The Need for Maintaining CLT in Indonesia

Abstract

Recent decades have shown growing interest among outer circle language researchers and practitioners in the discussion of communicative language teaching (CLT), as both a leading teaching model and a frequently disputed dimension of language pedagogy. Repeatedly, the debate returns to the question of how to best implement CLT as a Western product in English as a foreign language (EFL) countries where contextual constraints such as low competence of teachers, student resistance, class size, and structure‐oriented books have become common issues in the local language classrooms. Drawing upon the major works on CLT implementation in EFL countries and Indonesia, this article provides a number of explanations for CLT as an advantageous approach for Indonesia's English language education and specifically argues that the challenges of CLT implementation in Indonesia can be solved and therefore should not lead teachers to abandon CLT in their EFL classrooms. Addressing the definition of CLT as a point of departure, the article reviews the literature on CLT implementation and presents an overview of CLT in Indonesia before finally suggesting possible solutions to some major CLT challenges in Indonesia's English language teaching.

Communicative language teaching as situated practice: Moving beyond dogma

“…In his eagerness to maintain CLT in Indonesia, Ariatna (2016) seems to have fallen victim to the CLT business propaganda, which, in my view, corroborates Kumaravadivelu's (2016) astute observation:…”

“…As for the fervent acceptance of the notion of CLT as a purportedly revolutionary approach to English language teaching in a foreign language setting, Swan (1990) has judiciously warned us that we need be wary of its doctrines which can lead us to serious intellectual confusion and misrepresentation of them along with their novel jargons. Nevertheless, both Ariatna (2016) and Fadilah (2018) summarily dismiss this caveat and go on instead to re-promote the charm and appeal of the CLT approach to Indonesian teachers and education policy makers.…”

“…Obviously, exhorting them to employ these materials, as Ariatna (2016) has suggested, is clearly not an option, because it can undermine strenuous efforts recent scholars have made to fortify issues on linguistic diversity prevalent in a multilingual country. Besides, such an exhortation does disservice to both multilingual teachers and students who, with their rich linguistic repertoires, are supposed to strategically appropriate English to suit their own communicative purposes.…”

“…This article concludes by suggesting that we move beyond CLT by looking at what is really at issue in English language teaching pedagogy and scholarship in the context of global linguistic interactions. Ariatna (2016) argues that the current English language teaching curricula in Indonesia, despite bearing various names, are "specifically aimed at developing learners' communicative competence" (p. 6), an argument in which Fadilah (2018) seems to concur and not to problematize.…”

English Grammar and Thai University Students: An Insurmountable Linguistic Battle?

“…It is believed that Focus on Form enables the L2 learner to see the interconnectedness of forms, functions and meanings of English grammar in a given situational use. Moreover, CLT being an approach as it is, does not preclude the role of grammar in acquiring/learning an L2 but rather grammar should be incorporated into the English class with some degree of flexibility relative to "… the contextual design and procedure of the classroom" (Ariatna, 2016). That said, it could be argued that grammar deserves a place in teaching and learning acts.…”