Background Notes:
Dr. Douglas Fleming
Faculty of Education
University of Ottawa
Lecture 1:
ESL Teaching Methods: A Review
Historically, most second language education theorists and program
administrators have regarded instructors as technical implementers of fully
developed curricula with few formal responsibilities for curriculum writing.
Detailed teaching materials and methodological manuals have more often than
not accompanied theoretical innovations for language instruction. Some
examples of the texts in this tradition prior to 1900 are Berlitz’s The Berlitz
Method (1888), and Sweet’s The Practical Study of Languages (1899).
Palmer (1922) was the first major SLE theoretician to describe language
instructors as having a formal role in curriculum implementation. Through his
principles of ‘proportion’ and a ‘multiple line of approach’, Palmer counseled
instructors to choose materials and teaching strategies appropriate to specific
circumstances and objectives. These principles were the concrete expression of
Palmer’s strong advocacy for professionalism among language instructors,
"which he, more than any other single individual, had helped to bring about"
(Howatt, l984. p.230).
Despite the influence of Palmer and later advocates of professionalism such as
Strevens (1977), most SLE theory this century has been nearly obsessed with
‘methods’. As Stern (1983) illustrated in his survey of language teaching theories,
most 20th century ESL theoretical approaches have admonished the instructor to
adopt a single pedagogical methodology. It has only been since the relatively
recent break with the ‘methods approach’ that language teaching theorists have
been able to discard simple formulas (Stern, l983). There were many
consequences of the ‘methods approach’. One of the more serious, as
Pennycook (1989) pointed out, is how it helped maintain inequalities between
SLE theorists and practitioners (Pennycook, l989). The strict distinction between
instructors and experts (such as curriculum designers) blurred when the methods
approach fell out of favor in the early 1980s.
Most SLE methodology for the last century has been obsessed with ‘methods’.
As Stern (1983) illustrated in his survey of language teaching theories, most 20th
century ESL theoretical approaches have admonished the instructor to adopt a
single pedagogical methodology. It has only been since the relatively recent
break with the ‘methods approach’ that language-teaching theorists have been
able to discard simple formulas.
The Grammar Translation method started around the time of Erasmus (14661536). Its primary focus is on memorisation of verb paradigms, grammar rules,
and vocabulary.
The audio-lingual approach is based on the behaviourist belief that language
learning is the acquisition of a set of correct language habits. The learner repeats
patterns and phrases in the language laboratory until able to reproduce them
spontaneously.
The ‘communicative approach’ has become the most commonly accepted
methodology for settlement language programs since the 1980s. This approach
emphasizes the communicative aspect of teaching language, concentrating on
function rather than form. As Allen and Widdowson (1979) state, the approach
involves, "the learning of rules of use as well as rules of grammar" (p.141).
Instructors are quite commonly directed to use the approach in curriculum and
policy documents at both the national and local levels. Canadian examples of
these documents include Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s Canadian
Language Benchmarks (l996), referred to above, and the Ontario Ministry of
Education’s Continuing Education: A Resource Document (l987).
The goal of communicative language approaches is to create a realistic context
for language acquisition in the classroom. The focus is on functional language
usage and the ability to learners to express their own ideas, feelings, attitudes,
desires and needs. Open ended questioning and problem-solving activities and
exchanges of personal information are utilised as the primary means of
communication. Students usually work with authentic materials (authentic realia)
in small groups on communication activities, during which they receive practice in
negotiating meaning. ivc.uidaho.edu/flbrain/learning.htm
The advent of the communicative approach owes much to the rejection of the
behaviorist assumptions (based on Skinner) and the adoption of Chomsky’s
linguistics, which holds that language behvior is based on purpose. Behaviorism
forms the basis of the audio-lingual approach (which consists mainly of oral
drills). The communicative approach assumes that language should be taught in
the context of practical communication and use.
Hymes (1966) built on Chomsky’s notion of competence to describe what he
called "communicative competence", the ability the people have to communicate
(and not merely to know the grammatical structure of the language). You can
also see the debt owed here to the language philosophers Austin, Searle and
Habermas. Note that Chomsky’s terms were: competence: the underlying system
of rules that have been mastered by the native speaker; the knowledge of the
language and performance: the infinite variety of individual acts of verbal
behavior with all its inconsistencies and errors
"Chomsky argued that it was impossible for people to acquire a language by
simple repetition and reinforcement. Children, he said, do not learn a language
this way, for they do not, in fact, repeat what adults say, but produce their own
sentences, and create phrases which they have never heard before. They also
make systematic errors, and no amount of correct input or of error- correction will
stop them from doing so. Children do not so much learn the grammar of a
language, as they construct it anew… Hymes suggests that linguistic
competence is but a sub-division of a greater whole - communicative
competence" (Mason, 1970).
An important implication of the communicative approach has been to increase
the responsibilities instructors have for curriculum development and
implementation. For example, instructor-conducted needs assessments have
become a hallmark of the way the ‘communicative approach’ has been applied in
ESL programs in Canada, especially since the publication of Nunan’s popular
work on learner-centered approaches (1988). This, of course, shows the deep
influence of Tyler’s (1949) model on SLE and ESL. Curriculum guidelines for ESL
programs in Canada often explicitly describe needs assessments as the
foundation upon which instructors write curricula. In effect, such curriculum
guidelines (like the CLB) specify expected attainment levels for ESL learners.
Instructors implementing such curricula are expected to plan, develop and
provide the actual curriculum in practice so that students meet these proficiency
levels (Cumming, 1995).
Lecture 2:
Linguistics, English and Communicative Language Teaching
As Stern (1992) once observed, Second Language Education has been informed
by input from what he described as the foundational disciplines of Linguistics,
Psychology and Sociology. Of these, the first has long been dominant.
In this lecture, I shall first examine the two major and mutually antagonistic
camps currently at war within Linguistics: Structural/ Generative Linguistics and
Systemic/ Functional Linguistics. I shall then look at some of the basic tenants of
the communicative approach.
The orientation one adopts towards language has major implications for second
language education methodology. Do you ascribe to a structural view of what
constitutes language? Or do you ascribe to a functional viewpoint? Or, do you
ascribe to some kind of compromise position between these two very different
orientations?
Structural/ Generative Linguistics
Saussure
Structural linguistics takes as its starting point the work of Ferdinand Saussure
(1906), who made a number of important distinctions:
synchronic approaches to language (how the elements in a language
‘hang together’ at a particular point in time) and diachronic approaches (how the
