Translating Theory into Practice: How to Address the Inherent Challenges

(An Analysis of the Implementation of the Communicative Approach in

Second Language Acquisition or SLA)

Etienne Kouakou

Much has been written about the importance of theory to sound and productive practice, as well as the transition from theory to practice (Alias &al, 2014; Gonczi, 2013; McMaster &al, 2015; Tasca &al, 2014; Tinto &al, 2013). The studies referenced in this essay confirm the difficulties inherent in translating research or theory into practice. Indeed, many practitioners who claim their practices are grounded in a certain theory may fail to apply the theory faithfully either because of a distorted understanding of it or because they consider the theory lacking in some way. In any event, what becomes clear with the studies referenced in this paper is that theories are rarely directly translated into practice without addition or modification. Hence, it seems essential to provide proper training to ensure that professionals who profess their espousal of a given theory understand it thoroughly. Beyond this awareness, what the researcher and practitioner communities need are forums of collaboration where both parties feel included so research can inform practice even as practitioners share their experiences to inform any necessary modifications to the theories they are using.

Part 1

From Theory to Practice: Related Issues

Before addressing the necessity for a tighter collaboration between researchers and practitioners, one needs to understand how theory can inform practice and review and find ways to minimize, or eliminate some of the difficulties inherent in translating theory into practice. In general, both practitioners and researchers view theory as a concept or set of concepts that inform a framework in which productive practice is grounded. In other words, theory provides the necessary foundation for the implementation of a framework or guidelines to accomplish a task. Such a framework is bound to vary according the field, but the commonality remains that the theory provides an understanding of the mechanisms and mental processes involved in accomplishing the given task. Informed by this understanding, it behooves the practitioner to activate the appropriate mental processes by implementing the framework developed with the theory in mind.

Both Alias, &al (2014) and Gonczi, &al (2013) agree that theory does provide a framework for practice. Although the two studies were conducted in two different fields, respectively engineering and medicine, the two researchers concluded that one theory alone was not always enough in developing a sound instructional frame- work. In other words, they found, practitioners rarely apply any theory as originally presented. Gonczi, &al (2013) argue that in general, the actions professionals take to implement theories are tentative and situated. Gonczi and his colleagues claim that practitioners develop a so-called toolbox to implement a given theory according to the circumstances. When practitioners encounter a challenge, the mind goes back to their toolbox. Gonczi &al (2013) further argue that making decisions in the real world is not based on a series of proposed theories and that there are obstacles to the direct implementation of theory. For example, problems may not be defined accurately; information may be incomplete, and time may be scarce. Hence, most real-life decisions tend to be intuitive and influenced by the decision maker’s back- ground and experiences. Learners are involved in an emotional-cognitive endeavor for which they may not necessarily be prepared. Hence, pre-service or in-service professional development is necessary. Like Alias, &al (2014) article, Gonczi and colleagues make an important point about the influence of emotional considerations even while making spontaneous decisions.

The challenges practitioners face in translating theory into practice may be further compounded by practical issues such as location, limited scope of the theory or even the practitioners’ own interpretations or misunderstanding of the practical implications of the theory. For example, some of the specific challenges encountered while attempting to translate cognitive theory precepts to classroom practice were intervention design (text selection, question development, etc.), methodological limitations (size, measure and participant selection knowing that students struggle with reading for a variety of reasons, which warrant pre-screening) and school-based implementation problems such as time constraints and evolving student populations. Tasca &al (2014) see three main barriers to the implementation of theory by clinicians: the perceived inadequacy between theory and practice because of the diversity of cases, lack of communication between researchers and clinicians, and the wide array and diverse backgrounds of clinicians who range from psychologists to psychiatrists and counselors with accreditations based on a wide range of criteria. Tinto, &al (2013), see some of the major challenges as limited resources and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Specifically, there are issues for remote areas that are not easily accessible and possess little to no structural facilities.

