Open the app

Community Language Learning (CLL)

Community Language Learning (CLL)

Community Language Learning (CLL) is a language-teaching method built in the early 1970s by Charles A. Curran, a Jesuit priest and professor of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago, who took the techniques of humanistic counselling and applied them to the classroom. Its name is misleading if read literally: CLL is not “learning a language somewhere in a community” in any general sense, but a specific, tightly designed method in which the teacher acts as a counsellor, the learners act as clients, and the small group itself — the “community” — becomes the instrument of learning. Its founding premise is that adults learning a foreign language feel exposed and anxious, that this anxiety is the real obstacle, and that a teacher who relieves it — the way a counsellor relieves a client — unlocks learning more effectively than any drill or grammar table. Curran called the wider framework Counseling-Learning; Community Language Learning is its application to second and foreign languages.

Charles Curran and counseling-learning

CLL grew directly out of the humanistic psychology of the mid-20th century, and in particular out of the client-centred therapy of Carl Rogers. Rogers had argued that people change and grow best not when an expert instructs them, but when a counsellor offers empathy, warmth and unconditional acceptance, and tries — in his famous phrase — to see “the world as that person sees it.” Curran, himself trained as a counsellor, made a bold move: he treated the anxious adult language learner as a kind of client, and the teacher as a kind of counsellor. He set this out in Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person Model for Education (1972) and applied it specifically to languages in Counseling-Learning in Second Languages (1976); his student Paul La Forge later extended the theory towards the social and interactional side of the group (Counseling and Culture in Second Language Acquisition, 1983).

The key word is whole-person. For Curran, learning a language is never a purely intellectual task; it engages the whole person, feelings as much as intellect, and the feelings that dominate an adult beginner are defensiveness, embarrassment and the fear of looking foolish. A person forced to babble in a language they barely control feels, in Curran’s reading, much like a client exposing something painful — and reacts with the same instinct to protect themselves. The counsellor-teacher’s first job, therefore, is not to correct but to reassure: to create enough security that the learner is willing to be vulnerable. In place of the traditional roles of knowing teacher and ignorant pupil, CLL substitutes a relationship in which the teacher — sometimes called the “knower” — supports rather than judges, and gradually withdraws that support as the learner grows more able to stand alone.

What a CLL lesson looks like

The classic CLL procedure is unlike anything in a conventional classroom, and it is best pictured concretely. A small group of learners sits in a circle. The teacher stands outside the circle, available but deliberately not at the centre. A learner who wants to say something decides what they want to express in their own native language and quietly whispers it to the teacher. The teacher whispers back the equivalent in the target language, phrase by phrase. The learner then says that target-language sentence aloud to the group — and it is recorded. One by one, the members contribute utterances in this way, and together their recorded sentences build up a conversation that the group itself has authored: the content comes entirely from the learners, not from a textbook.

Only afterwards does analysis begin. The recording is played back; the teacher transcribes the sentences on the board; and the group reflects — on the language they produced, and equally on how the experience felt. The native language is thus used openly as a bridge at the start, when learners cannot yet say what they mean, and its role shrinks as they gain the words to express themselves directly. Everything is oriented around lowering the barrier to speaking: the learner never has to improvise unaided in the foreign language, the teacher is a resource rather than an examiner, and mistakes are handled gently.

Curran organised this progression into five developmental stages, deliberately borrowing the imagery of a child growing up:

  • Stage 1 — “birth”. The learner is completely dependent on the knower for every word, as an infant depends on a parent; security and belonging are established.
  • Stage 2 — self-assertion. Drawing on phrases already met, the learner begins to produce a little language independently and gains confidence.
  • Stage 3 — separate existence. The learner starts to understand the target language directly and can speak on their own; they may now resent unsolicited help, much as an adolescent resists a hovering parent.
  • Stage 4 — adolescence / reversal. The learner functions fairly independently despite gaps in their knowledge and can take correction on finer points without feeling threatened.
  • Stage 5 — independence. The learner refines style, register and accuracy, becomes largely autonomous, and is now able to act as a knower for those at earlier stages.

As the learner climbs these stages, the counsellor-teacher deliberately hands over more and more, until the group can sustain itself with little intervention. The whole arc runs from dependence to autonomy.

Anxiety and the affective side of learning

What makes CLL historically interesting is that it put emotion at the centre of language learning a decade before mainstream applied linguistics did. Curran summarised the psychological conditions his method aimed to satisfy with the acronym SARD: Security (learners must feel safe before anything else can happen), Attention and Aggression (involvement in the task and the healthy assertion of showing what one can do), Retention and Reflection (turning experience into lasting knowledge through conscious review), and Discrimination (learning to sort and relate the material so it can be used to communicate). Security comes first for a reason: in Curran’s model, no learning worth the name happens while the learner is on the defensive.