language evolves);
langue (language as a system or structure) and parole (the use of that
language in utterances)
relational sets of concepts: syntagmatic (relationships between language
units: their ability to combine) and paradigmatic (associative relationships within
the minds of users: what is evoked). Analogy: the physical parts of a building are
syntagmatic; what a person thinks of when viewing a building is
Saussure broke with the abstract, idealistic nature of traditional linguistics (better
known as philology). He made a distinction between language as an idealized
structure and language in actual use and emphasized the evolving nature of
language.
This implied that all languages were equal (or rather, that no language or dialect
is superior to another) and that language is structured within the mind. This, in
turn, led to the implication that language is constructed by humans and that it
constructs meaning. To give an example: the conception of a ‘river’ is different in
French (a ‘flueve’ ends up in the ocean; rivere ends up in a lake) the than it is in
English (‘creek’ and ‘river’ are different solely in terms of size).
Sausure’s work led to an emphasis on:
the use of contrast and opposition within linguistics
the importance of speech
the concept of interlanguage and code-switching
the distinct discipline of sociolinguistics (how people use language in
society (style, register, domain, code)
and led to a break with
grammar translation (which was the main tradition up to this point; legacy
of the use of Latin and Greek academically and ecclesiastically; the search for a
source language like Hebrew or Sanskrit);
the study of extinct languages
most prescriptive grammars
You can also see how this was one of the major starting points for relativistic
philosophy and its modern emphasis on language.
Chomsky
In contrast to the emphasis on the unpredictability of language that was extant in
the early part of the 20th century (see Malinowski), Chomsky’s work is an attempt
to determine the boundaries of language and aspects of its universal nature.
This has been termed an idealistic (as opposed to a materialistic) theory of
language that has antecedents back to Plato. This means that there are universal
standards as to what constitutes language.
At the same time, Chomsky conceived of a system that is genetically derived (i.e.
hard wired in the brain), infinitely creative and existing at a deeper level than
what we usually consider discrete languages. This is what he calls Universal
Grammar.
Language is hard-wired: a system that is (potentially) activated by the brain as
part of its genetic inheritance. How else can you explain the speed at which
children learn their first language(s)?
This system is also creative in the sense that there is no limit to the potential
meaningful combinations that a user of the language can create. How else can
one explain how one can create and comprehend sentences that are completely
new to one’s (or potentially anyone else’s) experience?
Universal Grammar (UG) is the deep structure that everyone in our species
shares and individual languages, such as English, French or Mandarin, are its
surface reflections. Originally, Chomsky thought of the relationship between the
two levels as being relatively monolithic. In his recent formulations, as I note
below, this relationship becomes much more subtle.
In any case, Chomsky started his project with an examination of the properties of
syntax: how words are ordered in sequence.
Although one can postulate the properties of many words in terms of where they
are placed in sequence, many of these aspects seem determined independent of
syntax.
So, for example, adjectives precede nouns in English. The fact that these two
types of words are almost always adjacent to one another makes their
relationship relatively easy to see.
However, other syntactical relationships are complex and often do not occur in
way that make them readily apparent. Conditionals, for example, have complex
structural relationships within sentences.
The solution was to posit a layered structure to syntax that divides sentences into
phrases. Different components of a conditional sentence, for example, can be
expressed as different phrases with clear rules that govern how these
components relate to one another.
Phrase structure grammar is commonly expressed through ‘tree diagrams’. For
some examples of these ‘tree diagrams’, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_english_syntax_tree.png
Before long, however, Chomsky saw two problems with this technique and its
assumptions:
1)
there needed to be an enormous amount of grammatical rules (particular
to each language) to explain all of these structures, and
2)
sentence trees couldn’t explain the enormous differences in meaning
generated by simply transposing a word into a syntactical slot (i.e. “Betty is
anxious to help” is very different from “Betty is difficult to help”).
Chomsky’s solution was to posit ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ structures to language.
Suppose you want to refer to snow as an event that happened yesterday. The
deep structure might be represented as “It + snow + past + yesterday”. This deep
structure can be represented by at least two different forms of surface structures:
“It snowed yesterday” and “yesterday, it snowed”.
The deep structures of language are transformed by mental processes (the mind/
brain) into surface structures. Hence, transformational grammar.
Like most other paradigms of language, transformational grammar is divided into
syntax (structure), phonology (sounds) and semantics (meaning).
However, Chomsky’s system called for a division of syntax into two further
components: the base (lexicon and deep structure phrase rules) and
transformational rules (how deep structures are transformed into surface
structures).
He argued that the evidence for these divisions was by observing ‘movement’
within syntax.
Take this (surface) example of syntax: “I put/ the cat/ outside to play”
One cannot move the phrases in this sentence around arbitrarily. Thus, one
cannot say (at least grammatically correctly): “I put/ the cat”, or “I put/ outside to
play” (not to mention the other possibilities, such as “Outside to play/ the cat/ I
put”).
The deep meaning for this sentence (or concept) has to do with getting this cat
outside. Transformational rules in English, however, determine that there are
only a few limited ways in which this can be expressed as a surface structure in
ways that are recognized by a native speaker as being grammatically correct.
Out of this, Chomsky formed what was called the Standard Theory of
Transformational Grammar in 1965. It consisted of a set of transformational rules
verified by structural analysis (did the phrase in question contain all of the
needed components?) that described a specific syntactical change.
So, for example, the phrase “I drove carefully down the street” can be changed to
“Carefully, I drove down the street”. Each phrase contains the same words
(lexical items), and so passes the structural analysis. We can then say that the
rule governing this transformation specifies that the noun/ verb order (“I drove”)
remains the same whether you place the adverb (“carefully”) at the beginning or
the end of the phrase.
It didn’t take long, however, for problems in this Standard Theory to develop.
An important principle in the Standard Theory has to do with the retention of
meaning. Transformations cannot change the meaning of the sentence. Moving
the adverb to the front of the sentence, like in the example above, doesn’t
change its meaning. However, problems arise in many other examples, where
subtle changes in meaning occur with transformations that pass structural
analysis.
So, for example, note the subtle changes in meaning with this transformation:
“Many dogs are friendly and many dogs are well-bred”; “Many dogs are well bred
and friendly”. The same elements are in the sentences and thus the
transformation passes the structural analysis. The transformational rule invoked
