SYSTEM ...... 25
3.1. COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK (CEF) .......................................... 25
3.2. M.E.B CURRICULUM OF ENGLISH TEACHING ..................................... 27
4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 35
4.1. SETTING ........................................................................................................ 36
4.2. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................ 36
4.3. INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................. 37
4.4. PROCEDURES ............................................................................................... 37
4.5. A SAMPLE EVALUATION TEST................................................................ 37
4.6. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 38
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS......................................................................... 40
4.1. THE PARTICIPANTS’ ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH ............................... 41
4.1.1. THEORETICAL ACQUISITION ........................................................... 45
4.1.2. ANALYTICAL ACQUISITION ............................................................. 48
4.1.3. SYNTHETIC ACQUISITION ................................................................. 50
4.2. THE PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTION OF ENGLISH ................................. 53
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 56
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 62
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... 66
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... 67
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... 67
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 67
V
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
communicative ability.1 Whatever its results are, it is still regarded as the most
respected and relied method by most of the teachers. In contrast, what is suggested in
this study is that if something is too difficult or impossible to implement, then it can
not be called a real productive model however well established or dominant
theoretical it may be, as can a single drug be a remedy for every disease.
CLT is the most widely used language teaching method in Turkey as well as
in the world. Today CLT is the leading method in teaching English as a foreign or a
second language environment (EFL or ESL). However, the idea of CLT and its
usefulness have been almost completely disregarded except in very few studies in the
field. Almost no any critical study has been carried out on this field.2 And this claim
was also reasserted by Savignon when she stated that in literature, CLT and teacher
education have not received adequate attention. Those already existing put the blame
on the practices, teachers or the materials rather than the method itself. 3 Moreover,
other existing studies about the application of CLT in EFL and ESL settings mostly
focus on the challenges that teachers encounter during in-class activities. Nunan, for
example, investigated CLT as manifested in the classroom. He contended that
although teachers were highly qualified, with graduate diplomas in TESOL, and had
goals for communicative classes, there were few opportunities for genuine
communicative language use.4 Consequently, teachers’ understanding and beliefs
about the characteristics of CLT differed from those appearing in the methodology of
CLT. Sato and Kleinsasser had research and the results showed that there was a
contradiction between teachers’ understandings of communicative language teaching
and their actual class experiences in Australia because of the different challenges
such as deductive explanations of grammar points, large classrooms, education
system, and teachers’ fragmented knowledge of CLT.5 Furthermore, a study
conducted by Sakui in Japan showed that despite the support of the ministry of
education in Japan, the general practice of the English lessons in this country are
mainly based on grammar teaching and far more fore grounded than CLT.6 Also, Bal
carried out a study on the teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching
in Turkish EFL setting theory versus practices. His study was carried out in Adana,
Turkey and revealed that the English teachers participated in the study generally did
not apply CLT activities in their EFL classrooms. Furthermore, they consumed much
time on explicit grammar teaching and reading activities rather than CLT practices.
In other words, teachers in Turkish EFL settings are generally unfamiliar and
inadequate with CLT practices.7 As a result, those studies mentioned revealed that
there are deep steeps between the ideal CLT application and the current real practices
in different parts of the world. The reasons depend upon various factors, one of
which particularly was the teachers’ failure in the practices of CLT despite the
sufficient technical equipment and materials or academic proficiencies. The lack of
critical studies on the field, surely, did not skip the Turkish setting. Therefore, this
study aims to reveal the infertile outcomes and practices of CLT in Turkey.
The data for this significant research was collected through a sample test. The
study was limited to 300 students attending English classes in Ataturk Anatolian
High School in the province of Van. The participants were composed of the 9th, 10th
and 11th grades, ranging between the age of 14 and 16. The grades were given the
test in equal numbers. The test was composed of three parts, each of which was
designed to measure different language levels. Also, each part was divided into two
different difficulty levels in order to distinguish the memorized and the creative
language.
However, there are some limitations for this study, the most important of
which is that the classroom practices of CLT in this setting were not observed or
considered as the reason for inefficiency of CLT practices. However, teachers in
Turkish National Education System are regularly inspected for their classroom
performances and classroom materials in terms of teaching formation and
methodology regulations. Thus, in this study, we neglected the degree of how
successful CLT is administrated by the teachers in this school. Moreover, this study
is only limited to a single Anatolian High School, but the students in this school are
from different cities of Turkey and graduated from different elementary schools from
different parts of the city and also Turkey. In addition, the students in this sample
school are admitted to the school only if they pass an entrance examination.
7 Mehmet S. Bal, Teacher’s Perceptions of CLT in Turkish EFL Setting Theory vs. Practices,
unpublished graduate thesis, Adana, 2006.
9
Furthermore, the spelling mistakes were neglected and those answers having spelling
mistakes but giving the expected meaningful answer was regarded as correct
answers. Besides, the close-to-correct answers were accepted, which means that there
were no fixed single answers for open-ended and multi-answered questions. The
criterion for these questions was whether they were context related or not. Finally,
the vocabulary choice of the participants was ignored as long as it did not change the
meaning.
Based on the general scope of this research, the first chapter provides the
principles and the characteristics of CLT, a detailed description of EFL and ESL
settings, and a review of related studies on the topic of CLT implementations in EFL
environments. In the second chapter, CLT in Turkish Education System, its English
Teaching Curriculum and compatibility with Common European Framework
enclosed with a sample annual lesson plan are mentioned. In the third chapter, the
methodological structure of the study is presented. The chapter outlines the research
design, followed by the description of the participants, the description of the
instruments, the description of the school, procedure for data collection, and finally
the description of how the data were analysed. In the forth chapter of the study, the
findings based on the quantitative research principles are illustrated in graphs and
charts and the results are discussed. In conclusion, an overall summary of CLT and
its application in Turkish education system, the results obtained from the study and
their evaluation, the shortages of CLT identified in the study and accordingly some
suggestions to overcome them as well as the suggestions for further English teaching
practices rather than CLT in EFL applications are mentioned.
