Category Archives: Historical perspectives

Historical perspectives, Listening

LISTENING, a historical view

Leave a comment

It took surprisingly long for language teachers and researchers to admit that listening skills are of vital importance. It happened as late as the mid-1970s.

A historical perspective

Up to the 1970s listening practice was rare in schools. There were no recordings available and tape and cassette players were new inventions in those days. Towards the end of 1970s a major improvement took place in Finland as a backwash effect of the change in the construction of the senior high school final exam: translation skills were not tested any more but they were replaced by the testing of reading, writing and listening skills.

A tape recorder from the early 1970’s

The old truth ‘What is tested is also taught’ is maybe the most powerful tool for change in schools. The 1970’s were also the time when teachers started to wonder how various foreign language skills ought to be taught. In those days there was little practical knowledge of these things and this gave rise to the development of communicative language teaching principles in the late 1970’s.

C-cassettes on the left, Lingua Phone records and VHS cassettes on the right

Subscribe to get access to the whole site.

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Subscribe
Communicative teaching (CLT), Historical perspectives

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Leave a comment

I felt something was wrong in my lessons. Deep inside I was ashamed of my methods of teaching English. But I was scared to death of the reactions of my students, their parents and my colleagues if I decided to try out the CLT principles. That was in the 1980s. I’m glad I did it anyway.

Communicative language teaching (CLT) is not a unified method but rather a collection principles and beliefs on how foreign languages should be taught.

What else is meant by CLT, communicative language teaching?

Communicative language teaching (CLT) methology actually consists of a set of principles and beliefs on

  • how foreign languages should be taught and are learnt
  • how languages are used in real life and
  • which skills/what kind of knowledge the learners of a foreign language should be aiming at

The other articles in this unit are:

Communicative language teaching – CLTCognitive approach to learning
Constructive approach to learning
CLT – 10 skill areas
Methods, learning styles, strategies and profiles
Four types of learners
Differentiation, introduction
Differentiation, how to apply
Using the mother tongue in teaching English
Behaviouristic approach to learning
N.B. CLT ideas are discussed in nearly all articles

The articles above clarify the history of CLT, the ideas that CLT was based on. The behaviouristic approach is included out of interest and it is contrasted with the CLT philosophy.

See the summary of the differences between the traditional and CLT methods below.

The CLT ideas have been developed since mid-1970s and it is still the most widely approved approach to language teaching even if new ideas are still added to it. However, it seems to me that in many countries teachers are not successfully applying CLT principles and that is the very reason I am writing these articles.

Linguists and teachers in favour of CLT emphasize the students’ ability to communicate orally in versatile and appropriate ways in many situations in contrast to mastering partially only language-related skills such as reading and writing.

In CLT there is a tendency away from teacher-oriented grammar-based lessons with a lot of controlled exercises towards learner-oriented situations where the students can be more creative in their language use working mainly orally in pairs or groups without being afraid of making mistakes.

How does CLT differ from traditional methods?

In CLT lessons students work mostly orally in pairs and groups learning all language skills without any fear of making mistakes. The teacher organizes the lessons and remains in the background.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH

Are these your principles?

  1. Teacher-oriented lessons, strict control on everything, little freedom in class
  2. No belief that students can learn on their own without a teacher
  3. Learning by listening quietly to the teacher and taking notes
  4. Focus on grammar, reading and vocabulary
  5. Focus on one or two skill areas, teacher controls every stage of the lesson, no differentiation
  6. Teachers make all decisions and remain an authoritative figure, little feedback to students
  7. Teachers teach, control, correct mistakes and evaluate
  8. Drills, gap-filling and memorization, little thinking required
  9. Students sit quietly at their desks raising hands
  10. Teachers talk most of the lesson and interrupt learning, speaking is not favoured
  11. Mistakes are corrected in speech, even in public
  12. Teaching is based on following the official syllabus and textbooks, seldom any extra materials
  13. Little attention is paid on how learning can be effective, new ideas are not tried out
  14. Assessment is based on exams at the end of course, only some skill areas are tested

CLT APPROACH

Or are these principles yours?

  1. Learner-oriented lessons, teachers help students and organize classes
  2. Students learn well and enjoy learning in pairs and groups
  3. Learning by doing, students are responsible for their own learning
  4. Focus on messages getting through and fluency
  5. Focus on all aspects of language and development of oral skills, differentiation is made use of
  6. Students take responsibility too, have a say in how things get done and expect constant feedback
  7. Teachers become organizers and facilitators of learning
  8. Task- and inquiry-based collaborative activities, role play, work stations, intensive thinking
  9. Pair and group work involving talk between students
  10. The students talk a lot in lessons using the target language, the teacher is in the background
  11. Students are not afraid of making mistakes, it is natural
  12. Teaching is based on students’ needs/the purpose of the tasks, textbook + lots of other materials
  13. Students are also taught study skills and learning strategies, student profiles are observed
  14. Continuous follow-up of learning with positive feedback, all language skills are tested and evaluated, self- and peer-assessment
The first time I took students to London and Oxford was in 1986 and I cannot find a better ‘carrot’ or incentive than a trip like that to make the students talk in English a lot.

Something must be wrong when the language skills of so many students remain so modest! Are the teachers truly applying CLT ideas?

My own priorities at the early stage of my CLT application

  • 1. Learning to apply CLT principles takes quite a while and both the teacher and the students have to be patient. With beginners and mixed-ability classes the best approach is to have learner-oriented lessons based on textbook chapters first and then gradually introduce new techniques. See my detailed introduction to textbook-based approach.
  • 2. In a mini-scale CLT principles can be applied from the very beginning but demanding CLT activities require a few years of learning the language.
  • 3. WORDS are vital in sending messages. More important than grammar. It is possible to communicate without grammar but hardly without words. Still, CLT is about teaching all language skills.
  • 4. The priority order of language skills should be based on what is needed in real life. Oral skills can be combined with all other skills!
  • 5. Speaking is a vital skill in real life. So we should practise real-life situations in role-plays and express our opinions and ideas even if our language may not be accurate. Never mind the mistakes!
  • 6. Speaking is by far the quickest way in practising writing thanks to transfer effects.
  • 7. There is a logical order in developing the skills when a new language is taught and learned by beginners.
  • 8. The importance of the language skills change when the students start to master the language so we have to tailor our courses according to the needs of the students.
  • 9. Grammar is only a tool and should be linked to speaking exercises and games, not only have traditional written tasks.
  • 10. The pupils and students can take responsibility from the very beginning by working hard in pairs and groups We teachers tend to do too much of the work for them.
  • 11 . ALL THE LANGUAGE SKILLS SHOULD BE INTERWOVEN IN THE LESSONS, the proportion in each lesson is to be decided by the teacher. Of course occasionally we focus on one particular skill area (grammar, listening or cultural knowledge, for instance).

Is there a way to combine the traditional methods with CLT methods?

Yes, definitely there is. It is just what I did during the transition period. I kept all the good things but simply made them student-oriented.

The best way for school authorities to change the methods teachers use

  • is to make publishers write textbooks where the CLT principles are already applied and the teacher guide books and additional materials are easily available
  • is to change the structure of the final exams so that the exam tasks and scope follow the CLT principles

Don’t throw the student away with the bath water. In other words, make sure the change is for the better for the students.

So when we started to apply the communicative approach in the 1980s in Finland we got superb materials which made the transition smooth and in-service training effective.

I myself never gave up some of the old methods that I had found useful with low-achievers and in some mixed-ability classes. In practice one of my biggest discoveries was to let the students do all the things I myself used to do. As a result nearly all my previous activities were run by students. For example …

  • The students checked the homework exercises in groups.
  • Checking the understanding of a new text was done in groups, not by me. In weakest groups it meant translating parts of the text into the mother tongue.
  • The weakest student was using the gadget (tape recorder) when the class read the text aloud after the tape or CD.
  • My ready-made questions about the textbook chapter were answered in pairs without raising hands.
  • Workbook exercises were checked in pairs or groups. etc

The lessons turned much more enjoyable for everyone and I was free to help anyone who needed assistance. In CLT terms  having analyzed the needs of the students and set goals for the lesson at home, I became the organizer of the class and facilitator of learning at school.

I am quite sure nearly all teachers agree on the benefits of communicative language teaching but the problem has been how to apply the principles. Another reason is fear of creating chaos in class. However, do not let these reasons stop you trying. Study my step-by-step articles under the heading ‘The structure of a text-cased lesson’, tell your students what you are going to do and why. And hit the road! Personally I have never had any regrets!

So there is a way how to combine the ’safe’ teacher-oriented method with student-oriented approach with CLT principles. In these articles I try to justify my applications of CLT practices in plain terms without the theoretical linguistic jargon where the message is lost.

Old habits die hard … but changing over to CLT methods is something your students will thank you for.

Communicative teaching (CLT), Historical perspectives

ASSESSMENT OF and FOR LEARNING

Leave a comment

The quality of the student-centred learning process (AfL) is actually more important than the final results of the exams (AoL).

