User:C e jones/sandbox

GP:

Through the influence of communicative language teaching, it has become widely accepted that communicative competence should be the goal of language education, central to good classroom practice. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority.

CLT says that the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target language. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority.

--

Lead Section:

Language learners in environments utilizing CLT techniques learn and practice the target language through interaction with one another and the instructor, study of "authentic texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language learning), and use of the language in class combined with use of the language outside of class. This method also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal experiences into their language learning environment and focus on the learning experience in addition to the of learning the target language.

-

Critique Draft

Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally accepted and has been subject to significant critique.

In his critique of CLT, Michael Swan addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT. In his critique, he mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject, but one in which theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ greatly. Critique of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of CLT while citing little data, that it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and that it assumes knowledge that is predominately language non-specific (ex. the ability to make educated guesses) is language specific. Swan suggests that these theoretical issues can lead to confusion in the application of CLT techniques.

Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical systems of the language). This priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that, in CLT techniques, whatever languages a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.

Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of her critiques of CLT is that it implies that there is a generally agreed upon consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate, when there actually is not. Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language. That an individual is proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is an endangered language. This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular, when it may necessarily be the best method of language teaching.

Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar (the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question). Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.

Stephen Bax's critique of CLT has to do with the context of its implementation. Bax asserts that many researchers associate the use of CLT techinques with modernity and, therefore, the lack of CLT techniques as a lack of modernism. In this way, these researchers consider teachers or school systems which don't use CLT techniques as outdated and suggest that their students learn the target language "in spite of" the absence of CLT techniques, as though CLT were the only way to learn a language and everyone who fails to implement its techniques is ignorant and will not be successful in teaching the target language.

--

Application: influential, overgeneralizations, exaggerated claims,

One critique of CLT is that it implies that there is a generally agreed upon consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate, when there actually is not. Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language. That an individual is proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is a prestige language or an endangered language. This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular, when it may not, in fact, be the best method of language teaching.[7]

CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar. Here, grammar refers to the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question. Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.[7]

"One of the most famous attacks on communicative language teaching was offered by Michael Swan in the English Language Teaching Journal in 1985. Henry Widdowson responded in defense of CLT, also in the ELT Journal (1985 39(3):158-161). More recently other writers (e.g. Bax) have critiqued CLT for paying insufficient attention to the context in which teaching and learning take place, though CLT has also been defended against this charge (e.g. Harmer 2003).

Often, the communicative approach is deemed a success if the teacher understands the student. But, if the teacher is from the same region as the student, the teacher will understand errors resulting from an influence from their first language. Native speakers of the target language may still have difficulty understanding them. This observation may call for new thinking on and adaptation of the communicative approach. The adapted communicative approach should be a simulation where the teacher pretends to understand only what any regular speaker of the target language would and reacts accordingly (Hattum 2006)."

--

Draft: Communicative Language Teaching MS: Societal Influences
 * 1) All sections of the article will be edited. "Communicative syllabi" and "outline" have not been assigned to any specific group member, but they each contain information that should probably be incorporated to another section, so we are splitting those sections up to make our individual sections better.
 * 2) Moriah Sharpe: Societal Influences, Andrew Bond: Academic Influences, Kristen Lavery: Classroom Activities, Caitlyn Jones: Critiques
 * 3) Additions

In the earlier times of language teaching, it was thought that language teachingwas a cognitive matter. The idea then shifted from cognitive to socio-cognitive, which emphasizes that language can be learnt throughout the social process. However, in today's process of language teaching, the incorporation of communicative language teaching has become mandatory in teaching any language.

Communicative language teaching grew out of Chomsky’s theories in the 1960s, which focused on competence and performance in language learning. Itrose to prominence in the 1970s and early 1980s as a result of many disparate developments in both Europe and the United States.[1] First, there was an increased demand for language learning, particularly in Europe. The advent of the European Common Market, an economic predecessor to the European Union, led to European migration, and consequently there was a large population of people who needed to learn a foreign language for work or for personal reasons.[2] At the same time, children were increasingly able to learn foreign languages in school. The number of secondary schools offering languages rose worldwide in the 1960s and 1970s as part of a general trend of curriculum-broadening and modernization, and foreign-language study ceased to be confined to the elite academies. In Britain, the introduction of comprehensive schools meant that almost all children had the opportunity to study foreign languages.[3]

This increased demand put pressure on educators to change their teaching methods. Traditional methods such as grammar translation, which involves the direct translation of sentence after sentence as a way to learn language, assumed that students were aiming for mastery of the target language, and that students were willing to study for years before expecting to use the language in real life. However, these assumptions were challenged by adult learners who were busy with work and schoolchildren who were less academically able, and thus could not devote years to learning before being able to use the language. Educators realized that to motivate these students an approach with a more immediate payoff was necessary.[3]

The trend of progressivism in education provided further pressure for educators to change their methods.[3] Progressivism holds that active learning is more effective than passive learning,[4] and as this idea gained traction in schools there was a general shift towards using techniques where students were more actively involved, such as group work. Foreign-language education was no exception to this trend, and teachers sought to find new methods that could better embody this shift in thinking.[3]

New reference: Al-Humaidi, Majid. "Communicative Language Teaching." (2011). Kansas State University.

