COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

      Most L2 educators agree that CLT is undergoing a transformation – one that include increased recognition of and attention to language form within exclusively or primarily meaning-oriented CLT approaches to second language(L2) instruction.

SLA(Second Language Acquisition) Research and CLT:

Language teaching has often turned to linguistics for guidance on how to teach languages. (Linguistics is the most influential discipline in history of language teaching). Furthermore, given that the central concern of linguistics for the past 50 years has been on the structures of language, it is not surprising that the emphasis in L2 teaching has been on the mastery of the structures of language. The Audiolingual method influenced by the structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology focused on inductive learning of grammar via repetition, practice and memorization. The cognitive code method influenced by cognitive psychology and transformational grammar focused on deductive learning principles via rule learning and hypothesis testing. Both emphasized language structure to the virtual exclusion of other features of language.

In the 1970’s, other more comprehensive conceptualizations of language began to lay the theoretical groundwork for CLT:

Hymes ’Theory of Communicative Competence’(1971) introduced his theory to broaden current conceptualizations of language specifically those proposed by Chomsky(1957) which dealt strictly with linguistic competence.

Hymes’ work raised important questions about an exclusive focus on the accurate use of grammatical forms in L2 teaching when it was evident that knowledge of a language(both first and second) includes knowing how to use forms appropriately in different contexts.

Several models came up with the underlying assumption that ‘language proficiency’ is not a unitary concept but consists of several components including linguistic competence(eg. Grammar, phonology, lexis), pragmatic competence (eg. Cohesion and coherence), sociolinguistics(formal\informal registers) and strategic competence(compensatory strategies).

The recommendations of L2 pedagogy were that all components should be included in L2 curricula and instruction. The development of the Notional-functional syllabus(Wilkins,1976) -  a shift from an exclusive focus on language forms(verbs, pronouns, adjectives) to a specification of its meanings and functions(greetings, describing, inviting) – different way of organizing language: Structure -> Communicative functions.

But Notional-functional syllabus is an approach to syllabus design, not a method of instruction. The challenge of specifying guidelines and procedures for communicative methodology still remains.

In the 1980’s two areas of research in the field of SLA began to play central roles in shaping our understanding of CLT: the comprehensible input hypothesis(Krashen, 1984) and the interactionist hypothesis(Long). Both emphasize the central role of meaningful communication in language acquisition.

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis:

Based on the observation that the first and second language learners of English go through similar sequences and stages of development in their acquisition of certain morphological and grammatical features. Krashen(1982) concluded that the process of L2 acquisition was similar to L1 acquisition.

Despite this underlying similarity, Krashen also pointed to the fact that while most L2 learners(particularly class room learners) do not succeed in mastering their L2, virtually all L1 learners are successful. He suggested the reason for this discrepancy is differences in learning conditions. Traditionally, L2 learners have been taught rules of grammar and receive correction when they make grammatical mistakes while L1 learners receive neither grammatical instruction nor explicit correction when they make errors.

This led Krashen to hypothesize that if the conditions for L2 acquisition were more similar to those of L1 acquisition, L2 development would be more successful. He proposed that the way to accomplish this is to expose learners to meaningful and motivating input that is just slightly beyond their current level of linguistic competence but sufficiently comprehensible for the learners to understand. In this way, L2 learners would be able to integrate the input into their developing interlanguage systems and successfully acquire their L2 in much the same way as children acquire their L1. Teachers found his views intuitively appealing though he failed to give hypothesis to be empirically tested.

Interaction Hypothesis:

While Krashen’s focus was on the linguistic input to which learners are exposed, another group of SLA researchers interested in how the input becomes comprehensible to the learner.

Long(1983) hypothesized that conversational modifications(eg. Clarification, request, confirmation checks) that learners make when they ‘negotiate meaning’ create comprehensible input that this in turn promotes acquisition.

Evelyn Hatch claims that L2 learners do not need to be taught the grammatical forms of language so that they can ‘do conversations’. Rather L2 learners, like L1 learners, need to participate in conversational interactions, and it is through this process that they learn grammar. Many L2 teachers came to believe that creating opportunities for their students to engage in conversational interaction in the classroom would be sufficient for successful and complete SLA.