If you test and use the results to give grades, it is AoL. If you test and use the result to help the students, it is AfL. But AfL is much more …

Assessment for learning (AfL) consists of all the measures that the teacher and the students take while learning in order to make learning more pleasant, relaxing and effective. The best teachers have always done it automatically using formative tests, continuous assessment and personal feedback as a tool.

What the CLT researchers have done is that they have laid the scientific foundation for AfL to balance the over-rated importance of constant grading and exams (AoL).

Assessment of learning (AoL) refers to the traditional ways of evaluating students using summative exams, mostly at the end of the learning period.

In brief, the concept of AfL

  • was developed from formative and continuous assessment
  • but is more focused on the process of learning, learning styles and strategies
  • emphasizes the students’ role in assessing themselves and others
  • favours student-centered methods and feedback that enhances learning.

In short, using assessment of AoL

  • means checking towards the end of the course to what extent the goals of the course have been reached
  • This type of testing is discussed at the end of each skill area under the left-hand side menu topics ‘Vocabulary’, ‘Speaking’, ‘Pronunciation’, ‘Listening’, Reading comprehension’ and ‘Grammar’.

AoL and AfL compared

Assessment of LearningAssessment for Learning
AoL 10% of teaching timeAfL 90 % of teaching time
N.B. The percentages above simply indicate which kind of assessment I personally consider vital.
  1. The focus is on final results, summative exams and giving grades.
  2. The student is classified: excellent – good – satisfactory – bad.
  3. AoL takes mostly place at the end of the learning period in an examination marked by the teacher. Little analysis of what may have gone wrong.
  4. AoL means strict teacher-centred control, individual (not pair / group) accomplishments are valued.
  5. Little attention is paid to ways of learning and development of skills, mainly the content of the course is tested.
  1. The focus is on the learning process and ways to enhance learning.
  2. The student is compared with his/her previous performance.
  3. AfL takes place all the time, done by the teachers or other students, not to give a grade but to guide the learning process, individual needs are taken into account
  4. AfL is more like giving guidance and positive feedback to others continuously, the teacher in the background
  5. A lot of time is spent on learning strategies and how to improve language skills, knowledge of the content is tested but the ‘side products’ of AfL are recognized.

You may wonder if you should be worried about not always knowing if you are applying AfL or AoL. No, definitely not.

The borderline between AoL and AfL can, in fact, be a line drawn on water. Wise teachers have always, at least subconsciously, done both for the benefit of their students.

How come? For example, if you have a practice lesson before the examination and the exam is analysed afterwards when the papers are returned to enhance learning, AoL and AfL are intertwined, in my opinion, in an ideal manner. Any AoL exams that make the teacher realize that the goals were not reached and some remedial actions are required, turn the original AoL exams into AfL exams simultaneously.

Over the last fifteen years more and more attention has been paid to the process of learning which we teachers are trying to make as smooth and effective and enjoyable as possible. These measures are what we call ‘Assessment for Learning’ and they are utilized from the beginning of the course till the end until it is the time for the summative exam.

In the past learners of foreign languages were terrified of making mistakes and the fear of embarrassing yourself in front of others prevented learners from being fully engaged in learning. Thanks to the ideas of communicative learning teachers realized the message getting through to the listeners/readers was more important than the accuracy of the language. Application of CLT and AfL principles is a highly recommended combination in any language class.

No-one makes mistakes on purpose (unless they are joking). If the message is understood, the mistakes do not usually matter at all. We make mistakes even in our mother tongue. Why should we worry about them when learning a new language?

In the end, the success of our language lessons is measured in how well our students cope with the language in real life, not which grades they were granted.

The next two articles deal with the tools you can use in class to apply the principles of AfL.

Communicative teaching (CLT), Grammar, Historical perspectives

GRAMMAR in the ‘GOOD old days’

Leave a comment

Most of the things done in the old style in teaching grammar were perfectly ok and are valid even today. We simply made a mistake by stopping half way through: unfortunately we were pleased with mechanical written exercises and ignored creative tasks and oral practice.

Up to the times of the introduction and first applications of CLT principles in the early 1980s grammar was mostly taught using the deductive method. The all-knowing teacher revealed the secret rules one by one and they were applied right away but only in writing. (Sorry, I am being sarcastic.) The grammar exams were also only in writing.

The good thing about the teaching of grammar was that at its best it was done very systematically. Hunting down my treasures from the 1980s I found the following example on teaching the present tense of the passive voice. Part of the text is in Finnish since mother tongue was often made use of in those days. But I still think you can get my point when you look at the original exercises taken from SIIE series published by an excellent educational publisher WSOY, Finland.

