·uew6uo7 :)fJOA MeN ·(uompe puz) Á6o6eped e6en6 .

tP1 4aeo1dde e111pe1e1ut ue :se¡dpu[Jd Áq DUfLJaee.1 · �OOZ •se¡6noa H 'uM0JS

43
42 We'are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative learning goal And our
CHAPTER 3 The Present: An fnformed ''Approach"
classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks leamers to
reach their fullest potential.
All of these theoretical interests underlie what we can best describe as CLT. It
is difficult to offer a definition of CLT. It is a unified but broadly based,
theoretically well informed set of tenets about the nature of language and of
language learning and teaching. From the earlier seminal works in CLT
(Widdowson 1978, Breen & Candlin 1980, Savignon 1983) up to more recent
teacher education textbooks (Brown 2000, Richard-Amato 1996, Lee & VanPatten
1995, Nunan 1991a), we have definitions enough to send us reeling. For the sal{e
of simplicity and directness, I offer the following six interconnected
characteristics as a description of CLT:

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING l. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical, dis­
course, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative compe­
tence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational aspects of language
Is there a currently recognized approach that is a generally accepted norm in the with the pragmatic.
field? The answer is a qualified "yes." That quali.fied "yes" can be captured in the 2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,
term communicative language teaching (CL1), and the quali.fications to that authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational
answer lle in the numerous possible ways of defining CLT and a plethora of inter­ language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that
pretations and classroom applications. enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.
-· · 3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principies underlying
In the previous chapter you were introduced to a progression of methods that
defined a century or more of language-teaching history. Beneath those methods lay communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to tal{e on more
sorne important theoretical assumptions. In the 1940s and 1950s, the profession impor­tance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in
was determined to behavioristically program a scientifically ordered set of linguistic language use.
structures into the minds of leamers through conditioning. In the 1960s we were 4. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language,
quite worried about how Chomsky's generative grammar was going to fit into our productively and Úceptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom.
language classrooms and how to inject the cogniµve code of a language into the Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for
process of absorption. The innovativeness of the 1970s brought affective factors to communication in those contexts.
the forefront of so111-e wildly experimental language-teaching methods. The late 5. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process
1970s and early 1980s saw the beginnings of what we now recognize as a commu­ through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the
nicative approach as we better and better understand the functions that must be development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.
incorporated into a classroom. The late 1980s and 1990s saw the development of 6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing
approaches that lúghlighted the fundamentally communicative properties of lan­ bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct
meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others.
guage, and classrooms were increasingly characterized by authenticity, real-world
simulation, and meaningful tasks. These six characteristics underscore sorne major departures from earlier
Today we continue our professiqnal march through history. Aside from approaches. In sorne ways those departures were a gradual product of outgrowing
grammatical and discourse elements in communication, we are examining the the numerous methods that characterized a long stretch of lústory. In other ways
nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. We are exploring those departures were radical. Structurally (grammatically) sequenced curricula
pedagogical means to generate "real-life" communication in the classroom. We are were a mainstay of language teaching for centuries. CLT suggests that grammatical
trying to get our learners to_ develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that structure núg!1t better be subsumed under various functional categories. In CLT
so consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with tools for we pay considerably less attention to the explicit presentation and discussion of
generating unrehearsed language performance "out there" when they leave the grammatical rules than we traditionally did. A great deal of use of authentic
womb of our classrooms. We are concemed with how to facilitate lifelong language is implied in CLT, as we attempt to build fluency (Chambers 1997).
language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom task.

