Once in a while after a long hiatus, someone comes along to challenge the efficacy of a theory applied in a field related to man’s progress. By challenging the proponents and the adherents of that theory, the common people are able to observe and judge clearly to what extent it has benefitted or damaged their young.
“Many see but few observe.” The majority of people observe the effectiveness of a course of action only when their comfortable lives are jolted vigorously. Those jolts send a shiver down their spines. Eventually, they would want to put their ventures on the proper path of unfoldment for the benefit of everyone in society. When that happens, the proponents and the adherents of the abovementioned theory will be naturally forced to comply with the wishes of the majority who want to put things right.
When the proponents and the adherents of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach begin to emphasise on the rigorous and intensive study of grammar, writing, vocabulary, reading and a host of other items (which are compulsory in the Structural Approach to teach and learn English) other than the sole significance of communicative tasks, that is something out of the ordinary. At one time, they were vehemently and aggressively promoting on how effective communicative tasks really are in the teaching and learning of English. At one time, they were even saying that the learning of grammar is not fashionable. What has English grammar got to do with fashion?
I am aghast. I am petrified. I am mummified. Some CLT Approach practitioners in Malaysia seem to be singing a different tune now. Why now?
Grammar? Writing? Vocabulary? Reading? And that too on an intensive basis?
Why don’t some of these CLT Approach practitioners in Malaysia just admit that they MESSED UP BIG TIME.
LEARNING ENGLISH USING THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH 