This work is intended as a tool for bilingual programs
in which English is taught through physical education classes. So, this
research seems to be adequate in the sense to be conducted because there are a
variety of approaches, methods and techniques used for the development of the
linguistic competence in a second language, but so far none has been able to
continuously satisfy all participants involved in the process. The fact is that
each of the approaches used has been replaced by another one which in turn has
also ended up being replaced again. And actually, the application of different
approaches and methods through history, with its successive transformations,
has been due to new requirements of the times and changing social and personal
interests of students.
In relation to this, we will make a brief historical review and description of relevant Teaching methods for languages acquisition. The data gathered from this study will be useful to compare these methods and, finally, to see how CLIL could help the development our students’ knowledge.
First, the grammar-translation method based teaching in a second language[1] in the detailed: analysis of grammar rules and exceptions and then apply the knowledge gained from translating sentences and texts that is done in the target language itself and conversely. The first language serves as a reference system in the acquisition of L2.
This method originated in Prussia in the late eighteenth century and was adopted as the model system used for the teaching of Latin and Greek. It is heir to the German academic practice and some of its representatives were J. Seidenstücker, K. Plötz, HS and J. Meidinger Ollendor.
For this method, language is a system of rules that should be taught through texts and related rules and meanings of the first language.
The basis of both linguistic plural description and as the activities in class is the written language. The vocabulary is learned through word lists and special emphasis is put on the correctness of the translation.
The learning grammar is deductive, that is, a rule that is explained and then learnt by heart and practiced in translation exercises is presented. The language of instruction is the first language of the learner.
The teacher is the main protagonist of the teaching-learning process, the highest authority. Its function is to provide language skills and correct errors produced by learners. The student, however, has some participatory role, just follows the instructions of the teacher, memorize rules and vocabulary lists to read and translate.
But nothing can exist without dissenting voices that drive changes arise. Indeed, in the nineteenth century, C. Marcel, T. Prendergast and F. Gouin, among others, proposed approaches that encircle the teaching strategies of the way foreign languages are acquired the mother tongue[2].
This is the natural method and is based on the observation and interpretation of how speakers acquire their L1 first, and how they learn an L2. Students are exposed to the first oral language to later get in touch with the written language in the target language. We see that the grammar as process center side significantly longer.
Later, these elements of the natural approach would give rise to one of the most widespread and known in many parts of methods, the direct method. Their approaches are based on assumptions of naturalistic language learning, that is, in the conviction that the process of L2 learning is similar to the process of acquisition of L1.
This method is the result of the ideas introduced by the reform movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, and the principles for teaching based on assumptions of naturalistic language learning languages. He was one of the first attempts to construct a methodology of language teaching based on the observation of the process of acquisition of the mother tongue of the children. It was introduced in France and Germany in the early twentieth century and widely known in the United States thanks to L. M. Sauveur and Berlitz, who applied it in their schools.
It incorporates a new approach to language teaching by giving absolute priority to the spoken language and advocates the teaching in the target language. It is based on the following principles: Exclusive use of the L2, teaching vocabulary and structures of daily life and inductive teaching of grammar. Moreover, development of oral communication skills in a progressive and graduated form through the exchange of questions and answers between teachers and students, introduction of new oral teaching contents, using the show and objects and drawings in the introduction of specific vocabulary. To finish, the association of ideas in the introduction of abstract vocabulary, teaching of expression and listening comprehension, emphasis on pronunciation and grammar.
The underlying concept of learning equates the learning process of L2 acquisition of L1. The method is characterized as imitative, associative and inductive: language is learned through imitation of a language model and memorizing phrases and short dialogues, the lexicon is acquired through partnerships and grammar rules are induced from the observation of the examples. The teacher, preferably native speaker, is the protagonist of the class is not only language model but must have initiative and drive to create the necessary interaction in the classroom.
Opponents of the direct method mention their approaches lack theoretical and methodological basis, since the method has a theory about the nature of language and a theory about learning it and lacking methodological principles consistent as a basis to teaching techniques
Despite all these drawbacks, the direct method has offered important innovations in the field of teaching processes, due to there were visible problems in the teaching and learning process and has opened the way for the teaching of foreign languages.
Furthermore, given the immediate needs of the war, had to involve universities, psychologists and linguists prestigious (Boas, Bloomfield and Fries, among others) who were devoted to structure appropriate strategies and techniques to achieve the purposes proposed. It appeared so, the method of the army.
The U.S. government asked a few universities to develop special programs for teaching foreign languages for military personnel. The methodology was then to access the compression of native languages in the United States helped to consolidate and structure approach to language learning as far and exotic as Chinese, Japanese, Malay, etc. This implied a deep dive into the oral aspect of the target language. The reason for the emphasis on oral language was due to the need for soldiers to you instantly communicate with locals. Immersion meant many hours a week with many exercises, repetition and practice to acquire and internalize new linguistic habits. Grammatical structures are arranged in order of increasing complexity.
Taking this into account, the vocabulary is incorporated into teaching units refers to words and expressions most frequently. The materials are prepared by linguists. For this reason, visibly manifests the importance of applied linguistics to the teaching of foreign languages.
Moreover, the lesson plan usually considered the presentation of dialogues from which grammar rules are inferred. It appealed to much repetition and substitution drills.
As a consequence, these are the foundations nominate stage method of teaching foreign languages for at least the decades of the fifties and sixties, the audio-lingual method.
This method gives priority to spoken language (speaking and hearing) regarding it as a system of sounds used for social communication. Teachers wanted linguistic correctness and is about the individual learn new vocabulary by associating the spoken word and the visual image, mainly through repetition. Too much emphasis on mechanical and imitation exercises native patterns for which advanced technological means (audio gramophones, tape recorders) and a very detailed study guide that models all possible situations where the individual should use the language that used to serve for example, all this in order to achieve a model as accurate as possible.
It is clearly the presence of neo-Skinner and behaviorism, as it comes to language as a set of habits and as a form of social behavior, a form of reaction of the organism to the environment. Experts do not give importance to the rational and conscious learning. Skinner and his followers understood that those who learn the language as a form of verbal expression could not reach an understanding of native speakers. For him, knowing a language was something more to know about what to speak and how to speak their native or talk.
The behaviorist theory stimulus-response (SR) and reinforcement adopted in language teaching has resulted in mechanical repetitions of certain linguistic patterns, and excessive and extensive use of imitation to ignore the level of creativity and spontaneity.
But in the late fifties, Noam Chomsky published his book Syntactic Structures in laying the foundation for a profound transformation in linguistic studies and new approaches to teaching foreign languages. Categorically he rejects the description of structuralism and behaviorist theory in the acquisition of new linguistic habits. The language implies creation and generation of new sentences based on the application of rules of great complexity and abstraction.
British linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was not adequately reflected in the approaches to language teaching ath the moment: the functional and communicative potential of language.
In fact, the pressure of the changing conditions of society, coupled with the experience and intuition and the same teachers, influences for a new approach to appear on stage with great success and acceptance of the community and prospects dominate the stage for a long time. It is the communicative approach, although, some of its basic aspects were applied in the past, reborn from very solid theoretical foundations of applied linguistics and psycholinguistics.
Thus, this approach aims to prepare the learner for real communication, not only in the oral aspect. But also in writing, with other speakers of the target language.So, for this purpose, in the process often instructive texts, recordings used and authentic materials and activities that seek to imitate faithfully the reality outside the classroom are provided.
The weakening of the oral approach and Audio-lingual method favors the emergence of new educational proposals. In the late 60s some British linguists (C. Candlin and H. Widdowson, among others) believed that the goal of learning a foreign language should be the development of communicative competence and not only linguistic competence. As Widowwson points out:
(...) Communicative competence is not a matter of knowing rules for the composition of sentences and being able to employ expressions Such rules to assemble from scratch and when to as occasion requires. It is much more a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns, formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make whatever adjustments are Necessary According To contextual demands. Communicative competence in this view is Essentially a matter of adaptation, and rules are not generative but regulative and subservient. HG Widdowson (1989: 135).
