Thinking about CLT

In my previous blog post, I mentioned the increasing integration of technology into the world of language learning. For the next course in the ESLTCP program of study, and as a refresher to the previous course, we've been asked to revisit the topic of CLT and its purpose.

This review caused me to think long and hard about how what is currently taking place in the world is impacting language learning, and the roles that technology and social constructivism play in those activities. Immigration is becoming a primary reason for L2 language learning, and my comments stem from this perspective.

The review article by Sandra Savignon - Communicative Language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century - brought a couple of ideas to the fore. In my work, I deal with immigrant youth who are seeking a new life in Canada. For them, language learning is multi-faceted, but still motivated by similar factors that have existed over the past 30 years of language learning methodology development: work and social life.

I try to put myself in the shoes of my students when interacting with them, whether formally or informally. After all, I have been in their shoes in an earlier part of my life.

Here they are in a new country, speaking a language that is the language of everyday, but not always the language of thought. In Savignon's article (p.22), she quotes Chenny Lai, a graduate MATESL candidate, which reads, in part, "The native language should be the one in which the speaker feels most comfortable or natural when making daily communication, or more abstractly, the one in which the speaker does all his(sic) thinking." I read this comment a couple of times, and considered my own experience when learning German as a second language.

At first, I found myself trying to see similarities in the constructive patterns of German and English, so that I could apply those patterns when forming new phrases or sentences in German. It didn't take long before I found this practice to be getting in the way of my learning. There were too many nuances and exceptions to the rules in German that didn't match English grammar rules, and the process became confusing. I found myself getting lost in conversations that were moving at a natural pace for German speakers, but seemed to fly past me. I decided that the only way for me to learn to speak German as a German was to think as a German speaker. This process, and learning German to a fluency that was desirable for me, took approximately 18 months of what would be considered immersion learning. The learning has stayed with me, and whenever I get the opportunity to speak in German today, I find my thought process automatically switching into German mode.

A comment in the Savignon article with which I tend to disagree is, "What matters is the teacher's conception of what learning a language is and how it happens." From my studies, prior knowledge, and experience as an L2 speaker in Germany I believe this to be incorrect. For me, it is far more important to understand what the learner's conception of what learning a lanuage is and how it happens. Viewing learning from a teacher's conception provides only a single vision of the language learning process. Viewing learning from a learner's conception provides a far clearer understanding of what and how language learning is and takes place.

Let me go back to an earlier comment I made for just a second. I suggested that my brain kicks in to 'German' mode when I am speaking German. By this, I don't simply mean that I am focused on the German language and the form of German grammar structure - I become German in my mind. All of the social and cultural specifics I learned while living there, how the Germans that i learned from see the world around them, the traditional and cultural norms as they are understood by a born German... all of these things form a part of how I think when I am speaking German.

It is important for any language teacher to see that language is a vehicle that allows the learner to participate in society, in whatever chosen manner the learner sees fit. Teaching English is not enough for an L2 speaker to become integrated in the language. They need to be aculturated to the norms of the language as well, using authentic language in authentic situations; using artifacts that represent situations and circumstances that they may encounter in their daily lives; interacting with each other using meaning negotiation and conflict resolution, etc. This is no longer a simple task. With the speed of language development and adaptation today, facilitated by the use of technology and modified discourse tools (SMS, phonetic linguistics, etc.); cultural language being popularised through song, and so on, it is difficult for language instruction to keep up with the changes in authentic language usage.

Finally, learner dependency needs to be recognised as an issue in language learning. Learners may come to depend on the setting, peer group, and even teacher for reinforcement that they are 'doing well' in their language learning. This dependency needs to be turned toward an ability to self-evaluate to a level where external reinforcement is diluted and internal reinforcement becomes the tool by which the learner measures their abilities.

Nothing too complicated here, eh?