communicativelanguageteaching交际语言教学法

-CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-CompanyOne1

-CAL-本页仅作为文档封面，使用请直接删除-CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-CompanyOne1

-CAL-本页仅作为文档封面，使用请直接删除communicativelanguageteaching交际语言教学法(总8页)PAGECommunicativelanguageteachingFromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopediaCommunicativelanguageteaching

(CLT),orthe

communicativeapproach,isan

approach

to

languageteaching

thatemphasizes

interaction

asboththemeansandtheultimategoalofstudy.LanguagelearnersinenvironmentsutilizingCLTtechniqueslearnandpracticethetargetlanguagethroughinteractionwithoneanotherandtheinstructor,studyof"authentictexts"(thosewritteninthetargetlanguageforpurposesotherthanlanguagelearning),anduseofthelanguageinclasscombinedwithuseofthelanguageoutsideofclass.Learnersconverseaboutpersonalexperienceswithpartners,andinstructorsteachtopicsoutsideoftherealmoftraditionalgrammarinordertopromotelanguageskillsinalltypesofsituations.Thismethodalsoclaimstoencouragelearnerstoincorporatetheirpersonalexperiencesintotheirlanguagelearningenvironmentandfocusonthelearningexperienceinadditiontothelearningofthetargetlanguage.[1]

AccordingtoCLT,thegoaloflanguageeducationistheabilitytocommunicateinthetargetlanguage.[2]

Thisisincontrasttopreviousviewsinwhich

grammaticalcompetence

wascommonlygiventoppriority.[3]

CLTalsofocusesontheteacherbeingafacilitator,ratherthananinstructor.Furthermore,theapproachisanon-methodicalsystemthatdoesnotuseatextbookseriestoteachEnglishbutratherworksondevelopingsoundoral/verbalskillspriortoreadingandwriting.Contents

[hide]

1Backgroundinfluencesinfluences2Classroomactivitiesworkgapsharinghunt3Critiques4Seealso5References6FurtherreadingBackground[edit]Societalinfluences[edit]Languageteachingwasoriginallyconsideredacognitivematter,mainlyinvolvingmemorization.Itwaslaterthought,instead,tobesocio-cognitive,meaningthatlanguagecanbelearnedthroughtheprocessofsocialinteraction.Today,however,thedominanttechniqueinteachinganylanguageiscommunicativelanguageteaching(CLT).[4]Itwas

NoamChomsky'stheoriesinthe1960s,focusingoncompetenceandperformanceinlanguagelearning,thatgaverisetocommunicativelanguageteaching,buttheconceptualbasisforCLTwaslaidinthe1970sbylinguistsMichaelHalliday,whostudiedhowlanguagefunctionsareexpressedthroughgrammar,andDellHymes,whointroducedtheideaofawidercommunicativecompetenceinsteadofChomsky'snarrowerlinguisticcompetence.[4]

TheriseofCLTinthe1970sandearly1980swaspartlyinresponsetothelackofsuccesswithtraditionallanguageteachingmethodsandpartlyduetotheincreaseindemandforlanguagelearning.InEurope,theadventofthe

EuropeanCommonMarket,aneconomicpredecessortotheEuropeanUnion,ledtomigrationinEuropeandanincreasedpopulationofpeoplewhoneededtolearnaforeignlanguageforworkorforpersonalreasons.Atthesametime,morechildrenweregiventheopportunitytolearnforeignlanguagesinschool,asthenumberofsecondaryschoolsofferinglanguagesroseworldwideaspartofageneraltrendofcurriculum-broadeningandmodernization,andforeign-languagestudyceasedtobeconfinedtotheeliteacademies.InBritain,theintroductionof

comprehensiveschools,whichofferedforeign-languagestudytoallchildrenratherthantotheselectfewintheelite

grammarschools,greatlyincreasedthedemandforlanguagelearning.[5]Thisincreaseddemandincludedmanylearnerswhostruggledwithtraditionalmethodssuchas

grammartranslation,whichinvolvesthedirecttranslationofsentenceaftersentenceasawaytolearnlanguage.Thesemethodsassumedthatstudentswereaimingformasteryofthetargetlanguage,andthatstudentswerewillingtostudyforyearsbeforeexpectingtousethelanguageinreallife.However,theseassumptionswerechallengedbyadultlearners,whowerebusywithwork,andsomeschoolchildren,whowerelessacademicallygifted,andthuscouldnotdevoteyearstolearningbeforebeingabletousethelanguage.Educatorsrealizedthattomotivatethesestudentsanapproachwithamoreimmediatepayoffwasnecessary,[6]

andtheybegantouseCLT,anapproachthatemphasizescommunicativeabilityandyieldedbetterresults.[7]Additionally,thetrendof

