|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2009-8-5 13:37:52
|
显示全部楼层
Communicative language teaching
Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and goals in classroom learning. A central theoretical concept in communicative language teaching is communicative competence, a term introduced into discussions of language use and second/foreign language learning in the early 1970s (Habermas, 1970; Hymes, 1971; Jakobovits, 1970). Competence is defined in terms of the expression, INTERPRETATION and negotiation of meaning, and looks to SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION research to account for its development (Savignon, 1972, 1997). Identification of learner communicative needs provides a basis for curriculum design (van Ek, 1975).
Origins and development
The origins of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments in both Europe and North America. In Europe, the language needs of a rapidly increasing group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in description of language behaviour, led to the COUNCIL OF EUROPE development of a SYLLABUS for learners based on functional-notional concepts of language use. Derived from neo-Firthian systemic or func- tional linguistics that views language as meaning potential and maintains the centrality of context of situation in understanding language systems and how they work, a THRESHOLD LEVEL of language ability was described in terms of what learners should be able to do with the language (van Ek, 1975). Functions were based on assessment of learner NEEDS and specified the end result, the goal of an instructional programme. The term ‘communicative’ attached itself to programmes that used a functional-notional syllabus based on needs assessment, and the LANGUAGE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES (LSP) movement was launched.
Concurrent development in Europe focused on the process of communicative CLASSROOM LANGUAGE learning. In Germany, for example, against a backdrop of social democratic concerns for individual empowerment articulated in the writings of contemporary philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1970), language teaching methodologists took the lead in the development of classroom MATERIALS that encouraged learner choice (Candlin, 1978). Their systematic collection of EXERCISE types for communicatively oriented ENGLISH language teaching was used in teacher in-service courses and workshops to guide curriculum change. Exercises were designed to exploit the variety of social meanings contained within particular grammatical structures. A system of ‘chains’ encouraged teachers and learners to define their own learning path through principled selection of relevant exercises (Piepho, 1974; Piepho and Bredella, 1976). Similar exploratory projects were also initiated by Candlin at his academic home, the University of Lancaster, and by Holec (1979) and his colleagues at the University of Nancy (CRAPEL). Supplementary teacher resource materials promoting classroom CLT became increasingly popular in the 1970s (e.g., Maley and Duff, 1978), and there was new interest in learner VOCABULARY building.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Hymes (1971) had reacted to CHOMSKY’s characterisation of the linguistic competence of the ideal NATIVE SPEAKER and proposed the term ‘communicative competence’ to represent the use of language in social context, the observance of sociolinguistic norms of appropriacy. His concern with speech communities and the integration of language, communication and culture was not unlike that of Firth and HALLIDAY in the British linguistic tradition (see Halliday, 1978). Hyme’s communicative competence may be seen as the equivalent of Halliday’s meaning potential. Similarly, his focus was not language learning but language as social behaviour. In subsequent interpretations of the significance of Hymes’s views for learners, methodologists working in the USA tended to focus on native speaker cultural norms and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of AUTHENTICALLY representing them in a classroom of non-native speakers. In light of this difficulty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an instructional goal was questioned (see, e.g., Paulston, 1974).
At the same time, in a research project at the University of Illinois, Savignon (1972) used the term communicative competence to characterise the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge. At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of ADULT classroom acquisition of FRENCH looked at the effect of practice in the use of coping STRATEGIES as part of an instructional programme. By encouraging them to ask for information, to seek clarification, to use circumlocution and whatever other linguistic and non-linguistic resources they could muster to negotiate meaning, to stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks, to speak in other than memorised patterns. The coping strategies identified in this study became the basis for subsequent identification by Canale and Swain (1980) of ‘STRATEGIC COMPETENCE’ in their three-component framework for communicative competence, along with grammatical competence and SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE. Test results at the end of the instructional period showed conclusively that learners who had practised communication instead of laboratory pattern drills performed with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of grammatical structure. On the other hand, their communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort and amount of communication in unrehearsed communicative tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learner reactions to the test formats lent further support to the view that even BEGINNERS respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning as opposed to formal features.
A collection of role plays, games and other communicative classroom activities was developed subsequently for inclusion in the adaptation of the French CR蒁IF materials, Voix et Visages de la France. The accompanying guide (Savignon, 1974) described their purpose as that of involving learners in the experience of communication. Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with the French equivalent of expressions like ‘What’s the word for…?’, ‘Please repeat…’, ‘I don’t understand’, expressions that would help them to participate in the negotiation of meaning. Not unlike the efforts of Candlin and his colleagues working in a European EFL context, the focus was on classroom process and learner AUTONOMY. The use of games, role play, pair and other small group activities has gained acceptance and is now widely recommended for inclusion in language teaching programmes.
