AMY S. LEE the THEORETICAL CHARACTERISTICS of COMMUNICATI VE language teachi ng WI TH RELEVANCE to LITERATURE. A universally accepted formul ati on describes that methodol ogy is that which links theory and practice in teaching a language. Approaches represent language teachi ng philosophi es that can be interpreted and applied in a variet y of different ways in
AMY S. LEE the THEORETICAL CHARACTERISTICS of COMMUNICATI VE language teachi ng WI TH RELEVANCE to LITERATURE. A universally accepted formul ati on describes that methodol ogy is that which links theory and practice in teaching a language. Approaches represent language teachi ng philosophi es that can be interpreted and applied in a variet y of different ways in
AMY S. LEE the THEORETICAL CHARACTERISTICS of COMMUNICATI VE language teachi ng WI TH RELEVANCE to LITERATURE. A universally accepted formul ati on describes that methodol ogy is that which links theory and practice in teaching a language. Approaches represent language teachi ng philosophi es that can be interpreted and applied in a variet y of different ways in
RELEVEANCE TO LITERATURE AND THE MERITS AND CONSTRAI NTS OF THE COMMUNICATI VE APPROACH I N RELATION TO CLASSROOM PRACTICE. AMY S. LEE The Theoretical Charact eristics of Co!"icati #e La"$!a$e Teachi "$ %CLT& La"$!a$e Teachi"$ Metho'olo$( a"' A))roach There are many ways of defini ng methodology in language teachi ng. A universall y accepted formul ati on describes that methodol ogy is that which links theory and practice in teaching a language. Theory states what language is and how language is learned. Such theori es are linked to various design features of language instructi on. These features might include stated obecti ves! syllabus specificati ons! types of acti vi ti es! roles of teachers! learners! materi als! and so forth. "esign features in turn are linked to actual teaching and learni ng practices as observed in envi ronments where language teaching and learning take place! namel y the classroom. This whole comple# of elements formul ates language teachi ng methodol ogy. $T.S. %ogers& '(()* +ithin methodol ogy there is a distincti on made between methods and approaches. Methods are held to be teachi ng systems with prescribed techni,ues and practices! whereas approaches represent language teachi ng philosophi es that can be interpreted and applied in a variet y of different ways in the classroom. The Li"$!istic *ar$o" Maor influences on how a language is taught and learnt have often come from work in linguistics. Language teachers have long looked for guidance from linguists on how to teach languages and linguistics theories are often reflected in practices of the language teaching classroom. Many theories have been evol ved in the history of the learning and teachi ng of a foreign language. These theories! usuall y influenced by developments in the fields of linguistics and psychology! have inspired many approaches to the teaching of foreign languages. The study of these theori es and how they influence language teachi ng methodol ogy is called applied linguistics. -ommunicati ve Language Teaching began in .ritain in the )/0(s as a replacement to the earlier structural method! Situati onal Language Teaching. This came partl y in response to -homsky1s criticism of 1 structural theories of language and partl y based on the theori es of functi onal linguistics 2irth and 3alliday! American sociolinguists 3ymes! 4umpers and Labov and the wri ti ngs of Austin and Searle on speech acts. -homsky challenged previous assumpti ons about language structure and language learning methodologies of the 4rammar Translati on Method $the language is graphed* and the Audiolingual Approach $habi t formati on as a mode of learni ng*. 3e took the position that language is creati ve and ruled governed. 3e believed that there was a set of rules and instructi ons governi ng the language system! which if followed rigidl y would produce an infini te number of grammati call y correct sentences. This transformati onal 4enerati ve 4rammar! began as a study of syntacti c structures in linguistics! graduall y became an elaborate scheme tryi ng to embrace the whole of linguistic anal ysis. 3owever! most of these analyses were done wi thout reference to meani ng. Sentences which were generated from these 5tree6 structure1 paradigms could easily be senseless. 