Operational Definitions
Research Questions
2. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
The origins of communicative approach (CA) can be traced back the mid-
1960s, when linguists began to question the theoretical assumptions of traditional
approaches, and particularly when Chomsky advanced the two notions of
'competence' and 'performance' as a reaction against the prevalent audio-lingual
method and its views. Prior to the mid-1960's linguistic competence was associated
primarily with grammatical knowledge. However, from the 1960's onwards, the
second language learner was thought to not only require a target language grammar
capable of producing target language sentences but also require social and linguistic
patterns.8
8 Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching,
Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 89.
9 Najat Al-Mutawa & Taiseer Kailani, Methods of Teaching English to Arab Students, Longman,
1989, p. 88.
12
the dominant approach in ELT in many countries as well as Turkey, where English is
taught as a foreign or second language. However, with the development of
globalization and multi-culturalism, English is increasingly being used as an
international language by peoples of the global community. It was estimated that at
the beginning of the 21st century, the number of English L1 speakers was about 375
million, the same as the number of people who used English as L2, and as many as
750 million used English as a foreign language . The number of the L2 English users
has gradually surpassed that of the L1. Consequently, the call for English to be
taught as an international language rather than a second or foreign language has
grown much stronger.10
10 Vivian Cook, “Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching”, TESOL Quarterly, 1999,
Vol.33 (2), p. 185.
11 Sinclair Rogers, “They Don’t Speak Our Language”, Explorations in Language Study, London,
1976, p. 15.
12 Micheal Canale,“From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy”, in
J.Richards & R.Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication, Longman, New York, 1983, p. 27.
13 Diane Larsen-Freeman, Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 131.
13
practice and discuss in order to make them understand that learning a language is to
use the language.
language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enable
the learner to accomplish those purposes.
6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing
bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct meaning
through genuine linguistic interaction with others.
In the same vein, according to Nunan there are five common characteristics of
CLT classrooms17:
17 David Nunan, “Communicative tasks and the language curriculum”, TESOL Quarterly, Oxford,
1991, p. 279.
18 Yang, A. and Cheung, C., “Adapting textbook activities for Communicative Teaching Cooperative
Learning”, English Teaching Forum, China, 2003, p. 17-18.
15
5. Diversity of activities.
19 Theodore S. Rodgers, Language teaching methodology, Retrieved August 10, 2005, from
http://www.cal.org/
16
- Students get the chance to be creative and express their own attitudes,
feeling, emotions, fears etc.
- Students concentrate on ‘what’ they are saying (or writing) rather than
‘how’ they are saying (or writing) it. The focus is on the meaning of the words more
than all the others.
classroom. In short, the CLT is to teach English for the purpose of communication,
that is, to give students the ability to use the language rather than simply to know its
structure, grammar, and vocabulary. Active student learning is the main learning
style advocated by CLT.
3. Fluency and accuracy are both important goals in language learning: There
is always a goal for the communication. The goal of one party may be offering
invitation, giving opinion, expressing dissatisfaction and asking for help, etc.; while
that of the other may be resistance or declining, etc. People in communication always
keep in mind of the goal and try to achieve it. Therefore whatever he says is around
the goal; while he also evaluates by this goal what other people transmit to him. This
strategy of making corresponding adjustment according to information feedback of
the opposite is an important point in language communicative competence.
Classroom practice of CLT tends to help students, during the process of completing
their communicative tasks, improve their ability of judging the target language, tone
and attitude, and the ability of making corresponding language reaction for achieving
their own communicative goals.
20 Michael Canale & Merrill Swain, “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing”, Applied Linguistics, 1980, p. 47.
18
ought to be corrected which may violate the listener or reader and which occur
frequently. However, no matter it is serious or slight, correcting every error can have
an opposite function. Now foreign language educators generally agree that the
tolerance of spoken or written errors will benefit students on confidently using the
language to communicate.
Teachers’ and students’ roles in class activities make up the critical focus of
communicative teaching. Most of the negative and fruitless examples were observed
to have been resulted from either the teachers' or students' lack of organisation and
implication of CLT. Teachers' language competence and creative ability primarily
affect the final product. How they understand CLT, how they instruct the students,
and how much intervention is necessary determine their roles and the outcome of
their performance. In the more creative types of activity, teachers should avoid
unnecessary intervention because this may prevent learners from becoming involved
with the activity and developing their communicative skills. The teachers’ function
becomes less dominant, but no less important in some situations.23 Teachers may
21 Cem Alptekin, “Towards intercultural communicative competence in elt”, ELT Journal, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 58.
22 Micheal Byram, Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Cambridge
University Press,Cambridge, 1997, p. 8.
23 William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge,1981, p. 19.
19
find themselves talking less and listening more, becoming active facilitators of their
students' learning and facilitating communication in the classroom. In speaking
practice, it is the students’ turn to do most of the talking. The teachers are like the
skilful conductor of an orchestra, giving each of the performers a chance to
participate and monitoring their performance to see that it is satisfactory. In CLT
teachers serve more as facilitators and participants rather than being in a traditional
didactic position; and students are actively involved in interpretation, expression and
negotiation of meaning. Accordingly, the teacher is an analyst and task designer
whereas the students are improvisers and negotiators. Moreover, it is crucial for the
teachers to correct the learners’ mistakes immediately. Otherwise, once the wrong
patterns and rules become fixed in students’ minds, then they will result in habits
difficult to change, and accuracy is therefore much more emphasized than fluency. If
learners make errors during speaking, the errors are tolerated in order to encourage
fluency. However, it does not mean that errors are ignored and the teacher may not
give learners feedback. Error correction should be applied during teaching rather
than while students are practising in the target language. Otherwise, it causes a
permanent habit in which students hesitate every time they use the target language.
Thus, the students learn how to learn, and as a result, they take responsibility
for their own learning. In CLT activities, students are supposed to interact with each
other through the “group work activities, which allows the students to be exposed to
purposeful and authentic language use rather than mechanical practice of language
drills.24 According to Deckert, based on student centeredness, the CLT requires low
profile teacher roles, constant pair work or small group problem solving, students
responding to authentic texts, extended exchanges on versatile topics, and the
implementation of the four basic skills, namely speaking, listening, reading, and
writing.25 The CLT discourages teacher centeredness, quizzing of memorized
material, and detailed commentary on forms of English. Consequently, CLT often
demands teachers to use less teacher-centred activities and skills. Instructors are
responsible for organizing the classroom as a setting for communication and
communicative activities. In addition, CLT activities have shifted language
classrooms’ focus from the function and the teacher to the learner. Unlike traditional
and teacher-centred approaches, CLT is against the teacher dominance in the
classroom and supports a more equal relationship among the teachers and the
students. The CLT teacher assumes a responsibility for determining and responding
to learner language needs. The teacher is the manager of classroom activities. In this
role, one of his major responsibilities is to establish situations likely to promote
communication. A classroom during a communicative activity is far from quiet;
therefore, the teacher has to be aware of classroom management issues.
