monografia communicative language teaching, Monografías, Ensayos de Idioma Inglés

¡Descarga monografia communicative language teaching y más Monografías, Ensayos en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity! Communicative Language Teaching Materia: Ingles y su Enseñanza III Mark: 9 (nine) Very good!! Profesora: Ma. Cecilia Romero Alumna: Garcia Diaz Lis Leila Año:2021 Contents 1 3- References 4-What is Communicative Language Teaching? -Academic influences. 7- Differences between Audiolingual Method and Communicative Approach. 9- Approach. 11-Theory of learning. 12-Design. 13-Syllabus. 15-Types of learning and teaching activities. -Learners’role. 16-Teachers’ role. 17-Ten Core Assumptions in CLT. - Principles of CLT 18-Grammatical Competence Vs. Communicative Competence. -Fluency Vs Accuracy. 19-Advantages and disadvantages of CLT. 20-Mainstream Language Teaching. 23-Conclusion. References -Approaches and methods in Language Teaching- Jack C. Richards- 2001 - Is Communicative Language Teaching a thing of the past?-Jason Beale-2002 - Communicative Language Teaching today.- Jack C. Richards -2006 www.wikipedia.org 2 Association of Applied Linguistics. The need to develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority. In 1971, a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of developing language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which learning tasks are broken down into “portions or units, each of which corresponds to a component of a learner’s needs and is systematically related to all the other portions” (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist, D. A. Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins’s contribution was an analysis of the communicative meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather than describe the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins attempted to demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of language. He described two types of meanings: notional categories (concepts such as time, sequence, quantity, location, frequency) and categories of communicative function (requests, denials, offers, complaints). Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 document into a book titled Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins 1976), which had a significant impact on the development of Communicative Language Teaching. The Council of Europe incorporated his semantic/communicative analysis into a set of specifications for a first-level communicative language syllabus. These threshold level specifications (van Ek and Alexander 1980) have had a strong influence on the design of communicative language programs and textbooks in Europe. The work of the Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Widdowson, Candlin, Christopher Brumfit, Keith Johnson, and other British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative or functional approach to language teaching; the rapid application of these ideas by textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new principles by British language teaching specialists, curriculum development centers, and even governments gave prominence nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach, or simply Communicative Language Teaching. (The terms notional functional approach and functional approach are also sometimes used.) Although the movement began as a largely British innovation, focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since the mid- 1970s the scope of Communicative Language Teaching has expanded. Both American and British proponents now see it as an approach (and not a method) that aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication. Its comprehensiveness thus makes it different in scope and status from any of the other approaches or methods discussed in this book. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative. For some, Communicative Language Teaching means little more than an integration of grammatical and functional teaching. Littlewood (1981: 1) states, “One of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as 5 well as structural aspects of language.” For others, it means using procedures where learners work in pairs or groups employing available language resources in problem- solving tasks. A national primary English syllabus based on a communicative approach (Syllabuses for Primary Schools 1981), for example, defines the focus of the syllabus as the “communicative functions which the forms of the language serve”. The introduction to the same document comments that “communicative purposes may be of many different kinds. What is essential in all of them is that at least two parties are involved in an interaction or transaction of some kind where one party has an intention and the other party expands or reacts to the intention”. In her discussion of communicative syllabus design, Yalden (1983) discusses six Communicative Language Teaching design alternatives, ranging from a model in which communicative exercises are grafted onto an existing structural syllabus, to a learner-generated view of syllabus design (e.g., Holec 1980). Howatt distinguishes between a “strong” and a “weak” version of Communicative Language Teaching: There is, in a sense, a ‘strong’ version of the communicative approach and a ‘weak’ version. The weak version which has become more or less standard practice in the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program of language teaching.The ‘strong’ version of communicative teaching, on the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the language system itself. If the former could be described as ‘learning to use’ English, the latter entails ‘using English to learn it.’ Differences between Audiolingual Method and Communicative Approach Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive features of the Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Approach, according to their interpretation: Audiolingual Method 1. Attends to structure and form more than meaning. 2. Demands memorization of structure-based dialogues. 3. Language items are not necessarily contextualized. 4. Language learning is learning structures, sounds, or words. 5. Mastery, or “over-learning,” is sought. Effective communication is sought. 6. Drilling is a central technique. 6 7. Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought. 