This is a fascinating case study. It succinctly points out some of the dilemmas faced by a teacher at the 'rock face'. It shows that however well planned a lesson may be, there are many traps facing the teacher in the classroom - traps that can sidetrack the whole learning process.

In the case study, Wendy Schoener's students were studying English to prepare them for tertiary study. The students' fluency was at different levels, though they all had passed a test of written ability. Wendy's material for the lesson was a chapter from a sociology text, discussing nuclear and extended families. As she discovered in her class, this was not 'comprehensible input', to use a phrase popularised by Krashen.

After reading the relevant chapter for homework, the students listened to a summary read by the teacher. They were expected to take notes and then rephrase the main points from their notes. Yet the students could only produce "a series of unconnected words" (Ulichny: 186). After much prompting, some students produced sentences simply taken word for word from the text.

The question here is whether the students were actually excercising and extending their language skills, or rather trying to provide responses to the teacher in a pre-programmed unthinking kind of way. As the author of the case study puts it, the students did not demonstrate an understanding of the talk, but "simply demonstrated that they (were) attuned to the rules of the interaction" (Ulichny: 190).

This is a danger I faced while teaching Business English in Japan. In one lower-intermediate class I had to use "English for Corporate Communication", a collection of business case studies. This text is really for upper-intermediate to advanced students. I had to lead my students very carefully in order to establish real comprehension of the case study situations. The class was then able to summarise the main issues in a simplified way, and make some thoughtful responses. This was sufficient to lead into a related role play exercise.

My own experience has taught me the value of not expecting students to comprehend a difficult text too quickly. Yet there is the temptation, when a lesson stalls and the class is out of their depth, for the teacher to start providing responses for the students. This happened in Wendy's class, and it certainly happened in my classes in Japan. It's a clear sign of lesson failure. The learning process cannot simply appear interactive; effective teaching must engage the students in a real way.

Wendy's teaching was based on the well-known Communicative Approach. In this approach, according to Diane Larsen-Freeman, the main role of the teacher is to "establish situations likely to promote communication" (Larsen-Freeman: 131). Unfortunately Larsen-Freeman fails to specify that this doesn't mean throwing the class into the water without a life jacket. Lower level students won't magically communicate unless the teacher has somehow provided them with the right language tools to use.

Wendy herself made modifications to her lesson plans after the case study class in question. The two changes she made were to:
(1) first elicit what the students know about the topic; and
(2) use groups to discuss the listening passage before calling on individuals.
Both of these changes are revolutionary, yet so simple. The teacher is relinquishing control in each case, and allowing the students to interact in a personal way.

This case study has expressed something I've felt ever since I started teaching three years ago. That is how "utterly complex a moment of teaching is" (Ulichny: 180).

References

Ulichny, P. (1996) "What's in a methodology?" in Freeman & Richards (eds), Teacher Learning and Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 178-196.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) "The communicative approach" in Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 123-140.

In order to picture many of the cross-currents evident in this article, and in the other readings, I drew up a list with two columns, putting opposing terms to either the left or right-hand side. Each side seems to represent a distinct family of concepts. I have provisionally named these Technical and Experiential.

It would be too easy to see emphasis on the left side as 'bad' and the right side as 'good'. As Celce-Murcia (1985) wrote when discussing the role of grammar in language teaching, we need to appreciate the fact that "teachers might be working with a different type of learner and focussing on other instructional objectives." Accordingly the teacher would be sensible to choose an approach focussing on either side of this chart, depending on learner and instructional variables.

I found Celce-Murcia's more recent article to be very useful in focussing my attention on some of the key issues we have been discussing in class (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei & Thurrell 1997). Especially interesting is the neglect she says many CLT proponents showed toward linguistic competence, as they "accepted the premise that linguistic form emerges on its own as a result of learners' engaging in communicative acts."

According to Nunan, such a belief in the subconscious nature of linguistic development was encouraged by the 'morpheme order' studies of the 1970s. As a result of investigations into the acquisition order of grammatical structures, researchers concluded that "a universal order of acquisition existed which was driven by an innate learning process." (Nunan 1991)

The findings of these studies have been criticised from many angles since they first appeared. Even though there is clearly a progression from simpler to more complex forms, it is no longer clear that there is a single fixed order of acquisition of grammatical elements. I feel there are limitations in viewing language in such an atomistic way in the first place.

Returning to Celce-Murcia, I am encouraged by her summary of the various direct approaches to teaching that have emerged in the context of CLT, over the last ten to fifteen years. These include various student-centred activities focussing on awareness of form, also called "grammar consciousness-raising activities" (Ellis 1993), and the teaching of "lexical phrases" (Nattinger 1988), the various language segments and patterns that native speakers use to structure their speech.

Unfortunately I found the concluding section of her article a little disappointing (Is Talking About CLT Still Relevant?). After pointing out and addressing the inadequacies of CLT, and then acknowledging that teaching methods as such have lost their relevance, she still supports the existence of CLT as "a general approach rather than a specific teaching method".