2or e#ampl e& S 78 98 78 The girl smokes a chair -homsky1s linguistic theory stressed that language had two components& competence and performance. -ompetence refers to knowledge of the rules of grammar and the language structure while performance refers to how the rules are used in an actual sentence. -homsky focused his linguistic theory on the knowledge and abili ty to produce grammati cal l y correct sentences. :n the other hand! 3ymes held a view that -homsky1 s view is sterile. Linguistic theory needed to be incorporated into a broader view of communi cati on and culture. The notion is intended to replace 7oam -homsky; s dichotomy of competence and performance. Speakers draw on thei r competence in putti ng together grammati cal sentences! but not all such sentences can be used in the same circumstances& -lose the window and +ould you mind closing the window! please< are both grammati cal! but they differ in thei r appropriateness for use in particular situati ons. Speakers use their communi cati ve competence to choose what to say! as well as how and when to say it. 3e made the point that $)/=/& 8>*& 2 5There are rules of use! wi thout which the rules of grammar would be useless1. 3ymes argues that linguists of the transformati onal school have been so concerned wi th the 5possible1 structure alone that littl e was learnt about how language is used as a mean of communi cati on. 3e pointed out $)/=/& 8.)>*& 5+e have then to account for the fact that a normal child ac,uires knowledge of a sentence! not only as grammati cal! but also appropriate. 3e or she ac,uires competence as to when to speak! when not! and as to what to talk about! wi th whom! when! where! in what manner.1 3ymes further stated that there were four aspects of this communi cati ve competence $)/=/& 8.)/*& 5whether somethi ng is formal l y possible? whether somethi ng is feasible? whether somethi ng is appropriate? whether somethi ng is in fact done.1 These features form integral part of the interacti on in language. 3ymes1s view had been e#tremel y influenti al in steering development in secondary language theory and practice. 3e e#empl i fi ed a move away from the study of language purel y as an analyti cal system towards the study of language as social communi cati on and appropri ateness. This shift has provi ded the theoreti cal plan round to communi cati ve language teaching. F!"ctio"s of La"$!a$e Another linguistic theory of communicati on supporti ng -LT is 3alliday1s functi onal account of language use. 3e described seven basic functi ons for children learni ng thei r first language. %ichards @ %ogers classified them as $)/A0& 8=(6=)*& 5the instrumental function& using language to get things? the regulatory function& using language to control the behavi our of others? the interacti onal function& using language to create interacti on with others? the personal function& using language to e#press personal feelings and meanings? the heuristic functi on& using language to learn and discover? 3 the imaginati ve function& using language to create a world of the imagi nati on? the representati onal function& using language to communi cate the informati on1 3alliday1 s language functions were adopted by the proponents of -LT as denoti ng the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functi ons. 3is dogmas have had a strong influence on the development of functi onal syllabuses. Another impelling force for a different language pedagogy came from the changi ng of educati on reali ti es in Europe. The social and political pressures on language teaching promoted a more semantic! more social and more communicati ve approach. +ilkins $)/=0* outlined a ta#onomy of concepts for this kind of syllabus. 