Having had its beginnings in the functional syllabus, “it has evolved into a basis for culturally and socially responsive language teaching that does not dictate or prescribe a syllabus type or teaching methodology” (Berns 1990: 103). As briefly referred to in the previous section, an erroneous
interpretation of appropriacy led many to assume that accuracy was no longer important. Because of this, many practitioners of CLT assumed that no structural input (grammar teaching) whatsoever was to be given to their learners. Additional arguments against grammar teaching were based on the notion that it was impossible, since the knowledge required by the speaker was simply too complex (advanced by Prabhu 1987), or on the notion that being exposed to the language was sufficient (Krashen’s view). More recently, these views have increasingly been challenged and the view that some form of grammar teaching has a place in modern language teaching and in the communicative approach has gained wide support (Fotos and Ellis 1991: 622; Thompson 1996: 10; Nunan 1998: 101; Ellis 2006: 101). Widdowson (1991: 86, 87, 95-98) has argued strongly against a false dichotomy between form and function, demonstrating that form is essential in the realisation of meaning.
The judicious use of structural input is thus enjoying a return to favour and there is increasing support for a focus on form (Savignon 2002: 7). As Doughty and Williams (1998: 2) point out, it should be emphasised that this is not the same as “a return to discrete point grammar instruction” or a focus on the grammar of the target language which promotes the correct use of linguistic items in carefully controlled circumstances, which is often posed as a binary opposite to authentic communication that involves a focus on meaning in unpredictable circumstances (Richards 2002: 154, 155). Long (1988, 1991) suggests that it would be better to use the term “focus on forms” for work on isolated linguistic structure forms. In part this term represents an attempt to deal with concerns that too much free and unpredictable speech in the language classroom without appropriate error correction and conscious teaching of language structure might lead to the fossilisation of errors early on in the language learning experience of learners (Beglar and Hunt 2002: 103; Lightbown and Spada 2000: 119). However, it seems that the main thrust is far less reactionary than this would suggest. Although formal instruction does not alter the sequences of acquisition (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991: 321), it can affect second language acquisition in a “possibly positive” way, with “clearly positive” effects on the rate of acquisition and “probably beneficial effects” on the level that learners ultimately attain. This is not limited to greater accuracy. Spolsky (1989: 194 – 197, 200) cites studies involving learners (including adults) in arguing that formal instruction does aid second language acquisition as long as the linguistic items are situated in appropriate contexts. Ellis (2006: 102) takes a stronger stand on the role of a focus on form. Others such as Ridge (1999: 32, 33) emphasise that form is an essential part of meaning. For that reason a binary distinction between meaning and form is not a useful one.
The issue then becomes not whether to teach grammar, but how to teach it. Clearly, as has already been stated, the traditional approach in which grammar items were taught discretely is not what is being advocated here. In a recent article Ellis (2006) argues that, although the selection of the language structures which should be taught remains problematic, he feels that the evidence favours teaching which takes the form of feedback based on the errors which the learners have made in the classroom (Ellis 2006: 89). This argument is supported by Larsen-Freeman (2001: 40). In general Ellis recommends a task-based approach to the teaching of grammar (Ellis 2006: 91), which should contain elements of intensive (with a series of lessons covering a limited number of grammatical structures) and also extensive teaching (with many structures receiving attention within a short space of time) (Ellis 2006: 93, 95). Savignon (2002: 7), presenting a similar argument, contends that “research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning- focused experience” and “learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences” (Savignon 2002: 7). Tomlinson (1999b: 3) favours indirect teaching, arguing that it is the most effective way of teaching a language as it helps “the learners to discover things for themselves” as opposed to direct teaching, the overt transmission of information to the learners by the teacher. He (1996: 11) suggests that the learner should be exposed to comprehensible input and only then be led to discover the underlying grammatical forms by means of discussion and guidance from the teacher. This retrospective approach to the teaching of grammar will then have the effect of engaging the attention of the learner because of the relevance or perceived importance of a particular aspect at that point.
However, as Ellis (2006: 102, 103) argues, because “[t]he acquisition of the grammatical system of a second language is a complex process and almost certainly can be assisted best by a variety of approaches”, “there are many imponderables with regard to grammar teaching and this issue merits much further investigation”. At least there is now a greater appreciation for the “complexity of challenges facing teachers” (Larsen-Freeman 2001: 41). It appears that a combination of language exposure and formal instruction would achieve the best acquisition results (Ellis 1994: 603, 615, 617).
Thus learners should be led to “achieve their communicative ends through the appropriate deployment of grammatical resources” (Nunan 1998: 103). However, it is only when learners realise that they can use language forms in order to communicate effectively about aspects which are relevant to them that grammar teaching can make some contribution (Nunan 1998: 108) because many learners fail to see the connection between form and function. For this reason some researchers emphasise the importance of ‘noticing’ the effect of a particular form through
consciousness-raising approaches. As Wallace (2001) points out, the development of critical literacy can usefully be employed to achieve this end. Fotos (1994), on the other hand, advocates an integration of grammar learning and task-based learning. Learners should be given grammar “consciousness-raising tasks” in which they are presented with structures which cause them problems and are then assigned communicative tasks in order to solve these problems for themselves. She is convinced that tasks like these can be applied to many language structures effectively (Fotos 1994: 340, 342) when teaching intermediate and advanced learners (Fotos and Ellis 1991: 610, 623). A task-based approach provides many opportunities for interaction to promote language acquisition (Richards and Rodgers (2005: 229). Yet other approaches can be used to raise consciousness of the effect or function of structures. These include cooperative language learning and content-based instruction (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 192 – 220).
