The 'Communicative Language Teaching' Fraud Revealed!

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:15 am

We all translate in our heads until habit takes over. That, Mr.Pinker, is the second language instinct! Great linguists are the same as everyone else. And 6 year olds will translate everything you say out loud if you let them.

Unless you think I am quite wrong here, then much of ESL writing is based on confused nonsense. Wouldn't that make you want to howl in frustration?

Add that to the fact that big name writers have no interest in the mundane matter of the horrible way that their beloved Headway is actually employed all around the world, and you have a really useless bunch of people.

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:28 am

I agree with everything you've just said, Woody. My bugbear is to what extent should we be encouraging people to translate in their heads, and, more importantly, how they should translate.

It's the students raised on too many G&Ts who turn up in the UK either barely able to utter a word (and wonder why they've been put in a Pre-Intermediate class when they already know what the Present Perfect Continuous looks like) or able to get by but unable to progress thanks to their "Mr Spock" attitude to language.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:52 am

This talk of "translating in the head" is way too glib - what does it mean, and is it how people should learn?

Student meets unknown word or phrase or construction or sentence (whatever). No translation will be going on as yet because the student obviously does not know what the L2 means in terms of L1. Meaning becomes clear through examining context, through consulting a supplied translation (a gloss, key, wordlist or glossary, or as supplied by bilingual teacher etc), or from rummaging through dictionaries. Presuming the above goes smoothly, the student ends up with an (approximate?) equivalent and thus can be said to now "know" at least the (basic and/or contextually, immediately relevant) meaning.

Now that the student "knows", he or she can presumably use the item in ways equivalent to the now more familiar context with little or no need to continue to think of the L2 item in terms of the L1 equivalent(s).

Of course, we all at times can be aware that 'this' in L2 does indeed equal 'that' in L1, but to keep on bringing it into explicit consciousness if not to say verbal discussion and reasoning is to start acting like Japanese high school students eager for stars or stamps in their notebooks (when you look at the level of what is being translated in such GT contexts, you will soon realize it is very very basic, meat and potatoes stuff that a serious learner will soon not dwell on); the not-so-serious learners like to keep on slapping themselves on the back by regurgitating 'I am not good at English' whenever they have a "conversation" with a native speaker.

The real challenge lies in going beyond the initial encounters with the L2 items and getting to grips with them, coming to terms with them in L2 terms (no need to be too "structuralist" about this, though, because that would be replacing the supposedly common bilingual translation that woody is "championing" - get yerself back over to Korea or Japan, you'd be well respected in highschools there! - with the sort of English-English translation mania that one might call "definitionitis") - in a (buzz)word, collocations (which are ultimately really just more bits - albeit major ones - of the context) are where the action is (Yawn! :lol: ).

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:08 pm

Getting to grips with them can only begin after we have a rough translation. In CLT it would seem to be the rougher the better, the more guesswork the better. If a student had one-on-one GT with a private teacher, and enjoyed it, then it would be a fine way to practice. The translation process is going on anyway, so why not have the teacher help?

I shan't go into why I like (most of) the Avalon method again, but I'm depressed Lol hasn't grasped any of the matters concerning its usage, and that FH will never grasp that it is the "even more communicative method" (in a way). You can't do it for 15 minutes, and I don't do it at all. The ethos created by the whole Avalon thing is of the tools being there if you wish to use them. The ethos of mainstream teaching is that teacher must provide the motivation as well as the tools. That's why it wastes a lot of time, and is a big tent church.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:04 am

woodcutter wrote:Getting to grips with them can only begin after we have a rough translation.
I didn't say it couldn't...but I would take issue with your 'only' there: it really depends on whether the meaning can be apprehended without (the need for) the translation, doesn't it! (The only thing we can generally say is that the need for word-by-word if not blanket translation will probably decrease as a student progresses). Like I said, meaning can be clear enough from just the context...
In CLT it would seem to be the rougher the better, the more guesswork the better. If a student had one-on-one GT with a private teacher, and enjoyed it, then it would be a fine way to practice. The translation process is going on anyway, so why not have the teacher help?

