Sabtu, 22 Mei 2010

COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH (DISCUSS)

All the methods described so far are symbolic of the progress foreign language teaching ideology underwent in the last century. These were methods that came and went, influenced or gave birth to new methods - in a cycle that could only be described as competition between rival methods or even passing fads in the methodological theory underlying foreign language teaching. Finally, by the mid-eighties or so, the industry was maturing in its growth and moving towards the concept of a broad "approach" to language teaching that encompassed various methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of individual classrooms and students themselves. It would be fair to say that if there is any one umbrella approach to language teaching that has become the accepted "norm" in this field, it would have to be the Communicative Language Teaching Approach. This is also known as CLT.

Basic Features of CLT

David Nunan (1991:279) lists five basic characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching:

(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 the 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 activation outside the
classroom.

Brown (1994:78-80) warns that there are certain caveats in the field of language teaching when it comes to discussing CLT and one's support of the approach, saying that that support or belief needs to be "qualified". He warns against:

(1) Giving "lip service" to the principles of CLT (because "no one these days would admit to a disbelief in principles of CLT; they would be marked as a heretic") without actually grounding one's teaching techniques in those principles, or making sure one indeed understands and practices according to the characteristics that make CLT what it is.

(2) Overdoing certain CLT features, for example engaging in real-life authentic language to the exclusion of helpful devices such as controlled practice, or vice versa. Moderation is needed in combination with common sense and a balanced approach.

(3) The numerous interpretations of what CLT actually "is". CLT is often a catchcall term, and does not reflect the fact that not everyone agrees on its interpretation or application. Teachers need to be aware that there are many possible versions, and it is intended as an "umbrella" term covering a variety of methods.

The Communicative approach does a lot to expand on the goal of creating communicative competence compared to earlier methods that professed the same objective. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be at least as important as learning the language itself. Brown (1994:77) aptly describes the "march" towards CLT:

"Beyond grammatical discourse elements in communication, we are probing the nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. We are exploring pedagogical means for 'real-life' communication in the classroom. We are trying to get our learners to develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with tools for generating unrehearsed language performance 'out there' when they leave the womb of our classrooms. We are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom task. We are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And our classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential."

CLT is a generic approach, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how to actually go about using practices in the classroom in any sort of systematic way. There are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves. See Types of Learning and The PPP Approach to see how CLT can be applied in a variety of 'more specific' methods.

COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH (DISCUSS)

All the methods described so far are symbolic of the progress foreign language teaching ideology underwent in the last century. These were methods that came and went, influenced or gave birth to new methods - in a cycle that could only be described as competition between rival methods or even passing fads in the methodological theory underlying foreign language teaching. Finally, by the mid-eighties or so, the industry was maturing in its growth and moving towards the concept of a broad "approach" to language teaching that encompassed various methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of individual classrooms and students themselves. It would be fair to say that if there is any one umbrella approach to language teaching that has become the accepted "norm" in this field, it would have to be the Communicative Language Teaching Approach. This is also known as CLT.

Basic Features of CLT.


David Nunan (1991:279) lists five basic characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching:


(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 the 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 activation outside the

classroom.


Brown (1994:78-80) warns that there are certain caveats in the field of language teaching when it comes to discussing CLT and one's support of the approach, saying that that support or belief needs to be "qualified". He warns against:

(1) Giving "lip service" to the principles of CLT (because "no one these days would admit to

a disbelief in principles of CLT; they would be marked as a heretic") without actually

grounding one's teaching techniques in those principles, or making sure one indeed

understands and practices according to the characteristics that make CLT what it is.


(2) Overdoing certain CLT features, for example engaging in real-life authentic language to

the exclusion of helpful devices such as controlled practice, or vice versa. Moderation

is needed in combination with common sense and a balanced approach.


(3) The numerous interpretations of what CLT actually "is". CLT is often a catchcall term,

and does not reflect the fact that not everyone agrees on its interpretation or application.

Teachers need to be aware that there are many possible versions, and it is intended as

an "umbrella" term covering a variety of methods.


The Communicative approach does a lot to expand on the goal of creating communicative competence compared to earlier methods that professed the same objective. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be at least as important as learning the language itself. Brown (1994:77) aptly describes the "march" towards CLT:


"Beyond grammatical discourse elements in communication, we are probing the nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. We are exploring pedagogical means for 'real-life' communication in the classroom. We are trying to get our learners to develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with tools for generating unrehearsed language performance 'out there' when they leave the womb of our classrooms. We are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom task. We are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And our classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential."


CLT is a generic approach, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how to actually go about using practices in the classroom in any sort of systematic way. There are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves. See Types of Learning and The PPP Approach to see how CLT can be applied in a variety of 'more specific' methods.


Total Physical Response (Discuss)

Originally developed by James Asher, an American professor of psychology, in the 1960s, Total Physical Response (TPR) is based on the theory that the memory is enhanced through association with physical movement. It is also closely associated with theories of mother tongue language acquisition in very young children, where they respond physically to parental commands, such as "Pick it up" and "Put it down". TPR as an approach to teaching a second language is based, first and foremost, on listening and this is linked to physical actions which are designed to reinforce comprehension of particular basic items.


A typical TPR activity might contain instructions such as "Walk to the door", "Open the door", "Sit down" and "Give Maria your dictionary". The students are required to carry out the instructions by physically performing the activities. Given a supportive classroom environment, there is little doubt that such activities can be both motivating and fun, and it is also likely that with even a fairly limited amount of repetition basic instructions such as these could be assimilated by the learners, even if they were unable to reproduce them accurately themselves.


The above examples, however, also illustrate some of the potential weaknesses inherent in the approach. Firstly, from a purely practical point of view, it is highly unlikely that even the most skilled and inventive teacher could sustain a lesson stage involving commands and physical responses for more than a few minutes before the activity became repetitious for the learners, although the use of situational role-play could provide a range of contexts for practicing a wider range of lexis. Secondly, it is fairly difficult to give instructions without using imperatives, so the language input is basically restricted to this single form. Thirdly, it is quite difficult to see how this approach could extend beyond beginner level. Fourthly, the relevance of some of the language used in TPR activities to real-world learner needs is questionable. Finally, moving from the listening and responding stage to oral production might be workable in a small group of learners but it would appear to be problematic when applied to a class of 30 students, for example.


In defense of the approach, however, it should be emphasized that it was never intended by its early proponents that it should extend beyond beginner level. (In theory it might be possible to develop it by making the instructions lexically more complex (for example, "Pick up the toothpaste and unscrew the cap"), but this does seem to be stretching the point somewhat). In addition, a course designed around TPR principles would not be expected to follow a TPR syllabus exclusively, and Asher himself suggested that TPR should be used in association with other methods and techniques. In terms of the theoretical basis of the approach, the idea of listening preceding production and learners only is being required to speak when they are ready to do so closely resemble elements of Stephen Krashen’s Natural Approach.


Short TPR activities, used judiciously and integrated with other activities can be both highly motivating and linguistically purposeful. Careful choice of useful and communicative language at beginner level can make TPR activities entirely valid. Many learners respond well to kinesthetic activities and they can genuinely serve as a memory aid. A lot of classroom warmers and games are based, consciously or unconsciously, on TPR principles. As with other "fringe" methods, however, wholesale adoption of this approach, to the total exclusion of any other, would probably not be sustainable for very long.