This paper discusses the radical change the role of the teacher in the classroom has witnessed since the early periods of history - the lecturer - up to the present date - the monitor and guide. The latter was brought about by the invention of communicative approach to Language teaching. The paper also deals with some criticism that has been addressed to the role assigned to the teacher by the communicative approach. Finally, the paper presents the limits of the teacher being a guide in the current digital era.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Traditional Role: “A Sage on the Stage”
The Teacher in the Communicative Approach: “A Guide on the Side”
Criticism of CLT: “Towards a Context-Based Approach”
The Role of the Teacher in the Digital Era
Conclusion
References
Introduction
“Changes in language teaching methods throughout history have reflected recognition of changes in the kind of proficiency learners need.” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 3). With the emergence of new business opportunities across Europe and the growth of new multinational companies, the need to enable students to communicate in other languages became a dire one. The existing language teaching methodology, then, failed to serve this function. Consequently, linguists, and language teaching specialists, called for a new approach that may enable students to use the language communicatively outside the classroom; this approach has been named the Communicative Approach. This change from the traditional methodology to communicative methodology has undoubtedly introduced radical changes in the role of the teacher in the classroom. This paper, therefore, serves to review the role of the teacher as a facilitator within the communicative approach, but before this, the role of the teacher in the traditional methodology is first introduced to put the reader in the context. At the end of the paper, some criticism and challenges facing this role of a facilitator are briefly stated.
The Traditional Role: “A Sage on the Stage”
Before the emergence of the Communicative Approach to language teaching, the role pertained to the teacher was that of a lecture-giver. This lecturing method can be defined as a method “by which the instructor gives an oral presentation of facts or principles to learners and the class usually being responsible for note-taking” (Kaur, 2011, P10). Sutherland (1976) states that a true lecture includes little or no participation from the learners (P. 30). The teacher, then, is the authority in the classroom and the possessor of knowledge while learners are just like empty vessels to be filled in with information. This status of the teacher being a knowledge holder or a “sage on the stage” is deeply rooted in history. In classic Greek societies, the lecture was formalized into an art of rhetoric with such great scholars and philosophers as Aristotle and Cicero (Sutherland, 1976, P. 30). The perfect orator then was the model of the perfect man.
This lecturing method has also characterized the Islamic tradition of teaching from the era of the prophet onwards. Scholars like Sibawayh used to teach the grammar of Arabic in the form of a lecture (Karima Abdellah, nd, P. 3). The teacher delivers the lesson and explains it with examples while the student’s main task is limited to note-taking and memorization.
Although the lecture may seem an effective way of transmitting huge amounts of knowledge to the students and fill in their notebooks with information, it is also a good way of making them dependent on their teachers. Sutherland (1976) points out that, in the Lecture method, students submit to the authority of the lecturer and “accept as gospel all his prejudices, unwarranted assumptions and mistakes” instead of pursuing the truth (P. 31)
With the emergence of Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) as an academic discipline in the seventeenth century, with the study of Latin, emerged many principled methods to language teaching. Nevertheless, the teacher-centeredness, which was the kernel of the lecture method, continued to hold sway throughout the succession of methods (Grammar Translation method, the Direct Method and, then, the Audio-lingual Method) from the seventeenth century till the seventies of the preceding century. The teacher had always been at the heart of the teaching process. The teacher was the model of the target language; the one who introduces the lesson, explains it and, sometimes, provides students with the native language translation. Students’ task, on the other hand, was limited to taking notes, memorizing rules and imitating their teacher. In a word, students “learn what their teacher knows” (Freeman & Anderson, 2011, P. N)
Within the framework of this teacher-centered methodology, especially with the Direct Method and the Audio-lingual Method, learners were able to produce correct language structures in the classroom but they usually fail to engage in a genuine communication outside the classroom (Freeman & Anderson, ibid,). The goal of any language instruction, however, has always been to enable students to communicate in the target language in real situations. At the end of 1960s, linguists and educators began to question whether they were on the right way to meet this goal with the present methodology (Freeman, ibid). Linguists, especially British applied linguists (e.g. M. A. K. Halliday, H. Widdowson, D. A. Wilkins), began to realize that besides the grammatical and structural nature, language has also a social nature [i.e. used to perform social functions] (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, P. 153). Learners, therefore, should be engaged in performing certain communicative functions; and the Learning process should, henceforth, revolve around the learner rather than the teacher. This view to language teaching has been named the “Communicative Approach” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, P. 154).
