Resource centre - Theory and issues - Communicative classroom
What exactly makes a communicative classroom and how do you know if you're teaching in one? Julio Foppoli tackles the issue of communicative language teaching...
In this new instalment of our mini-articles on second language acquisition, I
would like to address a concern common both in teachers and in students. Almost
everyone has heard about the need for authentic communication in the classroom
and almost every single course on the market and even classrooms say they are
communicative in nature. Nevertheless, upon completion of those courses,
students fail to engage in even basic conversations. How is this possible?
For obvious reasons, even though in theory living abroad could be the best
alternative to learn a language, not always is it practical or feasible to
engage in this kind of fascinating adventure. Our everyday lives and
responsibilities, our job, family, and many other factors may prevent us from
doing this, so we may wonder if the only two choices we have are either to spend
several years in the classroom doing grammar, hoping to communicate one day or
being abroad.
The classroom is not a bad choice IF the teacher who is in front of us has a
communicative approach in mind, and emphasizes the cultural and communicative
nature of it. How can you tell if this is the case? Simply put, when you are
given materials and activities to deal with in class, just ask yourself this
question: "Could I use this in Real life?"
If the answer is "YES", then you are more likely than not in a communicative
classroom. If the answer is "NO", and every time or most of the time you do an
activity with your teacher you keep answering the same, it would be advisable to
consider other learning options.
Mind you, I am not saying here that every single activity done in class must be
communicative. I feel that teachers need to be eclectic enough to choose what is
best for their students at any given moment and stage of their learning. Even in
communicative classrooms you may need to do some drilling, grammar must be
presented, you study vocabulary of course and you may not be able to answer
"YES" to the previous question on each and every single occasion.
We are now going to analyze two different situations in which two different
teachers use two different approaches. Let's imagine that at their stage, their
students need to learn the past tense.
In most language courses nowadays, the teacher comes to class and says or writes
on the board: "Topic: The Past". A long list of grammar patterns and rules
follow. Later on, after talking about those rules and going into details about
exceptions and every possible situation that ever appeared on earth, the
never-missing drilling and practice come into play. Students are then given many
exercises to master that tense and in a relatively short period of time they
seem to be quite proficient in the use of the new structures.
The teacher is happy, the students are happy. It looks like the job has been
done, and it is perfect from every point of view, that is... until the student
has to use those structures in a real situation, in real communication outside
the class. S/he dries up, remembers nothing, says very little - if anything -
and frustration takes over. This scenario takes place every single day in these
kinds of classrooms where language is atomized or presented as patterns and
structures without a real communicative purpose.
Now let's analyze the same situation from a communicative perspective. The
teacher knows their students need to learn the past at this stage. Instead of
entering the classroom and saying "today we'll study the past tense", he or she
can create situations for the students to deal with past events in many
different ways. They could start by watching a video segment taken from the
news, which are usually in the past (audio-visual comprehension listening to
REAL language), or the students may be invited to read about an event that took
place in the past (reading comprehension / real language again). Later they may
be encouraged to make conversations about what they have seen or read, or maybe
asked to explain what they did on some special event. All these activities are
communicative in nature. How do you know? Well, simply ask: "Could I use or do
this in real life?"
Obviously you can. You could watch a video or read a report in real life, you
always talk to people about these things and about events that happened to you
and the main aim, both in the classroom and in your life is to express your
ideas through language. In short, we are being communicative; we are using the
language with a communicative purpose in mind, not just to learn the rules to
form the past.
However, while trying to express themselves, the students will make LOTS of
mistakes or they will find themselves at a loss for words, structures, etc. When
that happens, it is the right moment to introduce the grammar and vocabulary
they need to learn, but only at that time. They need to express their ideas and
lack the means to do so. So that is the right time to present, teach and
systematize those items. So you teach in a real communicative setting. After the
explanations that could use many of the students' mistakes as a springboard for
comments, the students are made aware of those underlying rules needed in order
to get their message across. After that, some drilling must take place for them
to gain good control of the structures they have just seen.
Although the drilling and the explanations about those structures may not be
communicative in nature, they arose out of a real communicative need. It goes
without saying that after that, on many different occasions, they should be
given new and lots of opportunities to put their ideas into practice and make
lots of mistakes! This is perfectly right! It would be utopic to expect our
students to produce perfectly correct phrases after being presented with new
patterns; it will take them some time to incorporate them and that is great.
Next time they speak and make mistakes in these items, you may refer to what
they have studied as a reminder to them.
In conclusion, we have seen that we can teach or learn the same from two
different angles, one structural in nature and the other communicative. A
combination of both is the ideal, as we discussed earlier. Up to this point you
may have been at a loss while trying to tell whether your work was communicative
or not. Now you know that there is a simple question to answer when you want to
know if what you or your teacher is doing is appropriate to help you communicate
in the long run. "Could I use this in Real life?" If you could use the language
you are learning in a real setting, you know you are definitely in a
communicative classroom. If you can't, it would not be unwise to try a different
teaching or learning approach.
Julio Foppoli, Teacher of English as a Second Language, Teacher of Spanish as a Second Language, Creator and owner of www.esaudio.net, an online educational website with a technological edge, specialized in the teaching of Spanish as second language via audio-conference to native speakers of English from all over the world. The website offers free listening comprehension activities with Spanish from all of the Spanish speaking world.
What do you think of this article? Add a comment ยป
The article was excellent and
I agree wholeheartedly with the point being made.
Yes, I also agree that as a
teacher, one must use different approaches. Teaching grammar is not bad by
itself likewise with communicative teaching or any other method. However, these
method should be used appropriately. Among my Korean students, most of them are
good in grammar. They know the rules but when asked to answer a question
especially on real life situations, they have a hard time answering. So I do
believe that teachers should strike a balance and aim to teach English for the
purpose of communicating.
Great article, most
informative. Thanks
Yes, it's great to know that
some think for the students and become proactive.
I think that it's a very good
article and it can help a lot of structural teachers who don't want to change
their methodology in order to improve students' learning.
An excellent article and yes,
it is the BEST way to engage in language acquisition. It works and, thank
goodness, is not a methodology tied to a set lesson plan that is generally
irrelevant!
It's a two thumbs up article!
Definitely one of the best
articles I have ever read.
Excellent article indeed! I've
been teaching Chinese students for almost three years in my five years ESL
teaching career. I found something intolerable in them that they are too
reluctant to take chances in their study. As a foreign teacher I always come up
with new ideas and methods in my teaching and I am happy to see some students
who have had a great change for the positive in their Spoken English, but only a
few of them. In my opinion this must be the culture and passion towards language
and studies. A communicative method in teaching would work well if ONLY the
learners were passionate to learn the language and aimed to use it in real life.
Good job!"
Thank you
Yes, I remember that every
time I go into the classroom. It is difficult but, I make a point to do it. It
helps. Anyway, what's the point of them learning grammar and not using it in
their conversation.
Great topic! thanks.
Ask a question about authentic communication in the classroom in the Teaching and methodology forum
© 2013 Eslbase. All rights reserved