This new conception of the teaching-learning process of a foreign language includes contributions from several research fields, such as the British functional linguistics (eg, J. Firth and MAK Halliday), American sociolinguistics (eg, D. Hymes, J. Gumperz and W. Labov) and the philosophy of language or pragmalinguistics (eg, J. Austin and J. Searle). At the request of the Council of Europe, European scholars join forces to develop an alternative according to the social, economic, political and cultural reality of modern Europe; the fruit is called communicative approach.
Communication is not just a product, but rather a process that is carried out for a specific purpose, including some specific partners in a particular situation. Consequently, it is not enough for learners assimilate a wealth of data (vocabulary, rules, roles ...), it is also essential that they learn to use that knowledge to negotiate meaning. They must participate in real tasks, in which the language is a means to an end, not an end in itself, for example, see a schedule of aircraft to see if there is direct flight from Barcelona to Singapore and not, for example, to respond to questions from the book. The oral interaction among students is common: in pairs, trios, or in larger groups as a class.
To ensure effective communication, the tasks are governed by three principles. One of them is information gap, that is among the partners there is a real need for communication, since everyone has to find something that only your partner know, and if you cannot see, cannot do their own homework. Another one is freedom of expression, in other words, the speaker decides the content (what to say), form (how you say it), the tone, the time, etc. and the last, feedback which means that verbal and nonverbal reactions caller tell to what extent the student is reaching his goal in the conversation.
Theater or role play games are close to the actual communication, in which participants receive (verbal or physical) immediate peers-feedback, so they can gauge the success in the game and use language. It is estimated that games in addition to developing communicative competence, may beneficially affect motivation.
Added to that, projects are typical tasks of the communicative approach that may last a while until one academic year. In the embodiment of a typical project starts by deciding the topic and participants, an outline and a work schedule are made and papers are distributed, information is sought and is processed, a final report is written and/or exposed to the class.
So, the basic unit is the paragraph in written language and the oral statement. This implies that care should be important components in communication such as cohesion and coherence.
The attention is focusing on the foreign language, which is a vehicle for classroom communication, not only the object of study. So, is used in both tasks and for explanations, clarifications, etc., reserving the mother tongue for special cases.
Although some brief grammar explanations are also given when deemed appropriate, the presentation of grammar is usually inductive.
On top of that, the textbook is considered a valuable material support, but not the focus of instruction. Other teaching materials are also used (e.g., card for troubleshooting tasks in a group) and authentic (magazines, travel brochures, public transport tickets, etc.). And everyday objects: a camera, an alarm clock, etc. (if the occasion requires, under the instruction manuals).
Additionally, the repertoire of roles of the teacher is quite broad: to analyze the needs of students, creating situations of communication, organizing activities, advice, participate as an equal partner, observe the development of the tasks in the classroom, preparing materials, etc. Ultimately, the role of the teacher is to facilitate learning, encouraging, while the cooperation among students, who are the real protagonists, this is therefore a learner-centered approach.
The evaluation of students attends both the correction and fluidity. The assessment is not limited to the product, but covers the entire process, is to determine when or in what sense should modify some aspect of the instructional process.
The communicative approach has high acceptance in the decades of the 80s and 90s of XX century, but over the years has been losing ground to the task-based approach, which may well be considered his heir. He is often modeled versus traditional methods and approaches, focusing on grammar. Actually, is in excess of the previous models, and does not deny the importance of language skills, but it goes beyond, looking for a real communicative competence.
In parallel with the communicative approach, alternative methods have been applied, such as the Method of Total Physical Response.
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a result of a collection of methods developed by Dr. James J. Asher in 1965 to assist in language learning. The theoretical foundation of this approach is based on the premise that if students can learn a second language with any methodology, it would be best to do so in a simple and fun way. Asher stated that when an additional language, the language learning is internalized through a process of decryption code.
A reasonable hypothesis is that the brain and the nervous system are biologically programmed to acquire language, either the first or the second in a particular sequence and in a particular mode. The sequence is listening before speaking and the mode is to synchronize language with the individual’s body. (Asher 1996, p. 2-4.).
