Communicative Approaches to Language Learning
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) became popular in Europe and the USA in the 1970s and spread around the world. This approach focuses on language functions and communication, rather than language structures. The cornerstone of this approach is learners and their individual needs.
According to Savignon (1991, p. 273) CLT views the “language learner as a partner in learning; they encourage learner participation in communicative events and self-assessment of progress.” Furthermore, according to Savignon (1991, p. 273), “when language use is viewed as social behaviour, learner identity and motivation are seen to interact with language status, use, and contexts of learning to influence the development of competence.”
This YouTube video summarises the features of the CLT Approach.
The Blessed Professor. (2021, October 7). Communicative Approach. [Video]. YouTube. .
Content based and task-based programs provide a variety of language activities and can focus on communication. According to Savignon (1991) focus on form can be related to these communicative experiences. In this approach the media such as the print that is used and the communicative roles involved, such as interviewer is paramount. As Weiderman (2013, p.4) stated, CLT “adopted a functional rather than a structural perspective on language.”
According to Savignon (1991, p. 263), "communicative language teaching (CLT) has
become a term for methods and curricula that embrace both the goals and the processes
of classroom learning.” Furthermore, Savignon (1991, p. 263) states that "the term communicative was used to describe programs
that used a functional-notional syllabus based on needs assessment.”
As people started travelling more for business to other nations, they needed more functional language to communicate. According to Hall (2011, p. 93) CLT taught “people how to use language effectively when communicating, in effect a move from teaching linguistic competence to communicative competence.” Communicative confidence meant being able to use language in a variety of settings, situations and speakers. As Hall (2011, p. 93) states, “the goal of CLT is to teach ‘real-life’ language.” Examples of communicative activities include information-gap exercises such as asking directions when only one can see a route, barrier games and role-plays of situations such as job interviews. Learners are communicating according to meaning, not linguistic forms.
According to Shintani (2016, p. 37) “TBLT (task-based language teaching) aims to provide opportunities for incidental learning through tasks that require a primary focus on meaning while also affording occasions for attending to form.” TBLT was suggested by Thornbury (2006, in Hall, 2011, p. 95) to have arisen from the strong form of CLT where language is learnt by using it. This method uses tasks to produce and learn language. These tasks include activities that involve sharing information in pairs or in a group such as as information-gap, sorting, comparing, such as describing favourite place to a partner and reading newspapers about same event.
A problems with using this method alone is the absence of systematic grammar teaching. The question being, can you teach language purely by using tasks without systematic grammar teaching?
The task-based method aligns with Krashen’s (1985, in Shintani, 2016) Input Hypothesis which looked at how simplified input comprehended by learners aids learning. Krashen (in Snintani, 2016, p. 42) claimed that “acquisition…occurs naturally and without consciousness when learners are exposed to comprehensible output.”
In Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982, in Hall, 2011), he proposed that comprehensible input, language just above what is already learned and a low affective filter, helps students acquire a language. According to Hall, Krashen (1982, in Hall, 2011, p. 66) also believed that language acquisition and learning are different processes, ”acquisition being unconscious and ‘natural’ with no attention to form, while learning involves conscious attention to language forms and rules.” Krashen (1982, in Hall, 2011), believed acquired language was more important. Communicative approaches to second/foreign language teaching emphasised meaningful and real input in L2, such as Krashen’s Natural Approach. Teaching explicit linguistic format and L1 were no longer included.
The two concepts of
the importance of input and the role of affect and whether to focus on language
forms still influences ELT. As Richards and Rodgers (2002, Hall,
2011, p. 107) notes, the Monitor Model influences language teaching by showing the importance
of comprehensible input. Learning can also occur incidentally. This can be achieved by using a variety of methods to help comprehension such
as visual aids, focusing on listening and reading and gradually speaking using meaningful communication to create a relaxing atmosphere.
Long (1991, 1996, in Shantani, 2016, p. 44), believed that learners need to attend to form when they are attending to mearning and that "attention to form should be embedded in the communicative interactions that tasks give rise to”, or ‘focus to form’.