3is semantic classification was based on three categori es& semanti co6 grammati cal! modal! meani ng and communi cati ve functions. The -ouncil of Europe incorporated his semanti c communi cati ve analysis into a 5threshol d level1 communi cati ve language syllabus. Bt specified situati ons! learners1 roles! setti ngs! functi ons and notions $van Ek& )/=>*. These specificati ons have had a strong influence on the design of communi cati ve language programmes and the ideas were taken up in a number of te#t books. Co!"icati #e Val!e of La"$!a$e :ther linguists have addressed the communi cati ve and social potenti als of language. +iddowson $)/=A* defined a set of contrasti ng concepts which distinguish between language as a formal system and language use as communi cati ve values in discourse. 3e argued that language teachi ng should move away from an emphasis on the 5usage1 of sentences in isolation to a concern for the 5use1 of sentence in conte#t. "iscourse analysis should e#ami ne the use of sentences and makes a distincti on between 5cohesion1 and 5coherence1. The former invol ves the employment of linguistic features in establishing the links in a piece of discourse! while the latter is concerned wi th the links which are established through the meani ng and the content of the message. 3is theory forms the basic concept of -LT which characterises the teachi ng of language in conte#tual situati ons and meani ngful interacti on. 4 I"teracti #e Nat!re of Co!"icati #e Co)et e"ce -anale and Swain $)/A(* adopted the term communi cati ve competence to refer to the relationshi p and interacti on between grammati cal and sociolinguistic competence. -anale and Swain advocated $)/A(& 8.0*& 5Bf a communi cati ve approach to second language teachi ng is adopted! then principles of syllabus design must integrate of both grammati cal and sociolinguisti c competence.1 They identi fi ed four components of communi cati ve competence& grammati cal! sociolinguisti c! discourse and strategic and they regarded them as $)/A(& 8.'(*& 5a synthesis of knowledge of basic grammati cal principles! knowledge of how a language is used in social conte#t to perform communi cati ve functions and knowledge of how utterance and communi cati ve functi ons can be combined accordi ng to discourse.1 They also viewed such theories as& 5an integrati ve in that they focus on speaking! listening! wri ti ng and reading rather than on a subset of these skill areas.1 -anale and Swain took the theory a big step closer to the classroom and the teaching of language as a social tool. The Characteristics of CLT The fundamental principle of -LT is to enable learners to understand and use the target language for communicati on. Two basic assumpti ons underl yi ng this approach to language learni ng are that the core of language learni ng is the development of communi cati ve competence and that the starti ng point for language learni ng is not grammati cal rules but conte#t! function! meaning and the appropriate use of the language. %ichards and %ogers identi fy the disti nct characteristi cs of communi cati ve language teaching as $)/A0& 8.=)*& 5Language is a system for the e#pression of meani ng. The pri mary functi on of language is for interacti on and communi cati on functi on of language. The structure of language reflects its functi onal and communi cati ve uses. The pri mary units of language are not merel y its grammati cal and structural features! but categori es of 5 functi onal and communi cati ve meani ng as e#empl i fi ed in discourse.1 This approach calls for radicall y different ideas of language teachi ng. :ne maor shift is that language learning has become student6 centred. Lessons are planned in such a way that all the students can engage in interacti ve acti vi ti es. Authenti c and meaningful communicati on should be goal of classroom act ivies. 