8. Grammatical explanation is avoided. 9. Communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills and exercises. 10. The use of the student’s native language is forbidden. 11. Translation is forbidden at early levels. 12. Reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered. 13. The target linguistic system will be learned through the overt teaching of the patterns of the system. 14. Linguistic competence is the desired goal. 15. Varieties of language are recognized but not emphasized. 16. The sequence of units is determined solely by principles of linguistic complexity. 17. The teacher controls the learners and prevents them from doing anything that conflicts with the theory. 18. “Language is habit” so errors must be prevented at all costs. 19. Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a primary goal. 20. Students are expected to interact with the language system, embodied in machines or controlled materials. 21. The teacher is expected to specify the language that students are to use. 22. Intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in the structure of the language. Communicative Approach 1. Meaning is supreme. 2. Dialogues, if used, center around communicative functions and are not normally memorized. 3. Contextualization is a basic premise. 4. Language learning is learning to communicate. 5. Effective communication is sought. 6. Drilling may occur, but peripherally. 7. Comprehensible pronunciation is sought. 8. Any device that helps the learners is accepted – varying according to their age, interest, etc. 9. Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning. 10. Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. 11. Translation may be used where students need or benefit from it. 12.Reading and writing can start from the first day, if desired. 13.The target linguistic system will be learned best through the process of struggling to communicate. 14. Communicative competence is the desired goal (i.e., the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately). 15. Linguistic variation is a central concept in materials and methodology. 16. Sequencing is determined by any consideration of content, function, or meaning that maintains interest. 7 functions of language, and therefore all components of meaning, brought into focus” (Halliday 1970: 145). In a number of influential books and papers, Halliday has elaborated a powerful theory of the functions of language, which complements Hymes’s view of communicative competence for many writers on CLT (e.g., Brumfit and Johnson 1979; Savignon 1983). He described (1975: 11–17) seven basic functions that language performs for children learning their first language: 1. the instrumental function: using language to get things 2. the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of others 3. the interactional function: using language to create interaction with others 4. the personal function: using language to express personal feelings and meanings 5. the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover 6. the imaginative function: using language to create a world of the imagination 7. the representational function: using language to communicate information Learning a second language was similarly viewed by proponents of Communicative Language Teaching as acquiring the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions. Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative nature of language is Henry Widdowson. In his book Teaching Language as Communication (1978), Widdowson presented a view of the relationship between linguistic systems and their communicative values in text and discourse. He focused on the communicative acts underlying the ability to use language for different purposes. A more pedagogically influential analysis of communicative competence is found in Canale and Swain (1980), in which four dimensions of communicative competence are identified: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes intends by what is “formally possible.” It is the domain of grammatical and lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic competence refers to an understanding of the social context in which communication takes place, including role relationships, the shared information of the participants, and the communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse competence refers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship to the entire discourse or text. Strategic competence refers to the coping strategies that communicators employ to initiate, terminate, maintain, repair, and redirect communication. The usefulness of the notion of communicative competence is seen in the many attempts that have been made to refine the original notion of communicative competence. Canale and Swain’s extension of the Hymesian model of communicative competence discussed earlier was in turn elaborated in some complexity by Bachman (1991). The Bachman model has been, in turn, extended by Celce-Murcia, D¨ornyei, and Thurrell (1997). At the level of language theory, Communicative Language Teaching has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the characteristics of this communicative view of language follow: 1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning. 2. The primary function of language is to allow interaction and communication. 10 3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses. 4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse. Theory of learning In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature about communicative dimensions of language, little has been written about learning theory. Neither Brumfit and Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood (1981), for example, offers any discussion of learning theory. Elements of an underlying learning theory can be discerned in some CLT practices, however. One such element might be described as the communication principle: Activities that involve real communication promote learning. A second element is the task principle: Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning (Johnson 1982). A third element is the meaningfulness principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process. Learning activities are consequently selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns). These principles, we suggest, can be inferred from CLT practices (e.g., Littlewood 1981; Johnson 1982). They address the conditions needed to promote second language learning, rather than the processes of language acquisition. Other accounts of Communicative Language Teaching, however, have attempted to describe theories of language learning processes that are compatible with the Communicative Approach. Savignon (1983) surveys second language acquisition research as a source for learning theories and considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and individual variables in language acquisition. Other theorists (e.g., Stephen Krashen, who is not directly associated with Communicative Language Teaching) have developed theories cited as compatible with the principles of CLT . Krashen sees acquisition as the basic process involved in developing language proficiency and distinguishes this process from learning. Acquisition refers to the unconscious development of the target language system as a result of using the language for real communication. Learning is the conscious representation of grammatical knowledge that has resulted from instruction, and it cannot lead to acquisition. It is the acquired system that we call upon to create utterances during spontaneous language use. The learned system can serve only as a monitor of the output of the acquired system. Krashen and other second language acquisition theorists typically stress that language learning comes about through using language communicatively, rather than through practicing language skills. Johnson (1984) and Littlewood (1984) consider an alternative learning theory that they also see as compatible with CLT – a skill-learning model of learning. According to this theory, the acquisition of communicative competence in a language is an example of skill 11 development. This involves both a cognitive and a behavioral aspect: The cognitive aspect involves the internalisation of plans for creating appropriate behaviour. For language use, these plans derive mainly from the language system – they include grammatical rules, procedures for selecting vocabulary, and social conventions governing speech. The behavioural aspect involves the automation of these plans so that they can be converted into fluent performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice in converting plans into performance. (Littlewood 1984: 74) This theory thus encourages an emphasis on practice as a way of developing communicative skills. Design Objectives Piepho (1981) discusses the following levels of objectives in a communicative approach: 1. an integrative and content level (language as a means of expression) 2. a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system and an object of learning) 3. an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct (language as a means of expressing values and judgments about oneself and others) 4. a level of individual learning needs (remedial learning based on error analysis) 5. a general educational level of extra-linguistic goals (language learning within the school curriculum). These are proposed as general objectives, applicable to any teaching situation. Particular objectives for CLT cannot be defined beyond this level of specification, since such an approach assumes that language teaching will reflect the particular needs of the target learners. These needs may be in the domains of reading, writing, listening, or speaking, each of which can be approached from a communicative perspective. Curriculum or instructional objectives for a particular course would reflect specific aspects of communicative competence according to the learner’s proficiency level and communicative needs. The syllabus Discussions of the nature of the syllabus have been central in Communicative Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the first syllabus models to be proposed was described as a notional syllabus (Wilkins 1976), which specified the semantic-grammatical categories (e.g., frequency, motion, location) and the categories of communicative function that learners need to express. The Council of Europe expanded and developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objectives of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in which 12 pattern: this pattern is then communicated to students behind the screen. Geddes and Sturtridge (1979) develop “jigsaw” listening in which students listen to different taped materials and then communicate their content to others in the class. Most of these techniques operate by providing information to some and withholding it from others..Littlewood (1981) distinguishes between “functional communication activities” and “social interaction activities” as major activity types in Communicative Language Teaching. Functional communication activities include such tasks as learners comparing sets of pictures and noting similarities and differences; working out a likely sequence of events in a set of pictures; discovering missing features in a map or picture; one learner communicating behind a screen to another learner and giving instructions on how to draw a picture or shape, or how to complete a map; following directions; and solving problems from shared clues. Social interaction activities include conversation and discussion sessions, dialogues and role plays, simulations, skits, improvisations, and debates. Learner roles The emphasis in Communicative Language Teaching on the processes of communication, rather than mastery of language forms, leads to different roles for learners from those found in more traditional second language classrooms. Breen and Candlin describe the learner’s role within CLT in the following terms: The role of learner as negotiator – between the self, the learning process, and the object of learning – emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way.