Clearly, the above studies acknowledge the importance of theory to practice even as they recognize that turning theory to practice is not always readily feasible for a variety of reasons ranging from infrastructure to lack of understanding and perception (founded or unfounded) that the theory is deficient.

In closing, it is safe to suggest that some of the challenges to the implementation of theory are inherently political. Issues of infrastructure, as mentioned in the Tinto, &al (2013) study, depend in great part on the level of development of the country where the seminars reported on in the paper took place. However, the other challenges, those stemming from erroneous interpretations of theories, can be remediated. Gonczi &al (2013) suggest an overhaul of the relationship between theory and practice. Their study proposes a sort of triangulation that would start with practice as a way to inform theory. This way of recasting theory and practice pre- supposes an intimate collaboration between researchers and practitioners to which Tasca &al (2014) adhere. Indeed, for Tasca and his colleagues, one way to bridge the divide between theory and practice is to establish networks where researchers and clinicians collaborate on studies that are relevant for both sides. Such collaborations are likely to create a sense of ownership of the theories stemming from the studies involved. In essence, the lack of communication and attitude issues on both sides could be placated. In the same vein, McMaster &al (2015) suggest that translating theory into practice follow specific steps, the first of which would be to test the theory in an actual situation (classroom, hospital, other workplace) to assess its appropriateness and feasibility when implemented in an actual situation.

Partial Conclusion

All the studies above acknowledge theory as the foundation of a framework for practical application. However, the articles also discuss a number of challenges to the direct translation of theory into practice. To address these challenges, the articles suggest a closer collaboration between researchers who invent the theories and practitioners who use them. The collaboration could signal an overhaul of the theory-to-practice paradigm for more direct interactions between the communities of researchers and practitioners, where practice informs theory and vice-versa.

Part 2

An Analysis of the Implementation of the Communicative Approach

As stated earlier, many practitioners who profess espousal of a certain theory may not apply it faithfully for various reasons. This part of the paper analyzes whether the various frameworks developed to implement the Communicative Approach (CA) are premised on an accurate understanding of the theory and its scope, whether such applications add to or detract from the theory, and whether or not the reasoning connecting application to theory is sound.

El-Dakhs (2015) conducted a study on the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). At issue in the study was the notion that Communicative Language Teaching, the instructional framework of the Communicative Approach, proscribes the formal teaching of language based on the notion that languages are acquired through exposure only. The paper looked at recent trends that have developed with the aim of providing a form of CLT that incorporates some focus on explicit teaching of form. For the novice, it is important to know that one of the most salient features of the CLT is its focus on establishing the conditions that mimic or attempt to replicate situations that promote real-life communication. Given the goals of establishing sustained real-life communication, the CLT acknowledges and tolerates errors as part of the learning process. The staunchest proponents of the framework even claim that teaching grammar explicitly is detrimental to language acquisition or learning.

Ellis (1990) introduced Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) in response to the numerous complaints about the limitations of the originally conceived CLT. Many studies found that L2 learners, who were exposed to the CLT, were certainly fluent but had no grammatical accuracy. FFI called for language instruction that would in- corporate what was dubbed “noticing,” which boils down to highlighting potential errors for the learner to notice (also known as proactive noticing) or provide the opportunity for learners to interact and highlight the errors from the interaction at a later time (known as reactive). The FFI approach is comprised of four stages: input, processing, production and feedback. Each stage is replete with teaching techniques that target specific language functions within the CLT approach. Through the techniques, the L2 learning process includes focus on both form and communication because learners are exposed to meaningful language input and use the metalanguage to explain language forms even as they interact with fellow L2 learners. In this sense, the FFI goes beyond the original concept of the CLT. Indeed, it provides opportunities for students to absorb the language. Beyond mere exposure, which is known to facilitate the development of fluency, the FFI helps learners notice relevant language forms, thereby doubling their acquisition speed and promoting accuracy at the same time.