I shan't go into why I like (most of) the Avalon method again, but I'm depressed Lol hasn't grasped any of the matters concerning its usage, and that FH will never grasp that it is the "even more communicative method" (in a way). You can't do it for 15 minutes, and I don't do it at all. The ethos created by the whole Avalon thing is of the tools being there if you wish to use them. The ethos of mainstream teaching is that teacher must provide the motivation as well as the tools. That's why it wastes a lot of time, and is a big tent church.
I wasn't aware that rabid Direct (L2 only, right?) methods such as Avalon were Grammar Translation...did I miss something? (That's not to say that Direct Method practitioners can't - like CLT practitioners - use translation where it would be more efficient or useful). I also wasn't aware that there were many sufficiently bilingual Direct Method teachers ready to assist their students at the drop of a hat (or dictionary).

Nobody with half a brain can be unaware of the advantages of translation - by that, I mean having a translation (or translator) available and to hand if and when necessary...when unnecessary, it is obviously, well, unnecessary to translate (one's, in the immediate context, clear and unproblematic understanding of the L2, back into one's L1, that is, translate for and to oneself in one's mind all the time).

So, the weakness of CLT is not that is fails to take account of, allow or use translation (it is if anything more tolerant of and interested in the advantages of the practice than more antiquated Direct methods).

I must admit I am not quite following the recent "discussion" here on this thread (why are we discussing Grammar Translation now, exactly? Just because it was a forerunner of the Direct Method, and must therefore be better to woodcutter's mind just as he holds the DM to be superior to CLT?); perhaps that betrays my ignorance and confusion, but I can't help feeling that I am not the only confused person posting here. 8)

I'd prefer now to ask what is (was?) good about the Communicative Approach (I prefer to think in terms of approach than e.g. CLT, the latter can go off the rails methodology-wise because the implications of the approach were and perhaps still are too much for some to implement - although the developments in Corpus Linguistics now mean there is really no excuse for the slcakers to continue doing what they "do"). Surely it invites us to consider factors which were LACKING in earlier approaches?

To be honest, I wonder how teachers who are or could easily be in possession of facts about language (with its implications for pedagogy) can turn their back on those facts and suppress or ignore them.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:15 am

This is Londo's show, and he loves GT - I don't, all that much, but I don't like to hear it attacked by the inexperienced CLT radicals, who think they can out teach 20 year veterans in the developing world.

(I summon thee, Stephen Bax. Back me up!)

So let's stick to topic - to the under examined drawbacks of CLT

1.Poverty of input, little correction, no awareness that the students are translating inwardly.
2.Constant use of books notable for political/cultural brainwashing rather than interest value.
3.Endless banter between the teacher and the best 2 or 3 students, while the rest of the class suffers.
4.Difficulty of maintaining focus, of having the language points of the day used for communicative purposes, of doing adequate revision.
5.Difficulty of creating scenarios that will not require students to use vocabulary and structure far beyond them. Subsequent use of gestures, and a general environment of completely inaccurate input.
6.Pressure to entertain, resulting in games for their own sake, fridays in the pub, avoiding of painful things like phonetic drills.
7.Creation of general ethos of Cobainesque "Here I am now, entertain me"
8.Large amount of preparation time - teachers could be teaching if another method was used.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:48 am

woodcutter wrote:This is Londo's show, and he loves GT - I don't, all that much, but I don't like to hear it attacked by the inexperienced CLT radicals, who think they can out teach 20 year veterans in the developing world.
Thanks for the clarification, Woody, I knew I hadn't been paying complete attention!

Rabid CLT newbie converts/cultists may not be able to teach their way out of a rice paper bag, but then, can and do most of the "developing world veterans" really do much better? The truth is, neither type of teacher is doing their best/utmost (because there are a lot of factors that weigh against them really being able to do so).
So let's stick to topic - to the under examined drawbacks of CLT

1.Poverty of input, little correction, no awareness that the students are translating inwardly.
2.Constant use of books notable for political/cultural brainwashing rather than interest value.
3.Endless banter between the teacher and the best 2 or 3 students, while the rest of the class suffers.
4.Difficulty of maintaining focus, of having the language points of the day used for communicative purposes, of doing adequate revision.
5.Difficulty of creating scenarios that will not require students to use vocabulary and structure far beyond them. Subsequent use of gestures, and a general environment of completely inaccurate input.
6.Pressure to entertain, resulting in games for their own sake, fridays in the pub, avoiding of painful things like phonetic drills.
7.Creation of general ethos of Cobainesque "Here I am now, entertain me"
8.Large amount of preparation time - teachers could be teaching if another method was used.
Nice to see you make some points a bit more clearly for once. :twisted:

I don't agree that any of the things you mentioned at 1) (have to) typify a communicative approach; indeed, I'd argue that communicative (sociological) ways of thinking (albeit among linguists more serious than most "Applied" ones) are what has led to the bonanza of input now available (whether or not it is all "quality" input is debatable, but still, it's a substantial start). As for lack of correction, I'd say that is more down to the personality of the teacher and general classroom dynamics/personalities than carved in methodological stone (good luck to you if you want to really try correcting opiniated or argumentative students).