I feel this reformist approach may result in there being no effective change to the "dominant theoretical model" of CLT. If many teachers are "comfortable with the goals and terms of CLT" at present, they will be reluctant or unable to rethink the approaches they have developed around it.

I am a lot more favourable towards Celce-Murcia's discussion of "learner and instructional variables." From such considerations the teacher can legitimately choose approaches from either side of the above chart, depending on the specific situation at hand.

Through much of my reading I have the impression that most Applied Linguists are searching for an over-arching unifying set of principles. It may be more in keeping with the condition of post-modernism if we see every language teaching situation as unique and unrepeatable. It would make more sense then to study the specific make-up of different teachers, students and classes. Is there too much attention paid to abstract research results, and not enough to real anecdotal evidence?

References

Celce-Murcia, M. (1985) "Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching."Foreign Language Annals, 18, No.4, 1985.

Celce-Murcia, M. Dornyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1997) "Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching?"TESOL Quarterly, Vol 31, No 1, Spring 1997.

Ellis, R. (1993) "Talking shop. Second language acquisition research: How does it help teachers?. An interview with Rod Ellis." ELT Journal, Vol. 47/1, January 1993.

Nattinger, J. (1988) "Some Current Trends in Vocabulary Teaching" in Carter, R. and McCarthy , M. Vocabulary and Language Teaching, London: Longman, pp. 62-82

Nunan, D. (1991) "Focus on Form: The Role of Grammar" in Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall, pp.143-166

I'm currently teaching an ESL class of young Japanese, and I had the difficult task of choosing a coursebook. Each different text I looked at had its own particular focus, selection of material and style of presentation. I think I was more influenced by the look of the text layout than anything else. In the end I chose a text called "Language In Use: Pre-Intermediate" (Doff & Jones 2000).

On the positive side, it displays a range of language and activities that can be adapted for a mixed-level class. Higher ability students won't be bored, and lower ones won't get lost. On the other hand it doesn't contain any extended dialogues that can be used in class. In the past I have relied quite heavily on dialogue modelling and reproduction as a teaching method, usually taken from texts organised around functional categories (introductions, giving opinions, agreeing, disagreeing etc.).

Having basically trusted my students to a pre-packaged coursebook (supplemented with additional lessons on an ad hoc basis), I was very interested to read the articles on syllabus design by Michael Breen. It sounds quite simple when syllabus is defined as "a plan of what is to be achieved through teaching and learning." But as Breen explains, this involves defining what "knowledge" and "capabilities" are worthy of focus in the language learning environment. His presentation of four different approaches to syllabus design (Formal, Functional, Task-Based, and Process syllabuses) has helped me to clarify some of the issues involved.

Formal and Functional syllabuses are both seen by Breen as presenting "formal statements" which are systematically organised. He sees them as representing a "propositional" paradigm. The Formal syllabus "focuses upon the systematic and rule-based nature of language itself." The basis for syllabus sequence is threefold - complexity, frequency and usefulness of linguistic features. In contrast, the Functional Syllabus "gives priority to the different purposes which a language can serve and how these functions are coded (or textualised) through the language." Language is primarily treated "as a means for getting things done."

Whereas the Formal syllabus is focussed on "linguistic competence", and the Functional syllabus is focussed on "communicative performance", the approach of both Task-Based and Process syllabuses reflect a "broader view" of language learning. This view represents an alternative "process" paradigm which is concerned with "communicative competence".

Communicative competence is not very clearly explained by Breen. Basically it refers to how people use language in socially appropriate and purposeful ways. Approaches based on the 'process' paradigm see meaning as something that we 'negotiate' using language 'discourses'. Language learning is seen as involving not just communication practice, but also reflection on the process of communication itself (meta-communication).

The Task-Based syllabus uses both communicative tasks and language learning or meta-communicative tasks. In addition to a central sequenced course, particular problem areas are addressed as and when they arise. In the Process syllabus teacher and students jointly negotiate the curriculum content and procedures, working around a flexible "plan for decision-making" and an adjustible "bank of activities and tasks".

Where Carl Rogers (1969) once wrote of the need for 'authenticity' in communication, we now use 'discourses' to 'negotiate meaning'. The Postmodern paradigm has clearly had an enormous influence on the social sciences. Instead of the teacher representing the centre of knowledge and the student revolving on the periphery like a satellite, we have started to see learning as a special form of communication itself - interactive, negotiated, and reflective.

References

Breen, M. (1987) "Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 1." Language Teaching. April 1987. Volume 20, No. 2

Breen, M. (1987) "Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 2." Language Teaching. April 1987. Volume 20, No. 3

Doff, A. and Jones, C. (2000) Language in Use: Pre-Intermediate. New Edition. Teacher's Book. Cambridge: CUP

Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.