History of Multilingualism
It is estimated that more than 60% of the world’s population
is either bilingual or multilingual. From a historical perspective it appears
that multilingualism was the norm rather than the exception. Five hundred years ago the most common second
language was Latin. Political changes in
the sixteenth century influenced the rise in popularity of the French, Italian,
and English languages. Now English is
the most prevalent second language learned around the world. (Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
The earliest recognized methodology for language learning
was the Grammar Translation Method, which dates back to the sixteenth
century. Grammar translation remained
the predominant language learning methodology until the birth of modern language
learning methodologies during the mid-twentieth century.
Community Language Learning
Community Language Learning (CLL) is a language teaching
methodology developed in the 1950s by Charles A. Curran and his associates. (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) Dr. Curran is a Roman Catholic priest, a
moral theologian, and a specialist in counseling. He holds a Sacrae Theologiae Doctor with a
specialization in moral theology from the pontifical university system of the
Roman Catholic Church.
The Community Language Learning methodology was developed
while Dr. Curran was a professor of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago,
Illinois. Being a psychologist with a
specialty in counseling, Dr. Curran appears to have drawn heavily on his
background in the development of what has become a holistic natural approach to
second language acquisition.
Community Language Learning uses principles found in the Rogerian
school of counseling which is often referred to as person-centered
psychotherapy (PCT). In PCT a client is
given the opportunity to develop self worth. (Cepeda & Davenport, 2006) Community Language Learning uses the Rogerian
counseling metaphor to redefine the role of teacher as that of the counsellor
and the role of student as that of the client.
One of the basic principles
of the CLL methodology is the formation of interpersonal relationships between
the teacher and students that are designed to eliviate anxiety and facilitate
language learning. As a holistic
approach, the aim of the CLL methodology is to involve the learner’s whole
personality in the language acquasition process. (Nagaraj, 2009)
CLL Tasks and Activities
Translation: A learner whispers
a message to the teacher who translates the message and in turn whispers it
back to the student who them repeats the teacher’s translation.
Group Work: Learners work
in small groups to prepare a topic or conversation that they will then share
with other groups.
Recording: learners
record their conversations in the target language.
Transcription: Learners
transcribe what has been recorded.
Analysis: Learners
analyze and study those transcriptions.
Reflection and observations: Learners
reflect on their experience within the group or class.
Listening: Learners
listen to monolog delivered by the teacher discussing the activity of that
class.
An Example CLL Session
(Carlson, Cashin, Snow, Moua, & Kim, 2012)
The Approach
In his book, Counseling and Culture in Second Language Acquisition, La
Forge, a student of Charles Curan, suggests that acquisition of language is a
social process. He rejects the
information communication theory model of sender-message–receiver in favor of
the social-process model. (Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
La Forge argues, “. . . communication is more than just a
message being transmitted from a speaker to a listener. The speaker is it at the same time both
subject and object of his own message . . . communication involves not just the
unidirectional transfer of information to the other, but the very constitution
of the speaking subject in relation to its other . . . Communication is an
exchange which is incomplete without feedback reaction from the destine of the
message.” (La Forge, 1983)
The social-process view of language is described in terms of
six subprocesses:
- The whole-person process
- The educational process
- The interpersonal process
- The development process
- The cultural process
In Communicative Syllabus Design, Munby
postulates that there are two classes of human interaction; symmetrical
(between equals) and asymmetrical (between unequals). (Munby, 1978) He goes on to suggest that in an initially
asymmetrical interaction, present in a learner-knower relationship, the learner
progresses through five stages:
Stage 1 – dependency
Stage 2 – self-assertion
Stage 3 – resentful and indignant
Stage 4 – tolerant
Stage 5 – independent
Charles Curan suggested that a state of consensual
validation, the development of a positive evaluation of the other person’s
worth, must exist between the learner and the knower for language acquisition
to occur. (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) The acronym
SARD can be used to express four psychological requirements for successful
learning:
S – security
A – attention and aggression
R – retention and reflection
D - discrimination
In the conclusion of his paper, Application of Community
Language Learning For Effective Teaching, Mr. Nagaraj states, “Community
Language Learning is the most responsive of the methods which is reviewed in
terms of its sensitivity to learned communicative intent.” He goes on to say,” It is applied in various
settings; it is used as an aid for language learning, under the radar,
academically.” (Nagaraj, 2009)
His conclusion is not unexpected with regard to its reference to the
sensitivity of the approach. It is also
interesting to note his reference to the method’s application being “under the
radar” which suggests that CLL is not formally accepted within the conventional
academic environment.
