A third approach to CLT in the Chinese EFL context

Yafu GongChina National Institute for Educational Research

Canterbury, UK2 July 2010

Outline

Introduction Two parameters in language pedagogy - the

purpose parameter and process parameter. Native-speakerism approach Subject-oriented /content-based approach A Survey in China from 2007-2009 Multi-goal approach in EFL context in China

Introduction: Approaches to CLT Central to CLT is the understanding of language learnin

g as both educational and a political issues.... diverse sociopolitical contexts mandate not only a diverse set of language learning goals, but a diverse set of learning strategies.

(Savignon,1991, p. 265)

No single approach is accepted by all the CLT advocators but much has been discussed in terms of knowledge and competence relationships.

A diversity of communicative approaches that shared only a very general common objective: to prepare learners for real-life communication rather than emphasizing structural accuracy.

(Celce-Murcia & Dörnyei, Thurrell, 1997)

Introduction (cont.) There have been many different interpretations

and controversies in implementing Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) since it was introduced and it is the same case with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in China and other Asian countries.

“Real world”, “appropriate of language use”, “authenticity” and “negotiation of meaning” have been interpreted in different ways.

Introduction (cont.)

What do these terms imply in different contexts by different advocators remained unsolved in subsequent developments in language pedagogy up to the present day. (Widdowson, 2007)

Unfortunately, these unsolved problems have been haunting the English language education in China over the last 20 years. CLT has been severely challenged and some have claimed it as a failure (Bao, 2006).

Two parameters: Purpose and process

Purpose parameter and process parameter in language pedagogy. (Widdowson, 2003)

CLT is examined within purpose parameter: in t

he school setting as a subject of foreign language education in non-English speaking environments.

Two approaches to CLT

Two different approaches to CLT in terms of purposes of English language teaching (ELT).

How CLT can be implemented in this context has not been fully addressed, although this group of learners is the largest.

Look at the problems in the purpose parameter and seek solutions where English is taught as a foreign language in China.

Approach 1: Native-speakerism approach

CLT movement challenged the traditional structural approach.

Language for use

Communicative competence (Canale & Swain 1980, 1983).

Common perception of CLT

The communicative philosophy originally brought to the discipline a sociolinguistic dimension modeled on native speakers’ interaction. It promoted language authenticity and its educational aims were directed at the understanding and communication with native speakers in their specific cultural context.

(Álvarez, 2007)

Native-speakerismNative-speakerism (Holliday, 2005) “Competence”, “proficiency” are understood as native

speakers’ norm (Stern, 1983)

“Real world” context mainly refers to the English speaking environment with native speakers of English.

Aiming at developing native speaker culture norm; Native speaker teacher is the authority for language use; Assimilationist language teaching (help students get into

the mainstream classes in English-speaking countries. The early, the better -- for native proficiency

Chinese National English Curriculum

This notion of native-speaker cultural norm is also reflected in the Chinese National English Curriculum for schools (2001) :

In foreign language teaching, the “culture” refers to the target language country’s history, geography, local conditions and environments, traditional social customs, living habits, ways of life, literature and arts, norms of behaviors and values and ideology, etc.

English as an international language (EIL)

This notion of CLT has been challenged by Pennycook (1989) and so on (e.g., Phillipson, 1992; Holliday, 1994 ； Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Rajagopalan , 2004; Cummins & Davison, 2007) from political, cultural, local appropriateness as well as economical perspectives.

The increasing multicultural communication and multidimentional growth is challenging the traditional single culture value.

（ Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008 ）

Problems for Native-speakerism approach

Native speaker goal: 皖北山村.pps Not appropriate goal for Chinese school learners; Extremely difficult for most Chinese learners,

especially for rural area school students (60-70% of the population);

Students spend most of their classroom time on some content which is the least useful for them in their life or for personal development;

Require high language proficiency level for teachers (only 37% of the school teachers have received formal training at colleges or universities).

