Principles of Communicative Language teaching and task based instruction

REFLECTION What kind of methods or techniques have you experienced as a learner of (a) foreign language(s)? Which ones worked best for you, and which ones did not work at all? Why? _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Introduction The field of second or world language teaching has undergone many shifts and trends over the last few decades. Numerous methods have come and gone. We have seen the Audiolingual Method, cognitive- based approaches, the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural Approach, and many others (for a detailed description of these meth- ods and approaches, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). In addition, the proficiency and standards-based1 movements have shaped the field with their attempts to define proficiency goals and thus have provided a general sense of direction. Some believe that foreign lan- guage instruction has finally come of age (see Harper, Lively, and Williams 1998); others refer to it as the post-method area (Richards and Rodgers 2001). It is also generally believed that there is no one single best method that meets the goals and needs of all learners and programs. What has emerged from this time is a variety of Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction Effective teaching is not about a method. It is about understanding and implementing principles of learning. 1 In this chapter you will learn about • communicative language teaching. • task-based instruction. • characteristics of pedagogical and real- life tasks. • principles underlying communicative language teaching methodologies. • characteristics of good input. • practical guidelines on how to maximize the use of the target language (TL) in the classroom. • challenges in implementing communicative language teaching methodologies. 1C H A P T E R M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 1 2 CHAPTER ONE communicative language teaching (CLT) methodologies. Such method- ologies encompass eclectic ways of teaching that are borrowed from myr- iad methods. Furthermore, they are rooted not only in one but a range of theories and are motivated by research findings in second language acqui- sition (SLA) as well as cognitive and educational psychology. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to CLT and furthermore describe general methodological principles that function as theoretical and practical guidelines when implementing CLT methodologies. The Shift Toward Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction: A Historical Perspective For many decades the predominant method of language instruction was the grammar-translation method. This method is rooted in the teaching of the nineteenth century and was widely used for the first half (in some parts of the world even longer) of the last century to teach modern for- eign languages (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Textbooks primarily con- sisted of lists of vocabulary and rule explanations. By and large, students engaged in translation activities. Little oral proficiency would result from the Grammar-translation Method, and students often were expected to go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker. The Grammar-translation Method was not without its opponents, and the demand for oral proficiency led to several counter and parallel movements that laid the foundation for the development of new ways of teaching, as we still know them today (Richards and Rodgers 2001). One such method is the Direct Method, sometimes also referred to as the Berlitz Method as it was widely used in Berlitz schools. Some reformers of the nineteenth century (e.g., Gouin and Sauveur) believed that lan- guages should be taught in a natural way, that is, how children learn lan- guage. As Richards and Rodgers (2001) point out, “Believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner’s native language if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action” (p. 11). For this reason, they also strongly promoted the spontaneous use of language. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 12) describe principles of proce- dures underlying the Direct Method in the following way: 1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language. 2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught. 3. Oral communication skills were built up in carefully graded progres- sion organized around question-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes. 4. Grammar was taught inductively. 5. New teaching points were introduced orally. 6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstrating, objects, and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas. M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 2 Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 3 7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught. 8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized. Despite its success in private schools, the Direct Method was met with a great deal of criticism. Strict requirements to adhere to its princi- ples and the need for native speakers or someone with native-like fluency prevented this method from becoming widely adopted by academic insti- tutions (see Richards and Rodgers 2001). Hailed in its day as revolutionary in foreign language teaching, the grammar-translation method was replaced by the Audiolingual Method in the 1950s and 60s. The belief in the effectiveness of this method was so strong that traces of audiolingual-based teaching theories can still be found in teaching materials. The audiolingual method was based on the school of behaviorism in psychology and structuralism in linguistics, for which rea- son it also become known as the “structural” or “behaviorist” method. Because of its primary emphasis on spoken language, it is also referred to as the “Aural-oral” Method. The underlying assumption of this philoso- phy was that, as Rivers (1964) put it, foreign language learning is basically a mechanical process of habit formation and automatization. In practice, this meant students were presented with language patterns and dialogues, which they had to mimic and memorize. Language practice by and large consisted of repetition of language patterns and drill exercises. Drill types included substitution drills, variation drills, translation drills, and response drills. The following Swedish example illustrates a combination of a substi- tution and translation