|
7.2. CLASSROOM PROCEDURES
How do the theoretical principles of learning-centered pedagogy get trans-
lated into classroom procedures? In the following section, I deal with this
question under two broad headings: input modifications and interactional
activities.
7.2.1. Input Modifications
The primary objective of learning-centered pedagogy in terms of classroom
procedures is the creation of optimum learning conditions through input
modifications with the view to encouraging learners to have intense contact
146
CHAPTER 7
with reasonably challenging, comprehensible input. In that sense, a learn-
ing-centered pedagogy is essentially an input-oriented pedagogy, and as
such, input modifications assume great significance in its planning and im-
plementation. Of the three types of input modifications—form-based,
meaning-based, and form-and meaning-based—discussed in chapter 3,
learning-centered pedagogy rests exclusively upon meaning-based input
modification with all its merits and demerits. As input-oriented pedagogic
programs, learning-centered methods seem to follow classroom procedures
that take the form of problem-posing, problem-solving, communicative
tasks. They also seem to follow, with varying emphases, a particular pattern
in their instructional strategy: They all seek to use a broad range of themes,
topics and tasks, give manageable linguistic input, and create opportunities
for the learner to engage in a teacher-directed interaction.
The meaning-focused activities advocated by learning-centered peda-
gogists include what Prabhu (1987, p. 46) has called (a) information-gap,
(b) reasoning-gap, and (c) opinion-gap activities:
·
Information-gap activity involves a transfer of given information gener-
ally calling for the decoding or encoding of information from one
form to another. As an example, Prabhu suggests pair work in which
each member of the pair has a part of the information needed to com-
plete a task, and attempts to convey it verbally to the other.
·
Reasoning-gap activity “involves deriving some new information from
given information through the processes of inference, deduction,
practical reasoning or perception of relationships and patterns” (Prab-
hu, 1987, p. 46). An example is a group of learners jointly deciding on
the best course of action for a given purpose and within given con-
straints.
·
Opinion-gap activity “involves identifying and articulating a personal
preference, feeling or attitude” (p. 46) in response to a particular
theme, topic or task. One example is taking part in a debate or discus-
sion of a controversial social issue.
While the NA followed all these types of activities, the CTP preferred rea-
soning-gap activity, which proved to be most satisfying in the classroom. In
addition, the NA, in accordance with its principle of lowering the affective
filters, deliberately introduced an affective-humanistic dimension to class-
room activities for the specific purpose of creating or increasing learners’
emotional involvement.
The underlying objective of all these activities is, of course, to provide
comprehensible input in order to help learners understand the message.
The NA believes that comprehensibility of the input will be increased if the
teacher uses repetition and paraphrase, as in:
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS
147
There are two men in this picture. Two. One, two (counting). They are
young. There are two young men. At least I think they are young. Do you
think that they are young? Are the two men young? Or old? Do you think that
they are young or old? (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 77)
The teacher is expected to weave these repetitions naturally into classroom
discourse so that they do not sound like repetitions. This procedure not
only helps the learner understand the message but it also tends to minimize
errors because the learner is expected to respond in single words or short
phrases. In the CTP, the language necessary for the learner to accomplish a
task emerges through what is called the pre-task. During the pre-task stage,
the teacher provides appropriate linguistic assistance by paraphrasing or
glossing expressions, by employing parallel situations or diagrams, or by re-
organizing information (see the classroom transcript to come). What is
achieved through the pre-task is the regulation of comprehensible input.
It is in the context of regulating language input that Prabhu introduces
the concept of
reasonable challenge
. The concept relates to both the cognitive
difficulty and the linguistic complexity of the task, and, therefore, it is
something that the teacher has to be aware of through ongoing feedback
from learners. When classroom activities turn out to be difficult for learn-
ers, the teacher should be able “to guide their efforts step by step, making
the reasoning explicit or breaking it down into smaller steps, or offering
parallel instances to particular steps” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 48). Such a regula-
tion of input is deemed necessary to make sure that the learner perceives
the task to be challenging but attainable.
Within such a context, the linguistic input available in the classroom
comes mostly from the teacher. The teacher speaks only the target lan-
guage while the learners use either their first language or the second. If the
learners choose to respond in the still-developing target language, their er-
rors are not corrected unless communication is seriously impaired, and
even then, only incidental correction is offered. There is very little interac-
tive talk among the learners themselves because the learners’ output is con-
sidered secondary to L2 development.
Learning-centered pedagogists contend that regulating input and teacher
talk in order to provide reasonably challenging, comprehensible input is
qualitatively different from systematized, predetermined, linguistic input as-
sociated with language- and learner-centered pedagogies. The language that
is employed in learning-centered tasks, they argue, is guided and constrained
only by the difficulty level of the task on hand. However, regardless of the
pedagogic intentions, the instructional intervention and the control of lan-
guage in the way just characterized appears to bear a remarkable resem-
blance to the methods that the learning-centered pedagogy is quite explicitly
intended to replace (Beretta, 1990; Brumfit, 1984; Widdowson, 1990).
148
CHAPTER 7
Furthermore, as the experimental studies reviewed in chapter 3 show,
meaning-focused input modifications by themselves do not lead to the de-
velopment of desired levels of language knowledge/ability. Learners
should be helped to obtain language input in its full functional range, rele-
vant grammatical rules and sociolinguistic norms in context, and helpful
corrective feedback. The studies also show that it is the meaningful interac-
tion that accelerates the learning process. Besides, the input modifications
advocated by learning-centered pedagogies create a classroom atmosphere
that can only lead to limited interactional opportunities, as we see next.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