N.B. I’d like to point out that there was or is nothing wrong in teaching the present tense passive voice the way it is presented below. The only problem is that 1) we used to stop too early and 2) were pleased with mechanical exercises and 3) we had no real communicative tasks.

How the present tense in the passive voice was taught in the ‘good old days’

There were three things done before the students were given the exercises below.

  1. We made sure the three forms of irregular verbs were mastered. It they are not, the whole thing collapses. It is still the same today.
  2. We studied a chapter in the textbook which had plenty of these structures and the word list had a translation of them to make understanding of the chapter easier. This is still often the case in CLT lessons.
  3. The teacher explained the rule to be applied and told that in the passive voice we do not know exactly who does the action. These days we start with an oral pre-task and prefer the inductive method to get the students more involved and to enhance memorization of the rule.
ENGLISHFINNISH
AM
IS + 3rd form of verb
ARE		-taan, -tään
-daan, -dään
ostetaan, syödään
2 words1 word
Negation with the word ‘not’

An example of a well-structured exercise from the 1980s

The rule could easily be formed on the basis of the first 5 sentences.

Exercise 1 above intensifies the memorization of the mother tongue structure and checks if the student recognizes the corresponding structure in the English sentence.

Exercise 2 is excellent in demonstrating the difference in meaning of the corresponding active and passive structure. It will keep the students on their toes with this structure. Once again we are on the level of recognizing the structure.

Exercise 3 is another excellent task. The writer of the task has anticipated one of the main problems weak students are going to face: choice between ‘am, is, are’. It is hard for some students to grasp that ‘tea’ is 3rd person singular, the same as ‘it’ or ‘tins’ is the same as ‘they’.

Exercise 4 is a very typical gap exercise used in testing the knowledge of just about any grammatical structure. If you have read my previous articles, you realize that stopping here is a mistake because we are still at the level of mechanical application of the rule. Why? Because there is no relevat context, the sentences are not logically connected and there is no chance for the students to produce creative sentences of their own with this structure.

Drills seem to be out of fashion but I think they could often be used orally to give another perspective to the new structure. Besides they do not take a lot of time.

One thing that I have barely mentioned in my articles are drills. They used to be very popular in the 1970s and 1980s but somehow they have disappeared. I think textbook writes started to think that they themselves sound oldfashioned if they recommend or include drills in their books and left them out altogether.

I think this was a mistake and anyone who looks at the exercise below where one has to covert an active voice sentence into the passive voice realizes that a learner has to master a lot of things before he/she can apply the rules in a realistic exercise/conversation.

Yes, it is not what we normally do when we talk but it enforces the application of the passive voice rules and can be done orally in pairs in just a few minutes. In brief, an oral drill can be a very effective intermediate task before a real communicative exercise.

This kind of drills were often practised and recorded in language laboratories in 4 stages. Yes, it looks boring and was boring and therefore probably dropped out of fashion.

Teacher: Tom speaks English.
Student: English is spoken by Tom.
Teacher giving the correct answer: English is spoken by Tom.
Student repeats it: English is spoken by Tom.

Still, I think we could use drills more than we actually do today.

  • Drills do not take a lot of time if done orally and checked in pairs or in a group.
  • What I like about them is that the students can visualize the changes that they have to make.
  • If needed the teacher can work on simple drills with the low-achievers while others are doing more demanding exercises.
The model at the top of the slide shows what needs to be done: start with the underlined object, keep the tense the same and express the agent with a ‘by’ structure.
Model-based drills from the early 1980s. They were the only kind of oral exercises we used to do in lessons or in the language lab.

Communicative teaching (CLT), Historical perspectives

METHODS, learning styles, strategies and learner profiles

Leave a comment

MOTTO: Learning is directly linked to the amount of brain activities in our own heads.

This article serves as a brief introduction to the history of language teaching and to the most useful ideas in CLT-related constructive approach to teaching and learning: student- and teacher-oriented methods, independent/autonomous learning, learning styles and strategies as well as learner profiles.

  • We do not learn only by listening to the teacher talking about things but we have to be active thinkers (and speakers) ourselves in class.
  • If we do not think about the things that are taught, we will learn very little. Even better, we have to be forced to explain things in our own words and that is a proof of how much we really have learnt.
  • Active thinking will link the new information to the old one.
  • But how do we process the information and turn it to knowledge? No-one knows the answer. But we do know that if we are exposed to many methods, styles, strategies and profiles we will soon find the ones that work for us.

Use it or lose it! This idea works for languages.

METHODS

There is not much point in me analysing all the language teaching methods of the past in my articles since I only want to promote the communicative language teaching approach. CLT is actually not a systematic method but rather a collection of student-centred principles to be followed in order to make the students use the language and learn it that way.

