I will argue that proficiency (here taken to mean functional language ability) is a side effect, not the goal of a communicative classroom. In addition, "teaching for proficiency" can corrupt.
If the purpose of communication is
1) psychosocial (build and maintain relationships) and/or
2) cognitive-informational (learn and exchange some new information) and/or
3) entertainment
then those are also the goals of a communicative classroom. The purpose of communication is not to acquire language knowledge or develop ability to use a language. Those are the byproducts of communication.
For goals and assessments to align, then we don't assess proficiency (not directly, at least). We use the target language to assess information learned, i.e., content-based assessments. That could be questions about cultural and/or personal information learned or what happened in a story. In other words, we don't assess reading, writing, speaking, and listening. We don't assess vocabulary size. We don't assess accuracy. Nor fluency.
A communicative teacher is not a "language teacher." By thinking your goal is to "teach proficiency," you communicate to teach language, rather than communicate to build relationships, teach content, and/or entertain.
Yes, we want to provide input. But do we provide input to communicate or to teach language? Maybe you think: Can't it be for both? My concern is that providing input to teach language can subvert genuine communication.
If the purpose of communication is
1) psychosocial (build and maintain relationships) and/or
2) cognitive-informational (learn and exchange some new information) and/or
3) entertainment
then those are also the goals of a communicative classroom. The purpose of communication is not to acquire language knowledge or develop ability to use a language. Those are the byproducts of communication.
For goals and assessments to align, then we don't assess proficiency (not directly, at least). We use the target language to assess information learned, i.e., content-based assessments. That could be questions about cultural and/or personal information learned or what happened in a story. In other words, we don't assess reading, writing, speaking, and listening. We don't assess vocabulary size. We don't assess accuracy. Nor fluency.
A communicative teacher is not a "language teacher." By thinking your goal is to "teach proficiency," you communicate to teach language, rather than communicate to build relationships, teach content, and/or entertain.
Yes, we want to provide input. But do we provide input to communicate or to teach language? Maybe you think: Can't it be for both? My concern is that providing input to teach language can subvert genuine communication.
RSS Feed