York: Longman.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by principies: an interactive aploach to language pedagogy (2nd edition). New
 note that, even though mistakes are a natural part of language learning
an learning use, fluency should not be encouraged at the expense of Table 3.1. A co�paris?n of t�e Audiolingual Method and Communicative Language
44
clear, unambiguous communication. Teachmg (Fmocch1aro & Brumfit 1983)
such more spontaneity is present in communicative classrooms: students Audiolingual Method Communicative Language Teaching
are encouraged to deal with unrehearsed situations, i.e. with no previous
planning and preparation under the guidance, but not control and error 1 . Attends to structure and form more than Meaning is pararnount.
meaning.
correction by the teacher. 2. Demands more memorization of structure­ Dialogues, if used, center around communicative
Some of the characteristics of CLT make it difficult for a nonnative speaking based dialogues. functions and are not normally memorized.
3. Language items are not necessarily contextu­ Contextualization is a basic premise.
teacher who is not very proficient in the second language to teach alized.
effectively. Dialogues, drills, grammatical exercises, and explanation (in 4. Language learning is learning structures, Language learning is learning to communicate.
sounds, or words.
the L1) of grammatical rules are much easier for nonnative speaking
5. Mastery or "overlearning" is sought. Effective communication is sought.
teachers used to a traditional methodology. Non-native teachers, however, 6. Drilling is a central technique. Drilling may occur, but peripherally.
can (and should!) also promote communicative goals in the classroom. 7. Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought. Comprehensible pronunciation is sought.
8. Grammatical explanation is avoided. Any device that helps the learners is accepted­
Technology (such as video, television, audiotapes, the Internet, the web, varying according to their age, interest, etc.
and computer software) can aid such teachers. Moreover, in the last decade 9. Communicative activities come only after a Attempts to communicate are encouragec;l from
or so, we have seen a marked increase in English teachers' proficiency levels lorig process of rigid drills and exercises. the very beginning.
1 O. The use of the student's native language is Judicious use of native language is accepted
around the world. Teaching foreign languages for communicative purposes forbidden. where feasible.
(not just for the purpose of fulfilling a "requirement" or "passing a test") 11 . Translation is forbidden at early levels. Translation may be used where students need or
should be the goal of language teachers and this requires an advanced L2 benefit from it.
12. Reading and writing are deferred until Reading and writing can start from the first day, if
proficiency. speech is mastered. desired.
13. The target ,l_inguistic system is learned The target linguistic system is learned through
One of the most comprehensive lists of CLT features was proposed some through the overt teaching of the patterns of the process of struggling to communicate.
time ago by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983: 91-93) in a comparison of the system.
audiolingual methodology with what they called the Communicative Approach. 14. Linguistic c9mpetence is the desired goal. Communicative competence is the desired goal.
15. Varieties of language are recognized but not Linguistic variation is a central concept in mate­
Because of its practicality, their list is reprinted in Table 3.1. [You can use emphasized. rials and methods.
this table for reference or revision of what you know about the CLT, but 16. The sequence of units is determined solely Sequencing is determined by any consideration
there is no need to study and memorise it!] by principies of linguistic complexity. ?f content function or meaning that maintains
mterest.
When we hear a teacher or an institution claim they follow CLT we 17. The teacher controls the learners and pre­ Teachers help learners in any way that motivates
vents them from doing anything that con­ them to work with the language.
sometimes need to be cautious. Many teachers will embrace the CLT label flicts with the theo ry.
and claim they believe and adopt CLT principles in their classess. They 18. "Language is habit," so error must be pre­ Language is often created by the individual
will also proclaim adopting principles related to CLT such as cooperative vented at all costs. through trial and error.
19. Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a Fluency and acceptable language are the primary
learning, interactive teaching, learner-centered teaching, but when we primary goal. goals; accuracy is judged not in the abstract
examine their methodology we may realise they are actually not grounding but in context.
their teaching in those principles. However, when adopting CLT 20. Students are expected to interact with the Students are expected to interact with other
language system, embodied in machines or people, either in the flesh, through pair and
methodology teachers need to consider the following issues: controlled materials. group work, or in their writing.
21 . Toe teacher is expected to specify the lan­ The teacher cannot know exactly what language
1. Today, few teachers will recognize they do not believe in the principles of guage that students are to use. the students will use.
CLT, as almost every handbook on EFL teaching and very national curriculum is 22. lntrinsic motivation will spring from an lntrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in
based on those principles. If you think or hope your teaching is faithful to CLT interest in the structure of language. what is being communicated by the language.
you need to examine and understand the theoretical models and practical
implications of this methodology.
45
46 CI-/APTER 3 The Present: An lnformed "Approach" CHAPTER 3 The Present: An lnformed "Approach" 47