As for learning styles, strategies and student profiles I decided to deal with them under the headings in the menu on the left. It seems to me it is much easier for the readers to get an idea how to make use of learning styles, strategies and profiles if the ideas are linked directly to a specific language skill area.

Nevertheless, I will briefly explain about the methods of the past in case there are any teachers to whom these are new ideas of some interest. I have discussed the changes in teaching methods extensively in my article ‘My history as a language learner and teacher of English’. I have been learning and teaching languages using all of the methods below.

Teacher-oriented methods

The tape recorder on the left looks ancient but it was seldom used in the translation method classes. Audio-lingustic method meant the introduction of tapes, small C-cassettes and VHS-cassettes. CDs and DVDs came in use some 30 years ago. The last photo shows a Dodson way how to teach ‘to be able to’ in a low-achieving class.

  • The translation method, applied up to the early 1970s, translations from the mother tongue into the target language and vice versa, only translation was taught and tested
  • The audio-linguistic method: in the early 1980’s, meant a step forward towards real usage of language and developing reading, listening and writing in particular and elementary speaking skills too, recordings were used but the real benefits of CLT were not recognized yet
  • The Dodson bilingual method, introduced to serve the low-achievers in particular in the 1980s, close to lexical approach where phrases are learnt by heart and learnt via mother tongue stimuli.

Student-oriented methods

  • Suggestopedia, in the 1980s, meant a big leap towards student-centered activities in class, empasis on a relaxed atmosphere in class, learning by doing and working in pairs, games and role plays were introduced, mother tongue was used and relaxing background music too, very demanding for teachers and not very widely used
  • Communicative language teaching, CLT, adopted the best parts of suggestopedia and the classroom practices changed gradually the more student-centered ideas were spread in the 1990s, the scope and goals of language teaching were totally revised the way they are seen today, the role of teacher changed to one of an organizer and learning fasciliator, class activities were run by students: pair or groups work, work station activities, co-operative learning, presentations to other students, hands-on practical experiments, task-based or inquiry-based approach, flipped learning, versatile feedback and assessment, all skill areas taught and tested

Independent / autonomous learning: in the mid-1990s, the aim was a gradual change to make the students completely autonomous learners, still used to some extent in high-ranking classes and the use of computers and the internet promote this type of learning a lot: library study during lessons, finding the information in books or in the internet texts or videos, applying it, checking answers on their own, each student making progress at their own pace with or without others choosing the tasks themselves

Thanks to computer technology, distance learning and ample number of internet podcasts and videos on just about anything, very many students prefer to learn things at the computer instead of attending lessons or lectures. At its best, if these sources are reliable and of good quality, learning can be very effective. Anyway, we are now going through a transition period but it seems to me this kind of learning is very much on the increase.

Now we have a dilemma or do we: Which method above should we choose?

To me the decision is simple: Choose the CLT, ‘student-oriented method‘ and work towards ‘Independent learning’ even if your class might never make it. With beginners take some elements from ‘Teacher-oriented method’ but keep it to the minimum and apply CLT at an early stage.

The reason I am writing these articles is that I think very many teachers have not realized the full potential of CLT or simply do not know what and how to change their class practices.

Visual, auditive and kinestethic learners need stimuli of their own.

LEARNING STYLES

The of the latest developments in language teaching are the introduction of learning styles and strategies. They are also discussed in more detail under each skill area.

However, there are some things to consider in case you have not paid attention to these matters. Each of us is different and has an individual way of learning. Traditionally people are divided into 3 categories as to their learning style. The styles are closely linked to Learner profiles, which I discuss under heading ‘Differentiation’.

  • Visual learners: make use of images and videos, they learn by visualizing things, they need to see the instructions written on the screen or board
  • Auditive learners: make use of speech and video explanations, they learn by listening, they rely on listening to instructions and asking them to be repeated
  • Kinestethic learners: need to work actively, take notes, carry out experiments, work with their hands or body, move about in class

Whose style is the teacher supposed to favour? Once again the answer is in my opinion simple: In fact every one of us uses all of these styles even if we may favour one or two of them. Consequently, when planning the lessons the teacher should make use of photos and videos, recordings and listening tasks and keep the students active in groups. In every lesson.

The main thing is that you take each group into account when planning a lesson. As aresult the students are willing to learn and active during the lesson, working with others at their own level.

LEARNING STRATEGIES

The third idea to consider are effective learning strategies, i.e. the ways we help and guide our students to learn words and grammar more easily, how to become better readers, speakers, writers and listeners.