With this in mind, this process would be similar to the development of the first language, and enables a long period of development of the understanding before speech production. Students are called to physically respond to verbal commands.
Incidentally, we must not forget the three key elements that appear as determinants of learning success are small: the ability to hear language without the pressure of speaking, the fact that the language of the early years is mostly related to daily activities and the high degree of interaction with the message context.
In the classroom, the teacher and the student take similar roles to parent and child respectively. Students must respond physically to the teacher's words.
Furthermore, due to its approach, TPR approach can be used as an alternative to teach students with dyslexia or problems related to learning, which commonly experience difficulties in learning other languages with traditional instruction.
Actually, this technique is especially useful in teaching a foreign language. The first skills practiced are receptive and is commonly accepted that the student will go through a silent period before producing any oral or written message. Between these two there is an intermediate phase in which the student can respond physically to show understanding of a message. We follow a natural process in learning the L2, trying to emulate the way you learned your first language.
In this sense, we are going to describe the process and methodology developed in the language classroom to make it a suitable environment for the call to take place bilingual education, that is, the approach CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), which stands for language immersion. It is a term coined in 1994 by David Marsh advocated that there is greater success in learning foreign languages through the core subjects, such as history or science in educational contexts through functional curricula that treated in isolation and forced or invented situations, as subjects. Here we have the Marsh’s definition of CLIL:
CLIL refers to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focussed aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language. (Marsh, 1994).
‘This approach involves learning subjects such as history, geography or others, through an additional language. It can be very successful in enhancing the learning of languages and other subjects, and developing in the youngsters a positive ‘can do’ attitude towards themselves as language learners.’ (Marsh, 2000).
Research in this field has also shown that multilingualism in school, drawing on the resources, strategies and skills developed by the student when learning a language or subject, through integrated curriculum of language and non-language areas contributes so effectively to the development of communicative competence in languages that optimizes and facilitates later learning.
According to Do Coyle (2005), CLIL is based on four key principles:
In the first place, this principle successfully placed the content and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and understanding inherent in the discipline, in the heart of the learning process itself.
Secondly, another principle defines language as driver for communication and learning. From this perspective, language is learned through use in untested situations but put a "scaffolding" (tasks must be planned starting from the most concrete to the most abstract in parallel with a specific language to the abstract: learning from the concrete for the concrete to the abstract learning for the abstract).
Thirdly, CLIL should be a cognitive challenge for students: to develop their thinking skills in conjunction with basic interpersonal communication skills and competence in cognitive-academic language.
And finally, the fourth principle involves multiculturalism, as language, thought and culture are linked; CLIL offers opportunities for students to interact with other cultures.
CLIL has been a tremendous success story and its influence on practice is currently expanding quickly across Europe and beyond. Recent research has confirmed that CLIL has positive effects on the language skills of EFL learners, placing them well ahead of their non-CLIL counterparts. At the same time, studies also indicate that the learning of content does not suffer in this process; in some cases CLIL students even outperformed their non-CLIL counterparts (Badertscher, 2009 and Heine, 2008). Taken together, there is much evidence to suggest that CLIL students are equally, if not more successful, at learning a subject than students learning content subjects in L1. This means that CLIL may be considered as an approach that is mutually beneficial for both content and language subjects.
Subsequently, the basis of CLIL is that content subjects are taught and learnt in a language which is not the mother tongue of the learners. So, for this reason, Knowledge of the language becomes the means of learning content. Added to that, Language is integrated into the broad curriculum and learning is improved through increased motivation and the study of natural language seen in context. When learners are interested in a topic they are motivated to acquire language to communicate. So, CLIL is based on language acquisition rather than enforced learning. Language is seen in real-life situations in which students can acquire the language. This is natural language development which builds on other forms of learning. Moreover, CLIL has to do long-term learning. Students become academically proficient in English after 5-7 years in a good bilingual program. Another point to consider is the fact that fluency is more important than accuracy and errors are a natural part of language learning. Learners develop fluency in English by using English to communicate for a variety of purposes.
