Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education
Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education
eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
This authoritative collection of writings highlights some of the best work being done today in the United States and abroad to make communicative competence an attainable goal. The contributors examine what has come to be known as communicative language teaching, or CLT, from the perspectives of teachers and teacher educators.
The book documents current reform initiatives in Japan, the United States, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and continental Europe to provide a global perspective on language teaching for communicative competence. Four major themes recur throughout the volume: the multifaceted nature of language teaching; the highly contextualized nature of CLT; the futility of defining a “native speaker” in the postcolonial, postmodern world; and the overwhelming influence of high-stakes tests on language teaching. The book is a useful and valuable tool for language teachers, teacher educators, and policymakers.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780300129076 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Yale University Press |
| Publication date: | 10/01/2008 |
| Series: | Yale Language Series |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 4 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching
CONTEXTS AND CONCERNS IN TEACHER EDUCATIONYale University Press
Copyright © 2002 Yale UniversityAll right reserved.
ISBN: 0-300-09156-7
Chapter One
Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom PracticeSANDRA J. SAVIGNON
Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and goals in classroom learning. The central theoretical concept in communicative language teaching is "communicative competence," a term introduced into discussions of language use and second or foreign language learning in the early 1970s (Habermas 1970; Hymes 1971; Jakobovits 1970; Savignon 1971). Competence is defined in terms of the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning and looks to both psycholinguistic and sociocultural perspectives in second language acquisition (SLA) research to account for its development (Savignon 1972, 1997). Identification of learners' communicative needs provides a basis for curriculum design (Van Ek 1975).
Understanding of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments in Europe and North America. In Europe, the language needs of a rapidly increasing group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in description of language behavior, led the Council of Europe to develop a syllabus for learners based on notional-functional concepts of language use. The syllabus was derived from neo-Firthian systemic or functional linguistics, in which language is viewed as "meaning potential," and the "context of situation" (Firth 1937; Halliday 1978) is viewed as central to understanding language systems and how they work. The syllabus described a threshold level of language ability for each of the major languages of Europe in view of what learners should be able to do with the language (Van Ek 1975). Language functions based on an assessment of the communicative needs of learners specified the end result, or goal, of an instructional program. The term communicative attached itself to programs that used a notional-functional syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes (LSP) movement was launched.
Concurrent development in Europe focused on the process of communicative classroom language learning. In Germany, for example, against a backdrop of Social Democratic concerns for individual empowerment, articulated in the writings of the philosopher Jurgen Habermas (1970), language teaching methodologists took the lead in developing classroom materials that encouraged learner choice (Candlin 1978). Their systematic collection of exercise types for communicatively oriented English language teaching was used in teacher in-service courses and workshops to guide curriculum change. Exercises were designed to exploit the variety of social meanings contained within particular grammatical structures. A system of "chains" encouraged teachers and learners to define their own learning path through principled selection of relevant exercises (Piepho 1974; Piepho and Bredella 1976). Similar exploratory projects were initiated in the 1970s by Candlin at the University of Lancaster, England, and by Holec (1979) and his colleagues at the University of Nancy, France. Supplementary teacher resources promoting classroom CLT became increasingly popular in the 1970s (for example, Maley and Duff 1978), and there was renewed interest in building learners' vocabulary.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Hymes (1971) had reacted to Chomsky's characterization of the linguistic competence of the ideal native speaker and, retaining Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance, proposed the term "communicative competence" to represent the ability to use language in a social context, to observe sociolinguistic norms of appropriateness. Hymes's concern with speech communities and the integration of language, communication, and culture was not unlike that of Firth and Halliday in the British linguistic tradition (see Halliday 1978). Hymes's "communicative competence" can be seen as the equivalent of Halliday's "meaning potential." Similarly, Hymes's focus was not language learning but language as social behavior. In subsequent interpretations of the significance of Hymes's views for learners, methodologists working in the United States tended to focus on the cultural norms of native speakers and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of duplicating them in a classroom of non-natives. In light of this difficulty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an instructional goal was called into question (Paulston 1974).
At the same time, in an empirical research project at the University of Illinois, Savignon (1971) used the term "communicative competence" to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge. At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of adult classroom acquisition of French looked at the effect of practice in the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encouraging learners to ask for information, to seek clarification, to use circumlocution and whatever other linguistic and nonlinguistic resources they could muster to negotiate meaning, to stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks, to venture beyond memorized patterns. The communication strategies identified in this study became the basis for subsequent identification by Canale and Swain (1980) of strategic competence as one of the components in their well-known framework for communicative competence, along with grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. (The classroom model of communicative competence proposed by Savignon [1983] includes the three components identified by Canale and Swain plus a fourth component, discourse competence, added by Canale [1983]. We shall look more closely at this framework below.) In the Savignon research, test results at the end of the eighteen-week instructional period provided convincing evidence that learners who had practiced communication in lieu of pattern drills in a laboratory performed with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of grammatical structure. Nevertheless, their communicative competence, as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort, and amount of communication in unrehearsed communicative tasks, significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learners' reactions to the test formats lent further support to the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning as opposed to formal features.
