Communicative language teaching

As a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which the members of a society interact in terms of their total culture (Trager, 1979), language is defined by Sapir as “a cultural, not a biologically inherited, function” (Sapir, 1921, p. 1). This definition has been shared by many other linguists. Among them is Halliday (1973), who, putting language in the cultural context, emphasised that language is a range of potentials, an open-ended set of opportunities in behaviour that are available to the person in his existence as a social human being. He also emphasised “the context of culture defines the potential, the range of possibilities that are open. The actual choice among these possibilities takes place within a given context of situation” (Halliday, 1973, p. 31). A recent up-to-date view on language is understandably consistent with the above definitions. According to Norton (2009b), language is theorised not only as a linguistic system, but as a social practice in which experiences are organised and identities negotiated. Norton (2009b) also asserted that language should, therefore, not be considered as a neutral medium of communication, but will better be understood with reference to its social meaning.

It can, therefore, be understood from these definitions that language is primarily a tool of thought and communication. Learning a language means not only understanding how to use the language with its particular specific skills within a social setting and becoming part of the speech community, but also developing a deep conceptual understanding of literacy in that language. Communication means using language to make communicative functions in specific cultural contexts (Savignon, 2007). The focus should first be on meaning as a priority, then on form in the other end of the continuum (Figure 3.4). That is, what matters most rests less on

Chapter Three: Literature Review

whether learners learn to use the language accurately; rather, it is more important for learners to learn how to get their message across.

Figure 3.4 Communication continuum

3.3.1.1 CLT re-visited

The life circle of language teaching methods continues to rotate. Old approaches and methods are manipulated or bring forth new ones in a cycle, popularly known as

competition-between-rivals. Among them, CLT has long been considered and accepted as an inclusive approach to language teaching, which encompasses various approaches and methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of individual classrooms and students themselves; it is learner-centred and emphasises communication in real-life situations. CLT was originated in Britain in the mid-1960s as a replacement of earlier conventional methods and has become a widely acknowledged EFL teaching approach since the 1980s.

The approach endeavours to expand on the intention of creating communicative competence as opposed to traditional methods that serve the same objectives of language education. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be as important as, if not more important than, learning the language itself. Brown (2007) aptly describes the professional march towards CLT:

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. We are equipping our students with tools for generating unrehearsed language performance „out there‟ when they leave the womb of our

Focus on form Focus on meaning

Non- communicative Pre- communicative language Communicative language Structured communication Authentic communication <==========I============I===========I============I===========>

Chapter Three: Literature Review

classrooms. We are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among our students. And our classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential. (Brown, 2007, p. 42)

The notion of communication is accordingly central in CLT; and CLT advocates learning through communication. In CLT, communicative emphasis tends to be placed on the development of the basic skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing for many purposes. Teachers are provided with a repertoire of communicative activities in their selection of teaching skills and learners are given opportunities to practise the language skills in the classroom (Littlewood, 2007). Learners, as the centre of the teaching-learning process (White, 2007), are encouraged to use language in order to communicate with others, rather than speaking and writing just to practise language.

According to Nunan (1991, p. 279), there are five basic characteristics of CLT. First, CLT emphasises learning to communicate through interaction in the target language. Second, CLT introduces authentic texts into the learning situation. Third, CLT provides opportunities for learners to focus not only on the language but also on the learning process itself. Fourth, CLT enhances the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning. Finally, CLT attempts to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom. These five basic features have since been later endorsed by Holliday (1997) and Richards (2005), who differentiates CLT from traditional approaches5F

1

, according to a set of principles summarised in Table 3.1.

In terms of classroom practice, while considering the classroom as a social community with its own collaborative characteristics, Richards (2005) further extended the process-based CLT movement to the two well-known models of instruction, task-based and content-based, which “take different routes to achieve the goals of communicative language teaching - to develop learners‟ communicative competence” (Richards, 2005, p. 29). While in task-based instruction language is

1

Chapter Three: Literature Review

acquired via the mediation of meaningful tasks, language acquisition is mediated by the content areas of interest in content-based mode. Furthermore, these modes are often mingled, i.e. task-based instruction regularly contains content-based model and vice versa.

Table 3.1 CLT versus traditional approaches to language teaching

Principles Traditional approaches CLT

Goals of

language teaching

Grammatical competence Communicative competence

How learners learn a language

Process of mechanical habit formation

Processes of purposeful interaction and collaborative creation of meaning negotiated Classroom

activities

Memorisation of dialogues and drills in classroom as a lab

Pair/group work activities, role plays, and project work in classroom as a social community.

Roles of teachers and learners

Teacher: model for correct speech and writing

Learners: individualistic

Teacher: facilitator and monitor Learners: cooperative and collaborative

It should be noted that within the literature communicative competence is seen as consisting of several components. Whereas Canale and Swain (1980) suggested a model of communicative competence including grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence, Bachman & Palmer (1996) proposed a more specific model of communicative proficiency with two hierarchical components: the first factor being the grammatical structure of language manifested by the production of texts (written and spoken), and the second being the contextually constructed communicative expertise needed to pragmatise the grammar-tuned language production. Communicative competence is thus planned and developed in accordance with a particular social and cultural milieu.

Chapter Three: Literature Review

3.3.1.2 CLT re-defined

More precisely, CLT - as a language teaching approach with principles established and filtered over the past four decades in the field of SLA - was born under the light of SCT (Meskill & Anthony, 2005). The adaptation of SCT into CLT “implies a shift from theories of universal generative grammars, genetic blueprint and innate structures” (Lund, 2008, p. 38) to viewing language as a cultural mediational tool with its cultural conventions. Similarly, SCT also informs a turn from individual acquisition to artefact-mediated collaborative participation in language learning (Lund, 2008; Savignon, 2007). Viewed from the SCT perspective, language is not only a means of communication but also the reflection of culture and the human thinking process. SCT-based CLT approaches make several fundamental assumptions. First, language is best learned through the active negotiation of meaning via social interactions. Second, learning is normally mediated by social and cultural tools. Third, learners‟ linguistic performance improves through the ZPD via collaborative learning with peers. Finally, collaborative learning as a principal communicative strategy plays a significant role in a CLT language classroom.

Once CLT is viewed from the SCT perspective, it should be examined in accordance with space and time. In terms of space, it might be accepted that CLT applied to an Asian-based classroom must be different from CLT as applied to a Western-based classroom, for example. As far as time is concerned, it would hardly be completely suitable to implement the philosophy and the concept of 20th century CLT to the 21st century language classroom. In other words, if we are going to approach CLT from a sociocultural perspective, we cannot assume that the values that underlie CLT are universal (Sullivan, 2000). This idea has been endorsed and expanded by Savignon (2007), who confirmed that

CLT is an approach that understands language to be inseparable from individual identity and social behaviour. Not only does language define a community; a community, in turn, defines the forms and uses of language. The norms and goals appropriate for learners in a given setting, and the means for attaining these goals, are the concern of those directly involved. (Savignon, 2007, p. 217)

Chapter Three: Literature Review

Cultural, historical, and institutional factors on a local level must be taken into account. It is not sensible to simply assume that what works well in one educational backdrop will work well in another, and to ignore the interrelatedness of history, culture and pedagogy, as well as the argument that ELT methodology is associated with an Anglo-American tradition of communication (Sullivan, 2000). CLT can thus be perceived to derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and educational research (Savignon, 2007), based on which assorted dimensions of collaborative learning will be better understood. The following section presents collaborative learning with its various aspects.