4roup work and pair work are employed to promote communi cati on and getti ng the meani ng across. Authenti c materi als! such as newspaper articles! radio programmes! video6 tapes! train6 ti metabl es etc.! are used to bring the real world elements into the classroom. Situations are simulated but interacti on and task complete withi n real6 ti me are genui ne. %ole6plays centre on communi cati ve functi ons. 2luency is an important dimension of communicati on. The obecti ve of language learni ng is to communi cate? attempts to communicate are encouraged at the very beginni ng. Errors are unavoi dable but accuracy is udged in conte#t rather in structures and forms. Errors which are concerned wi th structures are not corrected openl y and simul taneousl y because the main concern is fluency and getti ng meani ng through communi cati on. Learning is a process of creati ve constructi on and invol ves errors. The Meri ts a"' Co"st r ai "ts of t he Co!"icati #e A))roach i" Rel atio" t o Classroo Practice Wa(s of Cha"$es Cnder the influence of -LT! language teachi ng has become more sophisticated. The obecti ves have a broader dimension. Syllabus design takes into the considerati on of not only the linguistic and literary aspects of language but also the human and social areas. Language teachers have to be able to provi de students with a better and more complete picture of what foreign language learni ng is about. Refi"ee"t of the +Fo!r S,ills- The tradi ti onal emphasis on 5wri ti ng1 was a concern wi th wri tten form with little attenti on to discourse structure. 5Listeni ng1 was concerned wi th mini mal pairs or comprehension of isolated sentences. Students practised thei r speaking skills by imi tati ng stress patterns! intonati ons and pronunciati on of discrete utterances. -LT has brought about a new classification of the 5four skills1. Bt relates them more closely to function! purpose and conte#t. Syllabus design revol ved round the completi on of the four skills of wri ti ng! reading! listening and speaking. 6 2or e#ampl e! we may read about a flower show in the newspaper $reading*. Then we telephone to find out the details $listeni ng and speaking*! fill in the booking form for the admission tickets and find our way on the map $readi ng and wri ti ng*. After that we talk about it with our friends! suggest them to go $listeni ng and speaking*. May be we wri te a letter to invi te someone to go together $wri ti ng*. Activi ti es like these re,ui re an integrati on of the four skills. 7o single skill can reall y develop independentl y from the others. Refi"ee"t of Metho'olo$( Bn methodol ogy! the change has been dramati c. The boring and mechanical types of structural drills have virtuall y been replaced by a variet y of engaging acti vi ti es. Language learning may be seen as a process which grows out of the interacti on between learners! teachers! te#ts and acti vi ti es. The communicati ve classroom serves as an 5arena1 of interacti ons of language tasks. Teachers are organisers of all these acti vi ti es and as a resul t greater demands of work have made on them $.reen @ -andlin& )/A(*. Dea"'s Ma'e o" the Teacher .reen @ -andlin $)/A(* described -LT teacher as a facili tator? an interdependent partici pant and a researcher and learner Medgyes wrote $)/A0& 8.)(=*& 5The communi cati ve classroom re,ui res a teacher of e#traordi nary abili ti es& a mul ti6 dimensional! high6 tech! +iDard6 of :D like superperson 6 yet of flesh and blood.1 Bn a -LT classroom! teachers keep a low profile in thei r functions! rela# thei r control of the class! resort to gentl e correction! organise activi ti es and stand aside! prompt wi th discreti on and offer help onl y when re,uested. 3owever! this withdrawal should not mean relin,uishi ng control over the class! and it re,ui res the teacher an e#tremel y high degree of professional sophisticati on. They need very much more energy and adaptabil i t y $7unan& )/A=*. +ho likes changes< The teacher was onl y provi der of knowledge! the model for correct forms! and the control ler of the class. The te#tbooks contai ned sets of lessons to be learnt! and all classroom interacti on was teacher and te#tbook dominated. Lessons tended to look similar to each other. 7everthel ess! this goal has been set E to develop the learner1s communi cati ve competence. Learners want to be able to use the foreign language for personal need fulfil ment. Teachers must change not only in 7 the e#tra skills re,ui red! but in the teacher1s whole atti tude to language! language learning and the role of the teacher. There are still some who are slow to adapt to these changes! and some who are even resistant to do it. To overcome this phenomenon teachers need to come to terms wi th this change by tryi ng analyse themsel ves with these ,uestions. 