here is parallel structure.
However, the transformation does not contain quite the same meaning. When the
sentences are combined using parallel structure there is an implication that being
well bred and friendly are somehow connected. This connection is not implied
when the sentences are separate.
One way to get around this problem is to say that we have not represented the
deep structure accurately. So, in the case of the example above, there really is
no grammatical connection between the two phrases “Many dogs are friendly”
and “Many dogs are well-bred”. This solution is called Generative Semantics.
By extension, Generative Semantics has claimed that deep structures are the
same for all sentences that express the same meaning, no matter how different
the surface structures appear. So, in deep structures, the concept of kill, stop
living, cause to die, etc. would be the same. The surface structures that express
this concept would be different.
But the problem now arises as to how to interpret these various surface
structures in order to determine what the deep structure is. Do the surface
structures (e.g. kill, stop living, cause to die) really expressive of the same
concept? For example: doesn’t killing some imply an active and consciously
engaged act (such as purposely running over someone with a car); and doesn’t
causing someone to die imply an act of negligence (like telling someone to go
play on the freeway)?
In the end, Generative Semantics came to be dependent on the individual
judgments of the researchers involved and fell short of the scientific model that
generative grammar aspired to.
The other way to get around the problem of the retention of meaning is to
examine the influence of particular elements. In the case of the friendly and wellbred dogs above, we can say that the use of a quantifier such as “many”
changes the way in which the transformation operates. This solution is called the
Extended Standard Theory.
The problem with this, though, is that the division between the way meaning is
captured at the level of deep and surface structures becomes highly problematic.
The word “many”, for example, may reflect deep structures. However, it is
important to note that for the Extended Standard Theory, the word does affect
the meaning of the sentences at the level of the surface structure. The
implication here is that meaning is conveyed through such surface structure. This
is different from Chomsky’s original conception, which emphasized that surface
structures reflect the meanings retained at the deeper level.
To get around this new problem, the Extended Standard Theory was revised into
what has become known as the Revised Extended Standard Theory, (or as it is
more commonly known: Trace Theory). Trace Theory notes that meaning does
occur at the surface level, but that there is an imperceptible trace left over in the
surface structure that conveys this meaning. So, for example, we might say “I
think you are right”, a sentence that contains a trace of the word “that” (in “I think
that you are right”).
Unfortunately, what has resulting in this search for solutions is a morass of rules
involving what constitutes a trace. Trace Theory has become a highly complex
system of rules upon rules. In the end, the simplicity that constituted the original
strength of generative grammar has been lost.
As part of his rethinking of generative grammar in light of these problems,
Chomsky reconceptualized Universal Grammar as being a combination of nature
and nurture. Children are born with the potential to develop language (principles),
but these hard-wired properties must be activated by experience (parameters).
Youngsters have innate sets of language switches that experience turns on and
off. Each switch has major repercussions for language development. Thus,
exposure to a language, say, that has a particular word order (SVO in English)
will active switches that privilege structures that conform to that pattern.
The various impasses outlined above in the 1970’s led Chomsky to develop a
new model in the 1980’s that has become known as the Government and Binding
Theory.
Government in this system means that some elements have a controlling
function over others. Binding refers to the ability of some elements to link items to
one another.
Transformational grammarians are engaged in research in an effort to determine
which elements govern (or constituent-command) others. Using language tree
structures, they have sought to determine the complex principles involved. So,
they might say that a word is constituent-commanded by its antecedents. Thus,
for example, you could say, “She enjoys traveling by herself”, but not “She enjoys
traveling by themselves” because of the way one word governs another in this
structure.
Words are said to be properly bound to others if the link between them is
sensible. So, for example, if one says “Who does she enjoy traveling with”? ,
one can say that “who” is bound to “she” because they both refer to people.
Substituting “it” for “she” would be an example of improper binding.
Needless to say, the hunt for binding and governing rules gets pretty involved.
But, I’ll leave it at that.
Let’s look at the other major paradigm in linguistics next.
Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic/ Functional Linguistics, although a recent school within linguistics, has
a long ancestry that can be traced through the empirical tradition in philosophy.
Its immediate antecedents have been the Prague School of Linguistics in the
1920’s (Roman Jakobson), and the London School of the 1960’s (J.R. Firth and
Bronislaw Malinowksi). Until fairly recently, empiricism has been the dominant
influence within linguistics. Rationalism, although just as old as empiricism, has
become dominant in linguistics only recently.
Rationalist Linguistics can be more recently traced to the 17th century ontological
speculations of Rene Descartes. Using a method that placed doubt and
skepticism on sense perception, Descartes built his proof of the existence of God
on the basis of a seemingly irrefutable demonstrable principle: the existence of
the inquiring mind itself. In the English speaking world, rationalism was not an
important influence on linguistics until Chomsky burst on the scene. Much of
Chomsky’s appeal was that he stood in direct opposition to extreme forms of
behaviorism that were then dominant in the field.
These are quite broad generalizations and must be viewed carefully. Linguists
and philosophers (like people) don’t always fit into neat categories! It is important
to note, for example, that both linguistic schools have been strongly influenced by
the notion that Saussure (1916) developed of language as an ever-evolving
system.
Many of the debates between these two schools are around the emphasis they
place on the innate and social aspects of language. Rational Linguistics
emphasizes those aspects that are innate (Lenneberg, 1969) and reflective of
self-contained systems (Chomsky, 1957). This school helps explain the creative
aspects of language, the fact that we can comprehend and use the vastness of
language at an early age, and how second language learning (code switching) is
possible. Functional Linguistics emphasizes the way in which people actively
interact with and are influenced by their environment (Halliday, 1985). It explains
how a language is used pragmatically and the way in which language performs
social functions.
An Example
What do you think? Let’s take a well-known example from the anthropological
literature. Malinowski, a member of the London School, carried out a series of
influential anthropological studies in the Pacific. In the 1920’s, he noted that:
A European, suddenly plunged into a Trobriand community and given a word-by
word translation of the Trobriander’s utterances, would be no nearer
understanding them than if the utterances remained untranslated- the utterances
become comprehensible only in the context of the whole way of life of which they