To conclude, it is important to realise that CLIL helps to introduce the wider cultural context, to prepare for internationalization, to access International Certification and enhance the school profile, to improve overall and specific language competence, to prepare for future studies and/or working life, to develop multilingual interests and attitudes and to increase learner motivation.
[1] From now on L2
[2] From now on L1
In relation to this, we will make a brief historical review and description of relevant Teaching methods for languages acquisition. The data gathered from this study will be useful to compare these methods and, finally, to see how CLIL could help the development our students’ knowledge.
First, the grammar-translation method based teaching in a second language[1] in the detailed: analysis of grammar rules and exceptions and then apply the knowledge gained from translating sentences and texts that is done in the target language itself and conversely. The first language serves as a reference system in the acquisition of L2.
This method originated in Prussia in the late eighteenth century and was adopted as the model system used for the teaching of Latin and Greek. It is heir to the German academic practice and some of its representatives were J. Seidenstücker, K. Plötz, HS and J. Meidinger Ollendor.
For this method, language is a system of rules that should be taught through texts and related rules and meanings of the first language.
The basis of both linguistic plural description and as the activities in class is the written language. The vocabulary is learned through word lists and special emphasis is put on the correctness of the translation.
The learning grammar is deductive, that is, a rule that is explained and then learnt by heart and practiced in translation exercises is presented. The language of instruction is the first language of the learner.
The teacher is the main protagonist of the teaching-learning process, the highest authority. Its function is to provide language skills and correct errors produced by learners. The student, however, has some participatory role, just follows the instructions of the teacher, memorize rules and vocabulary lists to read and translate.
But nothing can exist without dissenting voices that drive changes arise. Indeed, in the nineteenth century, C. Marcel, T. Prendergast and F. Gouin, among others, proposed approaches that encircle the teaching strategies of the way foreign languages are acquired the mother tongue[2].
This is the natural method and is based on the observation and interpretation of how speakers acquire their L1 first, and how they learn an L2. Students are exposed to the first oral language to later get in touch with the written language in the target language. We see that the grammar as process center side significantly longer.
Later, these elements of the natural approach would give rise to one of the most widespread and known in many parts of methods, the direct method. Their approaches are based on assumptions of naturalistic language learning, that is, in the conviction that the process of L2 learning is similar to the process of acquisition of L1.
This method is the result of the ideas introduced by the reform movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, and the principles for teaching based on assumptions of naturalistic language learning languages. He was one of the first attempts to construct a methodology of language teaching based on the observation of the process of acquisition of the mother tongue of the children. It was introduced in France and Germany in the early twentieth century and widely known in the United States thanks to L. M. Sauveur and Berlitz, who applied it in their schools.
It incorporates a new approach to language teaching by giving absolute priority to the spoken language and advocates the teaching in the target language. It is based on the following principles: Exclusive use of the L2, teaching vocabulary and structures of daily life and inductive teaching of grammar. Moreover, development of oral communication skills in a progressive and graduated form through the exchange of questions and answers between teachers and students, introduction of new oral teaching contents, using the show and objects and drawings in the introduction of specific vocabulary. To finish, the association of ideas in the introduction of abstract vocabulary, teaching of expression and listening comprehension, emphasis on pronunciation and grammar.
The underlying concept of learning equates the learning process of L2 acquisition of L1. The method is characterized as imitative, associative and inductive: language is learned through imitation of a language model and memorizing phrases and short dialogues, the lexicon is acquired through partnerships and grammar rules are induced from the observation of the examples. The teacher, preferably native speaker, is the protagonist of the class is not only language model but must have initiative and drive to create the necessary interaction in the classroom.
Opponents of the direct method mention their approaches lack theoretical and methodological basis, since the method has a theory about the nature of language and a theory about learning it and lacking methodological principles consistent as a basis to teaching techniques
Despite all these drawbacks, the direct method has offered important innovations in the field of teaching processes, due to there were visible problems in the teaching and learning process and has opened the way for the teaching of foreign languages.
Furthermore, given the immediate needs of the war, had to involve universities, psychologists and linguists prestigious (Boas, Bloomfield and Fries, among others) who were devoted to structure appropriate strategies and techniques to achieve the purposes proposed. It appeared so, the method of the army.