Farooq (2015) conducted a study with teacher participants to gauge their understanding of the CLT and assess the accuracy of their implementation. The study concluded that although many teachers understood and embraced the Communicative Approach, many still felt the necessity to use other approaches as needed. In that sense, the application of the Communicative Approach was tinted with other theoretical considerations. Hence, one can rightly suggest that the method in use in Saudi schools, where Farooq’s study took place, is a hybrid of the original Communicative Approach, which prohibits error correction and direct instruction, among other things, and gives precedence to establishing the conditions for genuine, real-life communication. Furthermore, the majority of the respondents in the Farooq (2015) study agreed with a survey statement that the Communicative Approach focuses more on listening and speaking skills to the detriment of reading and writing skills. In such responses, Farooq detects a potential misconception of the Communicative Approach. However, he does acknowledge that initially, the CLT placed more emphasis on oral communication and that this instructional framework added reading and writing components later.

Another finding of Farooq’s (2015) study was that although the focus of the CLT is on establishing genuine communication situations, some students, if not the majority of them, in some countries might also want their teachers to play the traditional role of “repository of knowledge,” which implies direct instruction. Hence, although a teacher might espouse the precepts of the CLT, students’ preferences, dictated by their native cultures, might force the instructor to veer from the prescriptions of the Communicative Approach as framed in the CLT, thereby leading to a hybridized form of the theory.

Finally, as part of his data collection process, Farooq (2015) observed that teachers sometimes reverted to their native Arabic to explain challenging concepts, which contradicts the precepts of the Communicative Approach. This situation raises the issue of whether or not the teacher ought to be a native speaker of the target language. In fact, had the teachers not been a native speaker of Arabic, they certainly would have created the adequate circumstances to have their students learn the targeted concepts through input instead of opting for translation, which was clearly an easy way out of the challenges involved with creating real-life circumstances.

To reflect on the same issue of the faithful application of theory, Lenchuk (2014) conducted a study with the purpose of examining the extent to which the precepts of the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), another framework grounded in the Communicative Approach, are prevalent in LINC, a Canadian

home study program for new immigrants who are unable to attend regular classes. Specifically, the study aimed to analyze whether the inclusion of a language focus in the online program violated the precepts of the CLBs, which is grounded in the Communicative Approach, where explicit language instruction is considered counterproductive. For Lenchuk (2015), the introduction of language structure is in violation of the principles underlying the Canadian Language Benchmarks or CLB. Because of his findings, Lenchuk called for further research in the area.

Another finding of the study was that for a theory founded on the desire to establish communication in the most natural possible way and predicated on Stephen Krashen’s notion of comprehensible input, the amount of exposure to the target language structure was minimal and not amenable to absorbing the target language structure. The conclusion of the study highlights the discrepancy between a task included in a module of the LHS and the precepts of the CLBs, which is grounded in communicative task-based instruction.

Prior to the El-Dakhs (2015), Farooq (2015) and Lenchuk (2014), other scholars (Shawer, 2010; Wong, 2013) had studied the challenges of transferring theory to practice. Shawer’s (2010) study focused on why the CLT, the instructional framework of the CA, failed in some circumstances. To answer this question, Shawer (2010) conducted a study of two teachers’ practices, dubbed communicative and non-communicative, through a qualitative case study.

As used by Shawer (2010), the term non-communicative, refers to approaches designed by teachers who do not understand the implications of the CLT frame- work or simply cannot negotiate the translation of the theory into practice. Such teachers may design hybrid methods premised on incoherent versions of CLT based on their limited understanding of the theory.

Shawer (2010) noted some areas of deficiency in the effectiveness of the Communicative Approach, among them two areas of the utmost importance to academic success: reading and writing. In some countries, Shawer noted that even improvement of speaking and listening skills fell short of the expectations of the Communicative Approach. This is a clear indication that the CA alone cannot resolve all SLA problems simply because many factors must be taken into consideration in a SLA situation. In this particular case, the curriculum was well designed. However, those who were expected to implement it were not well trained to do so, which led to the hybrid forms referred to earlier.

