The 'Communicative Language Teaching' Fraud Revealed!

Londo Molari · Post by **Londo Molari** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:50 am

woodcutter, no I don't want to put yo out of work, or myself in my easy-peasy job which allows me to write my books, articles and language courses, but I do think that, for the sake of the students, someone has to reveal the truth. I am sick of hearing people banging on about how grammar is useless and how 'communication' is the only way to teach. Come to Japan and you'll see/hear what I mean. Honestly, on and on they go about it. Buzz words and mantras, and I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore.

Anyway, I am actually from MFL rather than ESL, which means as a language teacher I did teach froma knowledge of both grammars. It works! I'll tell you what, go on the TES website and see what MFL teachers have to say about 'communication' and 'target language'. To be honest, the real axe I have to grind is with what is going on in the UK. Because of all the crud ESL touts as viable methodology, fuzzy thinkers have adopted the ideas into MFL when they were just there as a means of solving a problem in the best way possible to suit the situation. For example, 'target language only' is suppoosed to be esential to the learning process, when it is really just a bane. OK, in ESL if you are teaching a group whose native language you don't know you HAVE to use it, but that doesn't mean it is in any way more effective that using the native language of the students as a point fo reference. But in the UK teachers are forced to do it, and it doesn't work! Go to the TES MFL forum and type 'target language' into the search box and see what langaueg teachers think of it!

I'm sorry to say this but ESL teachers are far less effective than language teachers who know both languages. First of all they can explain the differences that DO need explaining. Language is not just 'picked up' by magic, especially by adults. That's a myth! And secondly they are not obliged to use the only methodology that can really be used with a teacher who does not know the native langauge of the students - CLT and it's foul companions, TPR etc... Although, MFL teachers ARE obliged to use it which is criminal. That's my beef! OK, so 'communication' is the only way you can go about teaching a language monolingually, but that doesn7t mean it is any good! It is just a means to an end, and a very poor one at that! People who can teach are sick of having their effective methodologies dissed in favour of all this silly nonsense. I also imagine that a fair deal of the animosity comes from people who have become ESL teachers and who failed at learning langauges at school because, no surprise, languages are DIFFICULT and this is a way of attacking what made them look and feel stupid.

I will say. though, that after a certain level of excellence is reached, then all target language lessons are beneficial. But for beginners, which I imagine, consitutes the majority of ESL classes, they are far less beneficial than having a bilingual instructor.

Finally, woodcutter, you summoned me! Had I not seen the reference to TWALT here, I would probably never had started posting. As for debating ESL, I'll leave the majority of that to the illustrious Mr Gethin. My rants are mainly for the benefit of my MFL comrades in the trenches. Long live grammar! Or long live TWALT! Long live both! Open your grammar books, do the execises and wake me five minutes before the bell...

Londo Molari · Post by **Londo Molari** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:37 am

BTW - What's a 'Chinese Roger'? It sounds rather fun in another context!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:28 am

Take a look at the Chinese Off topic forum. Chinese Roger will probably be a-posting. It may not be as fun as you hope though.

I don't regret "summoning" you Mr.Molari, and in terms of thoughtless trendy pseudo-scientific buzzword uni-think, I quite agree, hate it. In terms of "no native speech in the classroom", also, agree, and so do most people who post here.

I have argued these things, but it leads me to the conclusion that an integrated approach, constantly hitting the students with small doses of input, then asking them to practice it chiefly by asking some pointed questions, giving fairly hardcore correction/feedback, religiously recycling and giving useful native language input where we can is the optimal approach for those who can cope with it (and many can't - it's difficult, as you say. For lots of people it's an easy life or nothing).

Which is distressingly different from where it seems to lead you! Anyway, you are obviously not daft, and I'm sure that most people would rather you stuck around and gave your views. Why discuss matters with people who are going to agree with everything you say?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:55 am

I have no animosity for lol - but as one of the very few who did not enter the profession raw he/she (I'm still confused) is a committed newbie basher, and I like to stick up for them, since this profession is not one where a new teacher must necessarily be doing a poor job.