form a part (Sampson, 1980).
Do you agree with him? Can anything be understood by the European? Some?
What aspects? What could be understood on the basis of nature and what on the
basis of nurture?
Halliday
Michael Halliday’s work is informed by that of Firth, whom he studied under.
Halliday makes very different assumptions than Chomsky about the relative
importance of social and innate influences on the brain’s ability to use language.
Whereas Chomsky described one’s knowledge of the language as being “hardwired’ into our genetic code, Halliday emphasized the social determination of our
language use. Chomsky also spends most of time on examinations of the smaller
components of language: morpheme, phoneme, word, etc. Halliday takes as his
unit of analysis the text, since he believes that functional meaning in language is
not expressed in smaller components.
Are there parallels here with the struggle to find a unified field theory in physics?
The following are its major features and principles:
Language is a resource. It is a set of meaningful choices for the user,
rather than a system of formal grammar rules.
There is little value in positing an ideal or abstract version of a user of
language.
Human language use is in “chunks”, not in discrete words or phonemes
(see whole language).
There is no orthodox or ‘received ‘ version of a language.
The organizing principle of language is system, rather then structure.
Context defines meanings.
Language forms cannot be separated from meaning.
Language is the most important cultural system because it mediates all
the others.
Language is expressed in particular speech situations, which are in social
contexts.
Variation in language is of two types:
1)
According to user: which affects accent and dialect, but does not affect
meaning.
2)
According to use (register), which reflects the social order in a speech
situation and does affects meaning.
Each speech situation is comprised of:
Field of Discourse: the social meaning or action; the topics and actions
that are being expressed (what is going on?)
Tenor of Discourse: the role structure the participants fulfil; the language
users, their interrelationships and purposes (who is taking part in the situation?)
Mode of Discourse: the status assigned to the language being used; the
channel though which language is expressed (what role does the text or
utterance play?)
Language has two major macrofunctions, which are universal to all languages:
1)
2)
Ideational: which reflects and acts on things; and
Interpersonal: which reflects and acts (symbolically) on people
the link between these major functions is the textual function, a language user’s
potential to form text (in written and oral forms).
The field of discourse tends to determine choices made in the ideational
component of the language being used.
The tenor of discourse will tend to determine the choices made in the
interpersonal component of the language being used.
The mode of discourse will tend to determine the choices made in the textual
component of the language being used.
There are three basic strata in language:
1)
semantic: the fields (ideational, interpersonal and textual) described
above; these have been called pragmatics elsewhere.
2)
lexicogrammar: the linguistic structure (composed of syntax(word order),
lexicon (choice of words) and morphology (structure of words).
3)
phonological/ graphological: sound structure and graphic representation.
Mohan
The Knowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986) is an extremely useful organizing
template for teachers who want to help learners master academic content while
developing language. The KF is a form of content-based instruction (CBI) that is
based on a particular school of socially-orientated linguistic analysis.
In the second language context, CBI references various approaches designed to
“mainstream” or integrate ESL students into “regular” classroom. Essentially, the
idea is to teach language through content.
“In a content-based approach, students simultaneously acquire subject matter
expertise and greater proficiency in English, the medium of instruction.
Additionally, they learn to master skills necessary for academic success.”
(Raphan & Moser, 1994)
Basic Principles:
Research shows that for successful language learning to occur, “the
language syllabus must take into account the uses the learner will make of the
target language”, which means systematic focusing on those language forms and
functions which will best serve the learner in his/her future language use.
The use of “informational content which is perceived as relevant by the
learner” enhances motivation in language learning and thus promotes learning
effectiveness.
Content-based approaches are built upon the previous experience of the
learner, as they “take into account the learner’s existing knowledge of the subject
matter” and use pedagogical methods which aim at overall development of
cognitive and academic skills, as well as linguistic skills.
Content-based approaches provide a larger framework and “context for
language”development, in which focus is not only on fragmented examples of
“correct” language forms, but also on “interaction and discourse patterns”.
SLA (second language acquisition) research suggests that a necessary
condition for successful language learning is “comprehensible input” which
requires focussing on the meaning rather than the form. The development of
good receptive communicative skills is the foundation on which productive skills
are based.
(Brinton & Snow,1989)
summarized by Naves http://www.ub.es/filoan/CLIL/CLILbyNaves.htm
CBI is closely associated with:
Whole-language curriculum (Goodman: 1986)
Task-based approach (Long: 1991, Candlin: 1987, Prabhu: 1987)
CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language Approach) (O’Malley & Chamot: 1987)
immersion or dual education (organized as sheltered or adjunct programs)
CBI is often seen as the best way for ESL students to develop beyond
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), in which language skills are
used for social and day-to-day situations, to
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP).
(Cummins,1984)
BICS is often mastered by students between 3 to 5 years. However, the
development of CALP can take anywhere from five to seven, depending on the
supports and resources available to the student. If students have little prior
formal education, CALP might take up to ten years to be mastered (Thomas &
Collier, 1995).
Acquiring academic language is not simply a matter of learning vocab. One must
also master the interrelationships between various forms of academic subject
matter. Hence, one must acquire the skills that are outlined in the KF, such as
comparing, classifying, synthesizing, evaluating, and inferring.
Mohan suggested that this could be done using a matrix of six structures that he
called The Knowledge Framework:
Principles
Classification
Description
Evaluation
Sequence
Choice
Much of the work of functional linguists has been concentrated on demonstrating
the integrative nature of language. This is in contrast to models such as Canale
and Swain’s competency model, which have tended to break language down into
its component parts for analysis. An important part of this work has been on
connecting oral language with visual language.
Visual representation of what is to be learned has had a long history in education
(hence, blackboards). It helps utilize different parts of the brain, stimulates recall,
strengthens memory and helps clarify analysis.
This can be done though the use of key visuals.
For practical examples of how key visual and the knowledge framework can be
applied to a concrete teaching situation, see:
http://www.naldic.org.uk/ITTSEAL2/resource/readings/EGUsingGibbonsPlanning
Framework.htm
Lecture 3:
Finding Balance in the Treatment of Grammar
To review: Hymes’s notion of communicative competence has been expanded by
a number of theorists, most notably Canale and Swain’s highly influential fourpart model of language competency:

