The Importance of Knowing Your Audience (in this case CONTEXT)

The readings this week offered an indirect comparison of three different approaches to language teaching: communicative language teaching, task-based instruction, and a context-based approach.  Each approach has its respective strengths and weaknesses that are analyzed in at least one of the articles.  Skehan’s article described the origins and foundations of task-based instruction.  This approach arose from the realization that input alone was not sufficient for language learning (Skehan 2).  In order to expand beyond input, proponents of this theory designed language learning based on accomplishing tasks, which are activities that require learners to use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to attain objectives (Skehan 3).  Although evaluation of task-based learning is authentic and guides students to become better language speakers, many questions still exists.  For example, how do task-based theorists account for different learners interpreting and therefore responding to tasks differently?  Task-based teaching should give students the flexibility to interpret tasks in ways that fit their learning needs.

The Hu article describes the communicative language approach, which emphasizes communicative competence rather than linguistic knowledge as the primary goal of language teaching and learning (Hu 95). Grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic are the components of communicative competence that are emphasized during the CLT method.  Similar to task-based instruction, CLT is considered to be a pedagogically strong approach because of its focus on learners and authentic communication.  This is much more practical than linguistic and grammatical knowledge.  However, the foundations of Chinese education are based on teachers giving students this traditional knowledge (Hu 97).  CLT is a major change from the traditional Chinese culture, which is why CLT is less prevalent in China than other areas of the world Hu argues. 

The inability of language teachers to effectively integrate the CLT method into Chinese culture would support the major points of Bax’s article.  Bax’s thesis is that CLT (and any method) should be of secondary importance in the language classroom.  Bax advocates that all language teachers should evaluate the context and their individual learners before deciding on a method or language approach (Bax 281).  In my opinion, Bax’s argument is logical because not all cultures are compatible with the CLT method.  Hu’s article demonstrates that because of social and cultural reasons, the CLT method is not the best method for language instruction in China. 

After reading all three articles, one of the central themes is the importance of a teacher analyzing and then knowing his or her sociocultural context before making instructional decisions.  In fact, how can teachers decide on an approach without knowing the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of their students?  Obviously, teachers need to be knowledgeable of various methods and approaches, but Bax has merit in his advocacy that context is most important to language learning.