Communicative Language Teaching and Learner Centered Curricula.

3.3 Communicative Language Teaching and Learner Centered Curricula.

The develop of learner -  centered  language teaching came with the advent of communicative language teaching. In fact, this is more a cluster of approaches than a single methodology , with grew out of the dissatisfaction with structuralism and the situational methods of the 1960s. However, a basic principle underlying all communicative approaches is that learners must learn not only to make grammatically correct , propositional statements about the experiential world , but must also develop the ability to use language to get things done.

While the learners have to be able to construct grammatically correct structures ( or reasonable approximations of target language structures ) , they also have to do much more. In working out what this ‘ much more ‘ entails, linguists and sociolinguists began to explore the concept of the speech situation.

In so doing they were able to articulate some of the ways in which language is likely be influenced by situational variables.  Among the more important of these variables are the situation itself, the topic of conversation, the conversational purpose, and, probably the most important of all, the relationship between interlocutors in an interaction. All of these interact in complex ways in communicative interaction. 

There is a strong and a weak version of communicative language teaching .

Ø  The weak version of communicative language according to Howatt  :

·         Stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically , attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program of language teaching.

Ø  The weak version of communicative language according to Littlewood :

·         The structural view of language has not been in any way superseded by the functional view. However, it is not sufficient on its own to account for how language is used as a means of communication. Let us take as an example a straight forward sentence such us ‘ Why don’t you close the door ?’.

From a structural view point, it is unambiguously an interrogative. Different grammars may describe it in different ways, but none could argue that its grammatical form is that of declarative or imperative . From a functional viewpoint, however, it is ambiguous. In different circumstance it may appear to function as a question ­– for example, the speaker may genuinely others , it may function as a command.

Ø  The strong version of communicative language according to Howatt :

·         Class time should be spent not on language drills or controlled practice leading towards communicative language use, but in activities which require learners to do in class what they will have to do outside.

                    Characteristics  of Traditional and Communicative Approaches.

Traditional approaches	Communicative approaches
1.      Focus in learning : v  Focus is on the language as a structured system of grammatical patterns.	v  Focus in on communication.
2.      How language item are selected : v  This is done on linguistic criteria alone.	v  This is done the basis of what language items the learner needs to know in order to get thing done.
3.      How language items are sequenced: v  This is determined on linguistic grounds.	v This is determined on other grounds, with the emphasis on content, meaning and interest.
4.      Degree of coverage : v  The aim is to cover the ‘whole picture’ of language structure by systematic linear progression.	v    The aim is to cover, in any particular phase, only what the learner needs and sees important.
5.      View of language: v  A language is seen as a unified entity with fixed grammatical patterns and a core of basic words.	v   The variety of language is accepted, and seen as determined by the character of particular communicative contexts.
6.      Type of language used : v  Tends to formal and bookish.	v   Genuine everyday language is emphasized.
7.      What is regarded as a criterion of success : v  Aim is to have students produce formally correct sentences.	v    Aim is to have students communicative effectively and in a manner appropriate to the context they are working in.

8.      Which language skills are emphasized  : v  Reading and writing	v  Spoken interactions are regarded as at least as important as reading and writing.
9.      Teacher/ Student roles : v  Tends to be teacher – centered.	v  .Is student – centered.
10.  Attitude to errors : v  Incorrect utterance are seen as deviations from the norms of standard grammar.	v  Partially correct and incomplete utterances are seen as such rather than just ‘ wrong’.
11.  Similarity / dissimilarity to natural language learning: v  Reverses the natural language learning process by concentrating on the form of utterances rather than on the content.	v  Resembles the natural language learning process in that the content of the utterance is emphasized rather than the form.

3.4 Communicative Language Teaching – The Teacher’s Perspective.

The study undertaken by Swaffar, Arens , and Morgan was designed to test the salience for foreign language teachers of the distinction between rationalist and empiricist approaches to language learning. Results indicated that the methodological debate which had assumed great prominence during the 1960s and 1970s and which resulted in a number of large- scale though inconclusive studies may have been based on false assumption about the salience of different methodological practice for classroom teachers.

·         Swaffar et  al conclude that:

Methodological labels assigned to teaching activities are, in themselves, not informative, because they refer to a pool of classroom practices which are universally used.

·         Quinn said that a survey instrument was constructed which consisted of statements typifying either ‘ traditional’ or ‘ communicative’ practices. There were also two buffer questions. Teachers were asked to rate each statement according to a five point scale. ( this was adapted from the Swaffar et al. The  instrument is reproduced below:

v  Subjects for the study were 60 full time and part time teachers with the Australian Adult Migrant Education Program.

v  We shall be looking at several studies of AMEP teachers in this work, it might be as well to make a short digression to describe the context in which the teachers work.

The AMEP is one of the largest single- language program in the world. The AMEP receives its funding and policy direction from the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affair. Learning arrangements and course types vary greatly , from full time intensive to part time courses. Program delivery occurs through :

v  Face to face teaching

v  Self access and individualized learning centers

v  A distance education program

v  A home tutor scheme.

According to the result of the survey about Traditional and Communicative Activities, demonstrate quite clearly that, for the group of teachers surveyed , the concept of ‘ communicative  language teaching’ is salient, with the three non communicative and one of the buffer statements being accorded ‘ trivial incidental use’.

In developing a learner centered philosophy for the AMEP Ingram stated that :

Rather than being an arbitrary academic exercise , the course followed should be responsive to the learner’s needs emanating from his stage of language development and his personal interests and aspirations. Thence, it must capitalize on the learner’s natural and acquired learning strategies and ensure, through community involvement , that any bridge between the learner and the Australian community is bridged and any sense of undesirable alienation is reduced. More recently Brindley ( 1984) has built on the work of Ingram and others. The strength of Brindley’s work is that brings together theory and practice.