26 Qiang Xu, The Communicative Approach to English Teaching and Testing, Foreign Language
Education Press, Shanghai, 2000, p. 14.
27 Alice C. Omaggio, Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction., Heinle &
Heinle, Boston, 1986, p. 181.
21
28 Micheal Byram, Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, op.cit., p. 12.
29 Cem Alptekin, “Towards intercultural communicative competence in elt”, op.cit., p. 56-57.
22
Language shapes in culture and each culture has its own way of expression.
However, this does not make the language unspeakable unless it is reproduced as in
the original culture for those from other cultures, which is explained by the term
Intercultural language. In this respect, a language spoken by different cultures is only
used for communication rather than the cultural norms such as idioms, slang,
proverbs, or jokes. Therefore, in second language teaching, since the learner is not
the member of the target language, he should be guided to use the language to
30 Robin C. Scarcella & Rebecca L. Oxford, The tapestry of language teaching, Boston, Heinle &
Heinle, 1992, p. 68.
31 Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Mass MIT Press, Cambridge, 1965, p. 65.
23
32 Zhixin Wang, “The linguistic and cultural division of Englishes in English as an international
language”, in Hu, Wenzhong, (Ed.) Aspects of Intercultural Communication Proceedings of China
2nd Conference on Intercultural Communication, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,
Beijing, 1999, p. 596.
33 Claire Kramsch, Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1993, p. 210.
24
2.5.5. REJECTION OF L1
In Turkey, language teaching has always been discussed and criticized by the
language practitioners. Despite the contemporary innovations not only in technology
and thus in audiovisual means but also in teaching approaches and techniques, there
are still many drawbacks and fruitlessness in applications. Among those is the
language competence having only been acquired after a long period of education the
most noteworthy. However, in recent years, due to the European Union adjustment
regulations, standardization trials of language teaching in Turkey have been
undertaken according to the Common European framework of reference for
languages. The standardization is about the framework and learning levels rather
than suggesting a teaching method or teaching techniques. It draws the desired
boundaries and describes the target learner considering all the individual and cultural
differences. The framework brings both a unity by demanding a standard acquisition
and certain skills of language in different levels and diversity in terms of
multiculturalism and democracy by focusing on what to teach rather than how to
teach. In contrast, current applications in Turkish National Education (M.E.B)
system not only suggests a curriculum involving the topics and even the text book
but also imposes teaching methods and techniques dominating the teacher without
recognizing the cultural or individual differences.
theoretical basis and their practical procedures. In order to fulfil this role it sets out
parameters, categories, criteria and scales which users may draw upon and which
may possibly stimulate them to consider a wider range of options than previously or
to question the previously unexamined assumptions of the tradition in which they are
working. This is not to say that such assumptions are wrong, but only that all those
responsible for planning should benefit from a re-examination of theory and practice
in which they can take into account decisions other practitioners have taken in their
own and, particularly, in other European countries.
M.E.B underlines its language policy and principals in a program drawing the
borders in which language teaching takes place. Unlike the Common European
Framework, the program determines not only the principles and targets but also the
methods and even the techniques to be used during the teaching process. In this part,
we discuss and compare the program with the universal standards such as CEF.
set the rules instead of being introduced directly. These descriptions are in
conformity with those we mentioned in previous chapter.
The following lesson plan is cited from the formal published program of
M.E.B. It clearly includes the objectives, the grammar topic to be presented, teaching
and learning techniques to be practised, materials to be used during the lesson, and
the activities during a limited period of time.
PART I
LESSON English
THEME Sports
DURATION 40 minutes
PART II
OBJECTIVES • to be able to ask questions
• to be able to answer the questions
• to be able to set cause and effect relations
while speaking
• to use pre-listening instructions in
29
PART III
(T=teacher
Ss=students)
30
Activity B
T→Ss
Activity C Ss↔Ss
In pairs, Ss read
T elicits the word the two texts and
lifestyle. complete the
chart.
Ss use their
dictionaries Ss↔T
where necessary.
Ss read the
questions.
T checks answers orally, Ss discuss the
31
Activity D
T checks understanding.
T checks answers orally, Ss write their
encouraging discussion advice to one of
for question 3 and 4. Leo and Tania.
Activity E
T elicits a few sentences Ss write a short
from students, for paragraph about
example: You shouldn’t their own
smoke. You should eat lifestyle, using
more vegetables. the texts in
Activity C as a
T walks round and model. Ss↔T,Ss
checks Ss sentences.
T asks Ss to write a
short paragraph about
their own lifestyle.
