首页 Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi

Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi

举报
开通vip

Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi E D I T E D B Y S A N D R A J . S A V I G N O N Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching C O N T E X T S A N D C O N C E R N S I N T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N Yale University Press New Haven & London Copyright ∫ 2002 by Yale University....

Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi
E D I T E D B Y S A N D R A J . S A V I G N O N Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching C O N T E X T S A N D C O N C E R N S I N T E A C H E R E D U C AT I O N Yale University Press New Haven & London Copyright ∫ 2002 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Publisher: Mary Jane Peluso Editorial Assistant: Emily Saglimbeni Manuscript Editor: Noreen O’Conner-Abel Marketing Manager: Mary Coleman Marketing Assistant: Michelle Schrag Production Coordinator: Maureen Noonan Set in Minion type by Keystone Typesetting. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Interpreting communicative language teaching : contexts and concerns in teacher education/edited by Sandra J. Savignon. p. cm.—(Yale language series) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-300-09156-7 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Languages, Modern—Study and teaching. 2. Language teachers—Training of. 3. Communicative competence in children. I. Savignon, Sandra J. II. Series. lb1578 .i56 2002 418%.0071—dc21 2001056761 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 vii Contents Prologue ix 1 Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice Sandra J. Savignon 1 Part I. Case Study: Japan 29 2 Teacher Education for Curricular Innovation in Japan Minoru Wada 31 3 Practical Understandings of Communicative Language Teaching and Teacher Development Kazuyoshi Sato 41 4 Zen and the Art of English Language Teaching Kiyoko Kusano Hubbell 82 Part II. Other Contexts 89 5 The Washback E√ect on Classroom Teaching of Changes in Public Examinations Liying Cheng 91 6 National Standards and the Di√usion of Innovation: Language Teaching in the United States Ana Schwartz 112 viii Contents 7 Innovative Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: The Case of Taiwan Chaochang Wang 131 8 The Use of Technology in High-Enrollment Courses: Implications for Teacher Education and Communicative Language Teaching Diane Musumeci 154 9 Learner Autonomy and the Education of Language Teachers: How to Practice What Is Preached and Preach What Is Practiced Eus Schalkwijk, Kees van Esch, Adri Elsen, and Wim Setz 165 Part III. Language Teacher Education for the Twenty-First Century 191 10 Genres of Power in Language Teacher Education: Interpreting the ‘‘Experts’’ Celeste Kinginger 193 Epilogue Sandra J. Savignon 208 References 213 List of Contributors 233 Index 235 ix Prologue s a n d r a j . s av i g n o n In the literature on communicative language teaching, or CLT, teacher education has not received adequate attention. My purpose in conceiving and editing this volume was to bring together a horizon-broadening variety of initiatives, projects, and activities related to teacher education that can make language teaching communicative in the broadest, most meaningful sense. The collection showcases some of the best work being done inter- nationally to make CLT an attainable goal. Ordering the chapters was a challenge. Themes appear and reappear, voices heard in one text are echoed in another. These links and recurrences contribute significantly to the cohesion and strength of the collection. As editor I have taken a hands-o√ approach to shaping individual chapters, striving, rather, to preserve the unique, contextualized perspective of each contributing author. Together, the contributors o√er thought-provoking in- sights into the construct of CLT, as it has come to be known worldwide, and provide practical examples for meeting the challenges of educating language teachers in the new millennium. For the most part, the chapter authors look at CLT from the perspective of practicing teachers. The impression throughout is one of hearing voices from the classroom. In some chapters, we hear from teacher educators, research- x Sandra J. Savignon ers, and national policy makers, in addition to teachers. The result is a vivid representation of language teaching as the collaborative and context-specific human activity that it is. I would like to thank Susan Welch, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Jim Lantolf, director of the Language Acquisition Center, and the graduate stu- dents in the Linguistics and Applied Language Studies program at Penn State for their contributions to our applied linguistics community that encourages inquiry and innovation. Also, I would like to acknowledge the reviewers of this text, Mary McGroarty of Northern Arizona University, Elizabeth Bern- hardt of Stanford University, Margie Berns of Purdue University, Bill John- ston of Indiana University, and Fred Davidson of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Finally, I would like to thank Mary Jane Peluso for including me in the new Yale University Press language collection, and Nor- een O’Connor and Philip King for their excellent suggestions and attention to detail. Foremost, however, I thank the contributors from around the globe without whom this collection would not have been possible. 1 1 Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice s a n d r a j . s av i g n o n Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and goals in classroom learning. The central theoretical concept in communica- tive language teaching is ‘‘communicative competence,’’ a term introduced into discussions of language use and second or foreign language learning in the early 1970s (Habermas 1970; Hymes 1971; Jakobovits 1970; Savignon 1971). Competence is defined in terms of the expression, interpretation, and negotia- tion of meaning and looks to both psycholinguistic and sociocultural per- spectives in second language acquisition (SLA) research to account for its development (Savignon 1972, 1997). Identification of learners’ communica- tive needs provides a basis for curriculum design (Van Ek 1975). Understanding of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments in Eu- rope and North America. In Europe, the language needs of a rapidly increas- ing group of immigrants and guest workers, and a rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in description of language behavior, led the Council of Europe to develop a