drill. ILLUSTRATION 1 Substitution/transformation drill Han har alltid HUNDEN med sig. [He always has his dog with him]. the map—the fountain pen—the ink—the paper—the car The teacher says, “Han har alltid hunden med sig.” [He always has his dog with him]. Student chooses from a given list of English words, translates it into Swedish, and substitutes the underlined word of the example sentence. A tenet of this method was that errors of any kind were to be avoided, so the learners were not to establish bad habits. For this reason, the native speaker teacher was considered the perfect model. There were, however, many problems with audiolingual approaches. The teacher, who was often seen like the drillmaster, carried the respon- sibility of teaching and student learning like an atlas on his shoulder (Lee and VanPatten 2003). One of the most widely brought forward points of criticism toward this method is that the learners lacked engage- ment in meaningful language use and had only limited opportunities to M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 3 4 CHAPTER ONE use language creatively while interacting with their peers. As Willis (2004) points out, “This was because the emphasis was on eradication of errors and accurate production of the target forms, not on communica- tion of meanings” (p. 4). Due to overcorrection of students’ errors by the teacher, anxiety levels were often quite high among students. The Audiolingual Method failed to have the desired effect of helping learners become competent speakers in the TL. Several factors and influences led to the demise of the Audiolingual Method and caused a shift in language teaching methodology. This brought forth communicative language approaches and a range of alter- native methods. 1. The Audiolingual Method did not live up to its promise creating speakers who were able to communicate in the target language. 2. Theories of learning moved away from behaviorist views of learning. The most influential work was the one by Chomsky, which was pub- lished in his book Syntactic Structures (1957). He argued that lan- guage learning involves creative processes and perceived language as rule-governed creativity. As Willis (2004) describes it, “He believed that a basic rule system that underpins all languages is innate and that, given exposure to a specific language, children will naturally create the specific rules of that language for themselves. Learning is thus seen as a process of discovery determined by internal processes rather than external influences” (pp. 4–5). 3. Works by scholars and sociolinguists such as J. Firth, M. Halliday, D. Hymes, and J. Austin led to a change in the way language was viewed. As emphasized by many practitioners, the primary purpose of language is to communicate. 4. The development of a functional-notional syllabus in the 1970s in Europe by Van Ek (1973) and Wilkins (1976) initiated a new way of how teaching materials were organized. Traditionally, syllabi had been organized around grammatical structures and vocabulary units. The functional-notional syllabus attempted to show what learners need to do with language and what meanings they need to communi- cate, and organized the syllabus around functions and notions. Functions are communicative speech acts such as “asking,” “requesting,” “denying,” “arguing,” “describing,” or “requesting.” Notional categories include concepts such as “time” or “location.” Notions and functions are different from topics and situations as they express more precise categories. For example, a topic may be “family,” the situation “coming for a visit and having dinner.” The function and the notion that is addressed in this unit may involve “inviting” and “time past” (e.g., past tenses, expressions like “last week,” “a few days ago”). The functional-notional syllabus laid the groundwork that ultimately led textbook writers to organize their materials in terms of communicative situations, and some also in very concrete communicative tasks. M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 4 Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 5 5. A growing number of research studies in applied linguistics have provided many new insights and a deeper understanding of second language learning and SLA processes. Some of these include • Learners move through different stages of development (Selinker 1972). • Learners develop an underlying language system that develops in a sequence that does not always reflect the sequence of what was taught in a curriculum (Dulay and Burt 1973). Work by Pienemann (1989) showed that learners develop language skills according to their own internal syllabus. Alternative approaches and methods to language teaching While communicative language teaching methodologies kept evolving and being more clearly defined, in the 1970s and 80s a set of alternative approaches and methods emerged. Some of these include comprehension- based methods such as the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural Approach, the Silent Way, or Suggestopedia (for a detailed description of these methods, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). Many of these methods never became widely adapted and had only a short shelf life. This is not to say that these methods did not contribute to the field of language teaching. On the contrary, some of these methods have helped shape and continue to have an influence on the field in many ways. For example, TPR, which James Asher (1969) originally developed as a method to teach language by combining action and speech, is still widely used. Many practitioners, however, promote and use TPR as a technique to introduce some vocabu- lary or grammatical structures. Some principles of learning that have been promoted through these methods are integrated in the discussion below. What Is Communicative Language Teaching? Communicative language teaching (CLT) is generally regarded as an approach to language teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). As such, CLT reflects a certain model or research paradigm, or a theory (Celce- Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary function of lan- guage use is communication. Its primary goal is for learners to develop communicative competence (Hymes 1971), or simply put, communica- tive ability. In other words, its goal is to make use of real-life situations that necessitate communication. Defining communicative competence Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learner