5+ho likes changes< +ho like to change< +hen do people accept change< +hen do people feel at ease wi th change<1 The answers to these ,uestions might help them to understand that acceptance of change is an indivi dual achievement. $8arcurari & )//>* Co"strai "t of the Te.t/oo,s 2or a long ti me the te#tbook was the 5bible1 and the teaching manual which gave in minute details of what to teach. 3owever! wi th the advent of -LT! te#tbooks have become too restricti ve. Teachers need to select and design tasks to practices interacti ve abili ty which simulates real6 life language. Merel y followi ng a te#tbook is unlikel y to simulate small6 group interacti on. Specific tasks of the kind are rarel y found in te#tbooks. They need to be redesigned for this purpose. A te#tbook is ust a simple tool in the hands of teachers. +hat is more important than a te#tbook is what we! as teachers! can do wi th it. As .rown and Yule! $)/AF* put it& 5it is! in principle! not possible to find materi als which would interest everyone. Bt follows that the emphasis should be moved from attempti ng to provi de intri nsicall y interesti ng materi als! which we have ust clai med is generall y impossible! to doing interesti ng things with materi als ... these materi als should be chosen! not so much on the basis of thei r own1. Co"strai "t of A!the"tic Sit!ati o" The methodol ogists of -LT insist that one goal of language teachi ng should be to replicate 5genui ne1 social communi cati on in the classroom. 3owever! such a goal is difficul t to attai n. At best! the teacher can onl y imi tate real6 life situati ons. There is always somethi ng artificial about it especiall y as students know that the nati ve language is for real communi cati on and this is onl y an education game. They participate in simulated acti vi ti es which are seldom complete. This perple#es students in the initial stages. Bn conse,uence! a wide stock of authenti c materi als is called for. Bt is necessary for the teacher to select! adapt and invent 8 teachi ng materi als to remedy this situati on. -lassroom tasks are simulati ons and can onl y appro#i mate real6 life communicati on! but real6 life skills! such as adusti ng to an interlocutor1 s contri buti on can be buil t in. Tasks designed to practise interacti ve abili ty should be an appropri ate task for the students. They must be able to imagine themsel ves in the situati on. +hen there is a reason for selecti ng an unrealistic task! the lack of realism could be emphasiDed. Csing imagi nati on beyond the e#peri ence is then deliberatel y fore fronted. Co"strai "t of the Lear"i "$ St(les Bt is obvious that interacti on activi ti es suit the learni ng style of the adventurous learners. Bt promotes their preferred strategy of learning via attempted communicati on in the target language. They are not inti mi dated by the psychological discomfort of group work. 3owever! it is not suitabl e for more reserved students because it imposes on a way of learni ng which does not agree thei r psychological make6 up. They feel threatened when they are pushed toward producti on before they have ti me to develop some sort of competence of the language. Bt is uncommon to be met with silent e#pressionless students. Teachers must be selfEaware whether to use encouragement! humour! or oke to induce students to perform or simpl y act. Bt may be effecti ve if the teacher adopts a consistent style of instructi on to allow learners to adapt wi thi n the bound of thei r own personali ti es wi thout being fel t coerced to behave outside thei r own value. I"te"si t( Co"strai "t Another problem that learners have to encounter is the intensi ty of the teachi ng. This is because in the earl y stages! all learning takes place in the classroom. The learni ng acti vi ti es cannot be practised alone by the learner and homework assignments cannot be e#tensions of what the learner has been doing in class. Most learni ng occurs through listeni ng! since reading plays a mini mal