progressivism

ineducationprovidedfurtherpressureforeducatorstochangetheirmethods.Progressivismholdsthatactivelearningismoreeffectivethanpassivelearning,[6]

andasthisideagainedtractioninschoolstherewasageneralshifttowardsusingtechniqueswherestudentsweremoreactivelyinvolved,suchasgroupwork.Foreign-languageeducationwasnoexceptiontothistrend,andteacherssoughttofindnewmethods,suchasCLT,thatcouldbetterembodythisshiftinthinking.[6]Academicinfluences[edit]Thedevelopmentofcommunicativelanguageteachingwasbolsteredbynewacademicideas.Beforethegrowthofcommunicativelanguageteaching,theprimarymethodoflanguageteachingwassituationallanguageteaching.Thismethodwasmuchmoreclinicalinnatureandreliedlessondirectcommunication.InBritain,appliedlinguistsbegantodoubttheefficacyofsituationallanguageteaching.ThiswaspartlyinresponsetoChomsky'sinsightsintothenatureoflanguage.Chomskyhadshownthatthestructuraltheoriesoflanguageprevalentatthetimecouldnotexplainthevarietyfoundinrealcommunication.[8]

Inaddition,appliedlinguistssuchasChristopherCandlinand

HenryWiddowson

observedthatthecurrentmodeloflanguagelearningwasineffectiveinclassrooms.Theysawaneedforstudentstodevelopcommunicativeskillandfunctionalcompetenceinadditiontomasteringlanguagestructures.[8]In1966,linguistandanthropologist

DellHymes

developedtheconceptof

communicativecompetence.Communicativecompetenceredefinedwhatitmeantto"know"alanguage;inadditiontospeakershavingmasteryoverthestructuralelementsoflanguage,theymustalsobeabletousethosestructuralelementsappropriatelyinavarietyofspeechdomains.[2]

ThiscanbeneatlysummedupbyHymes'sstatement,"Therearerulesofusewithoutwhichtherulesofgrammarwouldbeuseless."[5]

TheideaofcommunicativecompetencestemmedfromChomsky'sconceptofthe

linguisticcompetence

ofanidealnativespeaker.[2]

Hymesdidnotmakeaconcreteformulationofcommunicativecompetence,butsubsequentauthorshavetiedtheconcepttolanguageteaching,notablyMichaelCanale.[9]

CanaleandSwain(1980)definedcommunicativecompetenceintermsofthreecomponents:grammaticalcompetence,

sociolinguistic

competence,andstrategiccompetence.Canale(1983)refinedthemodelbyaddingdiscoursecompetence,whichcontainstheconceptsof

cohesion

and

coherence.[9]AninfluentialdevelopmentinthehistoryofcommunicativelanguageteachingwastheworkoftheCouncilofEuropeincreatingnewlanguagesyllabi.Whencommunicativelanguageteachinghadeffectivelyreplacedsituationallanguageteachingasthestandardbyleadinglinguists,theCouncilofEuropemadeanefforttoonceagainbolsterthegrowthofthenewmethod.ThisledtotheCouncilofEuropecreatinganewlanguagesyllabus.EducationwasahighpriorityfortheCouncilofEurope,andtheysetouttoprovideasyllabusthatwouldmeettheneedsofEuropeanimmigrants.[8]AmongthestudiesusedbythecouncilwhendesigningthecoursewasonebytheBritishlinguist,D.A.Wilkins,thatdefinedlanguageusing"notions"and"functions",ratherthanmoretraditionalcategoriesofgrammarandvocabulary.Thenewsyllabusreinforcedtheideathatlanguagecouldnotbeadequatelyexplainedbygrammarandsyntax,andinsteadreliedonrealinteraction.[8]Inthemid1990s,theDogme95manifestoinfluencedlanguageteachingthroughthe

Dogmelanguageteaching

movement.Thisproposedthatpublishedmaterialsstiflethecommunicativeapproach.Assuch,theaimoftheDogmeapproachtolanguageteachingistofocusonrealconversationsaboutpracticalsubjects,wherecommunicationistheengineoflearning.TheideabehindtheDogmeapproachisthatcommunicationcanleadtoexplanation,whichwillleadtofurtherlearning.Thisapproachistheantithesisofsituationallanguageteaching,whichemphasizeslearningthroughtextandprioritizesgrammarovercommunication.[10]AsurveyofcommunicativecompetencebyBachman(1990)dividescompetencyintothebroadheadingsof"organizationalcompetence",whichincludesbothgrammaticalanddiscourse(ortextual)competence,and"pragmaticcompetence",whichincludesbothsociolinguisticand"illocutionary"competence.[11]