According to Long (1991, in Shantani, 2016, p .44), “focus on form overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.” The learners’ focus on linguistic form, but also to the meaning created by that form in the specific context that it occurs in. The learners’ focus on meaning and incidentally focus on form during instruction from teachers and through error correction.
As Long(1996,1983 in Shintani, 2016, p. 45) suggested ‘negotiation
of meaning’ helps L2 learning as it helps “the learners notice the gap between
their own erroneous utterances and the target language input derived from
negotiation.” According to Shantini (2016), negotiation in L2 is mainly
beneficial for intermediate learners, but beginner learners may benefit from negotiation
for meaning in L1.
Corrective feedback or as Lyster (2001, in Shintani, 2016, p. 48) calls ‘negotiation of form,’ of L2 usage can also promote focus on form. Studies have shown that corrective feedback is more effective with older learners, than younger learners when task-based instruction occurs.
In contrast to Krashen’s Monitor Model the Output Hypothesis proposed by Swain (1995, in Shantani, 2016), believed that language production or conversation, is necessary for L2 acquisition. Swain (1995, in Shintani, 2016) noted that producing output
helps with grammar acquisition, as learners notice their errors when they produce
language and practice their knowledge of the L2 language. Swain (1985, in Shantani, 2016) suggests that as producing output is more challenging for learners, they gain a deeper understanding of language.
Samuda and Bygate (1996, 2001, in Shintani, 2016, p. 51) “suggests
that repeating tasks makes it easy for learners to conceptualise their ideas
and formulate them as messages because they are familiar with task procedures
and the language forms that need to be used” resulting in “more fluent,
accurate, and complex sentences in oral production tasks.” Several studies
which investigated production-based studies, showed that task repetition helped
young learners.
Looking at language learning from a communicative angle involves looking at the context of language including the cultural, gender, social aspects.
Using communicative activities as Savignon (1991, p. 265)
notes such as “games, role plays, pair and other small group activities has
gained acceptance and is now widely recommended for inclusion in language
teaching programs.” Furthermore, Savignon (1991, p.265) states, CLT promotes “the development of functional language
ability through leaner participation in communicative events.” According to Savignon (1991, p. 266), “the selection
of methods and materials appropriate to both the goals and context of teaching
begins with an analysis of both learner needs and styles of learning.” The focus is on the learner.
In I1_S9 my language learner contact Marcela explained that what made the difference in her English speaking was exposure to the native speakers and using English in real-life. When Marcela was asked, "What made the lessons more fun?", Marcela explained that in the lessons in England and with the British Council in Slovakia, there was less of a focus on grammar. There was also natural talking about things that interested them. Marcela explained that it is important to capture the student's interest by engaging them in subjects they are interested in and encouraging them. The teachers would choose an English word and explain it in different ways, using pictures and talking in English. Marcela said that in contrast, in Slovakia they were expected to just memorise things. Marcela said that it is difficult to translate sentences or grammar easily as English and Slovak have different grammar.
I1_S9_Marcela describes English teaching in England
Challenges for teachers when using this approach include how should form and function be integrated in an instructional sequence, and how to assess individual learners on language acquisition.
The limitation of the Communicative Approach is that learners lacked grammatical accuracy. Explicit instruction of grammar was needed. Machida noted that Ellis (1996, in Machida,2011, p.741) “suggested that grammar teaching can enhance learner proficiency and accuracy and assist learners to acquire the syntactic system of the language.” The focus on form approach according to Machida (2011, p. 741) “combines traditional synthetic grammar teaching(form without context or discourse…) with an analytic approach requiring context where learners are engaged in communication.” Specific grammar features are focused on and meaning is negotiated. The context of language usage including the learner’s culture is important.
Another potential problem with Communicative Approach is the idea that any activity
in the classroom can be used for teaching communication. A focus on fluency may lead to insufficient accuracy. The activities may also not necessarily be more genuine than in
other methods and may not be appropriate for all cultures and contexts such as traditional
cultures.
Despite the potential problems with using the CLT approach exclusively for language teaching, it is student focused, promotes a functional use of language using authentic materials, builds confidence and creates a cultural accepting atmosphere.
Comments
Post a Comment