CLT Principle 1: Teaching Communicatively

In today’s post we come to the first principle in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re On The Topic: Teaching Communicatively Implies a Definition of Communication.

I am tempted to way, “Well, duh!” But far too many people use terms as buzzwords without defining them for others or even knowing themselves what they intend the term to mean.

One constant irritant in this regard is the use of the term “rigor”. It is constantly bandied about in education circles, but few people give any sort of definition for it. “Courses need to be more rigorous!” is a great slogan or catchphrase, but what does that mean?

How many teachers have a coherent philosophy or approach to teaching or language teaching. How many can articulate even a broad outline of a philosophy? How many language teachers can define key terms – or is this, like language, intuitive (i.e. we know what it is, but we can’t define it readily)?

VanPatten opens the chapter with four statements and asks the reader to rate his or her ability as Yes, Sort Of, or Nope. Here are the statements:

1. I can offer a working definition of communication
2. I can describe the two major purposes of communication
3. I understand how the classroom is a “limited context” environment for communication
4. I can describe/explain how knowledge about communication informs choices and behaviors in terms of language teaching

How did you rate yourself?

Before I read the book, I rated myself very poorly, even though I have studied second language acquisition for years.

Fortunately, VanPatten provides us with an excellent working definition of communication:

Communication is the expression, interpretation, and sometimes negotiation of meaning in a given context. What is more, communication is also purposeful.

Meaning refers to the information contained in a message. This information may be the literal meaning conveyed by the words, but it may also be a “hidden message” beyond the literal. Meaning can be layered.

Expression refers to the production of a message, whether that expression is oral, non-verbal, or some combination.

Interpretation indicates that communication is not one-way. There is always a recipient.

Negotiation acknowledges that communication, i.e. the expression and interpretation of meaning, is not always successful on the first (or tenth) attempt. Participants on both sides of the interchange must work to establish and clarify meaning. We do this all the time.

Context refers to the participants and the setting.

Purpose indicates that there is a goal or objective to communication. As VanPatten puts it: “Just because someone’s lips are moving or their hands are gesturing down’ mean they’re communicating.”

Having defined his terms, VanPatten next addresses the idea of context.

Context places constraints upon our communication. That is, the people and setting (not just physical place) exert significant influence on what we say and how we say it. Important for the teacher is to recognize that the classroom is a context and places constraints on the communication that will take place there.

This concept fits well with the High-Leverage Teaching Practice of creating a classroom discourse community. If communication and language acquisition are to take place in the classroom, we must create a community within the context of schools and students.

The book then moves on to purpose.

The purpose of communication is, according to VanPatten, basically twofold: psychosocial and cognitive-informational. That is, we communicate to establish, maintain, affect, effect, and sever relationships and roles among two or more persons. Or we communicate in order to “express or obtain information, or to learn or do something”. (2017, p. 9)

These two purposes are not mutually exclusive, and they may both be in play at the same time, i.e. a communicative act may be both cognitive-information and psychosocial simultaneously.

VanPatten mentions one other purpose of communication: to entertain.

I believe he fails to give this purpose adequate consideration. Like the other two, it is not exclusive.

The author sums up this section of the chapter with the statement, “Language use without purpose is not communication.”

This leads to an important conclusion:

Language and communication are not the same thing.

On the one hand, we can use language without communicating. For example, if I an actor is memorizing lines for a play, language is being used, but no communication is taking place. On the other hand, we often communicate with a look, a sound, or a gesture that is not language.

The final major section of the chapter is a discussion of implications of a definition of communication for the classroom.

If we maintain that we practice Communicative Language Teaching (which VanPatten maintains is also Contemporary Language Teaching), then communication needs to be taking place in the classroom.

VanPatten asks to key questions:

1. How much time do instructors and students spend on the expression and interpretation (and negotiation) of  meaning?
2. Is there a purpose to this expression and interpretation of meaning?

ACTFL proposes that, ideally, the teacher and students spend at least 90% of their time in (and outside) the classroom expressing, interpreting, and negotiating meaning IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE.