Strategiccompetenceisassociatedwiththeinterlocutors'abilityinusingcommunicationstrategies.[11]Classroomactivities[edit]CLTteacherschooseclassroomactivitiesbasedonwhattheybelieveisgoingtobemosteffectiveforstudentsdevelopingcommunicativeabilitiesinthetargetlanguage(TL).OralactivitiesarepopularamongCLTteachers,asopposedtogrammardrillsorreadingandwritingactivities,becausetheyincludeactiveconversationandcreative,unpredictedresponsesfromstudents.Activitiesvarybasedontheleveloflanguageclasstheyarebeingusedin.Theypromotecollaboration,fluency,andcomfortintheTL.ThesixactivitieslistedandexplainedbelowarecommonlyusedinCLTclassrooms.[6]Role-play[edit]Role-playisanoralactivityusuallydoneinpairs,whosemaingoalistodevelopstudents'communicativeabilitiesinacertainsetting.[5]Example:Theinstructorsetsthescene:whereistheconversationtakingplace.,inacafé,inapark,etc.)Theinstructordefinesthegoalofthestudents'conversation..,thespeakerisaskingfordirections,thespeakerisorderingcoffee,thespeakeristalkingaboutamovietheyrecentlysaw,etc.)Thestudentsconverseinpairsforadesignatedamountoftime.ThisactivitygivesstudentsthechancetoimprovetheircommunicationskillsintheTLinalow-pressuresituation.Moststudentsaremorecomfortablespeakinginpairsratherthaninfrontoftheentireclass.[5]Instructorsneedtobeawareofthedifferencesbetweenaconversationandanutterance.Studentsmayusethesameutterancesrepeatedlywhendoingthisactivityandnotactuallyhaveacreativeconversation.Ifinstructorsdonotregulatewhatkindsofconversationsstudentsarehaving,thenthestudentsmightnotbetrulyimprovingtheircommunicationskills.[5]Interviews[edit]Aninterviewisanoralactivitydoneinpairs,whosemaingoalistodevelopstudents'interpersonalskillsintheTL.[12]Example:Theinstructorgiveseachstudentthesamesetofquestionstoaskapartner.Studentstaketurnsaskingandansweringthequestionsinpairs.Thisactivity,sinceitishighly-structured,allowsfortheinstructortomorecloselymonitorstudents'responses.Itcanzoneinononespecificaspectofgrammarorvocabulary,whilestillbeingaprimarilycommunicativeactivityandgivingthestudentscommunicativebenefits.[12]Thisisanactivitythatshouldbeusedprimarilyinthelowerlevelsoflanguageclasses,becauseitwillbemostbeneficialtolower-levelspeakers.Higher-levelspeakersshouldbehavingunpredictableconversationsintheTL,whereneitherthequestionsnortheanswersarescriptedorexpected.Ifthisactivitywereusedwithhigher-levelspeakersitwouldn'thavemanybenefits.[12]Groupwork[edit]GroupworkisacollaborativeactivitywhosepurposeistofostercommunicationintheTL,inalargergroupsetting.[13]Example:Studentsareassignedagroupofnomorethansixpeople.Studentsareassignedaspecificrolewithinthegroup..,memberA,memberB,etc.)Theinstructorgiveseachgroupthesametasktocomplete.Eachmemberofthegrouptakesadesignatedamountoftimetoworkonthepartofthetasktowhichtheyareassigned.Themembersofthegroupdiscusstheinformationtheyhavefound,witheachotherandputitalltogethertocompletethetask.Studentscanfeeloverwhelmedinlanguageclasses,butthisactivitycantakeawayfromthatfeeling.Studentsareaskedtofocusononepieceofinformationonly,whichincreasestheircomprehensionofthatinformation.Bettercomprehensionleadstobettercommunicationwiththerestofthegroup,whichimprovesstudents'communicativeabilitiesintheTL.[13]Instructorsshouldtobesuretomonitorthateachstudentiscontributingequallytothegroupeffort.Ittakesagoodinstructortodesigntheactivitywell,sothatstudentswillcontributeequally,andbenefitequallyfromtheactivity.[13]Informationgap[edit]Informationgap