I'm sorry if my remarks are seen as "newbie bashing", especially as I used to be one myself. In fact, supporting and advising new teachers is part of my job. My point is that it's unfair on teachers and students to tell people they are qualified to teach EFL after just one month's training and a few hours of observed lessons (and it's very hard to fail them when they've forked out £1000 for the course). To train as a teacher in the British state school system takes one year of postgrad study. Is it so much easier to teach English to Japanese kids as it is to teach French to English kids that the former only requires one month's training while the latter needs one year? That's the real "scandal" Gethin should be writing about.

As for using L1 in the classroom, I've never argued against it, and use English in my Spanish lessons. I still say keep it to a minimum, and have no truck with teachers who say "Turn to page twenty-four" instead of "Pasar a la página veinticuatro"

GT, CLT, TPR... whatever. People learn in different ways and anyone who claims to have hit on a "method" which will work for everyone is either a con artist or self-deluded.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:50 am

Yes, but as you know, many of us teach in rotten conditions in developing countries. In fact, there are many more jobs going in Steelville, China than there are people to fill them. Therefore, why demand the impossible?

The establishment claims to have hit upon a method that suits everyone. Headway plus games. You're right, they are deluded. Londo is right, it is a con.

Londo Molari · Post by **Londo Molari** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:44 pm

You are right woodcutter, it's CLT or nothing with virtually all the countrie sand schools you care to mention. Not only that butthey have the punters believeing it will 'learn' them a language by putting virtually nothing into it.

When I start a'rantin' amongst ESL colleagues - not the ones I work with, I pit on teh pretense for them, the ones whose ideas I love to shred in front of their faces - they often aske me why, if I feel so strongly, don't I start up my own school. Why? Because I'd have no punters! I'd be bankrupt within a week,not because I wouldn't be giving the students quality language teaching, but because I'd be putting them through their paces, making them wait for their 'free conversation' that, when done too soon is nothing more than pidgin English that sticks and, amazingly, I would expect them to put something into it rather than just have me do it all for them. Not only that, when you've got Noa and Geos down the road offering English by magic..what hope would i have? It's a business, and the successful businesses give the punters what they want! It's nothing more than language-prostitution!

Glad you weren't anoyed about my comments regarding ESL/MFL teachers. Thought that might eb the end of a beautiful friendship.

I have invited Amorey to join us. I hope he will.

I'd better go and try and find Chinese Roger.

joshua2004 · Post by **joshua2004** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:43 pm

woodcutter wrote: I have argued these things, but it leads me to the conclusion that an integrated approach, constantly hitting the students with small doses of input, then asking them to practice it chiefly by asking some pointed questions, giving fairly hardcore correction/feedback, religiously recycling and giving useful native language input where we can is the optimal approach for those who can cope with it (and many can't - it's difficult, as you say. For lots of people it's an easy life or nothing).

I like the way that was stated. I have posted that I am all for Stephen krashen and comprehensible methods, but reading Londo (I am using you like a noun now) I have remembered advice my dad gave me a long time ago: don't go too extreme on anything. I think that is what Londo is subtly(or not so subtly) trying to express since there are things about Krashen and communicative methods that are good.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:44 am

MFL means you majored in a foreign language? I don't recall coming across that one. That language was Japanese, Londo?

I'm all for that. However, a world with you or lol in charge would mean that I could never have become a teacher - it would be a world of precious few opportunities. As it was, it took me 8 months of McJob to get enough together, do the 5 week course, and head out to an unloved region where they wanted people like me. I don't think I did a bad thing, I don't think the classes I give now are light years better than the ones I kicked off with.

I study the languages of the countries where I work, and I think that's helpful in the classroom. Language gets learnt though, any which way.

The business aspect of what we do is crucial. There are a number of different method schools out there, who aim to give something meatier than the "fun" that having a catch-all approach forces you to provide in order to remain popular. If we all had the attitude of sending away unhappy students to the place that suited them, if we could send the Polish "more grammar!" whiner to Molari's Ironrod Academy, and if that academy did not tell outlandish lies, did not bully its staff, and did not chuck the cheapest herberts it could find into the fray, then it would be good for everybody. That can only happen when the establishment stops telling outlandish lies, and admits that Londo's brutal grammar academy will suit some people (perhaps the best people) very well. Mr Molari seems to already understand that most people will hate it, but unlike him I do not think we need to nuke our livelihood for that reason.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:40 am

Woody, can I ask, seriously, why the stark contrast between "serious" (ironrod TM) and "fun" (silly CLT) learning all the time?