32
As seen in the table above, the activities during the lesson are designed
deductively, in which the students initially read or are exposed to the structures in the
context and then are required to make similar statements. This presentation exhibits
the common CLT application during an ordinary class. The following chart cited
(see; Table 1 ) shows the annual Schedule of English Lesson in 10th Grades of the
schools depending on Ministry of Turkish National Education (M.E.B.) :
33
10 Meeting the students, talking about Introduction: Giving and obtaining Communicative Some flash cards,
how to do an efficient course, information Approach activity sheets
3 discussing the different ways of Ask&Answer reading,
doing the courses, the importance of writing giving examples,
24-25 English in our daily and future lives presentation, error
in the context of a changing world correction, pair work ,
EYLÜL (September)
groupwork
1 PERSONAL DENTIFICATION
Introducing oneself/ greeting My name’s... I’m .............. This is my…. New Bridge to
someone(formal-informal) Asking What’s your ... How do you spell it? Success Student’s
4 10 and giving information. How old are you? Connector: and Communicative Book and
Understanding and following What’s ............. in English? Approach Workbook
28-02 classroom instructions. Asking and What nationality are you? I’m ............. Ask&Answer reading, Worksheets
giving information about Where are you from? I’m from writing giving examples, Dictionary
nationalities; addresses and ...................... presentation, error Cassette and CD
telephone numbers. What’s your home address? correction, pair work , Projection
My address is …….What’s your groupwork Pictures
telephone number? It’s
Imperatives
Open your books! Write down! Don’t
read etc
Describing family members. UNIT 2:FAMILY Communicative New Bridge to
Describing personal possessions. Possessive adjective “‘s” possessive Approach Success Student’s
1 10 Identifying some objects. adjectives Ask&Answer reading, Book and
EKİM
(October)
Table 2 : A sample page of the annual Curriculum of English Lesson in Anatolian High Schools
34
It is clear that all the objectives are communicative and the subjects are
generally written in spoken form rather than the grammatical expressions. The
teaching techniques reflect the main lines of communicative approach such as error
correction, pair work, group work activities, skills teaching etc. The listed materials,
in addition, are the communicative means of teaching such as visual and audial
materials. The materials are usually of foreign origin where the target language is
spoken as native language.
36 Micheal Byram, Bella Gribkova, & Hugh Starkey, “Developing the Intercultural Dimension in
Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers”, Council of Europe, EA Journal,
Strasbourg, 2002, Vol.22, No: 41, p. 5.
35
4. METHODOLOGY
Clearly and precisely specifying both the independent and the dependent
variables under investigation.
Following firmly the original set of research goals, arriving at more objective
conclusions, testing hypothesis, determining the issues of causality.
37 Catherine Cassel & Gillian Symon, Qualitative methods in organizational research, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA ,1994, p. 13.
38 Stella Ting-Toomey, Qualitative research: An overview, In W.B. Gudykunst, & Y.Y. Kim (Eds.),
Methods for intercultural communication research , Sage Publications, Beverly Hills ,1984, p.169
36
Consequently, throughout the study the data was collected via a sample test in
order to answer the following research questions:
3. Is CLT really the most appropriate teaching method for Turkish foreign
language learners?
4.1. SETTING
The study was carried out in the 10th, 11th and 12th grades of Atatürk Anatolian
High School in the province of Van, Turkey. It is the oldest high school in this city.
The school admits the students, having a relatively high level of score from SBS
examination (e.g. an exam for Turkish secondary school students to be replaced in
high schools accordingly). It has almost all educational opportunities for the students.
4.2. PARTICIPANTS
The study was conducted with 300 Anatolian High School students. The
participants were selected from three different grades, including 10th, 11th and 12th
grades in equal numbers. Their ages range between 14 and 16. Anatolian high
school students are admitted with the average of three examinations, taken every year
by the students at the end of each secondary school year. Therefore, they all have a
certain level of acquisition ability.
37
4.3. INSTRUMENTS
In this study, we used a sample test based on the principles of the quantitative
research method in order to elicit data related to the students’ acquisition of English,
their reproduction level of the language and the reflection of the CLT practices on
the students in EFL settings in Turkey. This sort of data collection strategy is a
relative technique which involves dependent or independent variables and has a kind
of dependency on a variable or variables. In quantitative research, the aim is to
classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain
what is observed. Data is in the form of numbers and statistics. Objective researcher
seeks precise measurement and analysis of target concepts, e.g., uses surveys,
questionnaires etc. Quantitative data is known to be more efficient to test hypotheses.
Researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter.
4.4. PROCEDURES
The first phase of the study was consisted of the process of obtaining
permission from the directory of the setting school. At the second phase, the
researcher identified 300 participants of different grades in the school, where the
participants were studying. Then, the teachers to give the test were met and given the
details of the research, and were asked to make the students to fill out the
questionnaire in a lesson hour duration, which was 45 min. It was very important that
during these sessions, the participation was voluntary, and no imposition was made
on the participants. Eventually, the participants were also given the opportunity to
ask questions about the questionnaire. Consequently, at the final phase of the study,
the tests were collected and the answers given by the participants were evaluated.
The main purpose of the sample test (illustrated in Appendix A) was to give
the researcher necessary information about the participants’ level of acquisition and
reproduction as well as their general understanding of English. The test covers the
range of language proficiency from elementary to pre-intermediate level. The test
included three types of questions, the first type of which aims to measure the
theoretical English knowledge, the next of which aims to measure the ability of
38
analysis, and the last of which targets to evaluate the participants’ levels of synthesis.
Therefore, it is consisted of three parts, named as ‘PART A’, ‘PART B’, and ‘PART
C’. Moreover, each of the parts includes two levels of questions, numbered as ‘I’ and
‘II’. The language questioned in Level ‘I’ is made up of the daily routine and
structurally fixed imitative language, whereas the language questioned in Level ‘II’
is of rare and reproductive features, the former of which is described E-Language
(external language) and the latter I-Language (internal language) by Chomsky.39
Level I and Level II questions are characterized by how often they are exposed rather
than how difficult they are.
There are 45 questions in the test. In PART A, there are ten theoretical level
of questions, five of which are in level I and the other five are in level II. In PART B
, in addition, there are ten analysis level of questions, five of which are in level I and
the other five are in level II, but in three types of questions . However, in PART C,
there are twenty five synthesis level of questions in two different types, twenty of
which are in the first part including ten level I and ten level II questions, and five of
which are in the second part including only reproduction level II of questions, which
aimed to define the participants’ perceptions of English as well as their language
proficiency. In this part, the creativity of the participants was aimed to be evaluated
and rather than one standard answer, any possible meaningful answer was regarded
as correct answer. Open format questions are those that ask for unprompted opinions.
In other words, there are no predetermined set of responses, and the participants are
free to answer whatever they chooses.
The analysis of the data collected via the instruments should be interpreted in
solid units such as numbers in order to be scientifically valid. The purpose of the data
analysis is to bring meaning, structure, and order to the data. Interpretation requires
acute awareness of the data, concentration, and openness to subtle undercurrents of
social life. Accordingly, the data obtained from our sample test were analysed by
using quantitative research method involving the systematic collection, organization,
and interpretation of numeric material derived from the test used as data source in the
study.