role. Bt will be difficul t for students to remember what they have ac,uired in class. Bn order to recall what was done in precedi ng lesson substanti al ti me has to be given for revision. This is a particular constrai nt where there are no possibili ti es to practise communi cati on outside the classroom. Co"te.t!al Co"strai "t The siDe of the class poses another problem. To create good condi ti ons for the use of communicati ve strategi es! the class needs to be small. Students have more opportuni ti es to partici pate in interacti ons. Teacher can easil y conduct and moni tor the interacti on. is applied to a very large 9 class! over thi rty students! the teacher has practicall y no control over what the learners are doing and has no opportuni t y to provi de e#tension acti vi ti es. +What a/o!t Graar0- Tradi tionall y! grammar was taught by rules and supported by e#ampl es! then presented as a systemati c correlati on. -LT suggests an alternati ve way of ac,uiri ng grammar& through the study of authenti c te#ts. +hat and how much grammar we can teach through the materi als in the te#t is a problem 3ow to se,uence the grammati cal structures in the isolated te#ts is another difficul t y. Bt is clear enough that students need a basic understandi ng of structures which will enable them to generate language. Teachers have to adopt a 5hybri d1 approach on grammar and -LT. This implies they need! at least! an outli ne of ideas about grammati cal progression and a selection of te#ts to support the development. Fossilisatio" of Errors According to one of the principles of -LT! the students1 errors are not corrected e#plici tl y because this would have diverted them away from the main concern of the e#pression and negotiati on of meani ngs. Bt is a common belief that errors will disappear as they get more input along the course. 3owever! that invol ves the risk of the 5fossilisation1 of students1 errors $-andlin& )/AA*. +e cannot rule out the possibili ty that some of the language errors might become permanentl y incorporated into thei r language :ne of the e#ampl es is the -hinese way of saying the negati ve form& 5Are you happy wi th the resul t< 1 5Yes! B1m not happy.1 O#ercoi "$ Coo" Co"strai "ts Relate' to CLT Language teachers are often faced the challenge of making the lessons meani ngful ! practical or fun. At the same ti me they need to consider how to deal with the recurri ng problems and plan to overcome the potenti al pitfalls. Suggestions are put forth here to overcome these weaknesses. -LT syllabus is a collecti on of tasks loosel y bundled together. 9an Lier $)/AA& 8.='* said that it is a collecti on of principles that offer learner littl e or no direction. Students can benefi t more if they know specificall y what language they are tryi ng to practise and in what conte#t. Teacher can inform them the lesson goal on a daily basis! for e#ampl e! they will be practising the future withi n the conte#t of the programmes of the a youth 10 conference. This kind of localised goal setti ng is e#plici t and students know what they are e#pected to do. Bt is useful to set small achievable goals to make learners aware of how they are to accomplish their obecti ves. -LT is a learnerEcentred and emphasiDes fluency over accuracy. Suggested by %yan $'(()*! although fluency is much needed! it creates a problem of not provi di ng enough concrete feedback for learners to correct thei r mistakes. Learners ust keep focus on the immedi ate classroom tasks at hand and they often cannot keep track of how they are progressing in the course. They do not have concrete feedback. This resul ts in loss of moti vati ons and interest. 