Philosophy

• Began as way to deal with adult learners’ feeling threatened by learning new language
• Language: viewed as communication. Student’s cultures play a role.
• Approach much more challenging with multilingual groups. Twelve or fewer students ideal.
• Teachers: language counselors: being sensitive to student fears and helping them overcome them
• Students: whole persons: intellect, emotion, desire, group dynamics
• Humanistic: engage the whole person
• Counseling/community; counselor/client

Two underlying principles

• Learning is persons: learning occurs best in atmosphere of trust that considers “whole person”
• Learning is dynamic and creative: students essential create own syllabus; learning is living and developmental.

Methodology

• Chairs in circle. Tape recorder in middle. When a student wants to say something, they raise hand and teacher approaches from behind. Student speaks a chunk in native language and teacher translates into English, sometimes multiple times or subdivided if necessary, adjusting his level of help and chunking to the level of confidence of the student.
• After the conversation has been completed and recorded, the teacher asks students how they are feeling. Teacher restates their comments for validation.
• Then they listen to tape, stopping after each chunk and figuring out what it means.
• Teacher warns that there will be only three more minutes (student like to know limits)
• Teacher writes translation line by line on blackboard. Students not allowed to copy them yet but to stay focused on the board.
• Then he underlines word by word, asking for native language translation, until all are translated, leaving out redundant translation. (Native language used to make meaning clear)
• Students sit back and teacher reads what’s up on the board three times: the first time, students just listen. Second time they close eyes and listen. Third time the silently mouth words as they proceed.
• Next activity is human computer. Students can ask for any pronunciation on the board. As long as the student repeats it, so will teachers, stopping only when student stops. Teacher doesn’t correct students’ pronunciation but just repeats selected phrase until student stops saying it.
• Bev had us divide into groups, writing first half of sentences on one color index card and its second half on another, and then set up a memory game.
• In Larsen-Freeman book they ask students to produce original sentences drawing from stuff on blackboard. Teacher wanders around to correct what she hears. Once the sentences are polished, the group reds them to class.
• Finally the teacher allows 10 minutes to discuss the session and their feelings about the process. Again, the teacher reflects what they’ve said.

Additional activities:

• Select key verbs (be, do) and work with them in present tense. Also, regular verbs
• Students make new sentences with words on board.
• Students take turns reading transcript
• There are much more advance variations for advanced students.

Template

Teacher: Counselor, leader without judgment, ability to stand back and relinquish control, and to let students go through the “aggressive” phase

Individual Reflective Writing

In CLL, understanding (as in counseling) and the development of community are primary tools to support language learning. How did you experience/observe these in the CLL demonstration?

The actual “understanding” was almost invisible to me. I could see Bev adjust her pace slower with someone who was less secure or prolific in production, and move faster for those whose competency was greater. And I saw her do the mirror of emotion, but I’ve never felt that shows real understanding, but just the use of a skill. She asked the group once in the exercise, “How are you feeling?” She said that in a normal session that would happen at least twice. While that gave students a chance to vent, I (once again) didn’t see demonstration of understanding beyond pat, predictable, “active listening” feedback.

As far as the development of community, perhaps one lesson is not enough to see this. As in many of our groups, the construct was temporary and artificial, so — while I saw the SIT-typical mood of support — I didn’t see any real strengthening of the group as a whole. In the parts in which I participated, I felt no connection to the material or the participants as I do in many other exercises. Possibly it was because we had a lot of visitors that day and that threw the established group dynamic. Opportunities for group work came through the dialog-building session, breaking into pairs to work with sentences in game-playing, choral work with pronunciation and the human computer (which did lead to laughter: always a community builder when it’s not directed at someone).

To what extent was the material/content learner-generated?

Almost exclusively. The topics and the sentences that became the core of the lesson were entirely generated by the students. The teacher did edit a bit later, so there wasn’t redundancy on the blackboard. She also manipulated the sentences into two parts (subject & verb/object?) in preparation for the memory game. But still, she was working directly with language that came from the students. With the human computer, that was entirely student generated too. The only obvious thing she generated (since much of her contributions were subtle and invisible) was the structure and direction: for the games and practice.

In what ways did the “clients” experience security?

From the first, they contributed only as much or little as they wanted. No one was forced to speak. People were put on the spot when the volunteered a piece of dialog, but they could control how short or long a sentence they chose. Much of the work for a while after that was choral, so there was safety in numbers there. More vocal people spoke up and quieter ones didn’t. Still, the quiet ones didn’t seem to mind asking for pronunciation or definition clarification, probably because they didn’t require scary production. I’m not sure how much of a contribution it made to the “clients'” security that the “counselor” did an active listening number on them. Again, I found that contrived and canned, and from the outside of the fish bowl found it annoyingly artificial and scripted and insincere.

Teacher

• Counselor
• Psychologist
• “Knower”
• Must be bilingual at least
• Restrained participation

Teaching

• Guided learning
• Comforting
• Diminishing role
• Director

[Intended] Educational Outcomes

• Independent ownership of language
• Comfort with learning

Context

• Bilingual classroom
• Interaction between students
• Interaction between students and “knower”

Subject Matter

• “Client-generated”
• Discoursive
• Analysis
• Translation & transcription

Language

• Primarily in L1 (to lower affective filter)
• Bilingual teach
• Focus on conversation and communication skills
• Some work on written language
• Teacher points out structural language features (plurals, word order, etc.) as appropriate

Culture

• Students’ culture can be part of curriculum/conversation
• Target culture may not be
  

Learners

• Encouraged
• Affective filter minimized
• Co-create community and topic (no textbook)

Learning

Pass through fives stages between learner and knower: dependent, self-assertive, resentful and indignant, tolerant, and independent

• Language concepts
• Listening
• Reflection-based

Criticisms

• No training to be counselors so shouldn’t call themselves that
• No set curriculum or agenda

Challenges to Teacher

• Must be highly proficient and sensitive to nuance in L1 and L2
• Resist pressure to teach

Benefits

• Humanistic as well as linguistic

Bev’s Blackboard Notes

• Security
• Attention
• Aggression
• Retention
• Reflection
• Discrimination