The U.S. government asked a few universities to develop special programs for teaching foreign languages for military personnel. The methodology was then to access the compression of native languages in the United States helped to consolidate and structure approach to language learning as far and exotic as Chinese, Japanese, Malay, etc. This implied a deep dive into the oral aspect of the target language. The reason for the emphasis on oral language was due to the need for soldiers to you instantly communicate with locals. Immersion meant many hours a week with many exercises, repetition and practice to acquire and internalize new linguistic habits. Grammatical structures are arranged in order of increasing complexity.
Taking this into account, the vocabulary is incorporated into teaching units refers to words and expressions most frequently. The materials are prepared by linguists. For this reason, visibly manifests the importance of applied linguistics to the teaching of foreign languages.
Moreover, the lesson plan usually considered the presentation of dialogues from which grammar rules are inferred. It appealed to much repetition and substitution drills.
As a consequence, these are the foundations nominate stage method of teaching foreign languages for at least the decades of the fifties and sixties, the audio-lingual method.
This method gives priority to spoken language (speaking and hearing) regarding it as a system of sounds used for social communication. Teachers wanted linguistic correctness and is about the individual learn new vocabulary by associating the spoken word and the visual image, mainly through repetition. Too much emphasis on mechanical and imitation exercises native patterns for which advanced technological means (audio gramophones, tape recorders) and a very detailed study guide that models all possible situations where the individual should use the language that used to serve for example, all this in order to achieve a model as accurate as possible.
It is clearly the presence of neo-Skinner and behaviorism, as it comes to language as a set of habits and as a form of social behavior, a form of reaction of the organism to the environment. Experts do not give importance to the rational and conscious learning. Skinner and his followers understood that those who learn the language as a form of verbal expression could not reach an understanding of native speakers. For him, knowing a language was something more to know about what to speak and how to speak their native or talk.
The behaviorist theory stimulus-response (SR) and reinforcement adopted in language teaching has resulted in mechanical repetitions of certain linguistic patterns, and excessive and extensive use of imitation to ignore the level of creativity and spontaneity.
But in the late fifties, Noam Chomsky published his book Syntactic Structures in laying the foundation for a profound transformation in linguistic studies and new approaches to teaching foreign languages. Categorically he rejects the description of structuralism and behaviorist theory in the acquisition of new linguistic habits. The language implies creation and generation of new sentences based on the application of rules of great complexity and abstraction.
British linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was not adequately reflected in the approaches to language teaching ath the moment: the functional and communicative potential of language.
In fact, the pressure of the changing conditions of society, coupled with the experience and intuition and the same teachers, influences for a new approach to appear on stage with great success and acceptance of the community and prospects dominate the stage for a long time. It is the communicative approach, although, some of its basic aspects were applied in the past, reborn from very solid theoretical foundations of applied linguistics and psycholinguistics.
Thus, this approach aims to prepare the learner for real communication, not only in the oral aspect. But also in writing, with other speakers of the target language.So, for this purpose, in the process often instructive texts, recordings used and authentic materials and activities that seek to imitate faithfully the reality outside the classroom are provided.
The weakening of the oral approach and Audio-lingual method favors the emergence of new educational proposals. In the late 60s some British linguists (C. Candlin and H. Widdowson, among others) believed that the goal of learning a foreign language should be the development of communicative competence and not only linguistic competence. As Widowwson points out:
(...) Communicative competence is not a matter of knowing rules for the composition of sentences and being able to employ expressions Such rules to assemble from scratch and when to as occasion requires. It is much more a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns, formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make whatever adjustments are Necessary According To contextual demands. Communicative competence in this view is Essentially a matter of adaptation, and rules are not generative but regulative and subservient. HG Widdowson (1989: 135).
This new conception of the teaching-learning process of a foreign language includes contributions from several research fields, such as the British functional linguistics (eg, J. Firth and MAK Halliday), American sociolinguistics (eg, D. Hymes, J. Gumperz and W. Labov) and the philosophy of language or pragmalinguistics (eg, J. Austin and J. Searle). At the request of the Council of Europe, European scholars join forces to develop an alternative according to the social, economic, political and cultural reality of modern Europe; the fruit is called communicative approach.
