While Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is recognised as an effective approach worldwide, its implementation in foreign language (FL) classrooms remains difficult. Earlier studies have identified factors impeding CLT implementation, such as a lack of communicative lesson materials or teachers' more traditional views on language learning. In the Netherlands, CLT goals have been formulated at the national level, but are not always reflected in daily FL teaching and assessment practice. As constructive alignment between learning goals, classroom activities and assessments is a precondition for effective teaching, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of the degree of alignment in Dutch FL curricula and the factors influencing it. The current study therefore aims to take a systematic inventory of classroom practices regarding the translation of national CLT goals into learning activities and assessments. Findings revealed that teaching activities and classroom assessments predominantly focused on grammar knowledge and vocabulary out of context and, to a lesser extent, on reading skills. External factors, such as teaching and testing materials available, and conceptual factors, such as teachers' conceptions of language learning, were identified to contribute to the observed lack of alignment. Assessments in particular seem to exert a negative washback effect on CLT implementation.
This paper describes teacher educators’ understanding of language for classroom communication in higher education. We argue that teacher educators who are aware of their personal practical knowledge of language have a better understanding of their students’ language use and provide better support for knowledge construction. Personal practical knowledge originates from teachers’ professional practice and is based on their past experience, current awareness and future expectation. Data from focus group interviews with teacher educators (N = 35) were used for content analysis. Findings demonstrate an emerging conceptualization resulting in two language modalities of personal practical knowledge, speci ed as: ‘language-sensitive and interpersonally oriented’ and ‘language-focused and pedagogically oriented.’The insights contribute to building a professional practical knowledge base of language and communication-oriented teaching.
This exploration with ChatGPT underscores two vital lessons for human rights law education. First, the importance of reflective and critical prompting techniques that challenge it to critique its responses. Second, the potential of customizing AI tools like ChatGPT, incorporating diverse scholarly perspectives to foster a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of human rights. It also shows the promise of using collaborative approaches to build tools that help create pluriversal approaches to the study of human rights law.
MULTIFILE