2eedbacks can be the tradi ti onal test or weekl y ,uiD or ust wri ti ng answers on the board. Learners need a constant stream of feedbacks which keeps them moti vated and learni ng. -LT advocates maki ng students speak as much as possible. :n the other hand learners need a framework that they can feel comfortabl e in taking the risk to speak out in front of a group. A routi ne of work might help them to feel more at ease and more confident. Such frame work can be& +arm up 8resentati on -ontrolled practice 2ree practice 2eedback Co"cl!sio"1 -ommunicati ve Language Teaching is no doubt an e#cellent tool for increasing fluency. :vercomi ng its limi tati ons and implementi ng wi th different methodol ogy? teacher can become more creati ve while learners become more competent. :ne of the pri me supports for -LT is the practicabili t y use of language. Bn this ') st -entury! the worl d has 5shrunk1 . +e are living in a global village. The need to communi cate in a common language tongue is ever stronger. -LT is going to stay on until the need for it has wanted. +e will conti nue to see its evoluti on in days to come. Ref erences .achman! L.2. $)/A0* 2undamental -onsiderati on in Language Testing ! :C8! :#ford. .reen! M.8. and -andlin! 7. $)/A(* 5The Essentials of a -ommuni cati ve -urricul um in Language Teaching1! Applied Linguisti cs )G '! 8.A/68))'. 11 .rumfi t! -.H. and Hohnson! I $)/=/* The -ommuni cati ve Approach to Language Teaching ! :C8! :#ford. .rumfi t! -.H. $)/A(* 8roblems and 8rinciples in English Teaching :#ford! 8ergamon 8ress -anale! M. $)/AJ* 5Testing in a -ommuni cati ve Approach1 in 4ilbert A Harvis $ed.* The -hallenge for E#cellence in 2oreign Language in Education! Middlebury! 9t.& The 7orth East -onference :rganisation& 8.=/68./' -anale! M @ Swain M. $)/A(* 5Theoretical .ases in -ommuni cati ve Approach to Second Language Teaching and Testing1 Applied Linguistics )G) )/A( -andlin! -. $)/AA* 5Methods in English Language Teaching1 in Bnternati onal English Language Teaching ! 8rentice 3all! 7ew York. "avies! A. $)//)* 5Language Testing in the )//(1 in Language Testing in the )//(s ! $)//)*! Modern English 8ublications! London. 3alliday! M.A.I. $)/=F*! 5Towards a Sociolinguisti c .ackground1 in .rumfi t! -.H. and Hohnson! I. $)/=/* The -ommuni cati ve Approach to Language Teaching ! :C8! :#ford. 3alliday! M.A.I $)/=>*! 5Learni ng 3ow to Mean& E#plorati on s in the "evelopment of Language1 in %ichards! H.-. @ %ogers! T.S. $)/A0* Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching ! -C8! -ambri dge. 3arrison! A. $)//)*! 5Language Assessment as Theatre& Ten Years of -ommuni cati ve Testing1! in Language Testing in the )//(s ! $)//)*! Modern English 8ublicati ons! London. 3olden! S. $)/==*! 5:de to the Acronym1 in .rumfi t! -. H.! $)/A(* 8roblems and 8rinciples in English Teaching ! 8ergamon Bnsti tute of English! :#ford. 3ughes! A. $)/A/* Testing for Language Teachers ! -C8! -ambri dge. 3ymes! ". $)/=)*! 5:n -ommuni cati ve -ompetence 1in .rumfi t! -.H. and Hohnson! I $)/=/* The -ommuni cati ve Approach to language Teaching ! :C8! :#ford! 8.>68.'=. Hohnson! I. $)/A'*! -ommuni cati ve Syllabus "esign and Methodology ! 8ergamon! :#ford. Medgyes! 8. $)/A0* 5Kueries from a -ommuni cati ve Teacher1 ELT Hournal J(G' :C8! 8.)(=6 8.))'. 7unan! ". $)/A=* 5-ommuni cati ve Teaching& Making it work1 ELT Hournal J)G'! :C8! 8)F06 8.)J>. 8orter! " $)//)*! 5Affecti ve 2actors in Language Teaching1 in Language Testing in the )//(s! $)//)*! Modern English 8ublicati ons! London. %ichards! H.-. $)/AF* 5-ommuni cati ve 7eeds in 2oreign Language Learni ng1 ELT Hournal F=G' :C8! 8.)))6 8.))/. %ichards! H.-. @ %ogers! T.S. $)/A0* Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching ! -C8! -ambri dge. Seedhouse! 8. $)//0*! 5-lassroom Bnteraction& 8ossibili ties and Bmpossibili ti es1 ELT Hournal >(G)! :C8! 8.)068.'F. 12 9an Ek! H. A. $)/=0*! The Threshold for Modern Language Learning in Schools ! Longmans! London. +iddowson! 3.4. $)/=A* Teaching Language as -ommuni cati on ! :C8! :#ford. +ilkins! ".A. $)/=0*! 7otional Syllabuses ! :C8! :#ford. %ogers! T.S. $'(()*! 5Language Teaching Methodol ogy1 ! E%B- "igest ! L:n6 LineM. Available& http&GGwww.cal.orgGericclGdi gestGrodgers.ht ml . 8acurari! :. $)//>*! 5+ho likes change< Cnderstandi ng Teachers1 %esistance to 8air +ork1! L:n6 LineM. Available& http&GGettc.uwb.edupl GstronyGpt t Gdec/>GJGJ)parcura.ht ml 9an Lier! L. $)/AA* 5 The -lassroom and the Language Learner 1 Longman! 7ew York %yan! S...! 5:vercomi ng -ommon 8roblems %elated to -ommuni cati ve Methodol ogy1 ! L:n6 LineM http&GGi tesl.orgGTechni ,uesG%yan6 -ommuni cati ve.ht ml 13