Shawer’s (2010) study found that failure of the CA/CLT was imputable to teachers. In the study, both teachers, Andrew and Joseph, were well versed in CLT theory. Yet, only Andrew tactfully translated his theoretical knowledge into actual classroom practice, thereby fostering improvement in all areas of language acquisition for his students. Conversely, despite Joseph’s extensive knowledge of the principles of the CLT, he failed to implement the approach in his classroom, prefer- ring instead to use teaching approaches that were in contradiction to the precepts of the CA. Consequently, his students failed to make expected progress. Some of them even decided to leave his class midway through the semester. The bottom line, according Shawer’s article, is that CLT works as long as it is correctly implemented.

Hence, it is important to ensure that both in-service teachers and teacher candidates be monitored so they can receive more support in implementing the CLT when necessary.

In the other study, Wong, C. (2012) aimed to study the correlation between a group of college ESL instructors’ perceptions and actual implementation of the

CLT. Some educators did not advocate CLT because of their limited understanding of the instructional framework of the Communicative Approach. Here again, as in the Shawer (2010) study and some of the others reviewed above, the study mentions a misconception, among users of the CLT, that the framework focuses essentially on developing speaking skills. Although these teachers may be right based on the initial forays into the implementation of the theory, it is essential to know that the approach later broadened its focus to include other essential areas of language acquisition, notably writing and reading.

What becomes clear at this point is that although definitions and descriptions of the CLT abound in the SLA literature, there is still a need for a precise definition, which, according to Wong (2012), makes it difficult for teacher education programs to incorporate relevant training into their curriculums. It is interesting to note that focusing on the CLT alone was not enough for some teachers, so they supplemented its precepts with elements of their own teaching experiences. What is not clear here is whether the inclusion of other approaches and techniques was due to lack of understanding of what the CLT entails or whether the teachers in questions found the CLT lacking in some ways.

Wong (2012) references many studies that suggest the existence of a discrepancy between teachers’ perceived notions of the CLT and their classroom practices, which oftentimes included elements of traditional teaching. In some cases, teachers squarely refused to attempt to implement the CLT, arguing they were not sufficiently knowledgeable in the approach to use it.

Such responses speak to the importance of catering to a variety of learning styles and preferences. Granted, all students in a class do not necessarily want to learn in groups. Some students may learn best individually or in pairs but not in bigger groups. To the extent that the CLT can cater to all learning styles, teachers should be expected to use it exclusively. Otherwise, it makes little sense to expect teachers to use a framework only premised on the one theory however effective it may be.

Wong (2012) suggests, although not very directly, that some of the teachers in her study may have been influenced by scholars’ various interpretations of the CLT. Hence, based on what each of the teachers in her study had read on the method, they constructed their own understanding, which in turn guided their implementation of the framework. The study found that the participating teachers’ implementation of the CLT closely matched their perceptions of the theory that engendered the CLT, that is, the Communicative Approach. However, their perceptions did not necessarily coincide with the original meaning of the Communicative Approach.

Again, as suggested elsewhere, the participants’ understanding and conceptions (misconceptions) of the CLT resulted from their personal professional readings.

Since SLA scholars interpret the CLT with some notable variations, the misconceptions discussed in the study should not come as a surprise. Rather, they reflect a certain understanding based on each teacher’s background as it was shaped by their choice of readings in the professional literature. Ultimately, when it comes to classroom instruction, the final decision is the teacher’s prerogative. Teachers make decisions based on their backgrounds and beliefs. However, Wong (2012) references a number of studies that suggest that teachers may espouse other approaches if they are given the latitude to experiment with them and determine their efficacy. Consequently, if the intention is to have teachers whose mainstay is the CLT, it would be appropriate to provide workshops where such teachers can experience and observe approaches that have proven effective. In this particular case, teachers would need to attend workshops where the CLT is modeled as it was originally intended to be implemented.