Approach 2:Subject-Oriented Approach (SOA)

The “areas of use” defined by Widdowson (1978) is quite different from the native-speakers’ reality. What Widdowson’s English language teaching context is not in English-speaking countries but “secondary level” as “general English courses” where English is taught as a foreign language

Communication and use

…foreign language can be associated with those areas of use which are represented by the other subjects on the school curriculum and that this not only helps to ensure the link with reality and the pupils’ own experience but also provides us with the most certain means we have of teaching the language as communication, as use, rather than simply as usage. (Widdowson, 1979, p.16)

Communicative function & authenticity

If learners could recognize the relevance of foreign language study to his other school activities, then, “the foreign language is represented as having the same kind of communicative function as his own language”

( Widdowson, 1978) Those topics which relate to other areas of the learners’

studies could give extracts a communicative reality and “setting up conditions favourable to authentication”

(p. 81).

What is the appropriate language?

For course in English as a foreign language, I think we need to reject as irrelevant and unrealistic the idea that these should be defined as native speaker use. What student need to have acquired at the end of their course, it seems to me, is a knowledge of the language which will provide them with a capability for further learning

(Widdowson, 2003, p.115)

Advantages and problems

Central issue of a CBI program is the interface of language and content and at all levels, the problems is always the same – students struggling to master new concepts and conceptual skills through a language in which they have limited proficiency.

(Wesche & Skehan, 2002, p. 220)

Students’ perception of CBI/SOA “Subject content too complicated – if other subjects are

learned in Chinese, it is not necessary to learn them in English; if the content have not taught in Chinese, it could be too difficult to understand.”

“If we know how to express the concepts in English, I think it is enough as science subjects sometimes are boring.”

“It would be tiring to read these science articles in English as you have to look up dictionary all the time….”

“It is fine to have exposure to some simple knowledge of other subjects in English, but not get into it …”.

Problems of CBI/SOA reported by teachers

Lack of suitable materials--- imported ones are too difficult, home-written ones are not high quality;

Lack of qualified teachers---Other subject teacher’s English proficiency is not good enough; English teachers tend to turn it into a language course because of the limited content knowledge;

Students have different expectations about the English as a subjects – the purpose is to learn language, not the subjects content;

No tests available for CBI, student are not motivated because of the test-driven instruction.

The third approach: Multi-goal Approach

Theoretical underpinnings: Humanistic idea of language teaching Learners perspectives Curriculum design Foreign Language Education goals

Humanistic idea of language teaching

in foreign language teaching, we see the target only in terms of ‘linguistic competence’ or textual knowledge….

Thus, ideational and personal knowledge, which continually interact with the textual knowledge and from which textual knowledge evolves, have tended to be overlooked or neutralised.

(Candlin & Breen, 1980, p.93)

Learner perspective

A communicative specification of purpose supports the principle that the roots of our objectives can already be discovered in our learners – however beneath the surface of the actual target repertoire these roots may be.

We need to try to recognise what the learner knows and

can do in communicative performance with the first language and not assume that the learner is a naïve communicator or someone who evaluates communication in only a superficial way. （ Candlin & Breen,1980， p.93)

‘Multi-dimensional’ curriculum

A Multi-dimensional’ curriculum model which expands the view of curriculum content for second language beyond the linguistic focus:

… the content of the second language curriculum has to date largely been reviewed from within a single focus: the linguistic domain. The underlying assumption that the content of the L2 curriculum and the content of the language syllabus are one and the same goes unchallenged in the current debate about the communicative teaching. A broad or ‘multi-focus’ view of the content of the L2 curriculum which may have strong potential for achieving communication has not been considered.

(Ullmann, 1982)

External vs. internal goals Language teaching has been traditionally balanced the e

ducational gains for the student’s mind, attitudes, and personality from learning the L2 against the social and communicative gains from being able to use the L2 for practical purposes.

The aims of language teaching can be divided into internal classroom goals that relate to the students’ life within the classroom, such as communicating their backgrounds and feelings to each other, and external goals that relate to the students’ use of English outside the classroom, such as traveling or living in an English-speaking environment.

( Cook,1999,p.197)

External goals vs. internal goals

Two different goals of English language--“external goals” and “internal goals”.

Approaches focusing on classroom-internal goals value language teaching as an educational activity benefiting the students in many ways…The native speaker model is unnecessary because students get many things out of learning the language other than sounding like native speakers. The alternative aims of proficiency or expertise could be applied to these classroom-based goals (Cook, 2007, p.198; 239)

EFL Curriculum design for schools

Social development requirements ； Influence of English education on the learners

(ideology, values, personality, identity, culture); Local context and conditions (different

environments, cultures, language development); Different needs and individual development;

(Gong, 2008)

Two different worlds in China

The difference between rural area and big cities is as wide as the distance between the sky and the earth ( 天壤之别）

Nearly 70% of the population is in rural areas; A recent survey (Li, 2004) conduced in China

reported that 76% of the informants believed that the curriculum content was suitable only for the urban students.