(1980: 110) There is thus an acknowledgment, in some accounts of CLT, that learners bring preconceptions of what teaching and learning should be like. These constitute a “set” for learning, which when unrealized can lead to learner confusion and resentment (Henner-Stanchina and Riley 1978). Often there is no text, grammar rules are not presented, classroom arrangement is nonstandard, students are expected to interact primarily with each other rather than with the teacher, and correction of errors may be absent or infrequent. The cooperative (rather than individualistic) approach to learning stressed in CLT may likewise be unfamiliar to learners. CLT methodologists consequently recommend that learners learn to see that failed communication is a joint responsibility and not the fault of the speaker or listener. Similarly, successful communication is an accomplishment jointly achieved and acknowledged. Teacher roles 15 Several roles are assumed for teachers in Communicative Language Teaching, the importance of particular roles being determined by the view of CLT adopted. Breen and Candlin describe teacher roles in the following terms: The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communication process between all participants in the classroom, and between these participants and the various activities and texts. The second role is to act as an independent participant within the learning-teaching group. The latter role is closely related to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These roles imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer of resources and as a resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom procedures and activities. A third role for the teacher is that of researcher and learner, with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abilities, actual and observed experience of the nature of learning and organizational capacities. (1980: 99)Other roles assumed for teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and group.process manager. Ten Core Assumptions in CLT: 1. Engaging in interaction and meaningful communication facilitates language learning. 2. Effective classroom learning tasks provide students the opportunities to extract meaning, expand language, notice how language is used, and take part in a meaningful interpersonal exchange. 3. Meaningful communication occurs when students process content that is relevant, purposeful, interesting, and engaging. 4. Communication is a comprehensive process that often calls upon the use of several language skills. 5. Language learning is facilitated both by activities that: ○ involve inductive or discovery learning of language rules, and ○ involve the analysis of language rules. 6. Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language, and trial and error. 7. The ultimate goal of language learning is to be able to use the new language 16 both accurately and fluently. 8. Learners develop their own routes to language learning, progress at different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning. 9. The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use and language learning. 10.The classroom is a community where learners learn through collaboration and sharing. Principles of Communicative Language Teaching: ● Make real communication the focus of language learning. ● Provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they know. ● Provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency. ● Link the different skills such as speaking, reading, and listening together, since they usually occur so in the real world ● Let students induce or discover grammar rules. ● Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building up his or her communicative competence. ● Focus more on achieving communicative competence with students without neglecting grammatical competence and on fluency without neglecting accuracy. Grammatical Competence VS. Communicative Competence. To achieve grammatical competence, students learn the rules of sentence formation in a language. But to achieve communicative competence students learn language through activities and they learn sentence formation and its use at the same time. About Grammatical Competence: ● The ability to produce sentences in a language. ● The knowledge of the building blocks of sentences (e.g. parts of speech, tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence patterns) and how they are formed. ● The unit of analysis and practice is typically the sentence. ● Accuracy is the main goal to achieve when learning a language. About Communicative Competence: Communicative competence includes knowing how to: ● Use language for a range of different purposes and functions. ● vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants. 17 grammar teaching will be discussed in the following paragraphs. Communicative Language Teaching is considered as an approach but not a method because it does not provide teachers with any specific techniques. 'It is a unified but broadly based theoretical position about the nature of language and of language learning and teaching', says H. Douglas Brown in his Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Methods such as Content-Based Instruction and Task- Based Language Teaching are different versions of the communicative approach realized in practical and specific techniques sharing the same theoretical foreground. The Communicative Language Teaching provides a guideline and a principle. Thus it is very flexible and can be broadly adopted in various types of classrooms; it has had a longer shelf life than other approaches and continues being the main approach being used. However it has its own strengths and weaknesses in modern day teaching, teaching different languages and teaching different aspects of languages. Therefore it is critical for teachers to know well about the methods and to know which ones to use in what type of classroom. Learning a second language is no longer viewed as a habit formation through drilling and making grammatically correct sentences under teacher-centred classrooms where error correction happens immediately after an error is made. Richards wrote in 2006 that 'in recent years, language learning has been viewed from a very different perspective. It is seen as resulting from processes such as: - Interaction between the learner and users of the language - Collaborative creation of meaning - Creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language - Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at understanding - Learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use the language - Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying to incorporate new forms into one's developing communicative competence - Trying out and experimenting with different ways of say things.' Learners now participate actively in a communicative classroom involving different activity