The use of the word ‘strategy’ implies that there is serious thought and reasons behind the ways and approaches we take in order to enhance learning. The teaching of learning strategies is an essential part of increasing the students’ motivation. Teachers should remember that when we modify our teaching to a more learner-centred direction we have to tell the students why we are doing it and how they can apply different learning strategies and why.

For example, my wife started to memorize English words better when I told her to read them on a tape, in Finnish first and after a second in English. She listened to the recording while cycling to the evening school. So the key for her was to realize she is an auditive learner. After that it was easy for me to find her a way to learn words effectively.

I myself am a very visual and to some extent kinestethic learner. I often saw and memorized the words in pictures with funny associations. I wrote the words on paper, too. I also had to use Finnish-English word lists and cover the other one when memorizing the words.

I will deal with the strategies separately when each skill area is discussed.

LEARNER PROFILES

Are you a green, blue, grey or a red learner? What about your students? Are you able to take learner profiles into account in your lessons?

Since it is obvious to CLT teachers that students utilize different styles and strategies in learning because of their personalities, we teachers should do something about it when we plan lessons. I discuss these principles under heading ‘Differentiation’ in four articles and give a lot of practical and realistic tips on what to do. After all, we cannot escape this issue and have to solve it the best way we can. ‘Learner profiles’.

Historical perspectives

BEHAVIORISTIC APPROACH to learning

Leave a comment

Let’s see if the following features of the behavioristic approach have any place in modern classrooms. I think they do, but in a very limited manner.

I have discussed the differences between behavioristic and communicative approach in my 1st article under CLT heading.

The characteristics of behavioristic classes

1 They are teacher-centered and the focus is on the teacher control all the time. The flow of thoughts strictly controlled by the teacher who makes questions and gets answers from students one at a time.

Old traditions are good but maybe not in modern schools.

My own language classes were like this in the 1960s. We had to raise our hands, get up from our desks with a lot of noise, give the (predicted) answer and then sit down. Everything that was said and done was about the text in our books. Or we translated texts from Finnish into English or vice versa. No free talk, no opinions asked, no pair or group work. Oh, how much time was wasted!

2 In exams students reproduce what was taught to them which leads to rote learning, learning things by heart. In lessons teachers are not interested in what is going on in our minds and how we feel. In technical terms, the students’ cognitions, emotions and internal operations of the mind are ignored. The students are given fragmental lumps of information without any link to previous knowledge.

In lessons like these the teachers do not care if our thinking skills are developed and if we are bored in the lessons or if we have opinions of our own or if we wish to challenge the ideas presented. The teacher is all-knowing and what he/she knows is enough and no other knowledge is needed for the highest grade. The teacher does not realize that most things in learning cannot be observed or even be measured from outside, externally. Learning is so much more than reproducing what the teacher says.

3 In language lessons behaviourists favour mechanical exercises and drills. Stimulus/question and predictable responses are favoured.

There is no point in going backwards. Nevertheless, as you can see I have been rather critical towards this approach but I think there are a few cases where behaviouristic features or exercises are justifiable.

  • First of all, with beginners the teacher is obliged to be in control for a long time until the students have learnt how to study the language, how to check their understanding of the text by translating it into their mother tongue. Still, even beginners can quickly become creative with their limited language if they are given a chance.
  • Secondly, mechanical drills which were typical in language labs in the 1970s are perfectly ok provided they are practised orally in pairs or the teacher gives the prompt and the WHOLE class responds at the same time. In these exercises the (weak) students are requested to make minor changes and the focus is in the new grammatical point.
  • Thirdly, the key to success is to know the true level of the class. Sometimes the students simply are low-achievers and the only things they can do are the mechanical exercises.

Still, most student deserve something much more challenging and enjoyable than this kind of teaching, so do not let them down.

Historical perspectives

DIFFERENTIATION

Leave a comment

Differentiation can be defined as all the measures that help individual students to work at the most suitable level at that point. I favour a system that I call ‘invisible optional differentiation’.

N.B. You will find many other examples on differentiation in my other articles all through these web pages. So here we are scratching the surface really.

This article will clarify the concept of ‘differentiation’, give an example of it and provide a historical perspective on it in Finland.

What do I mean by ‘invisible optional differentiation’?