It should be remembered that grammar is not just “structures and rules”, but “a range of highly complex phenomena” (Cook 1991: 25). The final aim of any form of grammar instruction is for the learner to internalise knowledge about the language so that (s)he can use the language effectively and for his/her own benefit. The teaching of a language can never ignore the learner’s internal processes (Cook 1991: 25). In spite of this, most language textbooks focus on explicit language learning and not on implicit language acquisition (Tomlinson 2001: 67).
Much research must still be done before final judgements can be made on how comprehensible input and attention to form in language acquisition can best serve learners’ interests (Sharwood Smith 1994: 113, 117, 118, 185, 186; Lightbown and Spada 2006: 176). However, it seems teaching should balance “form-focused instruction and corrective feedback within a communicative programme” (Lightbown and Spada 2006: 179), so that the needs of the variety of learners are catered for (Ovando and Collier 1985: 61). Admittedly, this is a difficult task because the individual characteristics of learners “interact in complex ways” and little is known about these “complex interactions”. Integrating “tasks with form-focused instruction” remains a challenge, given the complexities and variables involved in language learning (Nunan 2001: 91, 92).
It should also be noted that an approach or method must be practicable, and if it can easily be used as the basis for classroom material and textbooks, it will “readily adopted” (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 246). Perhaps because there is not much research to “support the often simplistic theories and prescriptions found in some approaches and methods”, teachers should be able “to use approaches and methods flexibly and creatively based on their own judgement and experience” (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 250). “All classroom practices reflect teachers’ principles and beliefs, and different
belief systems among teachers can often explain why teachers conduct their classes in different ways” (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 251). This is why the views of individual teachers are given prominence in Chapter 5, which deals with the classroom implementation of the selected material (5.4). Whichever aspects of CLT are referred to, be they process-oriented, task-based and inductive or discovery-based, the goals of CLT require materials and methods “appropriate to a given context of learning” (Savignon 2002: 7), which is why this study emphasises the material used in the classroom.
The goal of CLT is to develop a learner’s communicative competence and, whether one talks of CLT, some form of “postmethod condition” or an “informed approach”, achievement of this ideal is the key challenge (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell 1997: 149). In addition, “[c]ommunicative language teaching methods designed to enhance the interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning” (Savignon 2002: 7) will also continue to be explored and adapted. In making choices to meet the needs of their learners, teachers ideally need to have a clear understanding of the view of language which underlies CLT and the processes of teaching and learning that facilitate language acquisition (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 250, 251). This would not result in laissez faire eclecticism because they would work in a principled manner (Larsen-Freeman 2000: 183). This is not without complications because, “[d]espite changes in the status of approaches and methods, we can therefore expect the field of second ... language teaching in the twenty-first century to be no less a ferment of theories, ideas, and practices than it has been in the past” (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 254)
Brown (2002:11) is concerned that advocacy of a personal eclectic approach may mean that the practice of individual teachers is the result of “tinkering” based on their observations and experiences in the language classrooms. Consequently, he suggests a principled approach to language teaching. While admitting that his list of principles is far from exhaustive, he nevertheless claims that these principles are “central to most language acquisition constructs”.
These principles (Brown 2002: 12, 13) are
1. automaticity (which means that a few language forms are moved to the learner’s “automatic processing” of language forms, without over-emphasis on language forms);
2. meaningful learning (which will lead to more effective language acquisition than rote learning, an example of which is content-centred approaches);
3. rewards (in which he envisages short-term rewards that “keep classrooms interesting”);
4. intrinsic motivation (which stems from the “needs, wants or desires” of the learners themselves);
5. strategic investment (which reflects the learner’s “time, effort, and attention” to the target language);
6. language ego (the acquisition of a second language can lead to “a sense of fragility, defensiveness, and a raising of inhibitions”);
7. self-confidence (the learner actually believes (s)he can achieve the task);
8. risk-taking (the learners are prepared to go slightly beyond what they believe they can do);
9. language-culture connection (learning a language involves learning a “complex system of cultural customs, values, and ways of thinking, feeling, and acting”);
10. native language effect (the first language will both facilitate and interfere with the acquisition of the second language);
11. interlanguage (second language learners undergo certain developmental stages which can provide valuable feedback) and
12. communicative competence (“the goal of the language classroom”), achieved by attention to meaning and form, using “authentic language and contexts”.
(Brown 2002: 12, 13)
It is against the backdrop of this principled approach to language teaching that I now turn to the language learning strategies, dealing mainly with the second language, that learners employ in trying to acquiring skill in speaking, listening, reading and writing. This brief survey is not intended to be definitive, but serves to frame the discussion of the implementation of the selected material (5.2). Although listening, reading and writing are listed separately, the intention is not to suggest that they be dealt with in isolation in the classroom (McDonough and Shaw 2003: 89).