Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

WebCEF Project Work Package 3: Communicative Language Teaching (2.11.2008) Partner 6, University of Helsinki

Advanced Information

In the following excerpt, Harjanne and Tella (2008) discuss certain elements of the Commu- nicative Language Teaching (CLT), together with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Supported Language Teaching (TSLT).

Reference: Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (2008). Strong signals in foreign language education, with a view to future visions. In S. Tella (Ed.), From Brawn to Brain: Strong Signals in Foreign Language Education. Proceedings of the ViKiPeda-2007 Conference in Hel- sinki, May 21–22, 2007 (pp. 55–84). University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sci- ences of Education. Research Report 290.

STRONG SIGNALS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION, WITH A VIEW TO FUTURE VISIONS

PIRJO HARJANNE & SEPPO TELLA RESEARCH CENTRE FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION (REFLECT) DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED SCIENCES OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI pirjo.harjannehelsinki.fi, seppo.tellahelsinki.fi

Abstract Foreign language education (FLE) is generally expected to reflect current concep- tions of human beings, knowledge, teaching, studying, learning, and knowing. Today’s FLE can be characterised, for instance, as socio-culturally oriented, communicative and transcultural. In this article, we will study some strong FL-specific signals that characterise this kind of FLE. The notion of weak signals refers to those barely noticeable signals that surround us and are likely to become important trends or phe- nomena at a later stage. However, we prefer to talk about strong signals that are clearly perceivable in current FLE and are likely to have a strong impact on future FLE, provided that they are allowed to grow steadily and taken into account properly by increasing numbers of FL teachers and teacher educators. As strong signals, we discuss (i) the holistic view on language exemplified through language as an empowering mediator; (ii) the holistic view on language proficiency; (iii) the holistic view on language learning focusing on interaction and participation, exemplified through scaffolding, collaborative dialogue and affordance; (iv) the holistic view on language teaching exemplified through task-based language teaching (TBLT) and LanguageQuest, and (v) information and communication technolo- gies (ICTs), with a view to Web 2.0. We argue that dealing with strong signals is of primary importance. in order to understand the current nature of FLE and to be able to envision future FLE. We also acknowledge that these strong signals might, at their best, lead to or, at their worst, partially shadow some weaker signals that only perspicacious persons can sense at the moment. We also argue that by analysing strong FL-specific signals, we can approach more easily certain future visions of FLE, which may then become a spectrum of different options and opportunities to us. Visions almost always imply an idea of a more desired future. Three visions, based on the strong signals analysed in this article, are presented: Brusselisation, Fraglargement, and Rejuvenation of the old continent. The future is seen as an opportunity, not as a threat.

Keywords: communicative, transcultural foreign language education (FLE); weak and strong signals; holistic view; empowering mediator; participation; interaction; scaffolding; collaborative dialogue; affordance; TBLT; LanguageQuest; ICTs; Web 2.0; future visions. (…)

The Holistic View on Language Teaching

At the same time as the views on language, language proficiency and language learning have widened, the view on language teaching has also changed and been updated. To our way of thinking, contemporary foreign language teaching needs always to imply communicative language teaching, which is seen as holistic pedagogy. In another context (Tella & Harjanne, 2004), we have combined communicative language teaching with our attempt to develop a deeper understanding of other people and cultures together with critical and methodological eclecticity. This wide conception of language teaching is shared, among others, by Kohonen (2004), who, in lieu of communicative language teaching, speaks of language education, which represents holistic language teaching and growth concerning the student’s whole person- ality.

The basis of communicative language teaching is the view on language as context-based communication and the view on language learning as an interactive, cooperative, experiential and context-based process (e.g., Ellis, 2003). Communicative language teaching as a methodological approach covers many schools of thought, which share the same basic principles but contain different kinds of philosophical details or teaching practices. However, it is common to the different interpretations and applications of communicative language teaching that they represent the idea of learning by doing and the direct practice of communication (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 155– 158; Rodgers, 2001).

In order to be communicative, foreign language teaching has to follow certain principles. The main principle is the objective to develop the students’ ability to express meanings and use a foreign language for communication in social interaction. Communicative language teaching represents learner-centred teaching, which requires that the students interact with each other. Tasks that represent interactive communicative language teaching include, for instance, pair and group work, assignments that are connected with language using situations outside the classroom and those that are meaningful from the point of view of the student’s life circle. Further, the tasks should lead to authentic communication and spontaneity in conversations (Brown, 2001, p. 48, p. 166).

Communicative language teaching is divided into two versions: weak and strong (Howatt, 1984). The strong version is represented for instance by task- based language teaching (TBLT), whereby the use of a foreign language means learning it (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). TBLT is based on second language acquisition theories and builds itself, as the name indicates, exclusively on “tasks” (see e.g., Ellis, 2003). It is based on the use of tasks as a core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching. It includes several slightly di- verging approaches, but its basis is on the theory of language learning. Ed- mondson (2005, pp. 53–54) aptly divides these approaches into three schools as follows: (i) the procedural syllabus approach, initiated by Prabhu (e.g., 1987), the British school of “task-based instruction” (e.g., Skehan, 1998), and the “focus on form” paradigm, centred around the work of Long (1985; Long & Norris, 2000).