2. Promoting certain CLT features: engaging in real-life, authentic language in the • curricula that include the consultation and input of students and that do
classroom does not mean we should avoid potentially helpful controlled exercises, not presuppose objectives in advance.
grammatical pointers, and other analytical teaching techniques; or simulating. • techniq\leS that allow for student creativity and innovation.
An"indirect" or "strong" approach* to CLT (Celce-Murcia et al. 1997) only offers • techniques that enhance a studen,t's sense of competence and
the possibility of incidental learning without specific focus on forms, rules, and self­worth.
principies of language organization. A more effective application of CLT
principies is manifested in a "direct" approach that carefully sequences and Because language teaching is a domain that so often presupposes classrooms
where students have very little language proficiency with which to negotiate with
structures tasks for learners and offers optima! intervention to aid learners in
the teacher, sorne teachers shy away from the notion of giving learners the "power"
developing strategies for acquisition. associated with a learner-centered approach. Such restraint is not necessary
3. Remember that there are numerous interpretations of CLT. Because it is a because, even in beginning level classes, teachers can offer students certain choices.
catchall term, it is tempting to figure that everyone agrees on its definition. They All of these efforts help to give students a sense of "ownership" of their learning and
don't. In fact, sorne of those in the profession, with good reason, feel thereby add to their intrinsic motivation (see page 59 anr:I Chapter 5 for a discussion
uncomfortable using the term, even to the point of wishing to exorcise it of intrinsic motivation).
from our jargon. As long as you are aware of many possible versions of CLT, it 2. Cooperative and Collaborative Learning
remains a term that can continue to capture current language-teaching ·
A curriculum __�r classrooll1: that is cooperative_=ª'p.d there,fore not competi­
approaches. tive-usually involves the above learner-centered
In cooperative learning students work in pairs and groups, they share
information and help each other. Students are part of a team and must work
Closely allied to CLT are a number of concepts that have, like CLT, become labels or
together in order to achieve a common goal successfully.
bandwagon terms without the endorsement of which teachers cannot be decent
human beings and textbooks cannot sell! In fact, any recent ESL textbook catalog Research has shown an advantage for cooperative learning (as opposed to
will define the book as "learner­centered,""cooperative," "interactive;' "whole language individual learning) on such factors as "promoting intrinsic motivation, increasing
based;' "content-centered," or, of course, "communicative." One way of looking" at student self-esteem, creating altruistic and caring relationships, and lowering
these terms is that they are simply expressions for the latest trends in language anxiety and prejudices among students (Oxford 1997: 445). Cooperative learning
teaching and are therefore relatively meaningless. If we want to use them as also presents some challenges such as are dealing with individual learning styles and
legitimate attempts to label current inssues within a CLT framework, we need to personality differences, as well as the overuse of the L1 by students (Crandall
study them carefully and consider what each of these principles means:
1999).
Cooperative learning does not merely imply collaboration. To be sure, in the
l. Learner-Centered lnstruction cooperative classroom the students and teachers work together to pursue goals and
This term applies to curricula as well as to specific teclmiques. It can be con­ objectives. But cooperative learning "is more structured, more prescriptive to
trasted with teacher-centered, and has received various recent interpretations. teachers about classroom techniques, more directive to students about how to
Learner-centered instruction includes work together in groups [than collaborative learning]" (Oxford 1997: 443). In
cooperative Iearning models, a group learning activity is dependent on the socially
• techniques that focus on or account for learners' needs, styles, and goals. structured exchange of information between learners using, for example, using
• teclmiques that give sorne control to the student (group work or
Kagan’s cooperative structures (Round Robin, Think Pair Share, etc).
strategy training, for example).
In collaborative learning, the learner engages "with more capable others
* Howatt (1984), Littlewood (1981), and Nunan (1988) refer to this as the "strong" approach to (teachers, more advanced peers, etc.), who provide assistance and
CLT, noting that most practitioners would follow a "weak" version of CLT in which authenticity guidance" (Oxford 1997: 444). Collaborative learning models have been developed
is coupled with structural and functional practice and otl1er procedures of intervention. within social constructivist schools of thought and is therefore connected to the
concepts of scaffolding and ZPD.
50 CHAPTER 3 The Present: An lnformed "Approach" CHAPTER 3 The Present: An lnformed "Approach" 51

3.Task-Based Instruction • Are their elements carefully designed and not simply haphazardly or
While there is a good <leal of variation among experts on how to describe or idiosyncratically thrown together?
define task, Peter Skehan's (1998a: 95) concept of task seems to capture the essen­ • Are their objectives well specified so that you can at sorne later point
tials. He defines task as an activity in which accurately determine the success of one technique over another?
• Do they engage learners in sorne form of genuine problem-solving
• meaning is primary; activity?
• there is sorne communication problem to solve (the task therefore has a
Your approach to language teaching is obviously the keystone to all your
purpose);
teaching methodology in tlle classroom. By now, you may be able to "profess" at
• there is sorne sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
least sorne components of your own approach to language learning and teaching
(although it is often impossible or impractical to design authentic tasks
and have a beginning of an understanding of how dlat approach enlightens-or will
in the classroom, the tasks or the procesess these tasks involve should enlighten-your classroom practices. Many aspects of your approach will pre­
resemble those in tasks we perform in the real world, dictably mirror those that have been espoused here, especially since you are just
• task completion has sorne priority (i.e. completing the task is usually beginning to learn your teaching craft. That's quite acceptable. But do keep in
more important than using language accurately) .mind the importance of the dynamic nature of the theoretical stance of even the
• the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome (the outcome must .most experienced teachers. We have much to learn, collectively, in this profession.
therefore be tangible so the teacher can assess it) And we will .best instruct ourselves, and the profession at large, when we maintain
A "task is really a special form of technique. In sorne cases, task and technique a disciplined inquisitiveness about our teaching practices. After all, that's how we
may be synonymous (a problem-solving task/technique; a role-play task/technique, got to this point after a century of.questioning.
for example). But in other cases, a task may be comprised of several techniques (for
example, a problem-solving task that includes, let's say, grammatical explanation,
teacher-initiated questions, and a specific turn-taking procedure). Tasks are usually
"bigger" in their ultimate ends than techniques.
Task-based instruction is not a new method. Rather, it puts task at the center
of one's methodological focus. lt views the learning process as a set of commu­
nicative tasks that are directly linked to the curricular goals they serve, the purposes
of which extend beyond the practice of language for its own sake. Research on
task-based learning (see Skehan 1998a, 1998b; Skehan & Foster 1997, 1999;
Williams & Burden 1997; Wtllis 1996, among others) has attempted to identify
types of tasks that enhance learning (such as open-ended, structured, teacher­
fronted, small group, and pair work), to define task-specific learner factors (for
example, roles, proficiency levels, and styles), and to examine teacher roles and
other variables that contribute to successful achievement of objectives.
Task-based instruction is a perspective within a CLT framework that forces you
to carefully consider all the techniques tllat you use in the classroom in terms of a
number of important pedagogical purposes:

• Do they ultimately point learners beyond the forms of language alone to

real-world contexts?
• Do they specifically contribute to communicative goals?