The Teacher in the Communicative Approach: “A Guide on the Side”
In the early 1970s, linguists and educators begun to question the effectiveness of the existing linguistic-structure-oriented language teaching methodology. Although students study heavy language courses, they are most of the time unable to use it communicatively outside the classroom. There must be something missing in these language courses! They recognized that students need more than mastering language structures by drills. Students need to know different language functions and know where and when to say what to whom. In other words, in addition to the linguistic competence, students must also develop a “communicative competence” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, and freeman & Anderson, 2011).
According to Richards (2006, p. 6), communicative competence includes several aspects of knowledge that students must develop, amongst them we mention:
- Knowing how to use language according to a range of purposes and functions.
- Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the settings and participants (e.g. knowing when to use formal or informal language appropriately or written as opposed to spoken language).
- Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., reports, interviews and conversations).
- Knowing how to maintain communication in spite of having limitations of one’s knowledge of language through communicative strategies.
Canal and swain (1980) characterized the above aspects in what they called four dimensions of communicative competence. These are: (a) the grammatical competence (i.e., the knowledge of possible structures in the language), (b) the sociolinguistic competence (i.e., the understanding of the social context of the communicative act), (c) discourse competence (i.e., the ability to interpret interconnected items of the communicative items and assigning meaning to them) and (d) strategic competence (i.e., knowledge of strategies to initiate and maintain communication) (cited in Richards & Rodgeres, 2001, p. 160).
To meet the need for communicative competence, educational methodologists and applied linguists developed a “communicative approach” to language teaching which aimed at enabling students to know the structural as well as the social aspects of language. The ideas of communicative approach were mainly represented in the Communicative Language Teaching method (CLT).
Unlike the traditional teacher-centered methodology examined above where learning is under the control of the teacher, CLT advocates see that students can learn the target language from different sources rather than just teacher’s direct instructions. Among these sources, Richards (2006) mentioned: (1) interaction between learners and users of the target language, (2) creating meaningful and purposeful interaction between students in the target language, (3) paying attention to the language one hears and trying to reproduce it in different ways and (4) attending to the feedback learners get from their interlocutors.
The goal of any language teaching course is, by and large, to enable students to use the language they learn in real-life situations. Freeman and Anderson (2011) stated that for teachers to succeed in this mission they must (1) introduce authentic language in classroom, (2) introduce language functions together with the different structures through which they can be conveyed depending on different situations and (3) use the Role-Play technique where students are ascribed different social roles which they have to play in a real-like situations.
It is clear that, with such principles, CLT methodology has marked a paradigm shift in the roles of both the learner and the teacher alike. Learners now have to work cooperatively and learn from their peers instead of individual learning from the teacher as highlighted in traditional approaches. They are now engaged in designing classroom activities and encouraged to develop a sense of “autonomous and life-long learning” (Richards, 2006, P. 5).
Breen and Candlin (1980) summarized the roles of learners as follows:
“The role of learner as negotiator – between the self, the learning process, and the project of learning – emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way”. (cited in Fosh M., 2017, p. 15)
Teachers, on the other hand, are now expected to act as facilitators, advisors and monitors during classroom activities (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, and Freeman & Anderson 2011). In other words, the teacher now is seen as “a guide on the side”; he intervenes only when students are facing some difficulties with either the content or the design of classroom activities. Instead of being the correct model of the target language and having a negative attitude towards learner’s erroneous output, the teacher now has to develop a positive tendency towards errors. They are considered an indication of learner’s language development. The teacher can rely on these errors to determine the learners’ level and design appropriate communicative activities accordingly. For these activities to be meaningful they must be based on real-life situations; they must also include communicative features namely: information gaps (i.e., activities where students seek to get a piece of information which they do not know), choice (i.e., activities where students have to choose the appropriate way to express themselves depending on the situation) and feedback (i.e., activities where students get feedback on their output). During classroom activities, teachers can also act as an independent communicator and be a member of the whole group (Freeman & Anderson 2011).
Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 169) identified three main roles ascribed to the teacher within the CLT framework. The teacher is seen as a need analyst, a counselor and a group process manager. First, he is a need analyst in that he is required to determine and respond to learners’ language needs. This can be done either by individual conversations with students or by administering needs assessments. Second, the teacher acts as a counselor and a facilitator who is expected to exemplify the communicative process through the use of confirmation and feedback. Third, the teacher is expected to act as a group manager. CLT guidelines suggest that during communicative activities the teacher monitors, manages and advises students but never intervenes to correct or supply information gaps; this is done later when the focus is on accuracy.
