First of all, both of them are among “current communicative approaches”. That’s why, the classes those are instructed with CLT or TBLT are student centred and teachers are facilitator. That can be seen as the good side of these approaches. On the contrary to the traditional classes, students are actively involved in learning process and this motivates them more. Because they are motivated, they learn more, and it turns to be an advantage. As it is a pedagogical fact, it is also true for Turkish learners. Both CLT and TBLT emphasise communication, they give the opportunity to talk more, as opposed to traditional methods, which is a big advantage for language learning.
CLT emphasises that language should be as close as in real life, and TBLT shares this principle. It means both put emphasis on authenticity. This is important because today many researches prove that language should be taught in real life situations or with authentic materials. As the language is a living thing, it cannot be parted from real life. This is how it should be not only in Turkish context but everywhere in the world.
However, there are some limitations in Turkish context of learning for these two communicative approaches. First of all, Turkey is a country where English is not spoken officially. And, almost all of our English teachers are non-native. And this is one of the main constraints for TBLT and CLT classes. Although the teacher is a facilitator, it can be too demanding for non-native teachers to teach in such communicative classes.
And also, the size of classes in Turkey is not perfectly suitable for both CLT and TBLT. Both are communicative approaches, and language activities / tasks should be carried out in groups or in...