The analysis was performed in several stages. Initially the sample tests were
collected from the teachers and then they were divided into the groups according to
39 Vivian Cook & Mark Newson, Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, Second edition, Cambridge
Publications, Oxford, 1996, p. 125.
39
their grades. Second, the variables were set, which were labelled as Level I and Level
II, and Part A, Part B and Part C. The variables were set according to the grades of
the students (i.e. 10th, 11th and 12th grades), levels of knowledge (i.e. Part A, Part B
and Part C), and level of the questions (i.e. Level I and Level II). The grades are the
classes in which the participants study. Moreover, the levels of knowledge are those
determined according to the measurement and evaluation principles that suggest the
educationalists to use different types of measurement means measuring different
levels of knowledge such as theory, analysis and synthesis, which were named as
‘Part A’, ‘Part B’ and ‘Part C’. Similarly, the levels of the questions are those having
nearly the same difficulty level and content but differ in their commonness or
creativity, which were titled as ‘Level I’ and ‘Level II’.
Next, the total correct answers for each question were counted and their
frequencies were calculated. Then, total correct answers over the total participants
(i.e. 300 Sts) were proportioned as ‘…/ 300’ as well as with their percentages as ‘…
%’. After this process, the frequencies and the percentages were applied to the afore
mentioned variables of the questions. The statistical data, calculated in frequencies
and percentages were processed with the program MS Office Excel 2003 by a
statistician in Van District Office of Turkish Statistical Institute and then the results
were illustrated in tables, bars and pie charts. Moreover, in order to interpret some
special common answers, partly qualitative data analysis, particularly content
analysis, was also used. Content analysis allows inferences to be made which can
then be corroborated using other methods of data collection.40 The main purpose of
content analysis is to examine what is there and label it.
This study analysed some parts of the data obtained from the open-ended
questions via content analysis technique in order to determine the presence of certain
words or concepts within texts or sets of texts. Thus, we quantified and analysed the
presence, meanings and relationships of such words and concepts, then made
inferences about the messages within the texts. At the third stage of the data analysis,
the content analyses of the papers were applied on some special words and
expressions.
40 John Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five Traditions, Sage
Publication, London, 1998, p. 181.
40
The data reveal that the learners participated in the study generally lack the
ability to use the foreign language in a creative way. The majority of the participants
failed in the level of reproduction. In all three levels of knowledge, i.e. theory (Part
A), analysis (Part B) and synthesis (Part C), the participants were markedly
unsuccessful in relatively unfamiliar expressions and sentences (Level II). In other
words, students in this EFL setting are generally inadequate with creative practices.
In addition, the discrepancy between students’ theoretical perceptions of English and
their inability in reproductive practices may prevent them from implementing the
target language principles in a real context. CLT, as the principal language teaching
method in MEB curriculum, in contrast, is claimed to emphasize and encourage the
communication of meaning between teacher and students and among the students
themselves in group or pair work.41 The ultimate goals of the CLT curriculum are to
develop students’ communicative competence and prepare them to use the L2 in the
outside world. Now let’s remember what we mentioned about the principles of CLT
in part 2.2. of this study. CLT should constantly reflect a communicative side of
language and thus emphasizing:
41 Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada, How languages are learned. OUP Teaching a foreign
language: one teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20, Oxford, 2000, p. 291.
41
The frequencies and the number of the correct answers to both levels, i.e.
Level I (familiar language) and Level II (unfamiliar language), in three levels of
knowledge (i.e. Part A, Part B, and Part C) are shown successively in Table 3:
Table 3: The overall correct answers to Level I and Level II questions and their
rational frequencies
Columns Labels
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
Overall Overall
Total Overall
Correct Correct Total
Line Labels Ans. Overall Rate Ans. Overall Rate Overall Ans. Rate
According to the table above, whereas the learners can reproduce familiar
statements used in everyday English (with a ratio of 0.9, 0.8 or 0.7), they fail to
reproduce unfamiliar but similar ones (with a ratio of 0.04, 0.1 or 0.2) (see bold
figures in Table 3). The resulting figures in the study also reveal that learners taught
through CLT are only successful in the statements with which they are familiar
whether the task is of theoretical (shown as Part A in the questionnaire), analytical
(Part B) or reproduction (Part C) level. In Figure 1, each answer of the participants
for each question in the questionnaire was shown in a bar chart with Level 1 and
Level 2 questions in all three levels of knowledge ( i.e. theoretical, analytical and
reproduction).
43
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
15
16
19
20
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-10
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2
Figure 1
The difference between the highest value which is 0.96 or 290 of the total 300
participants for the question Level 1 A2 in Part C and the lowest value which is 0.04
or 14 of the total 300 participants for the question Level 2 A7 in the same part is
found to be 0.92, which is a significant figure in our study.
In another statistical data (see fig. 2), the results were divided into six parts as
Part A Level 1, Part A Level 2, Part B Level 1, Part B Level 2, Part C Level 1, and
Part C Level 2 . The correct answers for each group were counted and illustrated in
Figure 2:
44
TOTAL
PART A Level 1
PART A Level 2
PART B Level 1
PART B Level 2
PART C Level 1
PART C Level 2
Figure 2
Furthermore, the total correct answers for Level 1 and Level 2 were
separately shown in figure 3.
Level 1
Level 2
Figure 3
45
As we understand from the table, we can see that there are significant
differences between Level I and Level II correct answers in Part A. Even though the
participants can distinguish Simple Present (question numbered 5) and even Present
Perfect (question numbered 4) (see Figure 4), they are not successful to identify
Present Continuous (question numbered 8) or Future Continuous (question numbered
7) as well as the formers.
In the following Figure 4, you can see the sharp decrease in Level II
questions. The differences are not associated with the difficulty level but with the
familiarity since Level I and Level II questions are characterized by how often they
are exposed rather than how difficult they are. In the first five questions (Level I), the
average correct answers are seen to be 220-250, whereas in the second five (Level
II), they range between 0 and 80.