Hmm, I must admit, I can see quite a few oriental students translating inwardly, but this is surely a WEAKNESS of their educational system (because it prevents them from EVER being spontaneous or confident, even with the easiest of language tasks - they never switch off their internal "monitor"!) - I don't know how many teachers believe they could take advantage of this kind of cognitive crippling.

I'd agree with you about 2), but I doubt if the sort of books most Direct Method schools use are a step up on this (remember the Polish pdf that metal dug up?).

I honestly don't know what's better than "endless banter" (from already fluent students), maybe those students could take over the class and teach the "cripples" their secrets for mastering English? Or at least pep up the boring Direct Method drills some. :lol: (Joking somewhat, a focus on form, pronunciation of that form etc is often necessary and helpful).

4) and 5) are where the serious teacher has their work cut out for them. If you keep on whining about how hard it is to anticipate needs and follow tangents through to their satisfying or at least logical conclusions, woody, we really will have to assume you indeed are a total McChain-school student-flipping dweeb who has a choice of falling back onto the No Headway book (so opposed are you to doing 6, the logical outcome for teachers who can't handle 4 or 5). :D

Nothing wrong with 7) if it's anything like a night out at the Moulin Rouge with Harold Zidler at the helm, leading to something like Christian and Satine's subsequent passionate affair.

8. is a problem at first, even if a good textbook (and method) is available (because it takes time to gain experience with said book), but a serious teacher shouldn't object to time spent in preparation - it will prevent burnout and could well pay dividends later; and there is still the problem of weaknesses with any particular, "individual" method (i.e. that is not ever quite your own, "perfect" and loving creation), which necessitates further thinking, problem-solving and supplementing. 8)

revel
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:21 am

Observation

Post by revel » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:58 am

Good morning all!

I just don't know, having read Mr Londo's satyrical writings on Twalting and then other criticsims of this CLT thing, it all sounds like individual teachers who think they do better complaining about other teachers they have known or worked with or who have taught the year before the individuals complaining who now have to take up the slack, those awful teachers that follow whatever textbook down to the last comma and full stop, who either bore their students to death or are always rewarding them with a quick game of Trolley or an hour looking at the video machine in action. Sounds familiar to me because I have done the same, especially in team-teaching situations, the surveys are in, I got the highest score again, that other teacher will read the word "boring" in reference to her teaching at least three times.

And yet, my opinion about how those other teachers teach is mostly based on hearsay. They themselves have demonstrated some of their attitudes ("I never speak anything but English in the classroom, they need to listen and listen again and again, they don't need translation, they don't need clear, easy to understand grammar or structure explanations, they need to listen!" -- that is not me, that is one of the more boring teachers.) or I can hear their classes when the door is open, either a lot of kids all shouting at the same time in L1 or the teacher reading another text from the book while the students try to fill in the blanks, or no sound at all while the students try to fill in the blanks. I've never observed their classes. Students will often when asked tell what goes on in those classes, but I, myself, shouldn't be so quick to condemn what I personally haven't seen.

Along with the objectives of every class period or unit in the book or moment in the class, there ought to be evaluation of those objectives. What I've seen here so far, in general, are not objective evaluations, but rather complaints about things we've heard about but haven't necessarily seen. Others of you have probably observed classes, but has anyone observed the entire cycle of teaching of any teacher but him/herself? Are the criticisms coming from the work of individual teachers or from the training that any of us has either gone through or heard of? Are we fed up with administrative expectations or simply lack of motivation on the part of the students? Are we envious of that native speaker who, with little more experience than chatting with his/her seat mate on the plane over is suddenly working ten hours a week earning three times as much and actually asking the student to always pay for the coffee or the caña in the bar where the "conversational class" is often held for lack of an appropriate classroom?