CLT thus can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at least, LINGUISTICS, PSYCHOLOGY, philosophy, sociology and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and implementation of programmes and methodologies that promote the development of functional language ability through learner participation in communicative events. Central to CLT is the understanding of language learning as both an educational and a political issue. Language teaching is inextricably tied to language policy. Viewed from a multicultural intranational as well as international perspective, diverse sociopolitical contexts mandate not only a diverse set of language learning goals, but a diverse set of teaching strategies. Programme design and implementation depend on negotiation between policymakers, linguists, researchers and teachers. And EVALUATION of programme success requires a similar collaborative effort. The selection of methods and materials appropriate to both the goals and the context of teaching begins with an analysis of socially defined learner needs and styles of learning.
Focus on the learner
By definition, CLT puts the focus on the learner. Learner communicative needs provide a framework for elaborating programme goals in terms of functional competence. This implies global, qualitative evaluation of learner achievement as opposed to quantitative ASSESSMENT of discrete linguistic features. Controversy over appropriate language testing persists, and many a curricular innovation has been undone by failure to make corresponding changes in evaluation. Current efforts at educational reform favour essay writing, in-class presentations, and other more holistic assessments of learner competence. Some programmes have initiated portfolio assessment, the collection and evaluation of learner poems, reports, stories, videotapes and similar projects, in an effort to better represent and encourage learner achievement.
Depending upon their own preparation and experience, teachers themselves differ in their reactions to CLT. Some feel understandable frustration at the seeming ambiguity in discussions of communicative ability. Negotiation of meaning may be a lofty goal, but this view of language behaviour lacks precision and does not provide a universal scale for assessment of individual learners. Ability is viewed, rather, as variable and highly dependent upon context and purpose as well as the roles and attitudes of all involved. Other teachers welcome the opportunity to select and/or develop their own materials, providing learners with a range of communicative tasks. And they are comfortable relying on more global, integrative judgements of learner progress.
An additional source of frustration for some teachers are second language acquisition research findings that show the route, if not the rate, of language acquisition to be largely unaffected by classroom instruction. First language crosslinguistic studies of developmental universals initiated in the 1970s were soon followed by second language studies. Acquisition, assessed on the basis of expression in unrehearsed, oral communicative contexts, seemed to follow a similar morphosyntactic sequence regardless of learner age or context of learning. Although they served to bear out the informal observations of teachers, namely that TEXTBOOK presentation and drill do not ensure learner use of these same structures in their own spontaneous expression, the findings were none the less disconcerting. They contradicted both GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION and AUDIOLINGUAL precepts that placed the burden of acquisition on teacher explanation of GRAMMAR and controlled practice with insistence on learner accuracy. They were further at odds with textbooks that promise ‘mastery’ of ‘basic’ French, English, SPANISH, etc. Teacher rejection of research findings, renewed insistence on tests of discrete grammatical structures, and even exclusive reliance in the classroom on the learners’ native or first language, where possible, to be sure they ‘get the grammar’, have been in some cases reactions to the frustration of teaching for communication.
Moreover, the language acquisition research paradigm itself, with its emphasis on sentence-level grammatical features, has served to bolster a structural focus, obscuring pragmatic and sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition. In her discussion of the contexts of competence, Berns (1990) stresses that the definition of a communicative competence appropriate for learners requires an understanding of the sociocultural contexts of language use. In addition, the selection of a methodology appropriate to the attainment of communicative competence requires an understanding of sociocultural differences in styles of learning. Curricular innovation is best advanced by the development of local materials, which, in turn, rests on the involvement of classroom teachers.
What about grammar?
Discussions of CLT not infrequently lead to questions of grammatical or formal accuracy. The perceived displacement of attention to morphosyntactic features in learner expression in favour of a focus on meaning has led in some cases to the impression that grammar is not important, or that proponents of CLT favour learner self-expression without regard to form.
While involvement in communicative events is seen as central to language development, this involvement necessarily requires attention to form. Communication cannot take place in the absence of structure, or grammar—a set of shared assumptions about how language works—along with a willingness of participants to cooperate in the negotiation of meaning. In their carefully researched and widely cited paper proposing components of communicative competence, Canale and Swain (1980) did not suggest that grammar was unimportant. They sought, rather, to situate grammatical competence within a more broadly defined communicative competence. Similarly, the findings of the Savignon (1972) study did not suggest that teachers forsake the teaching of grammar. Rather, the replacement of LANGUAGE LABORATORY structure drills with meaning-focused self-expression was found to be a more effective way to develop communicative ability with no loss of morphosyntactic accuracy. And learner performance on tests of discrete morphosyntactic features was not a good predictor of their performance on a series of integrative communicative tasks.