PART A
250
200
150
Toplam
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Level 1 Level 2
PART A
Figure 4
PART A Level 1
PART A Level 2
Figure 5
As a result, what is claimed in this study that foreign language learners should
not be limited to what they have been exposed. Moreover, in grammar teaching,
neglecting the L1 leads to a language made up of imitated expressions of an outside
world rather than another saying of communication as well as the native language
already owned. Noam Chomsky states that the principle of structure-dependency is
used in all languages and any human being who knows any language therefore
includes the principle of structure-dependency within their knowledge of language.43
Therefore, it is worth to consider L1 as a better alternative to be used in language
teaching in order to teach a foreign language grammar.
43 Noam Chomsky, Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Mass.: MIT
Press, Cambridge, 1988, p. 12.
49
following chart (Fig. 6) clearly illustrates the proportion of the correct answers of
Level I to those of Level II in Part B.
PART B Level 1
PART B Level 2
Figure 6
In Figure 6, the correct answers are illustrated for each question in Part B.
The eleventh and the twelfth questions are partly reading. The participants are
required to analyse and identify the details in a given sentence. Whether they are
Level I or Level II, the number of the correct answers is low, which reveals the fact
that reading activities performed in CLT classes are not productive enough to make
the students catch the meaning in details or the grammatical slenderness of the
structures. In CLT, reading activities are organized in order to get the general idea,
scan for specific information or expose the students as much vocabulary as possible.
In fact, the premier goal in reading activities of the CLT based textbooks is to
introduce the structure to be taught in a context before the class presentation. As a
result, rather than understanding whatever is read, CLT suggests understanding the
general idea of what is read.
50
PART B
300
250
200
150 Toplam
100
50
0
11 12 13 14 17 18 15 16 19 20
Level 1 Level 2
PART B
Figure 7
The other questions are multiple choices and illustrate similar distribution of
the correct answers of afore mentioned Level I and Level II differences, except for
the question 16. The percentage of the correct answers in Part B is 62% for Level I,
28.5% for Level II, and 45% for average.
In this study, the overall low success level in this part may be related to the
lack of analytical approach of CLT. The difference in the figures of Level I and
Level II shows the importance of familiarity in the acquisition of any subject or
ability to reproduce the language in CLT.
classroom. Classroom tasks must, therefore, equip students with the skills necessary
for communication in those contexts. In this study, however, the results revealed
contrary to what is expected from an average CLT learner. In order to measure the
synthesis level of the students, the participants were asked 25 questions in Part C, ten
of which are in Level I and the other fifteen of which are in Level II. In the first ten
questions of the latter part, there are some idiomatic expressions in order to
understand the language perception and creativity of the participants. The other five
of this part are, moreover, particularly situational questions, depending on a given
situation and allow the participants to think over giving the massage in the target
language and reproduce his/her own statement. The participants were expected to
write any meaningful sentence related to the given context rather than to write a
fixed answer.
In the table above (see Table 7), the frequencies and the percentages of the
correct answers of Level I and Level II questions in Part C are shown. The table
shows that the students are almost three or four times as successful in Level I
questions as in Level II, which reveals that rather than the difficulty level of the
questions (whether they are of Part A, Part B or Part C), the identifying factor here is
the familiarity of the language they dealt with. In all three difficulty levels;
theoretical, analytical or synthetic, Level I questions, composed of familiar
expressions, have significantly higher rate of accuracy than Level II questions,
composed of unfamiliar expressions but the same level of difficulty. The percentage
of the correct answers in Level I of Part C is 74,7 %, whereas, in Level II-A, it is
21,9 % and 36,4 % in Level II-B.
The following chart (Fig. 8) clearly illustrates the proportion of the correct
answers of Level I to those of Level II-A/ Level II-B in Part C:
52
PART C Level 1
PART C Level 2
Figure 8
44 Ömer Demircan, Yabancı Dil Öğretim Yöntemleri, Ekin Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1990, p. 106.
53
PART C
350
300
250
200
Toplam
150
100
50
0
A-1 A-A-2A-3A-4A-5A-6A-7A-8A-9A-1 A-A-2A-3A-4A-5A-6A-7A-8A-9B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5
Level 1 Level 2
PART C
Figure 9
In Figure 9, the correct answers are illustrated for each question in Part C.
Question Level II-A 8 and 10, having the lowest rate of correct answers, ask the
participants idioms to observe the students’ attitudes in alternative thinking and
creativity. The majority of the participants failed to replace the idiom even though
they were not expected to write the original matching. They either omitted the
questions or tried to translate them word by word. The reason is supposed to be
resulted from the participants’ hesitation to reproduce an expression not having been
heard or experienced before, and the underlying reason may be attributed to CLT,
which makes the target language mythicized and the creativity sin. In this context,
Honna points out that by virtue of this perfectionism, Japanese tend to hesitate to
interact with English speakers until, as they often are heard to say, they develop
complete proficiency in the language.45 This proves that the problem is not unique to
Turkey or to that limited study in particular.
The study also questioned the participants’ own comment on some specific
expressions. Their responses to those questions reflected their perception of foreign
language, particularly English. In Part C, the participants were asked to write the
English matching of ‘Ne var Ali?’ (Question 1 in Level II-A), which means ‘What’s
the matter (with you), Ali?’ in English. The majority of the responses given were
exactly word to word translation of ‘Ne’, and ‘var’, that is, ‘what’ and ‘there’,
resulting in ‘What’s there Ali?’ or ‘What is, Ali?’ . Another example is Question 7 of
the same part and level, asking the participants to write the English matching of
‘Sudan ucuz’, which means ‘very cheap’ in English. However, their superficial
matching in English is ‘water’ for ‘su’ and ‘cheap’ for ‘ucuz’ .The participants
considered the superficial matching rather than its meaning, resulting in ‘Cheaper
than water’ . Moreover, the following examples (see Table 8) are other interesting
findings in the study:
Furthermore, there was an interesting finding for asking the time. In Part C,
the Question 8 of Level II-A asks the students ‘Uçağınız saat kaçta?’, which means
‘What time is your flight?’ in English. However, since the students imitated,
repeated, heard and practised it as a whole sentence as ‘What time is it?’ deductively,
they automatically built the sentence as ‘What time is it your airplane?’.
CONCLUSION
isolated from the language. Therefore, foreign language learning cannot go beyond
imitation or repetition without referring to L1. It is necessary for any language
teaching should be as real as the native language itself. Moreover, trying to create an
authentic atmosphere in order to achieve a communicative purpose according to CLT
is like touching the left ear with the right hand, since we already have an authentic
native language background and experience supported by the culture.
