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been in any way superseded by the functional view.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.
