Post on 25-Jun-2015
description
IN GOD WE TRUST
DISCOURDE-BASED APPROACHES
A New Framework for Second Language Teaching and Learning
Marianne Celce-Murcia University of California ,Los Angeles Elite Olshtain Tel Aviv University
PURPOSE/FUNCTION
Enabling learners to become competent and efficient users of a new language by providing a framework which focuses on meaning and real communication and also integrates the recent trend on focus on form within communicative language teaching
What is discourse?
An instance of spoken or written language that has describable relationships of form and meaning that relate coherently to an external communicative function or purpose and a given audience/interlocutor. Furthermore the external function or purpose can only be determined if one takes into account the context and participant (i.e., all the relevant situational, social and cultural factors) in which the piece of discourse occurs.
)Marianne Celce-murcia & Elite Olshtain,2000,p.4(
GOALS OF THE STUDDY
1. Show how discourse–based approaches have developed from to earlier strands of research ; namely work in discourse analysis and in communicative approaches to language teaching and learning.
2. Show how a number of so-called controversies can be usefully re-envisioned and resolved with reference to discourse based approaches .
3.Argue that discourse–based approaches impact all
aspects of language instruction (teaching materials ,course design and content ,teaching procedures ,assessment of learner achievement ,etc.).
HOW DISCURSE-BASED APPROCHES FIT WITHIN CURRENT MEYHODOLOGY
1.Work in discourse analysis
2.Work in communicative approaches to language learning and language teaching
Work in discourse analysis
As a reaction to:
Chomsky’s Sentence-level paradigm)rule-governed creativity (
Innate mechanism of language acquisition
Hymes’s Communicative competence(1967,1972) Halliday&Hasan (1976,1989)Social and functional rules of language
MODES OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
Oral data (Schegloff,Ochs&Thompson ,1996)
Written text
) Swales,19990;Hoey,1991 (
Gestural
Non-verbal
APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Genre analysis
Conversation analysisRhetorical structure theoryCohesion analysisCritical discourse analysis
Work in communicative approaches to language teaching and learning
1.Notional-Functional approach
2 .Classical Immersion Education
Notional-Functional approach
Krashen’ Notional-Functional approach as a reaction to the “Building Block” methods ( G-T & A-L Methods)
Notions
Functions (social functions)
INADEQUCY OF COMMUNICATINVE METHODOLOGY & IMMERSION EDUCATION
Content-basedFluent but inaccurate learners
)Harley,1989;Larsen-Freeman&Lonh,1991(
Communicative competence
Hymes(1967,1972)Canale(1983)
Communicative competence as an integrated whole
Linguistic competence (CALP)Sociocultural competence
Discourse competence
Strategic competence
Discourse competence as core competence
Sociocltural competence( Top-down)Linguistic competence (Bottom-up)Strategic competence
DISCOURSE-BASED APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY
Methodology(e.g,content-based & immersion)Language teacher trainingMaterials developmentSyllabus designSecond language acquisition researchClassroom researchLanguage assessment
IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY : CURRNT CONTROVRSIES
Fluency and accuracy Comprehensible input & Comprehensible output
Implicit and Explicit learning/Teaching
Top-down and Bottom-up processing
Cognitive and Socio-cultural Approaches to Language pedagogy
Authentic and Adapted materials
Fluency and Accuracy
Immersion Education programs Building-block Approaches
Comprehensible input & Comprehensible output
Comprehensible input Krashen(1998)
Comprehensible outputComprehensible output
Swain(1985)
Discourse as a complementary context for comprehension, production & acquisition
) Celce-murcia,1995(
Implicit and Explicit learning/Teaching
Implicit for younger & low proficiency learners)Cele-murcia,1985(
Explicit for older and more advanced learners)Lightbown&Spada,1999;Larsen-Freeman&Long
Incorporation of both at discourse level according to learners’ preference & need
Top-down and Bottom-up processing
Top-downContextual factors .e.g.,sociocultural knowledge & task
assessment for producing and interpreting discourse