The figures, on the other hand, illustrate those frequencies, rates, figures,
numbers, and percentages shown in the tables to make them visual data so that we
can easily see the differences between the variables. In Figure 1, total correct
answers to common and creative situations in theoretical, analytical, and synthetic
58
In all the three levels of situations, the results proved that majority of the
participants could deal with everyday statements, but failed in unfamiliar expressions
which they had never tried before. In the theoretical level, the participants were
found to be much better at imitative of structural statements than the creative ones
(e.g.14.6 % / 76 %) although the questions had the same kind of grammar structures
but required memorized or creative thinking ability. The second part was consisted of
analytical questions targeting reading and understanding skills of the participants.
The results were still parallel to those obtained in the first part standing for the
grammar proficiency. The participants were much more successful in the common
used daily tasks than the reproductive ones, as were they in the former part (e.g.
28.4% / 62%). These results were not different from those obtained in the third part,
prepared to measure the practical speaking skills of the students. The results were
74,7 % in favor of common situations, whereas they were 21,9 % and 36,4 % in
creative structure-free situations. In brief, the study revealed that the participants
were more successful in a text based language involving what is heard and what is
practiced through the learning process than a creative one that can be extemporized,
which was the reciprocal of what is aimed in MEB's special purposes of language
teaching. Seeing the results and considering the Anatolian status (e.g. foreign
language-weighted teaching) of the participants, we put the blame on the current
teaching methodology CLT as the principal substructure of English teaching
approach in MEB for making the students learn English as a set of structural patterns
rather than a living concept.
The results obtained from all those figures and the tables proved our
suggestions about CLT applications when we started the study. The participants were
dominantly successful in everyday and common language which they experienced or
were exposed in the text books or recordings during their lessons, whereas they were
59
Among the results were the lack of first language in teaching L2 grammar,
deductive method of presentation discouraging creativity and trying to make learners
communicate as well as an ideal native speaker as the most prominent characteristics
of CLT, resulting in the high rate insufficiency illustrated by the figures in the
charts. The common controversy lies in the communicative emphasis of CLT. In
order to set a communication as well as a native speaker, CLT exaggerates and
mythicizes the target language is so much that learning barriers such as hesitation
and lack of confidence can be observed easily not only among the learners but
among the teachers as well. CLT applications imitate the target language and neglect
the first language, which is also described as E-Language model and almost
completely denied to be an important factor in language acquisition by Chomsky. 46
Here appears L1 as another factor to be considered in language teaching. Since all
languages have common features, the influence of L1 and culture exists as a matter
of fact and must be taken into consideration in the teaching and learning of a foreign
language. The role of learners’ native language and culture can not be ignored in the
intercultural communication, while in the communicative approach the learner’s own
language and culture is something to be avoided or even abandoned in the acquisition
of the foreign or second language. All languages have common structures and these
structures make the learners understand the nature of a language if a new language is
presented in terms of these common structures. Any human being who knows any
language, therefore, includes the principle of structure-dependency within their
knowledge of language. Therefore, in language teaching, using L1 is of a premier
importance since it provides a ready database for the second language.
The above mentioned critics or practices of CLT show off too idealistic
picture to be achieved and demand a serious amount of time, patience and effort
since it tries to imitate the natural first language acquisition whose participants are
those not having any other job apart from learning language and not caring any
concept of time rather than the foreign language acquisition reality whose
participants, on the contrary, are those having many other jobs apart from learning
46 Vivian Cook & Mark Newson, Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, op.cit., p. 125.
60
language and caring time more than anything else. In this respect, a typical L2
learner is exposed to the target language from four to six hours a week during the
school term. This cannot begin to approximate the amount of exposure experienced,
all his waking hours, by a child learning his first language. 47 An L2 learner is
typically a part-time learner, but a child (as an L1 learner) has much more time to
learn the language, so it is difficult to evaluate how much time a first language
learner actually does spend in learning a language. As a result, the process of L2
acquisition is altogether different from L1 and trying to teach L2 like L1 as in CLT
results in failure and inefficiency in EFL and ESL practices. Children acquire
functions in a different order when they learn English as L2 and as L1. However,
CLT regards L2 learners as children learning L1. This method of teaching aims to
make the learners of foreign language acquire it unconsciously and use the language
as a reflexive action like his / her mother tongue. This is of course a good target but a
hard one considering the time and cost to be spent. In our fast changing technology
age, where economy and time is exchanged with money, this method makes the ELT
institutions and publications happy unlike the students. What we try to restore in this
study is the fact that communicative language teaching models the first language
acquisition, but rejects it in the process of learning L2.
According to the opinions and discussions above, we can say that CLT as a
language teaching method, particularly as an English teaching method for this study,
is too idealistic to be practiced in Turkish Education System due to the overall targets
expected from the language teaching and the linguistic or cultural characteristics of
the native language. Based on the findings from this research, it is also argued that
many teachers' and educators’ insistence on CLT are often not supported by the
learners’ output. This should not lead to a complete distrust of this approach, but
rather to more efforts on drawing its guidelines. MEB should question CLT about
whether it is the best suited foreign language method for Turkish learners. The
authorities must first determine the priorities about the description of a normal L2
speaker. Is it a person who can effortlessly pass for a native speaker in all
circumstances, a person who can just about order a coffee in a restaurant, a person
who can translate Shakespeare or a person who can interpret the small print in a
contract?48 Then they should arrange the targets and the teaching methods
accordingly. In order to achieve these educational purposes, a whole framework of
language teaching which incorporates different approaches and methods appropriate
to the national necessities is one of our suggestions, by making use of their
advantages and avoiding the disadvantages. In fact, the sole communicative approach
to language learning should be questioned and a new fundamental model with
authentic syllabuses, materials and teaching aids must be suggested to be established
for Turkish learners.
47 Elizabeth Ingram, “Psychology and Language Learning”, in Allen, J.B. and S.P.Corder (ed.) The
Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, Vol.2, Oxford University Press, London, 1975, p. 286.