linguistic: the more purely language elements; structures and grammar

socio-cultural: the social and cultural content and assumptions underlying
language use

strategic: what strategies a user of the language utilises to overcome
difficulties or enhance communication

discoursal: what forms of discourse and conventional use is the
communication framed in
This expansion of the content of second language education can also be seen in
a number of influential curriculum models that are also in the tradition of the
communicative approach, for example:
Stern: four distinct syllabi: language, culture, communicative activities and
general language education.
notional/ functional syllabi (Wilkins): language content is arranged according to
the meanings a learner wishes to express and not the supposed logical order of
linguistic description.
from notions (meanings universal to all languages) Jesperson (1924) and
communicative functions (the ways language is put to use) Van Ek (1975).
Note also the distinction between descriptive and pedagogical grammars.
As you can see, grammar (especially in the descriptive sense) in the
communicative approach is just one aspect of language and ESL pedagogy. This
is very different from the grammar-translation or the audio-lingual approaches.
Krashen has been extremely influential in the conceptualising the place of
grammar in the communicative approach. His theory of SLA consists of :





the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,
the Monitor hypothesis,
the Natural Order hypothesis,
the Input hypothesis,
and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the
hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and
language practitioners.
According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language
performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired
system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to
the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires
meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which
speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the
communicative act.
The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it
comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the
language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen
'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.
The Monitor hypothesis encapsulates the relationship between acquisition and
learning and defines the role of grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition
system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of
the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting
function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second language
learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks
about correctness, and he/she knows the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second
language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or
should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and
to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.
Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners
with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor'
all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not
to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the
'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's
psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually
extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users.
Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.
The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the
acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is
predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be
acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the
learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the
agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies,
there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a
Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the
implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program
syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects
grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a
second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how
second language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only
concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the
learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives
second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic
competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes
place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i +
1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence
at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key
to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i
+ 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's
view that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role
in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, selfconfidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-
confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for
success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and
debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental
block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In
other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other
hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to
take place.
According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have
general educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may
want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however, that
examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the
target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or
linguistics.
The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language
acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject
and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this
occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal
grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful
enough to present explanations in the target language so that the students
understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for
comprehensible input and perhaps with the students' participation the classroom
becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard
to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts are usually on
the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium.
This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving
themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar,
that is responsible for the students' progress, but in reality their progress is
coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their
interest would do just as well.
Schütz, R. Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.
Retrieved from http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html on 07/ 09/03
Krashen theories have been very controversial and, as we will see below, have
fallen into disrepute as of late.
Rod Ellis (1997) provides a good summary of these criticisms:
"‘Zero option’ refers to the proposal advanced by a number of SLA researchers
(e.g. Dulay and Burt 1973, Krashen 1982) and applied linguists…that grammar
instruction should be abandoned in favour of creating opportunities for natural
language use of the kind found in untutored settings…The zero position entails
not only a rejection of planned intervention in L2 learning (i.e., by presenting and
practicing grammatical features) but also of unplanned intervention (i.e. incidental
error correction). Krashen (1982: 74) refers to error correction as a ‘serious
mistake’. He argues that it puts students on the defensive and encourages then
[sic] to avoid using difficult constructions for fear of making mistakes. Also it may
disrupt the focus on communication. However, although the zero option prohibits
overt correction, it does tolerate incidental feedback of the kind found in
caretaker talk to young children" (pp. 47-48).
"In recent years the zero position has been challenged. First, the theoretical
grounds for the position have been disputed. A number of researchers…have
argued that the kind of explicit knowledge which typically results from formal
grammar instruction can convert, through practice, into the kind of implicit
knowledge that is required for use in communication. This has become known as
the Interface Hypothesis. Other researchers…have argued that grammar
instruction may not cause acquisition to take place, but may facilitate it by
providing the learner with a conscious understanding of grammatical constructs
that can be exploited later when the learner is ready to acquire these features—
the Delayed-Effect Hypothesis. Second, there have been a number of empirical
studies…which demonstrate that learners who receive instruction outperform
those who do not, both with regard to the rate of acquisition and ultimate level of
achievement. If it is assumed that the instruction these learners received entailed
grammar teaching, which would seem reasonable, then, these studies would
suggest that teaching learners grammar contributes to their linguistic
development. Third, on the basis of their classroom experience, many language
teachers have continued to believe in the importance of grammar teaching,
including systematic error correction, and to include it in their instructional
programme.
On the other hand, there have been empirical studies that suggest that grammar
instruction does not make much of a difference. A number of studies have found
that instructed learners generally do not manifest a different order of acquisition
of grammatical features from naturalistic learners…Other studies…have shown
that attempts to teach learners specific grammatical features do not always result
in their being acquired. Still other studies…show that instruction sometimes
results in pseudo-learning (i.e. learners employ the structure that has been
taught, but overgeneralize it and then drop it when they are taught another
similar structure later). These studies indicate that there are constraints that
govern when a particular grammatical structure is properly acquired and that
grammar teaching may be powerless to overcome them" (p. 48).
"Should teachers teach grammar? This question arises because some teachers,
perhaps influenced by applied linguists such as Krashen (1982)…have begun to
question the value of teaching grammar. They view the teacher’s job as that of
providing opportunities for communicative language use in the classroom.
However, the research reviewed in this chapter suggest that the communicative
classroom does not result in very high levels of grammatical or sociolinguistic
competence. Although it is not yet clear that form-focused instruction will be able
to remedy this situation, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it might.
The general answer to this question, based on the available research, then, is
‘Yes, teachers should teach grammar.’ However, it does not follow that all
learners should be taught grammar. In many parts of the world, learners are
exposed to large amounts of grammar teaching in the early stages of their
language learning and fail to develop any fluency in the target language. Such
learners are likely to benefit from communicative activities rather than more
grammar teaching" (pp. 71-72).
"Does grammar teaching work?" Of course, it only makes sense to teach
grammar if teachers can be confident that it will work—that students will learn
what they are being taught. There is now sufficient evidence…to show that formfocused instruction can and does work. It helps learners to perform grammatical
features that are already part of their implicit knowledge with increased accuracy
and it enables them to progress through developmental sequences more rapidly.
In at least some cases, the effects of the instruction appear to be durable.
The problem is that these generalisations are not totally supported by the
research; there are exceptions. Sometimes form-focused research works but
only in the short term and sometimes it does not work at all. Teachers will want to
know when form-focused instruction will work and when it will not. Unfortunately,
it is not yet possible to produce definite answers to this question. It is clear that
various constraints operate.
First, it is now evident that some structures are inherently easier to teach than
others.
Second, it is also clear that much depends on the learner’s stage of
development; learners may only be able to learn a grammatical feature they have
been taught if they are developmentally ready for this feature.
Third, there is some evidence to suggest that for the effects of instruction to be
durable, learners need to experience communicative opportunities for using the
structures afterwards.
To date, I do not think it is possible for the applied SLA researcher to offer
definite proposals about how teachers might cope with these constraints. It is not
clear, for example, how teachers should cope with the problem of students’
developmental readiness. At the present stage, the value of the research lies in
its capacity to identify the general nature of these constraints. Teachers are left
with the task of identifying whether these constraints operate in their own
classrooms, which is highly likely, and with experimenting with ways of dealing
with them in their own grammar teaching" (p. 72).
Ellis (1985) summarised the research on explicit grammar instruction available at
the time in the following way:

research has focused on two areas: rate of success and route (sequence
of structures)

many research finds contract each other

samples are often very limited

research methodology is far from uniform

most research is morpheme- based and longitudinal

most studies attempt to compare students receiving formal instruction and
those not
studies focusing on rate of success

some studies concluded that formal instruction increased the rate of
success; others ‘proved’ the opposite

great difficulty in determining the role that motivation plays

little treatment of what actually went on in the classrooms in question;
what did the teachers actually do?

only one major study examined the absolute effect of instruction; its
findings were inconclusive

many anecdotal accounts exist of individual students benefiting from
formal instruction, but little in the way of valid stats
studies focusing on route

there is little evidence that the natural route of acquisition is effected by
formal instruction

little evidence that the communicative use of language is effected, either

language use is effected when the learner has the time to monitor this use

when learners are required to use structures beyond their current
competence, distorted forms often result; these may adversely effect further
acquisition
In the context of this research, Ellis (1985) formulated three general theoretical
positions in regards to grammar that various SLA theorists have adhered to:
1) Strong Interface Position (Biaystok, McLaughlin, Sharwood-Smith)
practice turns explicit knowledge of the language directly into implicit knowledge
(controlled by automatic processing)
practice involves supplying the learner with opportunities to produce targeted
structures so as to increase implicit knowledge
common position held by most audio-linguists
2) Non-Interface Position (Krashen, Terrell)

there are many cases of acquisition where no learning (formal instruction)
has taken place

students often cannot produce the structures in communicative situations
even though they have excellent explicit knowledge of these structures

even the nest learners can only state a limited number of rules, far fewer
than the number of structures they can produce
therefore:

there is no interface between learning and acquisition

explicit instruction might help learners in certain kinds of language
performance in terms of their ability to monitor this performance

learners benefit from being in the classroom through the use of
‘comprehensive input’ (teacher talk) and by given the opportunity for meaningful
practice of the communicative use of language