isacollaborativeactivity,whosepurposeisforstudentstoeffectivelyobtaininformationthatwaspreviouslyunknowntothem,intheTL.[14]Example:Theclassispairedup.OnepartnerineachpairisPartnerA,andtheotherisPartnerB.AllthestudentsthatarePartnerAaregivenasheetofpaperwithatime-tableonit.Thetime-tableisfilledinhalf-way,butsomeoftheboxesareempty.AllthestudentsthatarePartnerBaregivenasheetofpaperwithatime-tableonit.TheboxesthatareemptyonPartnerA'stime-tablearefilledinonPartnerB's.TherearealsoemptyboxesonPartnerB'stime-table,buttheyarefilledinonPartnerA's.Thepartnersmustworktogethertoaskaboutandsupplyeachotherwiththeinformationtheyarebothmissing,tocompleteeachother'stime-tables.Completinginformationgapactivitiesimprovesstudents'abilitiestocommunicateaboutunknowninformationintheTL.Theseabilitiesaredirectlyapplicabletomanyreal-worldconversations,wherethegoalistofindoutsomenewpieceofinformation,orsimplytoexchangeinformation.[14]Instructorsshouldnotoverlookthefactthattheirstudentsneedtobepreparedtocommunicateeffectivelyforthisactivity.Theyneedtoknowcertainvocabularywords,certainstructuresofgrammar,etc.Ifthestudentshavenotbeenwellpreparedforthetaskathand,thentheywillnotcommunicateeffectively.[15]Opinionsharing[edit]Opinionsharingisacontent-basedactivity,whosepurposeistoengagestudents'conversationalskills,whiletalkingaboutsomethingtheycareabout.[15]Example:Theinstructorintroducesatopicandasksstudentstocontemplatetheiropinionsaboutit..,dating,schooldresscodes,globalwarming)Thestudentstalkinpairsorsmallgroups,debatingtheiropinionsonthetopic.Opinionsharingisagreatwaytogetmoreintrovertedstudentstoopenupandsharetheiropinions.Ifastudenthasastrongopinionaboutacertaintopic,thentheywillspeakupandshare.[15]Respectiskeywiththisactivity.Ifastudentdoesnotfeelliketheiropinionisrespectedbytheinstructorortheirpeers,thentheywillnotfeelcomfortablesharing,andtheywillnotreceivethecommunicativebenefitsofthisactivity.[15]Scavengerhunt[edit]Ascavengerhuntisaminglingactivitythatpromotesopeninteractionbetweenstudents.[16]Example:Theinstructorgivesstudentsasheetwithinstructionsonit..Findsomeonewhohasabirthdayinthesamemonthasyours.)Studentsgoaroundtheclassroomaskingandansweringquestionsabouteachother.Thestudentswishtofindalloftheanswerstheyneedtocompletethescavengerhunt.Indoingthisactivity,studentshavetheopportunitytospeakwithanumberofclassmates,whilestillbeinginalow-pressuresituation,andtalkingtoonlyonepersonatatime.Afterlearningmoreabouteachother,andgettingtoshareaboutthemselves,studentswillfeelmorecomfortabletalkingandsharingduringothercommunicativeactivities.[16]Sincethisactivityisnotasstructuredassomeoftheothers,itisimportantforinstructorstoaddstructure.Ifcertainvocabularyshouldbeusedinstudents'conversations,oracertaingrammarisnecessarytocompletetheactivity,theninstructorsshouldincorporatethatintothescavengerhunt.[16]Critiques[edit]AlthoughCLThasbeenextremelyinfluentialinthefieldoflanguageteaching,itisnotuniversallyacceptedandhasbeensubjecttosignificantcritique.[17]InhiscritiqueofCLT,

MichaelSwan

addressesboththetheoreticalandpracticalproblemswithCLT.Inhiscritique,hementionsthatCLTisnotanaltogethercohesivesubject,butoneinwhichtheoreticalunderstandings(bylinguists)andpracticalunderstandings(bylanguageteachers)differgreatly.CritiqueofthetheoryofCLTincludesthatitmakesbroadclaimsregardingtheusefulnessofCLTwhilecitinglittledata,thatitusesalargeamountofconfusingvocabulary,andthatitassumesknowledgethatispredominatelylanguagenon-specific(ex.theabilitytomakeeducatedguesses)islanguagespecific.[17]

SwansuggeststhatthesetheoreticalissuescanleadtoconfusionintheapplicationofCLTtechniques.[18]WhereconfusionintheapplicationofCLTtechniquesisreadilyapparentisinclassroomsettings.SwansuggeststhatCLTtechniquesoftensuggestprioritizingthe"function"ofalanguage(whatonecandowiththelanguageknowledgeonehas)overthe"structure"ofalanguage(thegrammaticalsystemsofthelanguage).[18]

Thisprioritycanleavelearnerswithseriousgapsintheirknowledgeoftheformalaspectsoftheirtargetlanguage.Swanalsosuggeststhat,inCLTtechniques,whateverlanguagesastudentmightalreadyknowarenotvaluedoremployedininstructionaltechniques.[18]FurthercritiqueofCLTtechniquesinclassroomteachingcan