Bottom-up processingproductive or interpretive choices e.g., word recognition, part of speech recognition, word comprehension for meaning
Discourse processing is simultaneously T-D & B-U Grabe(1991)
Cognitive & Sociocultural Approaches to Language pedagogy
Cognitive Approaches to writing
Background readingOutlining
Careful rhetorical organization)Flower,1972;Olson,1977;Ong,1982
Sociocultural Approaches to writing
Oral brainstormingNegotiation of audience
John(1997)Oral and written input prior to writingBoth Top-down & Bottom-up
Authentic and Adapted Materials
Authentic:Not generated for purposes of language teaching but for other communicative purposes
Authentic materials
Authentic materials for all age groups & different level of language proficiency Simplified authentic materials for beginners Unsimplified Authentic materials for advanced learners
Imitation Authentic Materials
Materials too complex for lower proficiency learners
Start with some authentic discourse then make adaptations that not change the overall meaning or the organization of message conveyed but make it more accessible to learners to use & learn it
IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCOURAE-BASED APPROACHES AND SUPPORT FOR THE AUTHORES’ POSITION
IMPLEMENTATIONFocus on meaning& real communication
)Receptive & productive skills(
Core language curriculum:
Linguistics functionsSocicultural functionsPragmatics functions
Instructed and Natural settings:
School
Workplace
Meaningful communication
Focus on meaning and real communication
Providing opportunities for both natural exposure to the language and meaningful use of language for the learners of all range of age & level of knowledge
Core language curriculum:
Linguistics,sociocultural & pragmatics
Discourse-based approaches to curriculum design in accordance with current language pedagogy:
Focus on Form)Doughy&Williams,1998(
Focus on Pragmatics)Kasper&Blum-kulka,1993(
Instructed setting:Extensive courses:
School
WorkplaceIntensive courses:
One-shot courses
Support for focus on :
Focus on Form
Long(1991)
Focus on Pragmatics)Kasper&Blum-Kulka,1993(
Integration of Top-down and Bottom up processing
Support for Focus on Form
Use of Narrative to teach formExposure to authentic language with focus on form and explicit learning & explicit pedagogy in contextualized discourse can facilitate acquisition of elusive forms
Explicit teaching and pedagogyDekeyser(1995)
Support for Focus on Pragmatics
Acquisitional direction:
Shift from pragmatics to grammar according to the age & level of knowledge of the learners
Support for Integration of Top-down and Bottom-up processing
e.g., reading an expository textTop-downContext is clearBottom-upNo clue to the context
DISCOURSE-BASED APPROAHES TO READINGText-pragmatics:
Interactional relationship between reader and writer
Text-semantics:
Information structure within the text
Discourse-based approach to curriculum designDiscourse-oriented curriculum:
ContextText types
Communicative goals
e.g., Threshold level in multilingual context
CONCLUSIONS/FURTHER DIRECYIONS
1.Adaptingcurriculum(materials,cortent,procedure,assseement)
to the communicative needs of the learners, which involves making discourse analysis an integral part of needs assessment
2.Designing programs and using discourse-based materials that emphasize skills and the language that the learners truly
need in the target language .
3.Defining realistic and explicit expectations regarding the levels of ability and fluency learners should achieve (as opposed to some abstract level of language proficiency,e.g., a specific score on the TOEFL); this involves making the
discourse analysis an integral part of language testing .
AREA FOR FURTHER RESAERCH1.How best can teachers be trained or retrained implement a
discourse-based approach? How much discourse analysis do they need? What kind ?What happens to them in the process
of change?
2.How can careful analysis of classroom language or pair/group work in progress enhance our understanding of the
teaching/learning process?
3 .Are learners better able to transfer what they learn in the classroom to the real world using discourse-based approaches? Do they take better responsibility for their own
kerning?
4 .Do discourse-based approaches lead to better language ability and / or increased motivation to use the language?