This is essentially the same insight that Stephen Krashen would later formalise as the affective filter hypothesis — the claim that negative emotions such as anxiety and low self-confidence act as a filter that blocks language input from being absorbed, so that a relaxed, low-anxiety learner acquires more than a stressed one from the very same lesson. Krashen’s theory arrived in the early 1980s; Curran had built an entire method around the same intuition in the 1970s, without the theoretical apparatus. CLL is, in effect, an early and thoroughgoing attempt to lower the affective filter by design — by reshaping the teacher’s role so that the classroom stops being a place where the learner is exposed and judged.

Criticism and CLL’s place among the designer methods of the 1970s

CLL was one of a cluster of ambitious, personality-driven methods that appeared in the 1970s and are often grouped together as the “designer” or “humanistic” methods: alongside CLL stood Georgi Lozanov’s Suggestopedia, Caleb Gattegno’s Silent Way, and James Asher’s Total Physical Response, with Krashen and Terrell’s Natural Approach following close behind. All shared a reaction against the mechanical drilling of the audio-lingual method and a new interest in the learner as a whole human being. None of them became the mainstream, but each left ideas behind, and communicative language teaching absorbed the best of them.

The criticisms of CLL are practical and pointed. It demands a teacher who is not only fully bilingual in the learners’ language and the target language but also skilled in counselling — a rare and demanding combination, and one that worried critics who doubted that teachers should play therapist without proper training. Because the learners generate the content, there is no conventional syllabus and no clear way to guarantee coverage or to assess progress, which unsettles both institutions and learners who want structure. The reliance on a shared native language makes it awkward in mixed-nationality classes, and the whole apparatus scales badly: it suits a small circle of motivated adults, not a class of thirty schoolchildren. The heavy emphasis on fluency and feeling can also leave grammatical accuracy underdeveloped. Richards and Rodgers, surveying the method, note too that its central analogy — that learning a language really resembles psychological counselling — is asserted more than demonstrated.

What this means for learning a language

You are unlikely ever to sit in a CLL circle, and as a complete system the method has faded. But two of its instincts have aged extremely well, and they are worth taking to heart as an individual learner. The first is that anxiety is a real obstacle, not a character flaw. If speaking a new language makes you tense, that tension is measurably getting in your way — Curran saw it and Krashen later explained it. Lowering the stakes, so that a mistake costs nothing and speaking feels safe, is not softness; it is a condition for learning at all. Practising alone, or in a small trusted setting, is one of the most effective things a nervous learner can do.

The second is that your native language is a bridge, not an enemy. CLL let learners start from what they genuinely wanted to say in their own tongue and handed them the target-language equivalent — the very opposite of the target-language-only dogma of the direct method, and close in spirit to the bilingual method, which also treats the mother tongue as a resource rather than a contaminant. Beginning from a full sentence you actually mean, with its translation beside it, is a natural and motivating way in.

What CLL never solved is retention: a sentence produced once in an emotional circle is soon forgotten unless it comes back. A modern learner can keep CLL’s two good instincts — low anxiety, native language as a bridge — and add the piece it lacked, by learning through full bilingual sentences you care about and then meeting them again through active recall and spaced repetition, so that what felt safe to say once actually stays with you.

FAQ

Who created Community Language Learning?

Charles A. Curran, a Jesuit priest and professor of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago, developed it in the early 1970s. He first set out the underlying framework — which he called Counseling-Learning — in a 1972 book and applied it specifically to languages in Counseling-Learning in Second Languages (1976). It is not a general term for learning a language “in the community”; it is Curran’s specific counselling-based method.

Why is the teacher called a counsellor?

Because CLL is built on Carl Rogers’ client-centred therapy. Curran reasoned that an adult forced to speak a language they barely know feels exposed, like a client in a counselling session, and that the teacher’s first task is to reduce that anxiety with empathy and support rather than to correct. The teacher (the “knower”) supplies language when asked and gradually steps back as the learner — the “client” — becomes independent.

Is CLL still used today?

Rarely as a complete system — it needs a fully bilingual, counselling-trained teacher and a small group, and it offers no syllabus, so it never became mainstream. But its core ideas live on: the importance of low anxiety survives in Krashen’s affective filter and in communicative teaching generally, and the use of the native language as a bridge is shared with the bilingual method. CLL is best remembered as one of the humanistic “designer methods” of the 1970s.

Sources

Related