That last portion of the statement is, unfortunately, necessary. A majority of teachers self reported in a survey that they spend less than half of their class time using the target language. Since we know that the brain is able to acquire a language only from receiving messages in the target language that are comprehended, then we should be spending significantly more time using the target language.

If the answer to the second question is “no”, then no communication is taking place – and neither is acquisition.

In accord with Glisan and Donato’s position that teachers need to abandon the IRE model of interaction and adopt the IRF model*, VanPatten advocates abandoning “display questions” intended to practice language (e.g. vocabulary, grammar points) because they are not communicative and asking “context-embedded” questions.

When I was a student teacher, my master teacher used to say, “Never ask a question that you already know the answer to.”

While this may seem extreme, the underlying principle is sound. If I already know the answer, then I am probably asking students to “practice language”. But if I ask students questions to which I do not know the answer, then we begin to have the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Of course, there are certain circumstances in which asking a question to which I know the answer is appropriate, but those are exceptions, and they have a communicative purpose beyond “practicing language”. For example, I may ask a rhetorical question to get students to think about a topic.

*IRE stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher EVALUATES the response;
IRF stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher gives FEEDBACK and moves the conversation forward.
See Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, “HLTP 2: Building a Classroom Discourse Community” (2017, pp. 42-45)

VanPatten reminds us that “… just because mouths are moving doesn’t mean something is communicative. For an event to be communicative, it must have a purpose that is not language-related but related to one of language use’s two major purposes: psychosocial or cognitive-information. ” (2017, p. 15)

I disagree with the statement only insofar as VanPatten omits the third purpose of language: entertainment.

At the close of his discussion of the first implication of a definition for communication, VanPatten asks the following:

It isn’t easy to imagine gossip in the classroom. But what about entertainment? Are there communicative events in class involving entertainment? (Simply playing music in class does not count.)

My response is that 1) this must be a difference between teaching high school and college, because I have no problem imagining gossip in the classroom; my students do it all the  time, and 2) I have spent significant portions of many class periods telling jokes and funny stories to my students in German. I will come to another entertainment piece in a moment.

The second implication of a definition for communication deals with the classroom context.

VanPatten maintains that the context is “fixed” because the participants (teacher and students) and setting (classrooms) do not change. That does not mean, however, that it is unchanging. Students come and go throughout the year, and not all students – or even the teacher – are present every day.

Within this context, VanPatten decries the use of role-playing, an activity that is very popular among teachers.

I disagree to an extent with VanPatten here, but only because I believe he fails to take a special form of role-playing into account.

It is obvious to me that VanPatten is talking about the kind of role-playing in which the teacher assigns  something like this: Pretend you are in a restaurant. One of you is the waiter and the other is a customer. You want a steak, but they are out of steak. Have a conversation.

As VanPatten rightly maintains, this sort of role-playing shipwrecks on two points: 1) it is not communicative because the purpose is to practice language, and 2) it is trying to turn the classroom into something it is not (e.g. a restaurant).

However, I believe VanPatten overlooks a special kind of role-playing: what we usually call simply RPG, or table-top Role Playing Games.

I have played RPG scenarios with my students and had a great time doing it. The purpose was entertainment – see why I think VanPatten does not give sufficient attention to this third purpose for communication? Students talk about how much they enjoyed the game even a year or more later.

So, the first objection is dealt with: the purpose is not to “practice language” but to enjoy playing an imaginative game. The second objection is also dealt with: the teacher structures the game in a way that takes into account the classroom context. The teacher remains the teacher while fulfilling the role of GameMaster or DungeonMaster, and students remain students while also being players / player characters in an entertaining game.

I have recently connected with other language teachers who are exploring this aspect of using the target language in the classroom. We may be making “adventures” available to others.

Two other games that can be used in the classroom are “Mafia/Werewolves” and “Breakout”. They, too, have the communicative purpose of entertainment and take place within the classroom context.

If you have not yet looked into using these sorts of games in your instruction, I encourage you to do so.

VanPatten closes the chapter with a reminder:

The definition of communication [expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose] informs what it means for a classroom to be communicative.

I hope it informs your practices.