Within TBLT, a current belief is that students learn a foreign language by using it creatively for communication and that trial and error are an essential part of this learning process (Rodgers, 2001). One of the key principles of TBLT states that language learning is promoted by authentic communication and through using meaningful language in meaningful tasks by the learners (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 223).

A communicative task, which can be either authentic or pedagogical, is the core unit in planning and implementing teaching (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 223–228). What makes a task communicative, then? A communicative task has been defined and described in many different ways (e.g., Skehan, 1998, 2003; Brown, 2001). According to the definition of the Com- mon European Framework of Reference (CEFR, 2001, p. 158), both authentic and pedagogic tasks are communicative when they require understanding, negotiation of meaning and expressing thoughts to reach the communicative goal. What the various definitions of a communicative task have in common is that they underscore the pragmatic language use focusing on meaning, the communicative goal and the connection of communication with life outside the classroom. The input of the communicative task can be derived from a large number of sources belonging to the student’s environment, in other words by using various linguistic and social affordances around the students. These affordances make it possible for the students to bring their own experiences and contents into practice. It should also be noted that, as is the case in communication outside the classroom, in practice the communicative task is always made up of several subskills of the language, in other words listening, reading and writing in addition to speaking.

In task-based language teaching (TBLT), direct communication is primary, but a remarkable consensus holds that mere interaction is not sufficient: the tasks are supposed to draw and focus the attention on the critical features of the language, too (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 223–228). There is a need for communicative tasks that make the students negotiate the meaning and pay sufficient attention to the language as a formal system also while communicat- ing (with the focus on meaning) (e.g., Long, 1996; Skehan, 2003). The build- ing of co-operational knowledge, scaffolding, private speech and creating in- tersubjectivity (i.e., shared understanding of a task and its goals and perform- ance as defined by Antón & DiCamilla, 1999, pp. 240–243) are further coupled with task-based language teaching (Ellis, 2003, p. 253, pp. 276–278). Task-based language teaching can be seen as a holistic approach to language education. It includes foreign language teaching, studying and learning in a language classroom and outside. The tasks are often integrated tasks, i.e. they include both a subject, such as history, and a foreign language. An example of task-based language teaching is LanguageQuest, which is based on network-based education (NBE; aka blended learning).

LanguageQuest is an approach to using the Internet as an integral part of language teaching. LanguageQuest is a Dutch (TalenQuest) Web- and learner- centred classroom project (http://www.kennisnet.nl/thema/talenquest/english/) based on an American project WebQuest by Dodge (http://webquest.org/) and March (http://tommarch.com/ozblog/). A LanguageQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by the students is drawn from the Web. It is a scaffolded learning structure that uses links to essential resources on the Internet and an authentic task to motivate students’ investig- ation of a central, open-ended question, development of individual expertise and participation in a group process. The students process the information found on the Internet, or in the real world, by transforming it into a more soph- isticated understanding and context-related form. They make sense of the information and demonstrate their understanding by creating Web pages.

Task-based language teaching, as a form of content-based instruction, is a challenge for present-day language teaching and studying, and can be seen as a possibility and even one of the strongest signals in future foreign language education. (…)

References

Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233– 247. Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Lan- guage Pedagogy. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: State University. CEFR (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (2001). Council for Cultural Co-opera- tion. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg. Council of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmondson, W. (2005). Learning from Different Tasks: The Dr. Pangloss Per- spective. In A. Müller-Hartmann & M. Schocker-v. Ditfurth (Hrsg.), Aufgabenorientierung im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Task-Based Lan- guage Learning and Teaching. Festschrift für Michael K. Legutk (pp. 53– 66). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Kohonen, V. (2004). Kielikasvatus vieraiden kielten opetuksen uutena paradigmana. Teoksessa J. Enkenberg & M. B. Kentz (toim.), Kasvatuk- sen maisemista (ss. 87–94). Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Savonlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitos. Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task- based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multi- lingual Matters. Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Lan- guage Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). Lon- don: Routledge. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodgers, T. (2001). Language teaching methodology. Retrieved September 17, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rodgers.html Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. Tella, S., & Harjanne, P. (2004). Vieraiden kielten didaktiikka, opetus– opiskelu–oppimisprosessi ja kieltenopetus. [Foreign Language Educa- tion, the Teaching–Studying–Learninig Process and Language Teach- ing]. In S. Ahonen, & A. Siikaniva (Eds.), Eurooppalainen ulottuvuus. Ai- nedidaktinen symposiumi Helsingissä 6.2.2004 (pp. 444–463). Helsingin yliopiston soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos. Tutkimuksia 252. Table 1