in normal language use, the learner does not have the time to make use of
explicitly understood grammar (at least in oral communication); it is only when
the learner can attend to form that explicit grammar knowledge can be put to use
(is this the reason the communicative approach is becoming popular in Asia? Are
the oral skills becoming more important?)
there is very little use for explicit grammar instruction, in Krashen’s view, other
than aesthetic appreciation, advanced organisation (Terrell) and monitoring
output.
Note the similarity between Vygotsky and Krahen’s comprehensive input:
Vygotsky (1978) maintained the child follows the adult's example and gradually
develops the ability to do certain tasks without help or assistance. He called the
difference between what a child can do with help and what he or she can do
without guidance the "zone of proximal development" (ZPD). The wholelanguage approach to teaching reading and writing draws on this notion. As
children play and interact with others at home and at school, they develop
specific models of communication, expression and explanation. Goodman and
Goodman (1990) believe this social use of language forms the basis for literacy.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) use a four-stage model of ZPD to show how children
develop speech and language.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr1zpda.htm
3) Weak Interface Position (Selinger, Ellis)

explicit instruction is a ‘consciousness-raising’ activity the enhances input

compromise between the other two positions; start of the focus-on-form
approach

facilitates ‘noticing’ and ‘noticing the gap’

helps combine structured syllabi with those that are functional or task
based

two types of consciousness-raising activities exist:

for comprehension, helping the learner to intake (recognise and
understand features of the input)

for explicit knowledge, helping a learner learn about the structure
metalinguistically
in summary, Ellis believes that:
Grammar instruction results in faster learning and higher levels of second
language grammatical accuracy
Grammar instruction directed at a feature that learners not ready for will not
acquired implicitly
Grammar instruction directed at a grammatical feature that learners are ready for
will be acquired implicitly
"explicit knowledge can convert directly into implicitly knowledge under certain
fairly stringent circumstances related to a learner’s stage of development."
The Focus on Form Approach
Ellis is one of the main proponents of Focus on Form, which can be summarised
as follows:
The focus-on-form approach considers grammar to be heterogeneous, meaning
that some grammar points are easy to explain and easy to apply, and other
points are difficult if not impossible to apply. This method proposes that the real
problem is that grammar instruction in both approaches is limited to a small set of
pedagogical practices. A Focus-On-Form pedagogy profitably mixes explicit and
implicit techniques depending on the grammar item and the communicative task
http://ivc.uidaho.edu/flbrain/learning.htm
Ellis points out that there are reasons for teaching explicit grammar for its own
sake:

emphasising relative difficulty or usefulness (Widdowson)

emphasising ‘markedness’ (how common a structure is)

remedial work (detailed examination and correction of individual
fossilisation)
However, there are two sets of problems related to structural syllabi:
Problems with immediate mastery (learning discrete points one after another)





what is the natural order of acquisition? There is very little research on this
how do you take individual learner differences into account?
how do you assess these differences?
how do you organise grammar content for a group of learners?
how do you account for program or logistical differences?
Problems with gradual mastery (focus on comprehension/ spiralling)


the spiral approach is hit and miss
the above problems still exist
Ellis concludes that grammar is useful when combined with a functional or taskbased curriculum. Stand alone grammar syllabi are not sufficient.
These problems can also be overcome by emphasising Pienemann’s distinction
between: Input for production and Input for comprehension
And P’s recommendations to:

not demand production that is impossible at a given stage

not introduce deviant forms immediately

not worry about the fact that general input can contain structures not
intended for production
Lecture 4:
Lesson Planning and Assessment for Active Learning in ESL
Interactive principles (Brown, 2000):







Automaticity
Intrinsic motivation
Strategic investment
Risk-taking
Language- culture
Interlanguage
Communicative competence
Roles of the interactive teacher
 Controller
 Director
 Manager
 Facilitator
 Resource
FLINT (Flanders, 1970) Teacher talk:

















Deals with feelings
Praises or encourages
Uses ideas of students
Asks questions
Teacher talk (direct)
Gives information
Gives direction
Criticizes student behavior
Student talk
Student response: specific
Student response: open-ended or student initiated
Silence
Confusion
Laughter
Uses first language
Nonverbal
Questioning strategies: Display  Referential
Types of questions: Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956)







Knowledge questions
Comprehension
Application
Inference (added by Kinsella, 1991)
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
Whole language

The recent emphasis on skill integration in the ESL classroom reflects the
influence of the whole language approach.

Learning a language takes the form of mastering larger units of language,
beyond isolated pieces of morpheme, phoneme, grapheme or word;

that oral and written forms interact; and

that the written code is as natural and developmental as the oral.
Within the communicative approach, integration is supported because:






productive and receptive skills are two sides of the same coin
interaction means sending and receiving messages
written and spoken language bear important similarities to each other
attention is primarily on what the learners can do
skills reinforce each other
real and natural use of language involves the integrative use of all four
skills
Theme-based instruction
Language content is organized into non-linguistic themes and topics


