readers respond (2)

The need for Communicative

Language Teaching in China
Xiaoqing Liao

Stephen Bax’s (2003) argument for ‘teaching in accordance to speci>c

contexts’ is very similar to that of some other researchers (e.g. Holliday
1994) who have warned that a method cannot easily be exported from
one context to another. Larsen-Freeman (2000: 182) has called this
position ‘relativism’. The relativists argue that a method is not equally
suited to all contexts, and that di=erent methods suit di=erent teachers
and students in di=erent contexts. Based on this argument, someone
may argue that since China has its own special teaching context, Chinese
teachers should not adopt western CLT . However, this is not a view I
share. My position is what Larsen-Freeman (2000: 182) called
‘absolutism’—CLT is best for China.

The adoption of The State Education Development Commission (SEDC ) is the o;cial
CLT is the Chinese authority for setting educational policy. It is the representative of the
government’s highly centralized Chinese system of education. In 1992 SEDC
position introduced a teaching syllabus, and required that secondary school
teachers teach English ‘for communication’. At the same time the
People’s Education Press compiled a textbook series for secondary school
English learners. The aims of the textbooks were to help students develop
all-round ability in the four language skills, and an ability to use English
for communication. In 2001 SEDC required all secondary school
teachers to use task-based language teaching, and the relevant task-based
textbooks have since been introduced in some schools.
The Chinese government feels that the use of CLT will be advantageous
to China. By introducing CLT , teachers can keep up with developments
in English teaching methods outside China. If not, teachers will return to
the traditional way of teaching, where the process of language learning is
reduced to the mere mastery of grammar and vocabulary. In addition,
introducing CLT will assist learners to develop greater competence in the
use of English for communication. They will no longer be
‘communicatively incompetent’.
In many EFL countries in Asia, ministries of education have based
teaching objectives on the general goal of developing communicative
abilities. According to Kuo (1995), in Taiwan,

270 ELT Journal Volume 58/3 July 2004 © Oxford University Press

articles welcome
 [The teaching] objectives appear to call for the ability to communicate
in English. Therefore, adopting the communicative approach seems to
be desperately needed in order for these objectives to be met.
In Japan, the Ministry of Education proposed a curriculum innovation in
1987.
The proposal was for a shift away from long established grammar-
translation curriculum content and classroom practices, towards
teaching for communication and communicative competence. (Lamie
2001: xv)
There is one argument that is against the adoption of CLT in China. This
is that teachers in China should be assisted to develop a methodology
appropriate to their speci>c teaching contexts, and should not adopt an
imported methodology such as CLT .
However, the notion that teachers should be free to develop their own
‘appropriate methodologies’ is itself a culturally relative one. That is, it
belongs to an educational system where teachers are allowed a fair
degree of autonomy of choice. Such a system can be found in many
countries in Western Europe and North America. However, China does
not have such a system. In China the educational system is centrally
controlled, with the government specifying both the content and
methodology of teaching. In the case of English, the government has
required teachers to adopt CLT . Thus, arguably, in the context of China,
what is appropriate is for teachers to teach in accordance with
government requirements. The question as to what is or is not
‘appropriate’ can only be answered by reference to the speci>c context of
teaching, and in the case of China this is a context that is regulated top-
down by government. Thus, for China it can be argued that what is
‘appropriate’ is that teachers should adopt CLT.

Difficulties can be It is clear that di;culties caused by the situational constraints (e.g. large
overcome class size and grammar-based tests) will inhibit the adoption of CLT .
However, if teachers are aware of situational constraints, any di;culties
can be overcome.
In a case study (Liao 2003), a secondary school teacher, Ms Huang, used
CLT successfully. The questionnaire and the post-class interview showed
that she held favourable attitudes towards CLT , had a clear and correct
understanding of CLT , and the professional ability to overcome
situational constraints (e.g. large class size). In the observed class (with
50 students), Huang used the mandatory function-based textbook, and
focused on such functions as asking for time, asking for help, and
expressing thanks. Using a classroom coding sheet to analyse Huang’s
method, Liao determined that this class had communicative features
(e.g. teaching functional language, pair/group work, and communicative
activities).
Nowadays more and more Chinese teachers enter teachers’ universities
and colleges for professional training. In addition, constraints can also be
addressed by educational authorities. For example, the textbook contents
can be changed in order to include more communicative components.

Readers respond: CLT in China 271

articles welcome
 Large classes can also be reduced, and more teachers hired, if the
government puts more funds into these measures. Of course, this
process of change will inevitably be gradual.

How about Chinese In the recent history of English language teaching in China, most
teaching methods? teachers have used such western methods as the ‘grammar-translation
method’, the ‘direct method’, and the ‘audiolingual method’. Although
some ‘methods’ have been created by Chinese people, they are not really
methods at all. For example, the ‘Zhang Sizhong Method’ is a collection
of personal teaching experiences; it has no ‘approach’ and no ‘design’, as
de>ned by Richards and Rodgers (2001). Ironically, this ‘method’ is also
western, as one of its main teaching principles—that is, reading original
books—came from the grammar-translation method (see Liao 2003).

Context approach Bax suggests that teachers use what he called the ‘context approach’. The
procedure is that teachers >rst conduct a needs analysis and then identify
a suitable approach. Unfortunately, this is not practical in China.
Firstly, not every Chinese school teacher has enough knowledge and time to
conduct a needs analysis that is reliable and valid; nor does he/she know
how to choose an ‘appropriate’ method. Even if the teachers are able to do
these, they may be unwilling to do so because they have the well-established
CLT (which contains approach, method, and procedure) to hand, and
because they like to use CLT . Secondly, because the context approach is
new, teachers need to be re-trained to develop contextual awareness and
context analysis skills. China has about 500,000 secondary school EFL
teachers and 1.5 million primary school teachers. Nobody knows how
many years it will take to re-train so many teachers. Nobody knows
whether the government will support this kind of teacher education.
Thirdly, the context approach is an eclectic approach. It is only an
‘approach’ rather than a ‘method’ (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Because
it has no ‘design’ or ‘procedure’, it is very hard for teachers to follow.
Of course, the learning context (e.g. learner variables) is a key factor in
successful language learning, but CLT does not preclude the teacher’s
role as a needs analyst and a facilitator of learning.

Conclusion The adoption of CLT is the government’s position and application of CLT
will bring about a positive e=ect on English teaching and learning. The
western notion of ‘relativism’ does not work in China.

272 Xiaoqing Liao

articles welcome
References Language Teaching and their Classroom
Bax, S. 2003. ‘The end of CLT: a context approach Practices’. Unpublished PhD thesis. The
to language teaching’. ELT Journal 57/3: 278–87. University of Auckland.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Methods in Language Teaching (2nd edn.).
Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, H. 1995. ‘The (in)appropriateness and
(in)e=ectiveness of importing communicative The author
language teaching to Taiwan’. University of Xiaoqing Liao obtained his PhD in applied
Hawaii’s Working Papers in ESL 13/2: 21–47. linguistics from the University of Auckland, New
Lamie, J. 2001. Understanding Change: The Impact Zealand. The idea of this article comes from his
of In-Service Training on Teachers of English in Japan. PhD thesis: Chinese Secondary School EFL
Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Teachers’ Attitudes towards Communicative
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000. Techniques and Language Teaching and their Classroom Practice.
Principles in Language Teaching (2nd edn.). Oxford: He is now an assistant professor in Shih Chien
Oxford University Press. University, Taiwan.
Liao, X. 2003. ‘Chinese Secondary School Email: [email protected]
Teachers’ Attitudes towards Communicative

Readers respond: CLT in China 273

articles welcome