I'm still missing the objectives here, and without knowing what is expected from CLT or any other combination of upper-case letters, I'm afraid I can't clearly support or argue against any of them.

peace,
revel.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:26 am

The objective of any method is to produce a student who can produce an appropriate form in its appropriate contexts; the differences between the methods under discussion on this thread could perhaps be expressed as the difference between 'just the ONE OR TWO appropriate (="approved") forms' and 'any form that will work, or indeed, none at all as far as discrete verbalization is concerned' (but that does NOT mean that silence - or grunting, or error-filled rubbishy interlanguage, as woodcutter might express it all - is always golden in a serious communicative approach; as I say, if the objective is to produce a student who can produce forms, then appropriate forms will be considered in the preparation stages and focused upon at some point in the teaching-learning cycle).

Again, I can't help but feel that the "argument" on this thread is overlooking the possible gaps in "non-communicative" syllabuses, the contributions of ESP, TBL, potential contribution of Corpus Linguistics etc etc etc. Just because a teacher makes a student say or do something doesn't necessarily mean they are learning anything of great value; a lot of teaching is just "going through the motions", "jumping through hoops", "self-validation and/or glorification for the teacher" etc.

Londo Molari
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:19 am

Post by Londo Molari » Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:38 pm

Those 8 points are EXACTLY what is expected of CLT! Spot on! And the preparation to amek things look pretty and creative when the languaeg content is so paltry! CLT, my arse!

Yes, I do love GT, but like I said, there is another part, the AL! You see, GT makes up for the only part of AL that I think is not OK - the fact that one is suppose dto pick up grammar implicitly. That has all sorts of dangers attached to it. Anyway, you do GT first and detailed pronunciation (phonetics if you like). The GT shows the student that they say it like this;we say it like that and vice versa. Then you AL it for fluency. Thena nd only then are you really ready to get out there and start talking to people. You will have patters to use instead of pidgin and you will be able to trace your mistakes back to rules, and therefore understanding when corrected. How I hate that constant correction stuf we have to do! You keep correcting it and they keep on making the same mistake because we are doing it 'as children learn'. I just feel like screaming 'Just bloody learn it properly from the outset!'

Why, then are GT and AL so unpopular? You can find lots of namby-pamby, cry-baby arguments against them on pedagogical grounds, but it's all nonsense to explain away people's lack of effort! CLT gives instant gratification to ingifted, paying punters and that's where the real benefit lies - in the profit, not in the educational gain. Most students just can't be bothered putting in all the mental effort to learn using GT and AL when it would benefit them far more in the long run! They can't see that. they want it NOW and CLT gives them just that! CLT is a great business and that's all it is! THAT'S ALL IT IS! I can't fault people with good business sense luring unsuspecting punters into their schools to walk round asking 'What's your name?' for an hour a week. The punters are happy - they are getting instant gratification and the illusion that they really are communicating in the TL. The schools are happy because they are filling the koffers so everyone's happy! Give them what they want! And if they are so willing to to pay so much for so little, then what the hell, let hem be suckered! They are mostly lazy gits who can't be arsed learning properly anyway. It's the kids who are forced to learn this way that I feel sorry for! CLT doesn't develop any language learning skils apart from pidgin TL, and those who really are interested are put at a severe, and very unfair, disadvantage.

Anyone can communicate badly in a language. It takes very little skill and it is certainly a priviledge you shouldn't have to pay for!

Here endeth today's rant!

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:46 am

Is anyone really entitled to rubbish the Communicative Approach (ooh, capital letters!) when what they'd impose in its place will probably pay even less attention to function than (its detractors seem here to be arguing) "the" CA does to form(s)?

Let's be clear here about one thing here, people pushing Bingo and Hangman, or doing endless roleplay or discussion activities (without any real consideration of the difficulties that will be involved language-wise in order to successfully complete the tasks), or, for that matter, religiously following their copy of Headway or Interchange, ARE NOT SERIOUS TEACHERS. Just because their school calls itself a "communicative" one shouldn't mislead us into thinking such teachers are representative of the "best" that the(?) "approach" offers.

If you want to know what CLT really is, go read some of the books I suggested earlier and ask yourself if you would like to be doing possibly more for your students than pushing them through a coursebook you had no part in writing, using a method you will (if you are honest) admit isn't always that suitable or appropriate.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:13 am

The best the approach offers may be offered by Penny Ur after she's had her valium, I dunno. Since it's an approach, not a method, people are pretty much free to offer what they want, as long as they bung in a bit of the text-book. They offer TWALT, in general, as far as I can see.

Post Reply