Principles-Base Approach for English Language Teaching Policies and Practices
In their white paper, A
Principles-Base Approach for English Language Teaching Policies and Practices,
Ahmar Mahboob and Namala Tilakaratna state that language policy and planning is
a complex task with many stakeholders.
They propose that policy makers adopt a set of guiding principles
designed to inform the process of policy development in a structured manner. (Mahboob & Tilakaratna, 2012)
They propose six principles be adopted to create structure
within the language learning policy development process: collaboration,
relevance, evidence, alignment, transparency, and empowerment.
C R E A T E
Collaboration
Collaboration should take place
within and between all levels of the policy development hierarchy thus
empowering all those involved in the process with influence on that process and
a stake in the final product.
Relevance
Relevance ensures that the
policies, practices, and the materials that the policy directs or encourages
attain the goals for which they were intended.
Evidence
Policy development should be based
on evidence, not on experimentation.
Alignment
Alignment is a key element of
determining the success of the policy in that it ensures that the outcomes are
aligned with the goals of the policy.
Transparency
The policy objectives, goals, and
outcomes should be visible, accessible, and justifiable to all stakeholders.
Empowerment
The ultimate goal of a project
should be the empowerment of local communities, teachers, and students through
collaborative, relevant, evidence-based, and transparent practices.
(Mahboob & Tilakaratna, 2012)
Principles Based Approach and Community Language Learning
You may recall that I noted earlier that Mr. Nagaraj stated
that the CLL method is often implemented “under the radar.” This suggests to me that CLL is a method that
is not often embraced by policy makers and is therefore not included in
established English Language Teaching policies.
Clearly this state of affairs is not congruent with the principles
proposed in PBA by Mahboob and Tilakaratna.
Based on the Principles Based Approach implementation of CLL should not
have to be and should not be hidden.
Rather a teacher’s desire to implement CLL within the curriculum should
be able to be openly communicated to policy makers who in turn should be open
to those suggestion.
The first Principles Based Approach step to be undertaken
when attempting to implement CLL in a curriculum would be collaboration between
the teachers and the hierarchy of policy makers.
There is a question of relevance. That is, does CLL meet the goals that the
policy makers have set or intend to set.
If those goals are driven by competency evaluations that rely heavily on
quantifying vocabulary acquired and on grammar accuracy, then it is not likely
that CLL will prove to be relevant.
I have not been able to locate a study that would provide
any evidence of the effectiveness of incorporating CLL in an ELT policy. If that evidence does not exist, then it would
be contrary to PBA to incorporate CLL in an ELT curriculum.
Alignment would be the key to achieving relevance of CLL to
the ELT policy goals. In this case it is likely
that goals would need to be adjusted in order to align CLL with ELT goals.
Past practices of implementation “under the radar” were
clearly not transparent and may have created a prejudice against the acceptance
of CLL by policy makers, who, might feel that their power has been usurp.
A teacher’s need to "operate under the radar" clearly
indicates the total absence of the teacher's empowerment by those in policy-making
positions. A lack of empowerment at any
level is clearly not in keeping with intent of PBA and would need to be
corrected in order for any policy that incorporates CLL to succeed.
Works Cited
Carlson, H., Cashin, K., Snow, G., Moua, M., & Kim, W.
(2012). Community Language Learning [Video]. Retrieved 11 14, 2013, from YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4G9uY8Vq2Y
Cepeda, L. M.,
& Davenport, D. S. (2006). Person-Centered Therapy and Solution-Focused
Brief Therapy; An integration of Present and Future Awareness. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, Practice, Training , 43 (1), 1-12.
La Forge, P. (1983). Counseling and Culture in Second
Language Acquisiton. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mahboob, A., & Tilakaratna, N. (2012). A
Pinciples-Based Approach for English Language Teaching Policies and Practices.
Retrieved 11 18, 2013, from TESOL International Association:
http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/newsletters-other-publications/tesol-white-papers-and-briefs
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagaraj, P. (2009). Application of Community Language
Learning For Effective Teaching. The modern journal of applied linguistics
, 1 (3), 175-181.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches
and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