Breen and Candlin (1980) summarized the roles of the teacher within CLT as follows:
The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communication process between all participants in the classroom, and between these participants and the various activities and texts. The second role is to act as an independent participant within the learning-teaching group. The latter role is closely related to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. (cited in Fosh, 2017, p. 13)
In general, CLT, with its emphasis on communication, appeared as a reaction against the traditional methods- namely Grammar Translation, Direct Method and Audio-lingual method- and aimed at correcting their shortcomings. Although it has to some extent succeeded in fulfilling this aim, it did not transcend being harshly criticized. One of such criticism lies in its neglect of context.
Criticism of CLT: “Towards a Context-Based Approach”
The majority of teachers today, when asked about the methodology they use, they proudly answer: “Communicative Language Teaching”. In fact, CLT has succeeded to develop a blind faith and strong attitudes in teachers who claim to use it. Bax (2003) cited four examples of teachers who believe that countries where CLT is not the method of instruction are still backwards simply because the other methods are not modern! Such attitudes, Bax believes, are instigated by the emphasis of CLT on communication as the ultimate goal of instruction. CLT advocates believed that the problem of language teaching lies in the methodology but they neglected the context where this methodology will be implemented. Hence, they developed a set of methodological procedures which regulate the role of the teacher in the classroom under any context whatsoever. The implicit message which CLT gives to the teacher is “The Communicative Approach is the way to do it, no matter where you are, no matter the context” (Bax, 2003, p. 281).
CLT proposes one single universal methodology which can be implemented regardless of the context. This implies that the ideological values imbedded in the underlying assumptions of CLT will be imposed on other non-western contexts where CLT is used. Heip (2005) notes that the terminology that dominates CLT guidelines such as “involve learners, allow learners to choose, change in the roles assigned and break down hierarchical barrier” highlights such western ideological values as choice, freedom and equality (p. 7). These values are not universal though, and may contradict the cultural norms of non-western learners, hence, threatening their own identity. In this regard, Bax (2003) states that context should be at the top of the guidelines of any teaching methodology.
Bax (2003) stated that devising a solution for the problems of language teaching includes methodology only as a part of it; context is equally important (p. 282). Aspects of local context such as cultural expectations and students needs should also be taken into account for successful learning. Bax (2003) cited the experience of a teacher who moved to teach English in Japan and, due to cultural differences, he said “it was like a different planet” (p. 282). Perceiving context to be crucial, new roles should be ascribed to the teacher. Bax believes that in choosing which methodology to use, the teacher must first (1) develop analytical tools for analyzing and understanding the learning context and then (2) analyze the context carefully and systematically as far as possible; this includes being aware of the individual needs, local and national cultures (p. 285). Only after the teacher takes account of all these factors in each given situation will he be able to choose the appropriate method to conduct the instruction. This view which highlights the importance of context in language teaching has been named, by Bax (2003), the “Context-Based Approach”. The latter is mainly an eclectic one and not methodologically strict as CLT since the teacher is free to choose the method which suits the context.
The Role of the Teacher in the Digital Era
The world now has become more complex with such a great technological advancement that has invaded almost all the phases of life from which education is no exception. Technology now affects education either directly (i.e., through the integration of ICT in education) or indirectly (i.e., through media and social networks). The role of teacher has become more complex now than ever before.
Students now are born and grow up within a digital world; they are “digital natives”. Teachers, on the other hand, in most cases, were not familiar with such technologies in their childhood; they have now become “digital immigrants” (Shah, 2013, p. 615). Such categorization implies that technology has brought about “generation gap” between the teacher and his students. The primary role of the teacher, therefore, is to bridge this gap. So as not to be seen as irrelevant, the teacher should recognize that “students now have different motivational profile and needs regarding their interests, emotions and engagement matters.” (Amin, 2016, p. 40). He has to cater for these needs and at the same time he must struggle to meet the standards of the curriculum. In other words, the teacher now should have the professional knowledge regarding the school subject and be technologically oriented to cope with the new generation of students. Technologically illiterate teachers are no longer needed now!