in the production of the target language (Canale and Swain M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 5 6 CHAPTER ONE 1980; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995; Hymes 1972). Such a notion encom- passes a wide range of abilities: the knowledge of grammar and vocabu- lary (linguistic competence); the ability to say the appropriate thing in a certain social situation (sociolinguistic competence); the ability to start, enter, contribute to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in a consistent and coherent manner (discourse competence); the ability to communicate effectively and repair problems caused by communication breakdowns (strategic competence). As frequently misunderstood, CLT is not a method per se. That is to say, it is not a method in the sense by which content, a syllabus, and teaching routines are clearly identified (see Richards and Rodgers 2001). CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods and tech- niques. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative (Richards and Rodgers 2001). By and large, it uses materials and utilizes methods that are appropriate to a given context of learning. CLT has spawned various movements such as proficiency-based or standard-based instruction. While the early days of CLT were concerned with finding best designs and practices, the proficiency-based movement contributed to the field of language teaching by putting forward a set of proficiency guidelines (see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL] guidelines in Chapter 8, Developing Oral Communication Skills). These guidelines describe language ability and are meant to be used to measure competence in a language (Omaggio- Hadley 2001). In this sense, the proficiency-based movement focused on measuring what learners can do in functional terms. By providing evaluative descriptions, that is, by specifying what students should know and how they should be able to use language within a variety of contexts and to various degrees of accuracy at different stages, it pro- vided a set of broadly stated goals and thus a sense of direction for curriculum designers. The standard-based movement attempted to fur- ther streamline descriptions of what students should know and be able to do after completing a particular grade level or curriculum to meet national standards in foreign language education from kindergarten to university. In this way, both movements positively influenced and strengthened the development and implementation of communicative- oriented teaching practices. As far as theories of learning and effective strategies in teaching are concerned, CLT does not adhere to one particular theory or method. It draws its theories about learning and teaching from a wide range of areas such as cognitive science, educational psychology, and second lan- guage acquisition (SLA). In this way, it embraces and reconciles many different approaches and points of view about language learning and teaching, which allows it to meet a wide range of proficiency-oriented goals and also accommodate different learner needs and preferences. Despite the lack of universally accepted models, from early on, there has M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 6 Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 7 been some degree of consensus regarding the qualities required to justify the label “CLT,” which Wesche and Skehan (2002) describe as: • Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors to exchange information and solve problems. • Use of authentic (non-pedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real-world” contexts, often emphasizing links across writ- ten and spoken modes and channels. • Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and generally allow learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (p. 208). With no one particular method or theory that underlies their practi- cal and theoretical foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as a set of macro-strategies (Kumaradivelu 1994) or methodological princi- ples (Doughty and Long 2003). The following section describes such principles in more detail. Methodological Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction Doughty and Long (2003) define methodological principles as a list of design features that can be generally regarded as being facilitative to sec- ond language acquisition. The following list, adapted from Doughty and Long (2003), serves as a guideline for implementing communicative lan- guage teaching (CLT) practices. Principle 1: Use Tasks as an Organizational Principle For decades traditional methods of language teaching have used grammar topics or texts (e.g., dialogues, short stories) as a basis for organizing a syllabus. With CLT methodologies this approach has changed; the devel- opment of communicative skills is placed at the forefront, while grammar is now introduced only as much as needed to support the development of these skills. This raises questions on how to organize a syllabus. Some proponents (see Breen 1987; Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Prabhu 1987) sug- gest using tasks as central units that form the basis of daily and long-term lesson plans. Such an approach to syllabus design has become known as task-based instruction (TBI). The rationale for the employment of com- municative tasks is based on contemporary theories of language learning and acquisition, which claim that language use is the driving force for lan- guage development (Long 1989; Prabhu 1987). For example, advocates of such theories (see Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun 1993) suggest that, as Norris et al. (1998) put it, “the best way to learn and teach a language is M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 7 8 CHAPTER ONE through social interactions. [. . . they] allow students to work toward a clear goal, share information and opinions, negotiate meaning, get the interlocutor’s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on their language production. In the process, learners not only use their interlan- guage, but also modify it, which in turn promotes acquisition” (p. 31). In other words, it is not the text one reads or the grammar one studies but the tasks that are presented that provide learners a purpose to use the grammar in a meaningful context. This gives task design and its use a piv- otal role in shaping the language learning process. What are tasks? Numerous competing defi