A collection of role-playing exercises, games, and other communicative classroom activities was developed subsequently for inclusion in the adaptation of the French CREDIF materials, Voix et Visages de la France (CREDIF, or the Centre de Recherche et d'Etude pour la Divusion du Francais, is a university-based institution that contributed to the dissemination of French outside France). The accompanying guide (Savignon 1974) described their purpose as that of involving learners in the experience of communication. Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with the French equivalent of expressions like "What's the word for ...?" "Please repeat," and "I don't understand," expressions that would help them participate in the negotiation of meaning. Not unlike the efforts of Candlin and his colleagues working in a European English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the focus was on classroom process and learner autonomy. The use of games, role playing, and activities in pairs and other small groups has gained acceptance and is now widely recommended for inclusion in language-teaching programs (see Chapter 5).
Communicative language teaching derives from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and implementation of programs and methodologies that promote the development of functional language ability through learners' participation in communicative events. Central to CLT is the understanding of language learning as both an educational and a political issue. Language teaching is inextricably linked with language policy. Viewed from a multicultural intranational as well as international perspective, diverse sociopolitical contexts mandate not only a diverse set of language-learning goals but a diverse set of teaching strategies. Program design and implementation depend on negotiation between policy makers, linguists, researchers, and teachers (see Chapter 6). Evaluation of program success requires a similar collaborative effort. The selection of methods and materials appropriate to both the goals and the context of teaching begins with an analysis of learners' needs and styles of learning, socially defined.
Focus on the Learner
By definition, CLT puts the focus on the learner. Learners' communicative needs provide a framework for elaborating program goals with regard to functional competence. Functional goals imply global, qualitative evaluation of learner achievement as opposed to quantitative assessment of discrete linguistic features. Controversy over appropriate language testing persists, and many a curricular innovation has been undone by failure to make corresponding changes in evaluation. Current efforts at educational reform favor essay writing, in-class presentations, and other more holistic assessments of learner competence. Some programs have initiated portfolio assessment, the collection and evaluation of learners' poems, reports, stories, videotapes, and similar projects in an effort to represent and encourage learner achievement. Assessment initiatives of this kind do not go unopposed. They face demands for accountability from school boards, parents, and governmental funding agencies. Measurement of learning outcomes remains a central focus in meeting educational challenges worldwide. (See Chapters 3, 5, and 7.)
Depending upon their own preparation and experience, teachers diver in their reactions to CLT. Some feel understandable frustration at the seeming ambiguity in discussions of communicative ability. Negotiation of meaning may be a lofty goal, but this view of language behavior lacks precision and does not provide a universal scale for assessment of individual learners. Ability is viewed, rather, as variable and highly dependent on context and purpose as well as on the roles and attitudes of all involved. Other teachers welcome the opportunity to select or develop their own materials, providing learners with a range of communicative tasks. They are comfortable relying on more global, integrative judgments of learning progress.
An additional source of frustration for some teachers is research findings on the acquisition of a second language that show the route, if not the rate, of language acquisition to be largely unaffected by classroom instruction. (See, for example, Ellis 1985, 1997.) First language (L1) cross-linguistic studies of developmental universals initiated in the 1970s were soon followed by second language (L2) studies. Acquisition, assessed on the basis of unrehearsed oral communication, seemed to follow a similar morphosyntactical sequence regardless of learners' age or the learning context. Although the findings supported teachers' informal observations, namely that textbook presentation and drill do not ensure learners' use of the same structures in their own spontaneous expression, the findings were nonetheless disconcerting. They contradicted both the grammar-translation method and audiolingual precepts that placed the burden of acquisition on the teacher's explanation of grammar and the learner's controlled practice of syntactical and phonological patterns with a goal of near native "accuracy." The findings were further at odds with textbooks that promise "mastery" of "basic" French, English, Spanish, and so forth. Teachers' rejection of research findings, renewed insistence on tests of discrete grammatical structures, and even exclusive reliance in the classroom on the learners' native or first language, where possible, to be sure students "get the grammar," have in some cases been reactions to the frustration of teaching for communication.
Moreover, with its emphasis on sentence-level grammatical features, the dominant second language acquisition (SLA) research paradigm itself has obscured pragmatic and sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition. (See, for example, Firth and Wagner 1998.) Renewed interest in sociocultural theories of second language acquisition over promise for expanding the research paradigm and bringing much needed balance (Lantolf 2000). In her discussion of the contexts of competence, Berns (1990) stresses that the definition of appropriate communicative competence for learners requires an understanding of the sociocultural contexts of language use (see Chapter 7). In addition, the selection of a methodology suited to the attainment of communicative competence requires an understanding of sociocultural differences in styles of learning. Curricular innovation is best advanced by the development of local materials, which, in turn, rests on the involvement of classroom teachers. (See Chapters 3 and 6 and Markee 1997.) Berns (1990, 104) provides a useful summary of eight principles of CLT:
1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. That is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing.
2. Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in second language learners and users, as it is with first language users.
3. A learner's competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms.
4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for learning and teaching.
5. Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers' communicative competence, in both their first and subsequent languages.
6. No single methodology or fixed set of techniques is prescribed.
7. Language use is recognized as serving ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions and is related to the development of learners' competence in each.
8. It is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language-that is, that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning.
It has increasingly been recognized that learners' expectations and attitudes play a role in advancing or impeding curricular change.
Continues...
Excerpted from Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching Copyright © 2002 by Yale University. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.