Eric writes:
Chris Stolz shared with me an article from VP titled “Perceptions of and Perspectives on the Term ‘Communicative’ ” (1998), which has some gems (especially toward the end of the paper).
We have made the point before that “communication” in the mainstream classroom really refers to speaking with that unit’s rules and vocabulary for the purpose of practicing (but VP says that in order for it to be considered communication, the language use has to have a social or informational purpose). Since the communicative practice always comes after a more present & practice (drills) sequence, the communication is “always constrained by the grammatical focus of the sequence. Communication would be at the service of learning grammar” (p. 930).
Here’s a good quote against grammar: “A reading of the literature on second language acquisition and use suggests that communication is not the result of learning discrete bits of language and then putting them together. It is not clear at all that linguistic analysis or knowledge of grammar necessarily – if at all – precedes use” (p. 928).
VP acknowledges the chasm between theory and practice. “With regard to pedagogy, the tremendous gap that exists between theory (supported by research) and practice is a real concern” (p. 931). VP lists 3 reasons:
1) When the communicative movement happened in the 70’s teachers integrated “communicative” into what they were already doing (audio-lingual – mechanical drills), rather than start from scratch and go 100% communicative – “Except for a few renegades, language teachers did not take this option” (p. 930). We are those renegades!!!
2) Textbooks are to blame. There is not much different between textbooks and so teachers are shaped by the materials available. VP describes the chapters of major textbooks as all starting with a vocabulary list and a grammar section with exercises and there is usually a special section devoted to communication, but limits it to speaking and the purpose of the activities themselves is to practice the vocabulary and grammar. On the contrary, communication as defined by researchers happens in any mode and is used for social and informational purposes. The order of the standard lesson plan in a textbook is present -> practice -> communication. Since acquisition happens because of communication, then if the goal is to get vocabulary and grammar internalized, you should start the lesson with communication.
VP wrote (p. 930): “One might rightly ask why researchers and scholars are not writing cutting-edge textbooks that incorporate the latest in scholarship on language teaching and acquisition. Some do. But publishers are reluctant to publish anything that doesn’t ‘look familiar’ to language teachers. Publishing is a competitive business and publishers need to sell their products. Thus, there is a cycle of teachers’ perceptions and expectations that shape what publishers will produce. These materials in turn reinforce teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the cycle is difficult to break.”
3) And then VP discusses the other the elephant in the room: teacher education. He discusses a study by Teschner (1987) in which he found that of the university level language program directors:
59% = PhD in a literary field
19% = PhD in traditional linguistics
14% = PhD in applied or educational linguistics
These are the people responsible for training grad students who then become professors and train undergrads. And as VP notes, personnel in higher ed does not change much, so the situation is still much the same.
And as VP says, if only 14% of directors are applied linguists and there is usually only 1 person in applied linguistics in a language department, then less than 1% of all US professors are specialized in applied linguistics related to language learning and teaching.
Eric