The Context Approach
The Context Approach (TCA) Communicated
The very well known Communicative Approach is merely one of many approaches. Despite what its huge popularity may suggest; other methodologies are available! The lesser known, but no less interesting, Context Approach offers an alternative perspective. While more of an approach than a methodology, it effectively changes the direction of the discussion, moving from methods in favour of a focus on to the context itself. Subsequently, this notion has been developed by Bax (2003) and others, with interesting results as this fully referenced article will reveal. The Context Approach can best be understood in relation to CLT and this article will explore the link between the two (N.B. see my article Methodology: CLT Communicated).
Context and CLT
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been frequently criticised for failing to adequately address context: “CLT has always neglected one key aspect of language teaching – namely the context in which it takes place… the consequences of this are serious, to the extent that we need to demote CLT as our main paradigm” (Bax, 2003: 280). Contextual factors include “reference to culture, the learning context, student needs and wishes, and other contextual factors” (ibid: 279). This criticism, while directed at CLT, also applies to other methodologies. The role of context is particularly relevant given the multitude of different contexts of teaching TESOL/TEFL consists of.
The Context Approach (TCA)
The Context Approach (Bax, 2003) offers an alternative focus with context superseding methodologies (including the popular CLT). This approach takes context as its initial consideration, demoting teaching approach and methodology to second or even third place in terms of priority. Harmer (2003), however, takes issue with prioritising context and questions whether the learning context should be a starting point. In a post-method era, this solution could be appealing as teachers come to regard methodologies with a “certain ‘fatigue’ or impatience with fashions as they come and go” (Rajagopalan, 2007: 85) and look elsewhere for a focus. However, The Context Approach is only outlined in contrast to the huge body of literature commenting on CLT, so to consider this as a fully viable alternative might be a stretch.
There is a potential inherent danger in prioritising context over methodology, in that taken to its logical conclusion it could result in moral issues. The beliefs of teachers, for instance, may be at odds with those of the local environment “[teachers] who are fiercely opposed to corporal punishment in any form in education… what should such teachers do when confronted with learning contexts where it is both sanctioned and approved of?” (Harmer, 2003: 290). While this is an extreme example, it does serve to highlight the potentially problematic nature of prioritising context. However, this criticism surely falls far short of providing adequate reason to dismiss context altogether.
Contexts which complement CLT
Much TESOL/TEFL consists of short courses, these can be as short a one off lesson, a week of intensive lessons, two lessons a week over a three month period, or indeed any other combination you care to consider. These courses make it only possible to build a limited picture of learner needs, especially before the course starts. That said, in all probability teachers and students often expect (if not request) lessons with a communicative focus. In this case, the 6th principle of CLT the language exposure principle, which “should offer extensive exposure to large amounts of L2 input” (Arnold, et al., 2015: 10) applies in that short courses can offer such opportunity through using a wide range of role play and dialogue-based activities. This is also in line with the ‘controlled practice’ principle (ibid: 10). CLT is particularly effective here as courses have communication at their core and as a result, especially in my experience, learners noticeably improve their communicative competence. That is to say CLT can be effective within such a context.
Typically, students tend to lack exposure to authentic L2, especially in contexts such as remote mountain villages. Students are often used to English lessons featuring large amounts of L1 – perhaps resulting from a lack of local teacher confidence or English specialism. Thus, their immediate needs fall in line with CLT principle 7 the focused interaction principle, which “offer[s] learners ample opportunities to participate in genuine L2 interaction” (Arnold, et al., 2015: 10). CLT lessons can allow for genuine L2 interactions, both student to teacher, and student to student. Indeed, L2 is constantly required for effective communication with the teacher (not speaking their L1). In these types of contexts CLT can also prove effective.
Contexts which challenge CLT
The issue with such courses is that they are mostly selected ‘off the shelf’ and these identical courses are delivered in a range of places as diverse as Azerbaijan and Japan. There is an “unspoken assumption that CLT is not only ‘modern’, but it is in fact the only way to learn a language” (Bax, 2003: 279) as it does not differentiate for contrasting contexts. Clearly learners in these cultures have different needs in terms of learning styles, local expectations as well as socio-political and religious contexts (Bax, 2003). For example: a discussion on democracy could be problematic in countries such as China. Yet all countries receive the same courses with little or no consideration for context. Given this investigation, and the nature of CLT courses, one should be wary of delivering courses in places such as the Far East – and ought to be sure to account for their context.
It is not only courses, but lesson plans and materials that are used in a range of locations regardless of contexts. Initially, teachers may simply accept this fact without question. If anything, it could be thought of as a positive in terms of reducing planning time, as teachers could simply use the same materials with any learners in any place. The issue with this approach is that “cultural assumptions are sometimes made... [which] conflict with local perceptions” (Harmer, 2003) as teachers, including myself, have discovered - consider attempting to teach a lesson on body image in an Islamic school in a country like Austria. On reflection, the teacher may therefore come to realise that ‘one size fits all’ materials are not applicable due to cultural differences from school to school, let alone country to country.
Not every learner is pleased to be confronted with CLT. In my experience, some students do not welcome CLT as they equate learning primarily with grammar or writing, as this is simply what they are used to. For example: when I was teaching in a German school, holding a one-week intensive course for the first time, students and teachers had very different expectations of what this would entail. Students neither expected nor welcomed the course’s communicative focus. Here the mistake was to “ignore people’s own views of who they are and what they want” (Bax, 2003: 280) and I was forced to change the course and adapt the lessons to their preferences. In this way, the CLT fails to account for individual differences in terms of learning styles, perceptions, and preferences.
Conclusion
Essentially, any ‘one size fits all’ approach is bound to face contextual issues. This then squarely places the burden of successful course delivery on the teacher who must be flexible, and expect the unexpected. I suggest that teachers endeavour to place context at the core of their preparations, on equal footing as opposed to being secondary to methodology, even if they fall short of fully converting to Bax’s (2003) Context Approach. I find in reality that delivering a good lesson, is not simply a matter of methodology, but rather adaptable delivery and reflection are key. Therefore, lesson plans allied to any methodology will only provide part of the picture as “the lesson is a live performance and as it gets going and as the unpredictable starts to occur they [teachers] depart from the plan to attend to what needs doing” (Almond, 2019: 9-10) and so the teacher must adapt to the ever-changing classroom dynamic. Obedience to CLT or any other methodology can only take you so far.
References
Arnold, J., Pugliese, C. & Dörnyei, Z., 2015. The Principled Communicative Approach: Seven Criteria for Success. 1st ed. Innsbruck: Helbling Languages.
Bax, S., 2003. The End of CLT: a Context Approach to Language Teaching. ELT Journal, Volume 57/3, pp. 278-287.
Harmer, J., 2003. Popular Culture, Methods, and Context. ELT Journal, Volume 57/3, pp. 288-294.
Rajagopalan, K., 2007. From Madness in Method to Method in Madness. ELT Journal, Volume 62/1, pp. 84-85.