  • invisible = an outsider who steps into the class does not immediately know who are weak or excellent students since everyone is working in a serious manner at their own pace. I seldom use the term ‘differentiation’ but simply make the students work in pairs or groups and let them choose the tasks.
  • optional = the students are not forced to do certain exercises but there is a choice, a number of options, so that the students can pick up the tasks they prefer, they can also mostly choose the ones they work with
  • differentiation = in mixed-ability classes very many activities in class are planned carefully in advance so that even the weakest students find tasks that suit their level and the best ones have tasks that are challenging enough

Let’s take an example: Checking the understanding of a chapter in a textbook. Usually the teachers ask questions and one student answers at a time. How can we make all students work hard at a level that suits them best? Topic of the chapter: ‘Travelling abroad’

If we differentiate and apply CLT principles, we give the students 3 options: A is mechanical (answers can be found in the text), B is semi-communicative since the answers/comments are at least partially based on the text, C is communicative since the ideas are based on the students’ experiences, not on the textbook.

A Work in pairs and answer the questions on the screen (or a handout) B Tell in your own words what the text is about (key words: platform …) C What do you think about travelling on the train compared with travelling by car or by plane?

Does this kind of differentiation cause us extra work as a teacher? Not really since we have always done A and B/C do not need any/much preparation.

  • Students are not labelled at any point according to their abilities.
  • Students are given options on what to do in some parts of the lesson and they can choose between tasks that vary in difficulty level.
  • Students can make progress at their own pace and they choose themselves which of the tasks given they will work on.
  • The teacher organizes the activities in class but does not tell the students which tasks they must do.
  • Differentiation can be used to help students in many ways.

– Differentiation using quantity: some students simply do much more exercises than the slow ones during the lesson.
– Differentiation using choice: Everybody is allowed to choose any tasks given which they want during the lesson.
– Differentiation based on learning styles or strategies or learner profile
– Differentiation based on proficiency level and flexible grouping: This is basically the same as streaming used to be: advanced students, average ones and slow learners in their own groups (temporary grouping)
– Differentiation guided by a special teacher having remedial teaching outside regular lessons

A historical view on differentiation in Finland

In the early 1980s when we first started to apply communicative language teaching, CLT, ideas we still had the streaming operating in Finnish language classes. Streaming meant dividing the students into three classes/levels according to their proficiency level and test results. We taught the groups in separate classrooms and even had special textbooks for them.

There is no denying that there was a lot of discussion about the abolition of the streaming system when we gradually introduced a completely new curriculum in the elementary and junior high schools in the 1980s. Teachers had little idea how one could possibly teach mixed-ability groups and it was feared that the level of learning would drop drastically.

Luckily the CLT ideas were the main things that were pushed ahead in our teachers’ in-service training days and we got a fresh start. We were also lucky since the Finnish publishers responded to the challenge by producing excellent and modern textbook materials full of CLT applications. In fact, the transition was rather smooth and it took only a few years and all of Finland was teaching mixed-ability classes with confidence.

As a result, no matter where you lived in Finland the students received the same kind of high quality language teaching. CLT and differentiation principles were a child of democracy entering schools more and more. One of the basic principles in our new curriculum was to try to make sure every single pupil and student had an opportunity to develop their skills in full. It practice it meant not only teaching English well but other skill areas too: social skills, manners and self-control, study skills and technical skills needed in working life.

One of the reasons Finland is so high in PISA results is that our weakest students are the best in the world. We do not give upon them and let them drop out.

We teachers started to take care of every individual and never gave up on them. Special teachers entered the schools to help the ones with serious learning difficulties such as dyslexia and ADHD. We realized that students learn differently, in their own style, and that we have to allow this happening in class too. We learnt to give positive, constructive feedback to enhance students’ self-confidence and motivation. And we learnt to evaluate the students not only on the basis of the course exams but took class participation and other factors into account.

When I graduated from senior high school in 1973 my final English examination was simple: translation from English into Finnish and from Finnish into English. Nothing else was tested. The evaluation was harsh: 2, 4, 6 and 9 point mistakes and some of my friends got minus 4, – 4?, as their grade out of 10 for the whole exam. How can someone’s knowledge of English be worth minus something? Luckily things have changed completely from those days.

Well now we English teachers are testing our students in reading, writing, listening, grammar, vocabulary and even speaking and differentiation is taken into acoount even in exams. What a dramatic change! I have described and discussed this change in the articles on the front page under heading ‘ The structure of an ideal text-based lesson’.

In my experience having three options in differentiation is quite sufficient in any skill area.

In the old streaming system we divided students into three proficiency levels and in CLT tasks dividing the tasks is most typically done in three categories too: mechanical, semi-communicative and communicative.

It is worth pointing out that differentiation can be efficiently done only in student-centered teaching, in classes where the teacher fascilitates and organizes the learning situations. All my articles on these web pages actually are part of this story even if there have been several massive changes in teaching since the late 1980s.

