COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

The origins of communicative language teaching (CLT) are to be

found in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating
from the late 1960s. Until then, situational language teaching
represented the major British approach to the teaching English as a
second language. In situational language teaching, language was
taught by practicing the basic structures in meaningful situation based
activities. But just as the linguistic theory underlying audiolingualism
was rejected in the US in the mid-1960s.
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is promoted in teacher
education programmes around the world, although the
appropriateness of this methodology in contexts outside the English-
speaking West has been questioned, often from a theoretical
perspective. In fact, very little empirical research has been conducted
into the practical knowledge of CLT of non-native speaker teachers of
English, and there is a lack of such research investigating growth
longitudinally in this area. Using observations, interviews, and
reflective writing, this study charts the practical knowledge growth in
CLT of a lower secondary teacher in the Middle East while she was
studying part-time on an in-service BA (TESOL) programme run by the
University of Leeds in conjunction with the Ministry of Education in the
Sultanate of Oman. Qualitative data suggests that the teacher’s
practical knowledge of CLT developed considerably during the course.
Further research into the influence of teacher education programmes
in TESOL on practical knowledge is called for.
Finnochiaro and Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive
features of audio lingual method and the communicative approach,
according to the interpretation:
Audio-lingual
1. attends to structure and form more than meaning.
2. demands memorization of structure-based dialogs.
3. language items are not necessarily contextualized.
4. language learning is learning structures, sounds, or words.
5. mastery, or “over-learning” is sought.
6. drilling is a central technique.
7. native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought.
8. grammatical explanation is avoided.
9. communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid
drills and exercises.
10. the use of the student’s native language is forbidden.
11. translation is forbidden in early levels.
12. reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered.
13. the target linguistic system will be learned through the
overt teaching of the patterns of the system.
14. linguistic competence is the desired goal.
 15. varieties of the language are recognized but not
emphasized.
16. the sequence of units is determined solely by principles of
linguistic complexity.
Communicative Language Teaching
1. meaning is paramount.
2. dialog if used, center around communicative function and are not
normally memorized.
3. contextualization is a basic premise.
4. language learning is learning to communicative.
5. effective communication is sought.
6. drilling may occur, but peripherally.
7. comprehensible pronunciation is sought.
8. any device which help the learner is accepted – varying
according to their age, interest, etc.
9. attempts to communicative may be encouraged from the very
beginning.
10. judicious use of native language is accepted where
feasible.
11. translation may be used where student need or benefit
from it.
12. reading and writing can be start from the first day, if
desired.
13. the target linguistic system will be learned best through
the process of struggling to communicate.
14. communicative competence is the desired goal.
15. linguistic variation is a central concept in material and
methodology.
16. sequencing is determined by any consideration of content,
function, or meaning which maintains interest.

The communicative approach in language teaching start from a

theory of language as communication. The goal of language teaching
is to the develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “communicative
competence”. Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a
communicative view of language and Chomksky’s theoryof
competence.

CLT was introduced in the first module of an in-service BA

(TESOL) Programme created by the University of Leeds for the local
Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. Diploma-holding
teachers of English on the three-year course studied intensively during
summer and winter terms, and then attended day release throughout
the rest of the year, when they had an opportunity to put ideas picked
up on the course into practice, as they were teaching on the other
days. Once a semester, they were observed in their schools by a
regional tutor, who used feedback sessions to help them relate theory
to practice. This teaching practice was not assessed.

According to Richards and Rixon (2002, p. 5), who evaluated the

project, the curriculum of the degree represented “a state-of-the-art
coverage of the field of TESOL.” The first methodology module, TEYL,
introduced CLT, the importance of context and meaning in language
learning (Donaldson, 1978), and the characteristics of children as
learners (Halliwell, 1992). The practical assignment through which the
module was assessed involved designing a communicative activity and
trying it out in the classroom, before evaluating it.

