User talk:C e jones/sandbox

Peer Review

This article seems like it is off to a good start. One initial critique is that in the original article, there is only a once sentence introduction to the topic prior to these categories that that seems to remain unsolved here. I think that perhaps the article could benefit from a quick synopsis in the initial heading that would be a bit more informative than a single sentence while still being concise. The section on societal influences that discussed the rise of progressivism and changes in views of the best methods for teaching was well rounded and presented some good evidence. One critique of this section is that it uses a few terms that are left undefined and may be confusing to a non-linguist such as the competence/performance model and Chomsky's overall views (and who he was). I think some clarity here could be helpful. The section on academic influences delves into the shift that occurred in the classroom and does a good job exploring the idea of 'competence' which is later questioned in the critique section. I really like this because it feels very balanced and cohesive. I liked that this group took the time to write out an example of classroom activities because that was a bit vague in the original and I like that it was concise but informative. Finally, the critique section is a good final part because it makes sure to inform the reader that not everyone is 100% in agreement about this method. One question I had was if teacher's liked this method better and if not, could that be added to the critique. I also think that perhaps your sections could be reworked to have history and then academic influences because some of the information in 'societal influences' seems similar to the academic influences (i.e. Chomsky's linguistic theories). Overall, ya'll are off to a great start and I can't wait to read the final product!

Christinesouth2017 (talk)

Peer Review

This is a very interesting article. I feel like it is accessible and I think the general organization is okay. I appreciate how you connect Communicative Language Teaching to the sociopolitical environment and trade in Europe: that is a relevant and interesting in this sort of article. Also, I appreciate how you walk us through the activities in a CLT classroom and recommend you continue to develop that section. Many people using this article will want that sort of information.

I have a few other considerations to share. Even though “communicative competence” is linked, consider adding a small appositive as it appears later in your critique, and because - I believe - it’s not a widely known term. Also, I think you could further develop the critique, and give more information on its impact in other models of language learning.

Also, I agree with Laura that FL was unclear. This is nitpicky, but I know sometimes people use target language instead. Regardless, use "foreign language" before the abbreviation.

Best,

BrentTE (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Good: -Article provides brief explanation of other terms used even when linked allowing for a more fluid read. -comparing the published page with the sandbox there seems to be a plan to expand on the 'classroom activities' section with more information about what an activity would look like and pros and cons. I find that really helpful because it provides more concrete examples rather than broad themes or ideas

could use some work/Questions - will the critique section be joined with the already existing one? If so, I would suggest citing these critiques to specific people or articles. - make sure all use of abbreviations have been previously identified clearly. 'FL' is used at some point and while I could figure it out with context I could find a previous identification for it. - Didn't see a section for 'Communicative syllabi' in the sandbox. Will it be kept as is or incorporated into another section? - Although it seemed that most of the original sections were kept and expanded on, I would suggest you consider renaming some of the sections. They make sense once you read the section but beforehand are not as clear. Laura.o17 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review on Communicative Language Teaching article

Section: Societal Influences: “traditional methods….assumed that students were aiming for mastery of the target language.” Well, that would not be a crazy, let alone, incorrect assumption since many people in Europe were looking to migrate to U.S after WWII and over the following decades during and after the cold war. There are other reasons for which a person would want mastery in the target language. For instance, getting a job or living in a foreign country.

Academic influences: There is an interesting discussion from Chomsky’s ideas to Hymes’ rebuttal and Canale and Swain following complementation of the article.Also, it seems the Council of Europe had a salient influence in creating this new language syllabi. It would be useful to provide a brief political context or definition on the Council of Europe to understand what were the socio-political needs that drove the action of creating the syllabi

Classroom activities: I think Glasser’s control theory is a very interesting insight and improvement of the already existing CLT methodology. I saw the previous version in the article and compared to your actual draft, and if I were you I woulc consider putting it back and elaborate more on it. For instance you could elaborate on the repercussions that such theory had in the real-life classrooms and teaching. And if it didn’t have any success, then why was it set aside, rejected, or ignored by teachers and pedagogists?

KL: Classroom activities I would just put the references for the role-play next to the rest of the references just to give the impression that is a whole article and not various mini-articles by themselves, but surely you have figured this out.

CJ: Critique The critique against CLT is valid in the sense that not all social domains in which a speaker can use his or her language skills are generated in a classroom. Nonetheless, I am not sure of the extent at which the CLT method strictly needs to be implemented in a classroom. For instance, students can be taken to a trip to a place or country where the target language is spoken or they could spend some time with a family speaking the target language. In this case, I may argue that the same principles of CLT could apply in this context. But given the fact that CLT is definitely not the best teaching method, then what would be some alternatives to it? And what advantages and shortcomings could they present given the space-context situation in which they are applied? It is something I would take into account being in your place.Felipesteaco (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)