Both emphasized meaning-based instruction without attention to language form\corrective feedbacks.

FEATURES OF CLT APPROACH:

I.                   CLT MEANS AN EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON MEANING:

CLT was not conceptualized as an approach that was intended to exclude form but rather one that was intended to include ‘communication’.

Applied Linguists such as Prabhu(1987) argues that grammar is too complex to be taught, and SLA researchers like Krashen (1982) claimed that grammar can only be acquired unconsciously through exposure to the target language.

Results of Classroom Research on L2 learning and teaching:  Observational Research in CLT classrooms particularly those in which no(or very little) attention is given to language form, has shown that students often fail to reach high levels of development and accuracy in many aspects of language.

Experimental Research to address this problem has incorporated some attention to language form(explicitly\implicitly) within exclusively (primarily) meaning-focused CLT program.

The results have indicated that the inclusion of form-focused instruction leads to improvement in student’s knowledge and their ability to use that knowledge.

II.               CLT MEANS NO EXPLICIT FEEDBACK ON LEARNER ERROR:

More explicit forms of corrective feedbacks may be required in CLT classes where the learner’s attention is primarily focused on meaning and content.

Some researchers have argued for the total rejection of any type of corrective feedbacks:  Errors are believed to be evidence that the learner is testing hypotheses about the target language and in the process, progress is being made. The assumption is that with sufficient time and opportunities to hear and practice the target language, the learners’ errors will eventually be replaced with target-like forms.

Implicit types of feedbacks in the form of feedbacks:   The type of corrective feedback that is widely accepted and encouraged in CLT is implicit and indirect and does not interfere with communication. A particular type of feedback referred to as a ‘recast’ frequents in CLT classrooms.

A recast is the teacher’s formulation of a learner’s incorrect utterance while maintaining a focus on meaning. For example, L2 learner says: “His foots are cold”, and the teacher responds by saying, “yes, his feet are cold- he stayed outside too long!”

The recast serves as corrective feedback by providing the learner with the correct form while at the same time confirming the content of the learner’s utterance and continuing with the conversation.

Some researchers have argued that recasts are an effective way of providing learners with an opportunity to see how their interlanguage differs from the target language – that the recast enables L2 learners to notice the difference between what they say and how this compares with what native speakers say.

However, descriptive studies of the different types of feedback provided in communicative classrooms have shown that L2 learners do not recognize recasts as feedback on form. Instead, they perceive it as feedback on the content of their utterances.

Recent experimental classroom studies have revealed that more explicit type of feedback can lead to higher levels of accuracy and development than implicit types of feedback in the form of recast.

In addition, recast has been observed to be more effective when they are accompanied by a clear signal to the learner that an error has been made.

III CLT MEANS LISTENING AND SPEAKING PRACTISE:

Many theorists agreed that one of the basic tenets of CLT was that linguistic skills and communicative abilities should not be treated in isolation from each other. In his discussion of the importance of attention to discourse in CLT, Widdowson(1978) claimed: “what the learners need to know how to do is to compose in the act of writing, comprehend in the act of reading, and to learn techniques of reading and writing and techniques of writing by reading”.

IV CLT MEANS AVOIDANCE OF L1 (CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS) THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF L1 IN L2 CLASSROOM IS OBVIOUS:

Learners need as much exposure to the Target Language(TL) as they can get in order to become successful learner of that language. This is supported by considerable evidence that both the quantity and quality of Target Language input are crucial factors in L2 learning. But Cook argues “no one will quarrel with providing models of real language use for the students…(this is)not necessarily incompatible with L1 use in the classroom.”

Significant transfer of conceptual knowledge and skills across languages(knowledge of two languages is interwoven in the mind). Cummins refers to the overlap of the basic components of linguistic(and cognitive) information from two languages as ‘common underlying proficiency’. Despite the evidence that the L1 can have an important and positive role to play in L2 learning, one must be careful about exactly how much L1 use is productive.

V ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FORM-FOCUSSED INSTRUCTION WITHIN CLT:

Within cognitive psychology, the concept of ‘transfer appropriate learning’ predicts that we remember something best when we try to recall it in the context in which originally understood it. Thus, it may be that language features are more readily available in spontaneous communicative interaction if they have been acquired in such a context.

The classroom research supports the advantage of a balance of form and meaning in L2 classrooms, but will take time to discover more precisely what that balance is.

Communicative Language Teaching was developed in the 1960’s from the research and writings of applied linguists in both Europe and North America who emphasized that language equaled communication.

In Europe, this approach led initially to the institution of the notional-functional approach. In CLT, the goal of language teaching should not be translating and learning a set of rules but should be based on the goal of communicative competence.

Communicative competence is most frequently defined as the ability to create meaning when interacting with others in the target language. Thus, the focus in CLT is on communication in authentic situations. Since the 1970’s, this approach has been expanded on and has come to play a central role in most contemporaneous language teaching situations.

Strategy:

CLT is such a broad orientation, it is difficult to give specific strategies. However, the broad guidelines are as follows:

(i)                Determine the communicative goals of the students

(ii)             Create situation and activities in which students produce authentic, meaningful, and contextualized communication

(iii)           Focus on accuracy only in as much as errors that would impede communications are corrected.

Because the original impetus for this orientation was in reaction to grammar-based and audiolingual approaches, the strength of CLT is that it creates a learning environment that closely replicates how students will use language in real-life situations. That is, students participate in real, authentic, and interactive language use in the classroom.

A caveat to this approach is that some practitioners may see communication as only oral\aural skills and may not put enough emphasis on the reading and writing skills that some students may need.

Another caveat is that in an attempt to produce communicative skills quickly, accuracy may be overlooked or given little attention. Whether students will obtain that accuracy in time on their own continues to be an area of discussion in ESL field.

Applications and Examples:

Authentic role-plays:   Students are introduced to a number of conversations that might occur when one is visiting international student. Examples might include being invited to someone’s house, making small party, being offered refreshments, and being asked to go out.

Goal to attain communicative competence:  mastery of different items of grammar and practice through controlled activities such as memorization of dialogues and drills. Kinds of classroom activities include pair work activities, role plays, group work activities and project work.

Role of Teacher and learner roles:   Teachers now had to assume the role of facilitator and monitor rather than being a model for correct speech and writing and one with the primary responsibility of making students produce plenty of error free sentences, the teacher had to develop a different view of learner’s errors and his \her role in facilitating language learning.

Learners now had to participate in classroom activities that were based on a co-operative rather than individualistic approach to learning. Students had to become comfortable with listening to their peers in group work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model. They were expected to take on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning.

CLT PASSED THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PHASES:

I)                   In first phase, a primary concern was the need to develop a syllabus and teaching approach that was compatible with early concept of communicative competence. This led to proposal for the organization of syllabuses in terms of functions and notions rather than grammatical structures.

II)                Later the focus shifted to procedure for identifying learner’s communicative needs and this resulted in proposals to make needs analyst an essential component of communicative methodology.  Many learners needed English in order to use it in specific occupational or educational settings. For them it would be more efficient to teach them the specific kinds of language and communicative skills needed for particular roles, rather than just concentrate on more and more general English. This led to needs analysis to determine the kinds of communication learner would need to mask if they were in specific setting.

III)              Methodologists focused on the kinds of classroom activities that could be used to implement a communicative approach, such as group work, task work, and information gap activity. Some focus centrally on the input to the learning process. Thus content-based teaching stresses that the content or subject matter of teaching drives the whole language learning process. Some focus more directly on instructional process. Task-based instruction – specially designed instructional tasks as the basis of learning. Competency-based instruction and text-based teaching focus on the outcomes of learning and use outcomes or products as the starting point in planning teaching. Integrated-skills approach to the teaching of skills is stressed. Since in real life the skills often occur together, they should also be linked in teaching.