Survey Questions 1. What are the appropriate and realistic purpose for

English Education for schools?

2. What are the appropriate topics and thematic content for both the curriculum goals and the particular group of learners as well as education situations and wider society where the course is located? What should be selected as appropriate content?

3. What knowledge and capabilities should be focused upon (original emphasis)?

4. Given a communicative focus, which particular use of language or types of tasks should be selected?” (ref. Breen, 2001)

Survey

Three-year investigation: 2007-2009 Participants: Different rural and urban schools, small

towns, big cities, village schools in national poverty counties.

Methods: Semi-structured group interviews and one-to-one interviews

Objective needs , subjective needs (Brindley, 1989); situation analysis (Richards, 2006).

20 interviews in 9 provinces: Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Shanxi, Yunan, Anhui, Guangdong, Beijing, Sichuan and Jiangsu.

Findings

For rural area students, some topics and content are irrelevant to their life and difficult to understand, while the students in big cities complain that there are not enough authentic materials in the textbooks.

One-size-fits-all type of curriculum cannot meet the needs of different learners -- both students in urban and rural areas schools are not satisfied with the current curriculum content.

What is the students’ “real world”?

Some students only have one meal a day but the topics in the textbooks teach students how to order pizza or order food in a fast-food restaurant;

Weekend activities: rural area students go to pick up bamboo shoots and mushrooms for food;

Students have never seen traffic lights, never been to a movie theater…;

Difficult to talk about the musical instruments and bands they like….

Chinese students’ three worlds

Inner world --- students want to learn how to express their ideas and emotions, tell stories of their life, share problems with friends;

Knowledge world – learning life skills, content knowledge, learn English songs and get information for their own interests, knowledge about other countries; individual development; learn how to live with parents and teachers…;

Future world – unknown world, foreign countries…. Knowledge which can prepare them for the future individual development….

Five-C curriculum conceptual framework to CLT

Communication Cognition Connections Cultures Cultivation

CommunicationCommunication goal Using English as an international language to

communicate with other English users in international contexts;

Not only learn daily interpersonal communication (ordering food in a fast-food restaurant) but to express their own ideas, their inner-world with both English users from other countries and their peers on the topics of their common interest;

linguistic goal (grammar, function ....), also teach localized norms for language use.

Cognition Thinking and cognition goals Develop learning skills and thinking skills in

another language through the learning of English (classification, sequencing, cause and effect….);

Mental development; How to use learning resources; How to be creative and critical; Academic development

Connection Connections with student’s ‘real world’– their

own context and knowledge world; Connections with other school subjects and

personal development; Connections with students’ inner world (anger,

peer-pressure, how to live with parents, grades and exams…);

Self-referential topics

Cultures Cross-culture goal Multicultural person（ Alptekin, 2010); Cultural awareness, tolerence, critical and

reflection; Cross-cultural communication strategies; Not overemphasize popular culture but some

common and diverse cultural value, ways of thinking….;

Cultural identities which cross national boundaries (friends, food, dress, family….) (Holliday, 2009), not keep these language and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments

Cultivation

Sociocultural goals “Mental development as individuals” (Cook); Moral education, such as learning to share and

conflict resolution. Personal development…. (responsibility, tolerance, self-realization, self-confidence) (Candlin, 1987; Cook, 2007);

Topics include: Helping, respect, good manners, conflict resolution ....

Conclusion Conceptualization of CLT which favours its local

development,… we have to think of the possible and the appropriate not fixed in reference to native speaker norms, but related to the feasible in classroom context. And what is feasible, and effective, in classroom context, will, of course, depends on local cultural and linguistic factors.

(Widdowson, 2007)

Consider the orientations of the students’ real world with all their cultural behaviors and allegiances in the design of a communicative curriculum” and that “any course or materials which do not do this are essentially not communicative”. (Holliday,1994, p.173)

Thank you!

yafu.gong@gmail.com