weak version: subject matter more important than language
strong version: language learning equal in importance to subject matter
Experiential learning
 Uses activities that utilise both the left and right sides of the brain,
contextualise language, integrate skills and have authentic real-world
purposes
 the learner is closely involved in the realities of instruction (Kerton & Tate,
1978); learner learns by a) doing and b) taking charge of their own
learning (Dewey);Language Experience Approach (Van Allen & Allen,
1967)
Episode Hypothesis
 A discourse will be easier to understand and reproduce if organized in a
narrative ‘story line’ (Oller, 1983).
 used by Gouin in his Series Method (1880)
 best examples utilize interconnective sentences
 best examples invoke interest or have suspense
Task-based teaching
 The accomplishment of a specific concrete task is central to classroom
activities. According to Skehan (1998), a task is an activity in which:
 the meaning is primary
 there is a communicative problem to solve
 there is a relationship to comparable real world activities
 task completion has priority
 assessment of the task is in terms of outcome (successful completion)
 Make certain that you distinguish between target tasks (beyond the
classroom) and pedagogical tasks.
 A task-based curriculum specifies what the learner can do with the target
language.
 Tasks should be sequenced for functional purposes and the development
of pragmatic competence using authentic sources.
Group Work (Brown, 2001)
Advantages
 Generates interactive language
 Embraces affective climate
 Promotes learner responsibility and autonomy
 Gives opportunity for individualized instruction
Excuses for not doing group work
 Teacher no longer in control
 Learners will use first language
 Errors will be reinforced
 Teachers can’t monitor all groups
 Some learners prefer to work alone
Tasks for the teacher: Select appropriate groups
 Pair or larger group
Tasks for the teacher: Choose from this list of typical group tasks
 Games
 Role-play and simulations
 Drama
 Projects
 Interviews
 Brainstorming
 Information gap
 Jigsaw (including strip stories)
 In my experience, jigsaws often involve two sets of tasks/ information
exchange in which ‘expert’ groups exchange information with second
groups
 Problem-solving
 Opinion exchange
Tasks for the teacher: Planning group work
 Introduce technique
 Justify use
 Model
 Give explicit instructions
 Divide class
 Check for clarification
Set task in motion
Tasks for the teacher: Monitor task as it develops
Tasks for the teacher: Debrief
lecture 5:
Curriculum Development in ESL: Roles and Responsibilities
Teacher agency in curriculum matters involves initiating the creation or critique of
curriculum, an awareness of alternatives to established curriculum practices, the
autonomy to make informed choices, an investment of self, and on-going
interaction with others. (Paris, p.16)
Commonly, the decisions a teacher has to make in terms of curriculum are:
the selection and definition of learning objectives; the selection and creation
of appropriate learning experiences; the organization of the learning experiences
to achieve a maximum cumulative effect; and the evaluation of the curriculum
to furnish a continuing basis for necessary revisions and desirable
improvements.
(Tyler, 1981, p.24)
Central to all these debates about change in education is the question of the role
that teachers play in determining curricula. Again, this is not new. It is a debate
as old as the one about whether or not Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens.
Much of this debate focuses on the role schools play in society and how much
control the state should exercise in advancing its interests in the classroom. In
western philosophical discourse, calls for reform in terms of curriculum content
have been commonplace. The role teachers play in this respect is often not dealt
with, however. In many discussions, educators are generally called upon to
simply implement whatever program is envisioned. Plato and Rousseau are
prime examples of philosophers who neglected this issue while devoting much
energy to discussions about education in general.
Similarly, even though education is often seen as a key factor in societal reform,
there is little recognition of the competing demands usually made on schools. In
a sense, conceptions of curriculum planning are often monolithic, with strictures
about course content and methodology passed down from state to administrator
to teacher. Durkhiem is a prime example of this trend, stressing the need for
teachers to pass down a moral code to their pupils for the betterment of the
nation. He emphasized that "schoolmasters must be shown what new ideals they
should pursue and encourage their pupils to pursue, for that is the great
desideratum of our moral situation" (Durkheim, L’Année Sociologique, Vol. IV, as
cited in Lukes, 1973, p.355).
A different attitude towards curriculum development came to the fore in western
democracies with the arrival of the twentieth century. A new emphasis on an
individually responsible citizenship meant that education had to be more
concerned with individual needs within a democratic framework. There could no
longer be a monolithic attitude towards curriculum development. As Lundgren
(1988) pointed out, this trend coincided with the advent of modernism, the
industrial revolution and modern conceptions of the state. The state extended
universal suffrage and primary education. Dewey (1916) summarized the
functions that this new form of education must have when he said that a
democratic society, "must have the type of education which gives individuals
personal interests in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind
which secure social changes without introducing disorder" (p.99). Diversity had to
be part of the means and ends of this form of modern schooling. Monolithic
curriculum development no longer had a place, for,
a progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in
them the means of its own growth. Hence, a democratic society must, in
consistency with its ideal, allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse
gifts and interests in its educational measures.(Dewey, 1916, p.305)
This promotion of diverse curricula for specific goals was the starting point for the
subsequent trend of student-centered curriculum in North America. This trend
was extended by curriculum theorists such as Tyler (1949) into systematic
processes which emphasized needs assessments, the development of specific
goals, the organization of content, and the importance of program evaluation. As
is shown below, the curriculum documents commonly in use in the milieu I
studied owe a lot to Tyler’s model. The need for diversified curricula also features
in the work of critical educators, such as Freire (1973) or Aronowitz and Giroux
(1985), although their emphasis on diversity is in terms of social class rather than
individuals.
Recently, many general educational theorists have been preoccupied by how
teacher professionalism is affected by the forces of societal change (Apple, 1995;
Apple & Jungck, l990; Apple & Teitelbaum l986; Egan, 1988; Fitzclarence &
Kenway, l993; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996; Helsby & McCulloch, 1996; Jones
& Moore, l991; Kliebard, 1988; Lawn, l996; Knight, Lingard, & Porter, l993;
Lundgren, 1988; Paris, 1993; Robertson, 1996). As is illustrated below, three of
these authors (Lawn, Apple, and Paris) in particular have focused on the
complicated, and at times contradictory, forces of societal change in terms of
their implications for teacher autonomy.
Lawn (1996), examining the recent history of education in England, argued that
"the period between the 1920s and 1990s constitutes a distinct phase in state
education which has come to an end" (p.2). The new phase is characterized by,
"the imposition of curriculum and assessment reforms, new inspection systems
and the decentralized management of people and their work" (ibid.). The
management of education in England was explicitly remodeled, through
measures such as the 1988 Education Reform Act, to reflect principles of the
market economy. Curriculum control underwent major devolution to local
educational authorities for the express purpose of responding to local market
needs. Teachers now have greater individual responsibilities for specialized
assessment and curriculum development tasks within the restraints of locally
developed guidelines. The resulting effect on the teachers’ work has been
twofold. Citing an empirical study by Campbell, Evans, St. J. Neill, and Packwood
(1991), Lawn stated that, on the one hand, teachers were experiencing a greater
sense of empowerment associated with the acquisition of new skills and
responsibilities. On the other hand, teachers were becoming progressively
fragmented, acting as isolated specialists within a labor market in which they
must sell their skills.
The organization of education has also changed recently in the United States in
similar ways. Citing Castells (1980), Apple (1995) contended that management
practices in the overall economy are fundamentally shifting in response to
economic change. Apple sees a complicated process of deskilling and reskilling
at work. On the one hand, management attempts to "separate conception from
execution" (p.130) by redefining the division of labor. To put it simply, workers
execute the plans set by management within the parameters they are given. On
the other hand, this redivision of labor means that workers have to be trained in
newly required and specialized skills. Apple recognized that this pattern has
existed within the larger economy for quite some time. Patterns within education,
however, are somewhat different. As he put it,
given the relatively autonomous nature of teaching (one can usually close one’s
door and not be disturbed) and given the internal history of the kinds of control in
the institution (paternalistic styles of administration, often in the USA based on
gender relations), the school has been partially resistant to technical and