Communication is not just a product, but rather a process that is carried out for a specific purpose, including some specific partners in a particular situation. Consequently, it is not enough for learners assimilate a wealth of data (vocabulary, rules, roles ...), it is also essential that they learn to use that knowledge to negotiate meaning. They must participate in real tasks, in which the language is a means to an end, not an end in itself, for example, see a schedule of aircraft to see if there is direct flight from Barcelona to Singapore and not, for example, to respond to questions from the book. The oral interaction among students is common: in pairs, trios, or in larger groups as a class.
To ensure effective communication, the tasks are governed by three principles. One of them is information gap, that is among the partners there is a real need for communication, since everyone has to find something that only your partner know, and if you cannot see, cannot do their own homework. Another one is freedom of expression, in other words, the speaker decides the content (what to say), form (how you say it), the tone, the time, etc. and the last, feedback which means that verbal and nonverbal reactions caller tell to what extent the student is reaching his goal in the conversation.
Theater or role play games are close to the actual communication, in which participants receive (verbal or physical) immediate peers-feedback, so they can gauge the success in the game and use language. It is estimated that games in addition to developing communicative competence, may beneficially affect motivation.
Added to that, projects are typical tasks of the communicative approach that may last a while until one academic year. In the embodiment of a typical project starts by deciding the topic and participants, an outline and a work schedule are made and papers are distributed, information is sought and is processed, a final report is written and/or exposed to the class.
So, the basic unit is the paragraph in written language and the oral statement. This implies that care should be important components in communication such as cohesion and coherence.
The attention is focusing on the foreign language, which is a vehicle for classroom communication, not only the object of study. So, is used in both tasks and for explanations, clarifications, etc., reserving the mother tongue for special cases.
Although some brief grammar explanations are also given when deemed appropriate, the presentation of grammar is usually inductive.
On top of that, the textbook is considered a valuable material support, but not the focus of instruction. Other teaching materials are also used (e.g., card for troubleshooting tasks in a group) and authentic (magazines, travel brochures, public transport tickets, etc.). And everyday objects: a camera, an alarm clock, etc. (if the occasion requires, under the instruction manuals).
Additionally, the repertoire of roles of the teacher is quite broad: to analyze the needs of students, creating situations of communication, organizing activities, advice, participate as an equal partner, observe the development of the tasks in the classroom, preparing materials, etc. Ultimately, the role of the teacher is to facilitate learning, encouraging, while the cooperation among students, who are the real protagonists, this is therefore a learner-centered approach.
The evaluation of students attends both the correction and fluidity. The assessment is not limited to the product, but covers the entire process, is to determine when or in what sense should modify some aspect of the instructional process.
The communicative approach has high acceptance in the decades of the 80s and 90s of XX century, but over the years has been losing ground to the task-based approach, which may well be considered his heir. He is often modeled versus traditional methods and approaches, focusing on grammar. Actually, is in excess of the previous models, and does not deny the importance of language skills, but it goes beyond, looking for a real communicative competence.
In parallel with the communicative approach, alternative methods have been applied, such as the Method of Total Physical Response.
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a result of a collection of methods developed by Dr. James J. Asher in 1965 to assist in language learning. The theoretical foundation of this approach is based on the premise that if students can learn a second language with any methodology, it would be best to do so in a simple and fun way. Asher stated that when an additional language, the language learning is internalized through a process of decryption code.
A reasonable hypothesis is that the brain and the nervous system are biologically programmed to acquire language, either the first or the second in a particular sequence and in a particular mode. The sequence is listening before speaking and the mode is to synchronize language with the individual’s body. (Asher 1996, p. 2-4.).
With this in mind, this process would be similar to the development of the first language, and enables a long period of development of the understanding before speech production. Students are called to physically respond to verbal commands.
Incidentally, we must not forget the three key elements that appear as determinants of learning success are small: the ability to hear language without the pressure of speaking, the fact that the language of the early years is mostly related to daily activities and the high degree of interaction with the message context.