'''MB Comment: this is not that differentfrom what was there originally. Only one new reference is provided and we don't have the full citation. Is this an unpublished manuscript? If so, it is not considered "reliable." You will need to expand on this section a lot more if this is your main contribution.'''

AB: Academic Influences

The development of communicative language teaching was bolstered by new academic ideas. Before the growth of communicative language teaching, the primary method of language teaching was situational language teaching. This method was much more clinical in nature and relied less on direct communication. In Britain, applied linguists began to doubt the efficacy of situational language teaching. This was partly in response to Chomsky's insights into the nature of language. Chomsky had shown that the structural theories of language prevalent at the time could not explain the variety found in real communication.[2] In addition, applied linguists such as Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson observed that the current model of language learning was ineffective in classrooms. They saw a need for students to develop communicative skill and functional competence in addition to mastering language structures.[2]

In 1966, linguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes developed the concept of communicative competence. Communicative competence redefined what it meant to "know" a language; in addition to speakers having mastery over the structural elements of language, they must also be able to use those structural elements appropriately in a variety of speech domains.[1] This can neatly summed up by Hymes's statement, "There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless."[3] The idea of communicative competence stemmed from Chomsky's concept of the linguistic competence of an ideal native speaker.[1]Hymes did not make a concrete formulation of communicative competence, but subsequent authors have tied the concept to language teaching, notably Michael Canale.[3] Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in terms of three components: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. [5] Canale (1983)[full citation needed] refined the model by adding discourse competence, which contains the concepts of cohesion and coherence.

An influential development in the history of communicative language teaching was the work of the Council of Europe in creating new language syllabi. When communicative language teaching had effectively replaced situational language teaching as the standard by leading linguists, the Council of Europe made an effort to once again bolster the growth of the new method. This lead to the Council of Europe creating a new language syllabus. Education was a high priority for the Council of Europe, and they set out to provide a syllabus that would meet the needs of European immigrants.[2] Among the studies used by the council when designing the course was one by the British linguist, D. A. Wilkins, that defined language using "notions" and "functions", rather than more traditional categories of grammar and vocabulary. The new syllabus reinforced the idea that language could not be adequately explained by grammar and syntax, and instead relied on real interaction. [2]

References

1. Bachman, Lyle (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437003-5.

2. Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing" (PDF). Applied Linguistics (1): 1–47. Retrieved September 29, 2013.

3. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.

5. Richards, Jack C.; Rodgers, Theodore S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00843-3.

MB comment: a good start!

KL: Classroom Activities

CLT teachers choose classroom activities based on what they believe is going to be most effective for students developing communicative abilities in the FL. Oral activities are popular among CLT teachers, as opposed to grammar drills or reading and writing activities, because they include active conversation and creative, unpredicted responses from students.[5] How it is done: Benefits of this activity: This activity gives students the chance to improve their communication skills in the FL in a low-pressure situation. Most students are more comfortable speaking in pairs rather than in front of the entire class.
 * 1) Role-play[6]: an oral activity usually done in pairs, whose main goal is to develop students' communicative abilities in a certain setting
 * the instructor sets the scene: where is the conversation taking place? in a café? in a park? etc.
 * the instructor defines the goal of the students' conversation: does the speaker need directions somewhere? is the speaker ordering coffee? is the speaker talking about a movie they recently saw? etc.
 * the students converse in pairs for a designated amount of time

Problems with this activity: Instructors need to be aware of the differences between a conversation and an utterance. Students may use the same utterances repeatedly when doing this activity and not actually having a creative conversation. If instructors do not regulate what kinds of conversations students are having, then the students might not be truly improving their communication skills.

References: [5] Mitchell, Rosamond (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. Regent's Park, London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. pp. 23-24. ISBN 0948003871.

[6] Mitchell, Rosamond (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. Regent's Park, London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. pp. 25-27. ISBN 0948003871.

'''MB comment: a good start. I would make sure to formulate everything in full sentences, e.g. "The benefits of this activity are..." . Are you planning to expand on each of the items in the list? That would be great.'''

CJ: Critique

One critique of CLT is that it implies that there is a generally agreed upon consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate, when there actually is not. Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language. That an individual is proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is a prestige language or an endangered language. This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular, when it may not, in fact, be the best method of language teaching.[7]

CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar. Here, grammar refers to the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question. Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.[7]

References: [7] Ridge, Elaine (1992). "Communicative Language Teaching: Time for Review?" Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, Vol. 21 (1992). Stellenbosch, South Africa. pp. 95-106. DOI: 10.5842/21-0-533

'''MB comment: Is this the critique referred to in the article that's attributed to Swan? Try to link any new info you've found to what was already in the article, namely what appears to have been an argument between Swan and Widdowson.'''

Communicative Language Teaching:

Elaine Ridge in Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus "Communicative Language Teaching: Time for Review?"

- specifically to do with English language teaching in South Africa

- how does it work when the teachers are not completely proficient? (issues of teacher training)

- how does it work when learning the language has extremely high stakes?

- is knowing "how to use the language" "the same as knowing what one can do with the language?"

- doesn't outline a specific method: collects methods under its umbrella

- usefulness of explicit grammatical teaching