In my next articles I will clarify my principles and practical applications in differentiation and scaffolding, introduce four learner profiles and finally consider when differentiation is feasible and sensible in class and when it is not. These ideas have made me change many practices in my class.

DifferentiationDifferentiation, how to apply the ideas
Four types of learners, implications
Differentiation in text-based lessons
N.B. See also other articles
Many Finnish students who came from quite ordinary families have been accepted to study in top-ranking British universities. Their background did not prevent them from fulfilling their dreams. They got in by studying hard and never giving up. We even have a special word for this quality in Finland ‘SISU’.

Historical perspectives

CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH to learning

Leave a comment

Every one of us is a different kind of learner and we need to find our own best ways of learning. But first we need to be taught which ways of learning there are and it is only after that we can start testing what suits us best.

In the previous article we had a look at the basic principles and ideas in the Cognitive Approach to learning and teaching. All of those ideas are to be included in the Constructive Approach as well but the ideas are taken a bit further and the main focus is shifted even more on the processes in the students’ minds. The role of the teacher changes as well.

If the teacher understands and approves of the principles of the Cognitive and Constructive Approach and starts to apply the principles in the class, the foundation for Communicative language teaching and learning is firmly laid.

We learn best by working in pairs and groups learning styles and strategies that appeal to us most.

 The basic principles in the Constructive Approach

  • 1 The student is a unique personality who becomes aware of and responsible for his/her learning; “Too ambitious a target for my students”, you say. Maybe at first glance but once you gradually start to talk about learning styles and give tips how to improve learning, the students realise you are on their side, helping them and they themselves can really affect the quality of their learning by making their own choices.
  • 2 After the initial instructions the lessons are mostly based on pair and group work. The students work together on the tasks processing the content and social skills at the same time at their own pace as much in English as possible. The proof of learning is in the process itself and presentations are seldom necessary.
  • 3 In brief, the learning process is very student-oriented and the role of the teacher changes drastically: a) the teacher sets the goals and makes lesson plans in advance, b) at school he/she gives the instructions and organizes the activities in advance, becomes the organizer and facilitator of learning, c) during the lesson the teacher moves about in the class observing the groups and helping them if needed, sometimes even helping individual students, the teacher becomes a supporter
  • 4 The pairs are often randomly selected and the composition of the groups as well. The students get to know their classmates better and learn new ways of learning constantly from others. In most countries students work in mixed-ability groups but these ideas work in any kind of classes.
  • 5 The desired variation and change in these student-oriented lesson structures is brought along with role-plays, inquiry-based and task-based activities, station work and collaborative learning and many other activities. Each of these will be linked to real-life situations and problems and will be discussed separately in other articles.
  • 6 Assessment is seen as a tool for learning and the focus should be in self-assessment, pair-assessment, group feedback and individual feedback from the teacher as opposed to an official final exam at the end of the course. The teacher should allow the students to express their opinions on teaching and give constructive feedback.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LANGUAGE TEACHER

  • 1 Be critical about the beliefs you have on language learning, about the principles you apply.
  • 2 Be ready to defend your views and even change them if you find something else works better.
  • 3 Rethink about your role as a teacher, the structure of your lessons and the ways you get your class in pairs and groups.
  • 4 Give a crash course on learning styles and strategies OR teach about them gradually in lessons. Explain why they are important.
  • 5 Help the students find out why something is difficult and then find solutions together.
  • 6 Make it a habit to serve visual, auditive and kinesthetic students in every lesson.
  • 7 Change pair and group compositions frequently and randomize the selection with paper clips, for example.
  • 8 Be ready to listen to the students’ opinions and the feedback they give.
  • 9 Give feedback to the whole class as to how well they are doing but give also individual feedback.
  • 10 Teach the students how to assess themselves and others in a constructive manner.

Communicative teaching (CLT), Historical perspectives

The Dodson bilingual method

Leave a comment

Is there a method that allows the teacher to use the mother tongue in teaching English without feeling guilty? Yes, there is. The Dodson bilingual method

Slow learners and beginners share one disadvantage: they do not understand the exact meanings of sentences unless they are explained in the mother tongue. Most teachers probably try to speak as much English as they can but sometimes they have no other choice than resort to their mother tongue. Still, if the Dodson method is used even the weakest students will learn a lot of phrases by heart and will be able to communicate in the target language at least in a satisfactory level.

Subscribe to get access to the whole site!

The first two articles under each heading are free. The annual fee is 40 euros but you can cancel it any time. All paying data is secured and encrypted by WordPress Company. Press ‘SUBSCRIBE’ to become a member of my communicative language teaching site.

Subscribe