Information now is available everywhere. With a sample click, students can access countless information and resources. However advantageous this may appear to be, it is clear that this flux of information creates a lot of distortions and misinterpretations (Shah, 2013, p. 618). The role of the teacher is prevalent in this regard. He is not expected to be only a facilitator (cf. CLT), he also has to be a leader. He has to lead his students to sift fake information from genuine one and enable students to make judgments about the reliability of what they access. In addition, this flux of information spreads with it a global culture and attempt to make students “global citizens” (Shah,ibid, p. 615) at the cost of their local and national cultures and identities. The teacher therefore should strengthen students culturally and morally to stand against the dangers of this technological world. It is here where the teacher should abide by the pedagogy in its Greek original meaning: “to lead the child” (Shah, ibid).
Conclusion
It must now be clear, from what has been reviewed in this paper, that the role of the teacher has witnessed a radical change from that of a knowledge holder to that of a knowledge facilitator; from a sage on the stage to a guide on the side. The role of the teacher as a facilitator appeared with Communicative Approach which marked a paradigm shift in language teaching methodology in 1970s. However, with the increasing emphasis on context (Context-Based Approach) and technological empowerment of teachers, it may be time to mark another paradigm shift from the views of CLT. The role of the teacher as a leader seems to strongly impose itself back, yet, in a different perspective.
References
Amin J. N. (2013). Redefining the Role of Teachers in the Digital Era. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDIAN PSYCHOLOGY. Vol 3, Issue 3, No. 6, DIP: 18.01.101/20160303.
Bax. S. (2003). The End of CLT: A Context Approach to Language Teaching. ELT JOURNAL. Oxford University Press. 2003 :V57.3
Foch, M. C. (2017). The Role of both teachers and students within A Communicative Language Approach: A particular case in Polish primary school. Faculty of Education, Translation and Human Sciences - University of Vic, Catalunya.
Heip, P. H. (2005). Imported Communicative Language Teaching: Implications for Local Teachers. ENGLISH TEACHING FORUM (2005): V 43. 4 pp. 2-9
Karima A. M. E (nd). The Lecturing Method (cited in arabic). Ministry of higher education, kabus University, Oman.
Kaur G. (2011) Study and Analysis of Lecture Model of Teaching . INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION. Volume 1, Number 1 (2011), pp. 9-13.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed). Great Clarendon Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press. 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
Shah. S. A. (2013). Making The Teacher Relevant and Effective in Technology-Led Teaching and Learning Environment. PROCEDIA - SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 103 (2013) pp. 612 – 620.
Sutherland T. M. (1976) The Lecture Method. NACAT JOURNAL. 1976 pp. 29-33.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main topic of this document?
This document primarily discusses the evolving role of the teacher in language teaching, contrasting the traditional "sage on the stage" approach with the communicative approach ("guide on the side") and the considerations necessary in the digital era. It further discusses the criticism of CLT and context-based approach.
What is the "Traditional Role" of the teacher described in the text?
The "Traditional Role" casts the teacher as a lecturer and authority figure, the primary source of knowledge in the classroom. Students are expected to passively receive information and memorize it.
How does the "Communicative Approach" change the teacher's role?
The "Communicative Approach" shifts the teacher's role to that of a facilitator, advisor, and monitor ("a guide on the side"). The focus moves from direct instruction to creating opportunities for students to communicate and learn from each other.
What is communicative competence, according to the text?
Communicative competence encompasses using language for various purposes, adapting language to different settings, understanding different text types, and employing communication strategies.
What criticisms are raised against the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method?
CLT is criticized for potentially neglecting the importance of the local context in which it is implemented, imposing Western ideological values, and overlooking cultural expectations and student needs.
What is the "Context-Based Approach" to language teaching?
The "Context-Based Approach" emphasizes the importance of analyzing and understanding the learning context before choosing a teaching methodology. It considers cultural expectations, student needs, and other local factors.
How has the digital era impacted the role of the teacher?
The digital era has created a "generation gap" between teachers and students, requiring teachers to bridge this gap by becoming more technologically literate. Teachers must also guide students in navigating the abundance of information available online and help them evaluate its reliability.
What are the key roles of the teacher in the digital age?
In the digital age, the teacher has multiple roles: bridging the digital gap, incorporating technology into instruction, guiding students through online information (distinguishing valid from false), and reinforcing cultural and moral values against the influence of global culture.
What is the conclusion of the document?
The document concludes that the teacher's role has significantly evolved, and that the evolving role of the teacher as a leader may be making a resurgence in education alongside context-based teaching methodologies.
- Citar trabajo
- Zouhaiyr Ezzahouani (Autor), The Role of the Teacher in the Communicative Approach, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/907293