Conclusion

The studies referenced in this essay acknowledge the role of theory as the foundation of sound practice. Theory provides the cognitive and metacognitive knowledge necessary to design effective instruction. In the field of Second Language Acquisition, knowing the workings of the brain in a language learning situation has led to the invention of theories that aim to bring to practitioners the mechanisms involved in the Second Language Acquisition process. Currently, and this has been the case for the last two or three decades, language programs have adopted the so-called Communicative Approach, with the CLT as its instructional framework. However, the implementation of this framework varies according to the setting for lack of understanding of the tenets of the theory that engendered the framework, because teachers or instructors may feel that the framework is deficient in some way, or simply for cultural reasons.

Despite the inherent challenges of transferring theory to practice, researchers and practitioners can remedy the situation as long as they agree that mutual communication and collaboration are essential. As the studies above suggest, the time is ripe for an overhaul of the theory-to-practice paradigm. If theories are to be implemented effectively, theorists and practitioners will have to work closely using their mutual experiences to design language -teaching frameworks premised on existing theories but also aware of the necessity to modify and improve aspects of any theory that proves ineffective. Close collaboration may be in the form of professional development for pre-service and/or in-service teachers, or mutually planned studies. Better yet, the time might be ripe for the kind of researcher/practitioner epitomized by holders of an Ed.D. or other professional doctorates.

References

Alias, M., Lashari, T. A., Akasah, Z. A., & Kesot, M. J. (2014). Translating theory into practice: integrating the affective and cognitive learning dimensions for effective instruction in engineering education. European Journal Of Engineering Education, 39(2), 212-232. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.838543

El-Dakhs, D. S. (2015). The Integration of Form-focused Instruction within Communicative Language Teaching: Instructional options. Journal of Language Teach- ing & Research, 6(5), 1125-1131. doi:10.17507/jltr.0605.27

Ellis, R. (1990). Grammaticality judgments and learner variability. In H. Bermersiter and P. Rounds (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition (pp. 25- 60). Oregon: Oregon University Press.

Farooq, M. U. (2015). Creating a Communicative Language Teaching Environment for Improving Students’ Communicative Competence at EFL/EAP University Level. International Education Studies, 8(4), 179-191.

Gonczi, A. (2013). Competency-Based Approaches: Linking theory and practice in professional education with particular reference to health education. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 45(12), 1290-1306. doi:10.1080/00131857.2013.763590

Lenchuk, I. (2014). Incorporating Language Structure in a Communicative Task: An Analysis of the Language Component of a Communicative Task in the LINC Home Study Program. TESL Canada Journal, 31144-156.

McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., Pinto, V., Janda, B., Lam, E., &

... van Boekel, M. (2015). Developing a reading comprehension intervention: Trans- lating cognitive theory to educational practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40(Examining Innovations-Navigating the Dynamic Complexities of School-Based Intervention Research), 28-40. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.001

Shawer, S. (2010). Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change. Curriculum Journal, 21(3), 333-359. doi:10.1080/09585176.2010. 506802

Tasca, G., Grenon, R., Fortin-Langelier, B., & Chyurlia, L. (2014). Addressing Challenges and Barriers to Translating Psychotherapy Research into Clinical Practice: The Development of a Psychotherapy Practice Research Network in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 55(3), 197-203.

Tinto, H., Noor, R. A., Wanga, C. L., Valea, I., Mbaye, M. N., D’Alessandro, U., & Ravinetto, R. M. (2013). Good clinical practice in resource-limited settings: trans- lating theory into practice. The American Journal Of Tropical Medicine And Hygiene, 88(4), 608-613. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.12-0330

Wong, C. (2012). A Case Study of College Level Second Language Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementations of Communicative Language Teaching. Professional Educator, 36(2), 18-34.