a)
why the early communicative approach placed so much emphasis on
"learner-centredness" and the forms it took
b)
why recently people have suggested that we need to shift to a "learning centred"
approach and what form this might take.
Section
a
The early Communicative Approach (CA) developed due to advances
in learning theories and linguistic theories which undermined the tenets of
Audiolingualism (AL), a highly T.
centred method where materials and techniques (eg repetition, substitution and
transformation drills) controlled all the language the Ls learnt and used. This was presented in a strict
structural progression from “simple” to more complex with the aim of preventing
error – repetition and reinforcement of the correct forms being thought to lead
to the “habit formation” which was the basis of behaviourism – the learning
theory on which AL was based.
Behaviourism was first attacked by Chomsky, who pointed out
that errors such as *“I goed there yesterday” (overgeneralisation) showed
evidence that the Ls were, in fact, applying rules and that language learning
must therefore have a cognitive base. This
was reinforced by a constructivist view of learning (Piaget and others)
which suggested that learning occurred
not just through input, but that Ls would actively build on their previous
knowledge to incorporate new information (as in the case of the child who knew
the words “dire” and “ear” and therefore, on hearing the word “diarrhoea”
understood it to mean “earache”). This meant that learner output should no
longer be strictly controlled but that Ls had to be given space to “try things
out”, even if this resulted initially in error. Learning was seen to occur
through “doing”. In language learning terms this meant introducing free practice
and fluency practice activities.
Constructivism was then extended to “social
constructivism” (Vygotsky) which emphasised the collaborative nature of much
learning. This
contributed to the early CA changing the typical c/r interaction pattern from a
predominantly T-led, T/class format to one where PW and GW would predominate.
Working in pairs/groups, the learners not only had more time to practise using
the language than in T/class format, but could also learn from each other.
At the same time developments in educational psychology (the Humanistic Movement involving such writers as Rogers, Maslow and, in EFL, Stevick) were emphasising the need to take the Ls emotions, wants, and need for self-fulfilment into consideration. In ELT this led to an emphasis on the importance of T/L rapport. The T. should no longer be an authority figure or “judge” of performance, but as a guide who understood and accepted the Ls’ problems and appreciated them as people. This respect for personal qualities was also important in L/L rapport, which would be improved by the collaborative PW/GW mentioned above, but also by the use of personalisation activities which allowed Ls to express themselves and get to know each other and the T. as people who had interesting life experiences, valid opinions etc.
Autonomy : Another tenet of humanistic approaches
was that Ls would learn more effectively if they were given more control over
their learning and encouraged to develop the skills to become autonomous learners,
independent of the teacher. In EFL this movement was associated with the work
of Holec and others at C.R.A.P.E.L in France. Autonomy could involve giving Ls
control of any or all aspects of the lesson, and led to the use of techniques
such as syllabus negotiation, the teaching of skills which would enable the
learner to continue learning independently outside the classroom (the
development of inference skills or the ability to use dictionaries effectively)
and peer and/or self-evaluation.
Social developments also contributed to the change
in emphasis. Up to the 1960s, overseas
travel was minimal and, obviously, the internet did not exist. Most language
learners were therefore school age, and learning a language as part of their
intellectual development – not for immediate use. The AL approach, where it
would take up to six years of study before the learner could start to
communicate was therefore feasible. In the 1970s, however, international
contact started to become more common. Foreign holidays were no longer limited
to the rich, and gradually a knowledge of language became necessary in
professional contexts. For the first time learners needed to use the
language from the earliest stages of language learning. This
focus on learner needs (a major element of the increase in the learner-centredness
of courses at the time) was first evident in the notional/functional syllabuses which came out of the early work of the Council of Europe and
emphasised the use of items as well as their structural form. This led to units
on functional topics such as making polite requests, and making suggestions,
which it was predicted that learners would need in communicative situations. Techniques such as information gap activities, roleplays etc were used to give the learners practice in using the language
under realistic communicative conditions. And ultimately this led to the idea of
tailor-made courses based on an analysis of the communicative needs of
specific groups (eg English for nurses) or even tailor-made for an individual
in a 121 situation.
Section b
More recently people (eg Underhill and Scrivener – Demand High ELT) have started to ask if we haven’t gone too far in the other direction, leading to a situation where Ts believe their role should never be be “knower” or “informer” but always “facilitator” of learning. However, they often do not understand what this term actually means or how they can facilitate learning at each stage of the lesson, and tend instead to do nothing. Examples of this are what has been termed “cocktail party” monitoring (the T. wandering aimlessly around the groups, listening but never intervening to correct, upgrade or explain problems), and what Demand High ELT (DHELT) has called “rubber-stamping” of answers – eg eliciting answers to activities until a correct reply is received and confirming it with an “excellent”, but never intervening to help the L who got it wrong for fear of embarrassing them. Trainee teachers have often been told never to say “no” to a L’s answer.
DHELT has suggested a number of remedies for the situation including giving the T. permission to “teach” – by for instance devoting ample time to the follow-up stage of a discussion to deal with errors or upgrade correct sentences which the Ls are capable of expressing in a more complex manner. For example, if an intermediate L says “I hate Western films”, the T. can board this with a “smiley” to indicate it is correct, but then elicit other ways of saying “hate” (can’t stand, can’t bear, loathe etc). Various other film genres can then be elicited and boarded (thrillers, love stories, horror films etc) and the Ls can then each be asked to specify a genre they dislike, to practise the “dislikes” exponents and the lexical field together. However, for this to happen and learning affordances to be fully exploited , much more time than is usually allowed has to be dedicated to the follow-up stage of any discussion. Thornbury lists a number of ways that such upgrading and practice can take place in his article “F is for Focus on Form”.
Another change that needs to be made in order to fully
exploit learning affordances, and to present the “rubber-stamping” of answers
is the reduction in the length of texts used for comprehension work, to
bring them down to a length where what Thornbury terms “zero uncertainty” can
be achieved. Modern
coursebooks tend to use long texts slightly above the Ls’ level, on the basis
that this input will lead to acquisition. We need to ask ourselves if it
doesn’t rather lead to confusion. The T. doesn’t have time to focus on every
item in the text or even to fully explain wrong answers to the comprehensions
questions, and the Ls are often left with unanswered queries. Short texts avoid
this problem. “Rubber-stamping” can be
avoided by not confirming answers but boarding them all and then asking focus
questions to point Ls to their mistakes – or with listening texts by repeating
the target phrase, possibly more slowly each time getting ls to “vote” for the
answer they now think is correct until all the Ls have heard what is said and understand the correct
answer. The T can then focus on whatever caused the
problem – for example the expected vs actual pronunciation of a phrase affected
by features of connected speech. If this is done for all the features of the
text predicted to be problematic, and if the T. finishes by asking whether Ls
have any other questions about items in the text, I would argue that the T’s
“interventionist” approach, even if it results in an increase in T/class work
and teacher talking time, if more conducive to learning than simply ignoring
the Ls’ problems and spending the time in additional pairwork.
