Module 9 Formulating specific views on the communicative approach

Formulating specific views on the communicative approach

The communicative approach has many advantages when it is applied. I completely agree with the statement “students learn languages best when their minds are engaged in completing a task and focused on creating meaning, not structure or form”. Isolated structures, dialogues, or exercises do not make sense, even when these activities may be authentic students have a tendency to forget those pieces of knowledge, but when they have specific work or projects that imply following a process to generate new ideas, they truly come across the objectives for long time. Therefore it is necessary to keep a combination of systematic actions and creation of meaning to produce tangible and everlasting communicative results.
In my experience, I have discovered students learn a language best when they really need to use it, that’s why completing concrete tasks provide them real needs and pragmatic instructors give the tools to accomplish them, of course they should be wise to choose realistic and convincing activities that engage active and permanent work.
One of the disadvantages appears in this sense, the “sequence” or “order” of the lesson, teachers prefer to start making introductions or presenting topics and structures, when the sequence is broken as the task-based instruction suggests, unexpected situations might arise and the whole planning can be affected (some teachers do not like their prepared and “controlled” lessons do not work). I think when students are thrown into the “deep end of the pool” without appropriate preparation to complete the tasks, they may feel they are not doing well and some give up, this a very careful method, teachers should know how to guide their learners and give enough individual and group support, (as teachers, we all know when students feel comfortable and progressing they participate and contribute no matter their levels of ability).
I don´t agree with people who argue that task-based instruction sacrifices the necessary focus on language structure and form because that component does not disappear, the formal presentation is what is modified, but as long as teachers support their learners’ need of grammar, (could be individually or after they have finished their tasks) the language structure explanation can take place to solve doubts, and clarify misunderstandings; I think teachers should apply enough tasks to make sure the consolidation of students’ learning occurred.
Also, I consider relevant the balance of form-focused and meaning-focused activities, I also have heard “as long as people are communicating in the class, things are fine”, In my opinion teachers sometimes find difficult to monitor every student’s skills development during communicative activities, teachers may have clear the language structures that are needed to carry out the task but time is usually short to manage it. I believe the communicative approach is effective as long as the class components are balanced. Communication activities is not just a matter of fluency, they should include accuracy and grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary no matter the order in the lesson.
In addition, comfort sometimes has a negative effect on classroom management of a communicative classroom. The traditional organization changes, and it implies extra work, teachers should be versatile and adaptable to deal with several dynamics.

I consider teachers should plan classes bearing in mind the strict reality, pragmatic methodology, there is no better one, the communicative approach actually takes into account the steps to find the route of the authenticity, effectiveness, involvement and function.