|
Reference: Timothy Brockley, The Language Works Articles, Teachers and Teaching, Approaches to Second Language Discussion-1-Two Prevailing Trends, 2-17-2007. |
|
ESL and EFL Articles ~ Teachers and Teaching |
|
BLOG
|
|
Approaches to Second Language Discussion-Two Prevailing Trends |
|
Click the icon to Go to the Main Page |
|
The Language Works recommends these excellent sources for more ESL/EFL related articles, papers, essays and the like... |
|
Click the icon to Return to the Table of Contents |
|
In the last 40 years or so, both the theory and practice of second language teaching have evolved considerably through various prevailing trends in instruction. Two of these trends are outlined here: Communicative Language Teaching (and Learning) and Learner-centered Instruction.
The much acclaimed Communicative Approach or Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which could be seen as the first big push away from the Audio Lingual Method (ALM) or ‘Army Method’, may be the most recognized and influential trend in second language pedagogy and could even be seen as a ‘movement’ in its own right.
ALM focuses on learning through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement in much the same way an animal would be trained. In fact, it works to some degree (or has worked) but it is considered slow and mundane. If you are in training at a military base, it may appear to be relatively effective, but in the civilian world, there are more engaging approaches available.
David Nunan's outline can be considered the flagship of CLT :
1) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
2) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself.
4) An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.
5) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.
Nunan, David. 1991. Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 25
The giant step out of the behaviorist school and ALM is enough to justify the importance of CLT. Students began using more their own language versus textbook prefabrications and ‘task-based’ activities replaced rote memorization and blind repetition. The idea of engaging in the language both inside and outside the classroom gave CLT a more casual dimension. Accessibility was the word of the day and the language learning audience grew enormously…
In retrospect, enthusiasm for CLT, while brilliant in its own right, may have been misplaced at a time when English was establishing its position as the ladder to success in education, career and business. Language schools all around the world were popping up and a ‘communicative’ way of studying and teaching seemed to be the approach to end all approaches. After all, language is communication. The motto was, in some cases: If we understand each other, we are communicating. This idea, by extension, was naively considered a ‘communicative’ approach.
An initial problem was that CLT was being implemented into situations not equipped to deal with it on a curricular level and that ‘The Approach’ was being bounced around like a basketball, sometimes promoted in non-communicative settings to sell more seats. (Ahhhh, the power of marketing!) Ultimately, implementing a program, outlined by Nunan above, was too much for many institutions to deal with effectively. Think of rural developing communities, for example. Without the training and resources, confusion was inevitable and exploitation of the concept (in some cases unintentionally) became evident.
A recurring problem with CLT (not so easily apparent) is that teachers, who are very familiar with their students, understand them when they make errors. This could be a result of a teacher's knowledge of the first language or other factors such as knowing a learner’s linguistics habits and thereby comprehending their error-laden utterances. Error correction is considered a low priority owing to the emphasis on fluency, as a result, the interaction in the learning situation can be misleading. This is to suggest that speakers of the target language in the general population may have great difficulty in understanding the utterances of a student, even though there may be a high level of communication between teacher and student. It must be added however, much later in the development of CLT, a ‘focus on form’ and corrective feedback was advocated in the research but may have come too late with too little impact on the movement as a whole: attending to student error is still controversial in some pockets of CLT.
‘Learner-centered Instruction’ is the second trend explored here and could also be seen as the inspiration for CLT. The idea is that an analysis of learner needs (usually by questionnaire or interview) informs the teaching syllabus. A very legitimate argument for this approach stems from a very real problem in education: indulgence of instructors in ‘teacher talk time’ and a lack of participation by the learner in the learning process. It puts the focus on student needs. The shift from delivering content and controlling the environment to engaging students in creating their own learning is a hallmark of CLT and continues to be an essential tenet in education in general. Feedback is a central part of the program. Assessing teacher performance is commonplace. Some students would demand that a teacher be someone who is enthusiastic, involved and prepared (perhaps even charismatic) and they expect their version of these traits in each lesson. ‘Teacher talk time’ is transformed into ‘Teacher engage time’. It's a tall order…
In fact, a learner centered approach has always been in the toolbox of teachers. The problem is that involving students in their own process can be time-consuming and complicated, if not potentially confusing— learners may not understand the overall value of such an approach. There is also the possibility that some (more likely pre-adult) learners may take advantage of being the center of attention (i.e., take a controlling attitude). Another possibility is that learners may not be fully aware of what they need nor aware of the complexity of the learning process. It is this element of ‘learner-centeredness’ that poses an abundance of second thoughts.... One wonders if time may be better spent in collaborative efforts, where different styles are experimented with in a careful selection of exercises and tasks. It’s a hung jury. Each case (meaning each learning situation) demands representation on both sides.
On the other hand, assessing each students’ learning styles (or specific multiple intelligences) together with co-constructing a syllabus may indeed be the optimal approach to creating an ideal classroom environment. It's a matter of intuition at the outset of implementation (e.g., what kind of needs analyses to employ and how much time to allocate in developing a leaner-centered syllabus) and a matter of testing hypotheses (a process of constant evaluation and rejuvenation initiated by the teacher/program) tempered by the degree of importance to place on each individual’s particular strengths and weaknesses, preferences and reprehensions and/or overall learning ‘style’ in each new learning environment. There is something utopian in the concept...
Ultimately though, the process itself may be a luxury that time simply cannot afford.
Next: "Post CLT"
|
|
~Welcome to The Language Works Articles~
|
|
Blog |
|
“We learn by example and by direct experience because there are real limits to the adequacy of verbal instruction.”
Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, 2005 |
|
The ideas and opinions presented here are not intended as challenges to individuals or differing schools of thought, but rather as food for further ideas and opinions. Please feel free to use these articles as you see fit and post your opinions on the forum (below) or via the blog (right)... |