48 Vivian Cook & Mark Newson, Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, op.cit., p. 125.
61
1) How often the first language is used in English classes? This question may
enlighten the researchers in terms of the role of the first language in better
presentation of the target language in class implementations.
2) What are the differences and similarities between Turkish, which is the
first language for the great majority or at least the second language in some regions
in Turkey, and English, which is the target language in our study? This question may
provide researchers and educators of English in Turkey with how useful it will be to
use Turkish in teaching English.
REFERENCES
BAL, Mehmet S., Teacher’s Perceptions of CLT in Turkish EFL Setting Theory vs
Practice, unpublished graduate thesis, Çukurova University, Adana , 2006.
COOK, Vivian., “Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching”, TESOL
Quarterly, Vol.33 (2), 1999, p.181.
63
KEIKO Sakui, “Wearing Two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan”, ELT
Journal, Vol.58(2), 2004, p.58.
LIGHTBOWN, Patsy M. & SPADA Nina, “How languages are learned” . OUP
Teaching a foreign language: one teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and
Teacher Education 20, Oxford, 2000, p.291.
XU, Qiang, The Communicative Approach to English Teaching and Testing, Foreign
Language Education Press, Shanghai, 2000, p.14.
Çalışma, Van ili Atatürk Anadolu Lisesi 10, 11 ve 12. sınıf öğrencilerini
kapsamaktadır. Araştırmanın başında, nicel araştırma yöntemine dayalı örnek bir
seviye ölçme sınavı yapıldı. Elde edilen sonuçların İletişimci Dil Öğretimine dayalı
Orta Öğretim Kurumları Genel Liseler İngilizce Öğretim Programında hedeflenen
kazanımlarla örtüşmediği saptandı. Dil eğitimi alan kişilerin çoğunlukla daha önce
çalışılan ve sıkça kullanılan gündelik kalıplaşmış ifadeleri söyleyebildikleri; oysa
üretkenliğe dayalı, daha önce denemedikleri yapıları ve değim özelliği taşıyan
ifadeleri söyleyemedikleri veya söylemekten çekindikleri sonucuna varıldı. Yabancı
dil öğretim yöntemi olarak kullanılan İletişimci Yaklaşımda özellikle ana dilin hiç
kullanılmadığı, hedef dille bir bağıntısı yokmuş gibi anlatıldığı ve hedef dilin son
derece yapay bir şekilde sunulduğu görüldü. Ayrıca, literatürdeki diğer çalışmalarla,
konu hakkındaki farklı görüşlere de yer verilerek çalışmanın sonunda, iletişimci
yaklaşım açısından elde edilen olumsuz sonuçların olası nedenleri üzerinde duruldu
ve birtakım önerilerde bulunuldu.
ABSTRACT
The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been one of the most
dominant methods in EFL communities. Considering the importance of foreign
language teaching and the discussions about the productive language teaching in
Turkey, this study is thought to provide significant contributions to the field. This
study is to introduce the Communicative Approach which is used as a principle
English teaching method in Secondary Schools English Teaching Program for High
Schools with its mainlines and evaluate its usefulness.
The study covers the 10th, 11th, and 12th grade students of Van Ataturk
Anatolian High School. In the initial stage of this study, a sample level test based on
quantitative data collection was given. However, at the end of the study, it was found
out that there was a discrepancy between the principal target benefits of Secondary
Schools English Teaching Program for High Schools which is principally based on
CLT and the results obtained. It was found out that majority of the language learners
could only utter daily or structural expressions mostly studied beforehand or often
practised but could not or regret to reproduce those never experienced or those
depending on creativity. It was also revealed that particularly the first language was
rarely used, the target language was presented quite artificially and instructed as if it
did not have any common features with the first language in Communicative
Approach used as a second language teaching method. Furthermore, at the end of the
study, the possible reasons for these negative results obtained in terms CLT were
evaluated and some suggestions were put forth, by citing other studies and opinions
on this field.
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Questionnaire..................................................................................... 71
Appendix B: Evaluation Checklist .......................................................................... 73
68
APPENDIX A
PART II
PART III
I II
Nasılsın? ………………………… Ne var Ali? ………………………………….
Adınız ne? ………………………... Çocuklarınız Nasıl?...................................
Ne iş yapıyorsunuz? ……………………. Onların mesleği ne?...................................
Fransızca biliyorum. ……………………. Sizi izliyorum………………………………..
Futbol oynamayı severim. ……………… Konuşmayı sevmem………………………..
Bilmiyorum. ……………………………… Aslan ormanda yaşar………………………..
Otur! ……………………………. Sudan ucuz!................................................
Saat kaç? …………………………… Uçağınız saat kaçta?..................................
Ya siz? ……………………………. Adam akıllı …………………………………..
Memnun oldum. ……………………….. Geçmiş olsun…………………………………
APPENDIX B
LEVEL I LEVEL II
(DAILY STRUCTURAL PATTERNS) (BEYOND DAILY PATTERNS)
PART A A ) Aşağıdaki kavramları ve fiil çekimlerini B ) Aşağıda parantez içinde verilen fiilleri
(THEORETI eşleştiriniz: karşılarında İngilizce isimleri verilen
CAL LEVEL) zaman kiplerinde çekimleyiniz:
1-Simple Past 229/ 300 6-Past Perfect 67 /300
17 143/300 19
You want to ask my name: …………..?
-Because it was very cheap. 50/300
18 ………..? 277/300 20
-I’m from Van. Your friend has got a headache. You
suggest him 69/300.
PART C I II
(SYNTHESIS A ) Aşağıdaki Türkçe ifadelerin İngilizce A ) Aşağıdaki Türkçe ifadelerin İngilizce
LEVEL) karşılıklarını yazınız: karşılıklarını yazınız:
Nasılsın? 234/300 Ne var Ali? 45/300
Adınız ne? 290/300 Çocuklarınız Nasıl? 179/300
ifade yazınız:
134/300
Bana arkadaşınızın adresini sorunuz
88/300
Dışarıdasınız ve hava çok soğuk. Ne
dersiniz?
173/300
Yerde bir kalem buldunuz ve kimin
olduğunu bilmiyorsunuz. Sahibini sormak
için: 74/300
Arkadaşınızın hangi renkleri sevdiğini
sormak için:
78/300