The nature of the contribution to language development of both form-focused and meaning-focused classroom activity remains a question in ongoing research. The optimum combination of these activities in any given instructional setting depends no doubt on learner age, nature and length of instructional sequence, opportunities for language contact outside the classroom, teacher preparation and other factors. However, for the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Grammar is important; and learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences (Lightbown and Spada, 1993). Nor should explicit attention to form be perceived as limited to sentence-level morphosyntactic features. Broader features of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of appropriacy, and communication strategies themselves may be included.
Sociolinguistic issues
Numerous sociolinguistic issues await attention. Variation in the speech community and its relationship to language change are central to sociolinguistic inquiry. Sociolinguistic perspectives on variability and change highlight the folly of describing native speaker competence, let alone
non-native speaker competence, in terms of ‘mastery’ or ‘command’ of a system. All language systems show instability and variation. Learner language systems show even greater instability and variability in terms of both the amount and the rate of change. Sociolinguistic concerns with identity and accommodation help to explain the construction by bilinguals of a ‘variation space’ which is different from that of a native speaker. It may include retention of any number of features of a previously acquired system of phonology, syntax, discourse, communication strategies, etc. The phenomenon may be individual or, in those settings where there is a community of learners, general.
Sociolinguistic perspectives have been important in understanding the implications of norm, appropriacy and variability for CLT, and continue to suggest avenues of inquiry for further research and materials development. Use of authentic language data has underscored the importance of context—setting, roles, GENRE, etc.—in INTERPRETING the meaning of a text. A range of both oral and written texts in context provides learners with a variety of language experiences, experiences they need to construct their own ‘variation space’, to make determinations of appropriacy in their own expression of meaning. ‘Competent’ in this instance is not necessarily synonymous with ‘nativelike’. Negotiation in CLT highlights the need for interlinguistic, i.e. intercultural, awareness on the part of all involved (Byram, 1997). Better understanding of the strategies used in the negotiation of meaning offers a potential for improving classroom practice of the needed SKILLS.
Along with other Sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition, the classroom itself as a social context has been neglected. Classroom language learning was the focus of a number of research studies in the 1960s and early 1970s. However, language classrooms were not a major interest of the second language acquisition (SLA) research that rapidly gathered momentum in the years that followed. The full range of variables present in educational settings was an obvious deterrent. Other difficulties included the lack of well-defined classroom processes to serve as variables and lack of agreement as to what constituted learning success. Confusion of form-focused drill with meaning-focused communication persisted in many of the textbook exercises and language test prototypes that influenced curricula. Not surprisingly, researchers eager to establish SLA as a worthy field of inquiry turned their attention to more narrow, quantitative studies of the acquisition of selected morphosyntactic features.
What CLT is not
Disappointment with both grammar-translation and audiolingual methods for their inability to prepare learners for the interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning, along with enthusiasm for an array of alternative methods increasingly labelled ‘communicative’, has resulted in no small amount of uncertainty as to what are and are not essential features of CLT. Thus, a summary description would be incomplete without brief mention of what CLT is not.
CLT is not exclusively concerned with face-to-face oral communication. The principles of CLT apply equally to READING and WRITING activities that involve readers and writers engaged in the interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning; the goals of CLT depend on learner needs in a given context. CLT does not require small group or pair work. Group tasks have been found helpful in many contexts as a way of providing increased opportunity and MOTIVATION for communication, but classroom group or pair work should not be considered an essential feature and may well be inappropriate in some contexts. Finally, CLT does not exclude a focus on metalinguistic awareness or knowledge of rules of syntax, discourse and social appropriateness.
The essence of CLT is the engagement of learners in communication to allow them to develop their communicative competence. Terms sometimes used to refer to features of CLT include ‘process oriented’, ‘TASK-BASED’, and ‘inductive’ or ‘discovery’ oriented. CLT cannot be found in any one textbook or set of curricular materials inasmuch as strict adherence to a given text is not likely to be true to the processes and goals of CLT In keeping with the notion of context of situation, CLT is properly seen as an approach, a theory of Intercultural communicative competence to be used in developing materials and methods appropriate to a given context of learning. No less than the means and norms of communication they are designed to reflect, communicative TEACHER METHODS will continue to be explored and adapted. |
|
楼主: cbzhang307