It is possible to have some fun and at the same time learn something other than the word "B - I - N - G - O" (I don't think ANYONE enjoys that game, even the JET Programme's CLT diehards who haven't even done the CELTA) you know, provided that the input is itself "fun" - relevant, interesting, challenging, motivating, dare I say as authentic as is possible (against which we must weigh its immediate comprehensibility, replicability by non-native learners etc) etc etc.

But of course, anyone who thinks that bawl-larks like 'Are you a student? Yes I am (a student)' is "good stuff "is hardly going to have that many fun lessons, are they!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:04 am

I have never argued that anything is useless (unlike some), and fun does not preclude learning - even helps it. However, when fun is the focus, obviously that isn't very helpful. When very helpful things are avoided because they are not fun - not helpful. When teachers are judged mainly on the vibe of the class - not helpful.

The ultimate case is lengthy and severe phonetic drilling at the start of a course (preferably with a native teacher). This is so very, very helpful to the serious student. It is also so very, very unfun.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:43 am

It's just so hard to imagine these turgid classes you seem to love (and claim some students get off on) as being that useful if they aren't much fun at all, have little "spark" (imagination in selection, ordering, staging etc) driving them forwards.

Then, a teacher who just models the text, confines the(ir) focus to it, isn't doing much that a CD couldn't (e.g. the kind of "phonetic drilling" that you mention can be done by a student by themselves e.g. with the aid of a bilingual course that describes the sounds by approximation to L1 and/or audio recordings; and a fair bit of these sounds are too "perfect" in their utter decontextualization. For example, how many courses in Mandarin Chinese strike you as presenting the most frequent tone for a particular monosyllable, or indeed the most frequent compounds replete with appropriate tone sandhi changes etc?).

I really think you have to address the teacher's role beyond simply presenting and modelling strictly limited texts, woody. You hardly touch upon criteria for selection of language (i.e. syllabus development) generally, and there is little real mention of deviating from a duff course (based on suspect criteria and therefore not optimal) for the sake of specific students.

Londo Molari · Post by **Londo Molari** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:46 pm

This is where the Molari one-man-band is in danger of getting booed off and pelted with rotten cabbages, I feel. Should I say what I think here and lead the discussion onto some very controversial ground, or should I be discreet and just keep mum, I wonder....

Londo Molari · Post by **Londo Molari** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:05 pm

(in reply to joshua2004)

'I like the way that was stated. I have posted that I am all for Stephen krashen and comprehensible methods, but reading Londo (I am using you like a noun now) I have remembered advice my dad gave me a long time ago: don't go too extreme on anything. I think that is what Londo is subtly(or not so subtly) trying to express since there are things about Krashen and communicative methods that are good.'

Extremist? Moi? Absolutely!
Anyway, Krashen had one good idea in the 80s, that input should be comprehensible (unfortunately that is very subject to interpretation so, in effect, TPR could be said to be based on comprehensible input) but I am not sure about the rest of it, or his motives. This guy, you mean? Cue drum roll.....

http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4the ... ashen.html

An extrenmist I might be but at least I am staying true to my ideals.

As for the 'good' things about CLT, whatever those minor things were, what it has mutated into today - games, songs, jumping up-and-down, grid-filling and acceptable pidgin TL - is every reason to dismiss it categorically, in my opinion.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:08 pm

I didn't know Krashen was still making waves...in Europe at least, he may (have) be(en) cited a lot, but he is hardly one of the main architects of CLT. So, if you want to seriously debunk CLT you're going to have to do a lot better than this, guys.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:07 pm

In my Applied Linguistics course we had two sessions on Krashen - one to present his theories, another to show where all the problems lie with it. This was over 10 years ago, so criticism of Krashen is nothing new.

My problem with any method is it won't work for everyone. Perhaps if CELTA trainers didn't insist on pushing CLT as the way, rather than one way (as it was on my CELTA) we wouldn't be haviong this discussion. Even the Diploma course seemed to work from the assumption that there is one way to do it. The PGCE, by contrast, emphasised the need for a variety of styles to suit different students. There's more than one way to skin a prescriptivist.