This led into a second methodology module, when Cameron’s

(2001) communicative task (including preparation, core and follow-up
elements) was introduced. Ideally, the “core” communicative activity
of an oral task would create a desire and purpose for communication,
allow for a focus on meaning rather than form and for freedom in
choice of language. Private, spontaneous speech would be encouraged
through the inclusion of closed pairwork and groupwork.

In contrast to the amount that has been written in

Communicative Language Teaching literature about communicative
dimension of language, little has been written about learning theory.
More recent accounts of communicative language teaching, however
have attempted to describe theories of language learning process that
are compatible with the communicative approach.

TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE

Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method
built around the coordination; it attempts to teach language through
physical (motor) activity. TPR is based on the premise that the human
brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on
earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible
when we observe how infants internalize their first language.

The secret is a unique "conversation" between the parent and

infant. For example, the first conversation is a parent saying, "Look at
daddy. Look at daddy." The infant's face turns in the direction of the
voice and daddy exclaims, "She's looking at me! She's looking at me!"
Dr. Asher calls this "a language-body conversation" because the parent
speaks and the infant answers with a physical response such as
looking, smiling, laughing, turning, walking, reaching, grasping,
holding, sitting, running, and so forth.
 Notice that these "conversations" continue for many many
months before the child utters anything more intelligible than
"mommy" or "daddy." Although the infant is not yet speaking, the child
is imprinting a linguistic map of how the language works. Silently, the
child is internalizing the patterns and sounds of the target language.

When the child has decoded enough of the target language,

speaking appears spontaneously. The infant's speech will not be
perfect, but gradually, the child's utterances will approximate more
and more that of a native speaker.

Children and adults experience the thrill of immediate

understanding when you apply this powerful concept in your
classroom. To discover how to do it step-by-step, take a look through
our TPR catalog of Books, Games, Teacher Kits, Student Kits, and Video
Demonstrations.

Total physical response (TPR) is a method developed by Dr.

James J. Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State
University, to aid learning second languages. The method relies on the
assumption that when learning a second or additional language,
language is internalized through a process of codebreaking similar to
first language development and that the process allows for a long
period of listening and developing comprehension prior to production.
Students respond to commands that require physical movement. TPR
is primarily intended for ESL/EAL teacher, although the method is used
in teaching other languages as well. The method became popular in
the 1970's and attracted the attention or allegiance of some teachers,
but it has not received generalized support from mainstream
educators.

According to Asher, TPR is based on the premise that the human

brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on
earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible
when we observe how infants internalize their first language.

It looks to the way that children learn their native language.

Communication between parents and their children combines both
verbal and physical aspects. The child responds physically to the
speech of their parent. The responses of the child are in turn positively
reinforced by the speech of the parent. For many months the child
absorbs the language without being able to speak. It is during this
period that the internalization and codebreaking occurs. After this
stage the child is able to reproduce the language spontaneously. With
TPR the language teacher tries to mimic this process in class.
The method also promises double efficiency in terms of rate of
learning, according to several studies in the literature and referenced
in the above book.

In the classroom the teacher and students take on roles similar

to that of the parent and child respectively. Students must respond
physically to the words of the teacher. The activity may be a simple
game such as Simon Says or may involve more complex grammar and
more detailed scenarios.

TPR can be used to practice and teach various things. It is well

suited to teaching classroom language and other vocabulary
connected with actions. It can be used to teach imperatives and
various tenses and aspects. It is also useful for story-telling.

Because of its participatory approach, TPR may also be a useful

alternative teaching strategy for students with dyslexia or related
learning disabilities, who typically experience difficulty learning foreign
languages with traditional classroom instruction.

According to its proponents, it has a number of advantages:

Students will enjoy getting up out of their chairs and moving around.
Simple TPR activities do not require a great deal of preparation on the
part of the teacher. TPR is aptitude-free, working well with a mixed
ability class, and with students having various disabilities. It is good for
kinæsthetic learners who need to be active in the class. Class size
need not be a problem, and it works effectively for children and adults.