bureaucratic control, at the level of practice, until relatively recently. (Apple, 1995,
p.130)
Apple used the example of the ascendancy of pre-packaged curricular materials
in the United States. These spell out the curriculum in great detail, right down to
the actual materials to be used and the objectives to be sought on a daily basis.
Like Lawn, Apple noted that teachers, increasingly divorced from overall
planning, are becoming isolated specialists and technicians.
Paris (1993) pointed out that teacher ‘agency’ was a hallmark of Dewey’s
Laboratory School early this century, and has been characteristic of numerous
curriculum projects in the United States since. However, the overall trend in the
United States since the 1920s has been a restriction in teacher agency,
rationalization of school management, and a deferral to curriculum experts. This
has coincided with what Apple (1986) called the ‘feminization’ of teaching, a
dramatic increase in female participation in the profession. In the 1950s and
1960s, the deferral to curriculum experts culminated in the concept of the
‘teacher-proof curricula’, where curriculum experts sought to go over the heads of
teachers directly to children (Silberman, 1970). Teachers were seen as
technicians who, as often as not, diverted or even obstructed curriculum
development and implementation. Paris pointed out that since the 1980s many
foundations and government agencies in the United States have called for
educational reform; some calling for heightened teacher agency, others the
converse. She cited the National Coalition of Advocates for Children (1985) as
stating that 22 states in the United States restricted teachers’ abilities to make
curriculum decisions as a result of a national education commission report in
1983.
One further trend is worth noting in the context of the present thesis. According to
A. Hargreaves (1989a), a renewed emphasis on assessment and testing is one
of the key forces driving many of the recent changes in education and teacher
professionalism. As he put it, "assessment, more than curriculum or pedagogy,
has been the prime focal point for educational change. Indeed, it would be no
exaggeration to say that the 1980s has been the era of assessment-led
educational reform"(p.41). As is shown below, assessment has a key place in the
curricula for recent national ESL programs worldwide. It is also significant that
the first aspect of the CLB to be introduced at the site under study here is the
CLBA, the assessment component of the Canadian program.
As the examples above illustrate, one of the principal conceptions of curriculum
has a dynamic dimension, involving a series of tasks and decisions. In this
conception, a curriculum is not a static document prescribing what should be
done in the classroom. It is the performance of these dynamic tasks, in fact,
which constitutes curriculum implementation.
The conception of curriculum implementation as a set of decision-making
processes is realized even further in Johnson’s (1989) model for a coherent
language curriculum. He defined the term curriculum, "in its broadest sense, to
include all the relevant decision-making processes of all the participants" (p.1). In
Johnson’s model the question of who makes these decisions is of utmost
importance. He compared and contrasted three approaches to participant roles in
policy determination and implementation. In the first, the ‘specialist’ approach, a
hierarchical chain of command separates different participants who have different
responsibilities for decision-making. Needs analysts determine syllabus goals,
material writers make materials, and teachers implement teaching acts. There is
little communication between the levels of this hierarchy that is not top-down.
Johnson’s second approach, the ‘learner-centered’, is the opposite in the sense
that all the participants, particularly students and teachers, are involved at every
stage of decision making. The ‘integrated’ approach, Johnson’s third, allows all
the participants to have an awareness of all the curriculum decisions being
made, but responsibility only over the ones they are best positioned and qualified
to make. Communication and input goes both up and down the levels. Johnson’s
model focuses on the ‘policy level’ that Stern (1992) defined (the level of control,
overall planning and decision making), and not on teaching and learning activities
in the classroom that Stern (1992) called the ‘practical action level’.
Nevertheless, his discussion of the roles played in the curriculum decisionmaking process is relevant and useful here.
In the context of communicative language teaching, the predominant orientation
in ESL education in Canada over the past two decades, many of the distinctions
between planning and execution seem to have fallen away. Nunan, in a popular
textbook designed for teacher training, outlined a series of tasks involved in
curriculum development. He noted that, traditionally, there has been a distinction
between ‘syllabus design’ and ‘methodology’, "the former concerning itself with
the selection and grading of linguistic and experiential content, the latter with the
selection and sequencing of learning tasks and activities"(Nunan, 1991, p.
2).This distinction no longer seems to apply to current practice, however. Nunan
cited Breen’s contention that this distinction can no longer be sustained in the
context of communicative language teaching. This is because, pedagogically, the
activity of learning the language has become as important as the language itself.
Consequently, teachers involve themselves in organizing activities for their
students that engage them actively in communicating in the language they are
learning; these activities often form the curriculum, rather than a pre-ordained
syllabus of language items that teachers teach and students practice and study,
as in earlier conceptions of syllabi for language education. Curriculum designers
must "give priority to the changing processes of learning and the potential of the
classroom" (Breen, 1984, p.52).
The question remains, however, as to what degree teachers should be
curriculum designers, especially if classroom processes form an integral part of
curricula. Clark (1987) helped put this question into perspective when he outlined
three ‘value systems’ commonly found in foreign language teaching historically:
‘classical humanism’, ‘reconstructionism’ and ‘progressivism’. For the purposes
of this study, there are several important distinctions he makes in regards to the
three systems in terms of curriculum development, or ‘curriculum renewal’ as he
terms it. In both the ‘classical humanism’ and ‘reconstructionism’ systems, the
curriculum is renewed from the top down, with outside agencies initiating change.
Teachers are expected to simply implement the changes recommended by either
an examination board and inspectorate, in the case of the first system, or a
committee of experts, in the case of the second. Clark’s third value system,
‘progressivism’, contains a different conception of who is responsible for the
tasks in curriculum development. Renewal is bottom-up and school-based. The
teacher is the agent of change, either individually or collectively. As is
demonstrated below, aspects of this value system is inherent in the curriculum
situation and documents used by the instructors in the present study.
Perceptions regarding the roles played by instructors in curriculum development
remain complex, however. In another popular teacher training manual, Brown
(1994) deferred any discussion pertaining to the definition of curriculum because
he assumes that his readers will not be primarily concerned with writing curricula.
Speaking directly to teachers in training, Brown noted that he assumed that the
primary task of his readers will be the "following of an established curriculum and
adapting to it in terms of your particular group of students, their needs, and their
goals, as well as your own philosophy of teaching" (p. 401). Interestingly, even
though Brown was explicit in his depiction of teachers as implementers and not
designers of curricula, the role he assigns them is certainly dynamic. Nunan
(1991) also assigned an active curriculum role to the novice instructors he
counsels, stating that one of his goals in writing his textbook was to help teachers
"identify what works for them and their learners, in their own particular context"
(p. xiv).
Markee’s (1997) recent work on curriculum innovation is also interesting in terms
of the division of tasks and responsibilities. Basing himself on Candlin (1984),
Markee posited three levels of curriculum innovation planning in the project he
studied. Long-term ‘strategic planning’ had the largest scope and was the
purview of the project director or change agent. Medium-term ‘tactical planning’
consisted of syllabus design decisions made through negotiation between the
teachers and the project director. Short-term ‘operational planning’ was syllabus
implementation decisions made through negotiations between teachers and
students. The teachers in Markee’s study were far from being simple
implementers of curriculum innovation. Markee described a process in which "the
program director and the teachers negotiate the content and methodology of
materials, which yields a syllabus of task-based units. Teachers try these units in
class and negotiate unit content and methodology further with students" (p.24).
In sum, it is the view of most recent theorists in SLE that curriculum decisionmaking is a dynamic process that constitutes curriculum implementation and the
overall situation of language teaching. Within this process, participants have
specific roles to play. In the system orientated models proposed by Johnson,
Clark and Markee, there are no automatic or clear cut divisions between
someone who plans curricula and someone who executes it. The dynamics of
decision-making are integral to the actual process that instructors engage in
when implementing curricula.
lecture 6:
Working with ESL Teaching Materials
Hand-on session: no background notes