In the classroom, the teacher and the student take similar roles to parent and child respectively. Students must respond physically to the teacher's words.
Furthermore, due to its approach, TPR approach can be used as an alternative to teach students with dyslexia or problems related to learning, which commonly experience difficulties in learning other languages with traditional instruction.
Actually, this technique is especially useful in teaching a foreign language. The first skills practiced are receptive and is commonly accepted that the student will go through a silent period before producing any oral or written message. Between these two there is an intermediate phase in which the student can respond physically to show understanding of a message. We follow a natural process in learning the L2, trying to emulate the way you learned your first language.
In this sense, we are going to describe the process and methodology developed in the language classroom to make it a suitable environment for the call to take place bilingual education, that is, the approach CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), which stands for language immersion. It is a term coined in 1994 by David Marsh advocated that there is greater success in learning foreign languages through the core subjects, such as history or science in educational contexts through functional curricula that treated in isolation and forced or invented situations, as subjects. Here we have the Marsh’s definition of CLIL:
CLIL refers to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focussed aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language. (Marsh, 1994).
‘This approach involves learning subjects such as history, geography or others, through an additional language. It can be very successful in enhancing the learning of languages and other subjects, and developing in the youngsters a positive ‘can do’ attitude towards themselves as language learners.’ (Marsh, 2000).
Research in this field has also shown that multilingualism in school, drawing on the resources, strategies and skills developed by the student when learning a language or subject, through integrated curriculum of language and non-language areas contributes so effectively to the development of communicative competence in languages that optimizes and facilitates later learning.
According to Do Coyle (2005), CLIL is based on four key principles:
In the first place, this principle successfully placed the content and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and understanding inherent in the discipline, in the heart of the learning process itself.
Secondly, another principle defines language as driver for communication and learning. From this perspective, language is learned through use in untested situations but put a "scaffolding" (tasks must be planned starting from the most concrete to the most abstract in parallel with a specific language to the abstract: learning from the concrete for the concrete to the abstract learning for the abstract).
Thirdly, CLIL should be a cognitive challenge for students: to develop their thinking skills in conjunction with basic interpersonal communication skills and competence in cognitive-academic language.
And finally, the fourth principle involves multiculturalism, as language, thought and culture are linked; CLIL offers opportunities for students to interact with other cultures.
CLIL has been a tremendous success story and its influence on practice is currently expanding quickly across Europe and beyond. Recent research has confirmed that CLIL has positive effects on the language skills of EFL learners, placing them well ahead of their non-CLIL counterparts. At the same time, studies also indicate that the learning of content does not suffer in this process; in some cases CLIL students even outperformed their non-CLIL counterparts (Badertscher, 2009 and Heine, 2008). Taken together, there is much evidence to suggest that CLIL students are equally, if not more successful, at learning a subject than students learning content subjects in L1. This means that CLIL may be considered as an approach that is mutually beneficial for both content and language subjects.
Subsequently, the basis of CLIL is that content subjects are taught and learnt in a language which is not the mother tongue of the learners. So, for this reason, Knowledge of the language becomes the means of learning content. Added to that, Language is integrated into the broad curriculum and learning is improved through increased motivation and the study of natural language seen in context. When learners are interested in a topic they are motivated to acquire language to communicate. So, CLIL is based on language acquisition rather than enforced learning. Language is seen in real-life situations in which students can acquire the language. This is natural language development which builds on other forms of learning. Moreover, CLIL has to do long-term learning. Students become academically proficient in English after 5-7 years in a good bilingual program. Another point to consider is the fact that fluency is more important than accuracy and errors are a natural part of language learning. Learners develop fluency in English by using English to communicate for a variety of purposes.
To conclude, it is important to realise that CLIL helps to introduce the wider cultural context, to prepare for internationalization, to access International Certification and enhance the school profile, to improve overall and specific language competence, to prepare for future studies and/or working life, to develop multilingual interests and attitudes and to increase learner motivation.
[1] From now on L2
[2] From now on L1