syllabus for learners based on notional-functional concepts of language use. The syllabus was derived from neo-Firthian systemic or functional linguistics, in which language is viewed as ‘‘meaning potential,’’ and the ‘‘context of situation’’ (Firth 1937; Halliday 1978) is viewed as central to understanding language systems and how they work. The syllabus described a threshold level of 2 Sandra J. Savignon language ability for each of the major languages of Europe in view of what learners should be able to do with the language (Van Ek 1975). Language functions based on an assessment of the communicative needs of learners specified the end result, or goal, of an instructional program. The term communicative attached itself to programs that used a notional-functional syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes (LSP) movement was launched. Concurrent development in Europe focused on the process of communica- tive classroom language learning. In Germany, for example, against a back- drop of Social Democratic concerns for individual empowerment, articu- lated in the writings of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1970), language teaching methodologists took the lead in developing classroom materials that encouraged learner choice (Candlin 1978). Their systematic collection of exercise types for communicatively oriented English language teaching was used in teacher in-service courses and workshops to guide curriculum change. Exercises were designed to exploit the variety of social meanings contained within particular grammatical structures. A system of ‘‘chains’’ encouraged teachers and learners to define their own learning path through principled selection of relevant exercises (Piepho 1974; Piepho and Bredella 1976). Similar exploratory projects were initiated in the 1970s by Candlin at the University of Lancaster, England, and by Holec (1979) and his colleagues at the University of Nancy, France. Supplementary teacher resources promot- ing classroom CLT became increasingly popular in the 1970s (for example, Maley and Du√ 1978), and there was renewed interest in building learners’ vocabulary. Meanwhile, in the United States, Hymes (1971) had reacted to Chomsky’s characterization of the linguistic competence of the ideal native speaker and, retaining Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance, pro- posed the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to represent the ability to use language in a social context, to observe sociolinguistic norms of appropriate- ness. Hymes’s concern with speech communities and the integration of lan- guage, communication, and culture was not unlike that of Firth and Halliday in the British linguistic tradition (see Halliday 1978). Hymes’s ‘‘communica- tive competence’’ can be seen as the equivalent of Halliday’s ‘‘meaning poten- tial.’’ Similarly, Hymes’s focus was not language learning but language as social behavior. In subsequent interpretations of the significance of Hymes’s views for learners, methodologists working in the United States tended to focus on the cultural norms of native speakers and the di≈culty, if not impossibility, of duplicating them in a classroom of non-natives. In light of this di≈culty, the appropriateness of communicative competence as an in- structional goal was called into question (Paulston 1974). Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice 3 At the same time, in an empirical research project at the University of Illi- nois, Savignon (1971) used the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ to char- acterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to recite dialogues or perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge. At a time when pattern practice and error avoidance were the rule in language teaching, this study of adult classroom acquisition of French looked at the e√ect of practice in the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program. By encour- aging learners to ask for information, to seek clarification, to use circumlocu- tion and whatever other linguistic and nonlinguistic resources they could muster to negotiate meaning, to stick to the communicative task at hand, teachers were invariably leading learners to take risks, to venture beyond memorized patterns. The communication strategies identified in this study became the basis for subsequent identification by Canale and Swain (1980) of strategic competence as one of the components in their well-known frame- work for communicative competence, along with grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. (The classroom model of communicative competence proposed by Savignon [1983] includes the three components identified by Canale and Swain plus a fourth component, discourse compe- tence, added by Canale [1983]. We shall look more closely at this framework below.) In the Savignon research, test results at the end of the eighteen-week instructional period provided convincing evidence that learners who had practiced communication in lieu of pattern drills in a laboratory performed with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of grammatical structure. Nev- ertheless, their communicative competence, as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, e√ort, and amount of communication in unrehearsed communicative tasks, significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Learners’ reactions to the test formats lent further support to the view that even beginners respond well to activities that let them focus on meaning as opposed to formal features. A collection of role-playing exercises, games, and other communicative classroom activities was developed subsequently for inclusion in the adapta- tion of the French CREDIF materials, Voix et Visages de la France (CREDIF, or the Centre de Recherche et d’Etude pour la Di√usion du Français, is a university-based institution that contributed to the dissemination of French outside France). The accompanying guide (Savignon 1974) described their purpose as that of involving learners in the experience of communication. Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with the French equivalent of expressions like ‘‘What’s the word for . . . ?’’ ‘‘Please repeat,’’ and ‘‘I don’t understand,’’ expressions that would help them participate in the negotiation of meaning. Not unlike the e√orts of Candlin and his colleagues working in 4 Sandra J. Savignon a European English as a foreign language (EFL) context, the focus was on classroom process and learner autonomy. The use of games, role playing, and activities in pairs and other small groups has gained acceptance and is now widely recommended for inclusion in language-teaching programs (see Chapter 5). Communicative language teaching derives from a multidisciplinary per- spective that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociol- ogy, and educational research. The focus has been the elaboration and imple- mentation of programs and methodologies that promote the development of functional language ability through learners’ participation in communicative events. Central to CLT is the understanding of language learning as both an educational and a political issue. Language teaching is inextricably linked with language policy. Viewed from a multicultural intranational as well as international perspective, diverse sociopolitical contexts mandate not only a diverse set of language-learning goals but a diverse set of teaching strate- gies. Program design and implementation depend on negotiation between policy makers, linguists, researchers, and teachers (see Chapter 6). Evaluation of program success requires a similar collaborative e√ort. The selection of methods and materials appropriate to both the goals and the context of teaching begins with an analysis of learners’ needs and styles of learning, socially defined. Focus on the Learner By definition, CLT puts the focus on the learner. Learners’ communica- tive needs provide a framework for elaborating program goals with regard to functional competence. Functional goals imply global, qualitative evaluation of learner achievement as opposed to quantitative assessment of discrete linguistic features. Controversy over appropriate language testing persists, and many a curricular innovation has been undone by failure to make corre- sponding changes in evaluation. Current e√orts at educational reform favor essay writing, in-class presentations, and other more holistic assessments of learner competence. Some programs have initiated portfolio assessment, the collection and evaluation of learners’ poems, reports, stories, videotapes, and similar projects in an e√ort to represent and encourage learner achievement. Assessment initiatives of this kind do not go unopposed. They face demands for accountability from school boards, parents, and governmental fund- ing agencies. Measurement of learning outcomes remains a central focus in meeting educational challenges worldwide. (See Chapters 3, 5, and 7.) Depending upon their own preparation and experience, teachers di√er in Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice 5 their reactions to CLT. Some feel understandable frustration at the seeming ambiguity in discussions of communicative ability. Negotiation of meaning may be a lofty goal, but this view of language behavior lacks precision and does not provide a universal scale for assessment of individual learners. Ability is viewed, rather, as variable and highly dependent on context and purpose as well as on the roles and attitudes of all involved. Other teachers welcome the opportunity to select or develop their own materials, providing learners with a range of communicative tasks. They are comfortable relying on more global, integrative judgments of learning progress. An additional source of frustration for some teachers is research findings on the acquisition of a second language that show the route, if not the rate, of language acquisition to be largely una√ected by classroom instruction. (See, for example, Ellis 1985, 1997.) First language (L1) cross-linguistic studies of developmental universals initiated in the 1970s were soon followed by second language (L2) studies. Acquisition, assessed on the basis of unrehearsed oral communication, seemed to follow a similar morphosyntactical sequence re- gardless of learners’ age or the learning context. Although the findings sup- ported teachers’ informal observations, namely that textbook presentation and drill do not ensure learners’ use of the same structures in their own spontaneous expression, the findings were nonetheless disconcerting. They contradicted both the grammar-translation method and audiolingual pre- cepts that placed the burden of acquisition on the teacher’s explanation of grammar and the learner’s controlled practice of syntactical and phonologi- cal patterns with a goal of near native ‘‘accuracy.’’ The findings were further at odds with textbooks that promise ‘‘mastery’’ of ‘‘basic’’ French, English, Spanish, and so forth. Teachers’ rejection of research findings, renewed insis- tence on tests of discrete grammatical structures, and even exclusive reliance in the classroom on the learners’ native or first language, where possible, to be sure students ‘‘get the grammar,’’ have in some cases been reactions to the frustration of teaching for communication. Moreover, with its emphasis on sentence-level grammatical features, the dominant second language acquisition (SLA) research paradigm itself has obscured pragmatic and sociolinguistic issues in language acquisition. (See, for example, Firth and Wagner 1998.) Renewed interest in sociocultural theo- ries of second language acquisition o√er promise for expanding the research paradigm and bringing much needed balance (Lantolf 2000). In her discus- sion of the contexts of competence, Berns (1990) stresses that the defini- tion of appropriate communicative competence for learners requires an un- derstanding of the sociocultural contexts of language use (see Chapter 7). In addition, the selection of a methodology suited to the attainment of 6 Sandra J. Savignon communicative competence requires an understanding of sociocultural dif- ferences in styles of learning. Curricular innovation is best advanced by the development of local materials, which, in turn, rests on the involvement of classroom teachers. (See Chapters 3 and 6 and Markee 1997.) Berns (1990, 104) provides a useful summary of eight principles of CLT: 1. Language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. That is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing. 2. Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in second language learners and users, as it is with first language users. 3. A learner’s competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms. 4. More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for learning and teaching. 5. Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative competence, in both their first and subsequent languages. 6. No single methodology or
本文档为【Interpreting Communicative Language Teachi】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
下载需要: 免费 已有0 人下载
最新资料
资料动态
专题动态
is_846038
暂无简介~
格式:pdf
大小:166KB
软件:PDF阅读器
页数:33
分类:
上传时间:2013-05-22
浏览量:26