types such as peer discussion, games, role-plays and group work, etc. They are encouraged to learn independently and to learn from each other with emphasis placed on the process of learning. Meaningful tasks and conversations are considered to be promoting and motivating learning with the content relevant to the current society and the students' personal lives. After the communicative language teaching started to be the mainstream approach, there has been a shift in the thinking about teachers, learning and teaching, according to Richards, in the same book mentioned in the previous page, he pointed out that individual differences of students were taken more into consideration in education, the schools were much more connected to the world than before, teaching should help students to understand the purpose of learning and develop their own purpose and the promoting of lifelong learning rather than learning in order to take exams, etc. The techniques and the shifts in thinking reflect each other and help to improve with teaching. The use of L1 is forbidden in traditional communicative language teaching 20 classrooms that strictly stick to the principles. Using the target language throughout the lesson is seen as adding to the input of the target language exposure for the students. The teacher's language spoken in the target language could be seen as a model for the communicative use of the language. The view that L1 should be avoided has been taken for granted by many teachers. It denies the benefits of L1 being a resource for learning the target language. Second language learners in many ways learn differently from a child acquiring their first language because they already have another language (L1) in mind when they are learning. However, even being within a communicative language teaching environment, L1 could be used for giving instructions about activities, translating and checking comprehension, individual comments to students, giving feedback to students and maintaining discipline in the classroom, according to Ernesto Macaro (1997). It should be noted that only comprehensible input for students is helpful for the learning, using purely the target language may be time consuming since it may not be comprehensible to the learners. The differences and similarities in grammar and meaning between the target language and the learner's L1 can also aid the learning to help the learner with their understanding of the target language. The communicative language teaching also places an importance on the learner's confidence and self-esteem if the class is only in the target language and the learner does not understand what the teacher says it may cause a loss of confidence and enthusiasm that the learner would be hesitant to speak. This debate does not mean that L1 should be used at a large percentage of the class; it should be considered by the teachers how much L1 use is suitable for their classes to maximize the effectiveness of learning. The teaching of grammar is also much debated in the use of a communicative language teaching approach. Krashen persistently points out that conscious learning, which means the learning of grammar rules is not necessary for language acquisition and he says that normal conversation does not allow the speaker to have enough time to think about and use rules. When grammar is taught as a subject matter in a situation that the students are interested in learning about grammar and the language of instruction is conducted in the target language is the only instance the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition; but it is only an illusion that the acquisition happens when the instructional language acts as the comprehensible input. The challenge of language teaching today is seen as moving 'significantly beyond the teaching of rules, patterns, definitions' in order to teach the students to 'communicate genuinely, spontaneously, and meaningfully'. These may lead to fluency at the expense of accuracy. It is necessary to re-think the role of grammar in language teaching and learning; of course it does not mean moving away from the principles of Communicative Language Teaching. Vivian Cook writes in her book Second Language Learning and Language Teaching: '.many graduates of European universities who learnt English by studying traditional grammars turned into fluent and spontaneous speakers of English.they still sometimes visualized verbs paradigms for English to check what they were writing. This at least suggests that the conversion of conscious rules to non-conscious processes does take place 21 for some academic students'. The teaching of grammar also helps with raising language awareness, which helps with the learning. Grammar could be taught inductively in a Communicative Language Teaching environment in a way that it is integrated in a communicative task that the students would have to use specific items of grammar. Conclusion There are many language teaching methods that have been in and out of fashion and today mainstream teaching is based on the Communicative Language Teaching approach, which allows flexibility to suit each teacher, learner and classroom with the room for adjustment in order to achieve the goal of acquiring communicative competence. The use of the learner's first language should not be totally forbidden; instead, it could be a beneficial resource to help with the learner's understanding and in giving feedback to the learner. Grammar teaching is avoided in some teaching methods such as the Audio-Lingual Method ,which is seen as unnecessary in the process of acquiring a language, however, it can be taught inductively to raise language awareness and it is useful for students who learn the best through logic and discovering rules. Language teaching today has placed much greater attention on learner autonomy, the social nature of learning, diversity of learners, critical thinking and teachers as facilitators There is no single method or model of Communicative Language Teaching viewed as being able to meet the requirement of gaining the four skills in teaching languages. Therefore, teachers need to incorporate various techniques, activities and teaching strategies that fall within the framework of Communicative Language Teaching into the classroom that equip the learner with the skills to use the language outside the classroom. 22