However, it is recognized that TPR is most useful for beginners,

though it can be used at higher levels where preparation becomes an
issue for the teacher. It does not give students the opportunity to
express their own thoughts in a creative way. Further, it is easy to
overuse TPR-- "Any novelty, if carried on too long, will trigger
adaptation. It can be a challenge for shy students. Additionally, the
nature of TPR places an unnaturally heavy emphasis on the use of the
imperative mood, that is to say commands such as "sit down" and
"stand up". These features are of limited utility to the learner, and can
lead to a learner appearing rude when attempting to use his new
language. Of course, as a TPR class progresses, group activities and
descriptions can be used which continue the basic concepts of TPR into
full communication situations.

THE NATURAL APPROACH

 The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell and
Stephen Krashen, starting in 1977. It came to have a wide influence in
language teaching in the United States and around the world. The
syllabus for the Natural Approach is a communicative syllabus.

The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education

research and practice is undeniable. First introduced over 20 years
ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The
Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive
second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language
classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially
in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The
Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashen’s theories on second
language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the
state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling
and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the
California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his
influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual
education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:
The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical
factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the
same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission
on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).

Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language

Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than
even Chomsky himself. He intended it simply as a construct to
describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it
cannot apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of
learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence
that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by
the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar
they have consciously memorized. However, although it is not
explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom
learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech. Gregg’s account
that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after
a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The reader is
left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was
sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with
the verbs from his chart.

Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating

grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although
Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams”
of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out
any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple
linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In
addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not
provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.

Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs: by

simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present
“level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input
as i +1. In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and
grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and
discursive), rather than through direct instruction. Krashen has several
areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis. One is the
speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech),
which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34). He also
illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level,
and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust
their speech in order to communicate. This hypothesis is also
supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances
of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first
language. However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total
Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence. This
method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-
translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls
“nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”

Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis,

because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an
uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof
provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice
does indeed also have something to do with second language
acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of
correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed
some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first
language acquisition and simplified input in second language
acquisition.

This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural

Approach”. Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate
directly to language acquisition but not language learning.” He cites
several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-
image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to
“be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary. He
postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language
Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner
does not have such motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this
filter increases dramatically in strength.
 The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more
apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the
specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model. These ideas are
based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded
into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by
saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach,
depending on how it
fits into their classroom.

This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their

curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive. In fact, the
guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary
goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge,
acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be
lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any
language classroom. The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70)
which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of
the things that students who study by grammar translation or
audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is
notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on
target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or
even L1 responses.

The Natural Approach is based on the following tenets:

• Language acquisition (an unconscious process developed

through using language meaningfully) is different from language
learning (consciously learning or discovering rules about a
language) and language acquisition is the only way competence
in a second language occurs. (The acquisition/learning
hypothesis)
• Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or editor that
checks or repairs the output of what has been acquired. (The
monitor hypothesis)
• Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order and it
does little good to try to learn them in another order.(The natural
order hypothesis).
• People acquire language best from messages that are just
slightly beyond their current competence. (The input hypothesis)
• The learner's emotional state can act as a filter that impedes or
blocks input necessary to acquisition. (The affective filter
hypothesis)

Here are some of the objectives of the Natural Approach

• it is designed to help beginner become intermediates

 • It is designed to depend on learner needs

Types of learning techniques and activities

• Comprehensible input is presented in the target language, using

technqiues such as TPR, mime and gesture.
• Group techniques are similar to Communicative Language
Teaching.
• Learners start to talk when they are ready.

Krashen’s conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown

University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991)
is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: “It is possible
that ‘no pain, no gain’ does not apply to language acquisition” (p.
423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood
it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older
methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to
understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to
“comprehensible input” we have had. And the particular
circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many
other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable
barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is
saying. To propagate such an “easy way” philosophy in the policy of
state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is
to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day.
To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose
responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a
disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy
to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at
the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is
a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and
there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and
students at the moment.