You are on page 1of 13

THE THEORETICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

COMMUNICATI VE LANGUAGE TEACHI NG WI TH


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

You might also like