Communicative Language Teaching

REFLECTION
What kind of methods or techniques have you experienced as a
learner of (a) foreign language(s)? Which ones worked best for
you, and which ones did not work at all? Why?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Introduction
The field of second or world language teaching has undergone many
shifts and trends over the last few decades. Numerous methods have
come and gone. We have seen the Audiolingual Method, cognitive-
based approaches, the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural
Approach, and many others (for a detailed description of these meth-
ods and approaches, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). In addition,
the proficiency and standards-based1
movements have shaped the
field with their attempts to define proficiency goals and thus have
provided a general sense of direction. Some believe that foreign lan-
guage instruction has finally come of age (see Harper, Lively, and
Williams 1998); others refer to it as the post-method area (Richards
and Rodgers 2001). It is also generally believed that there is no
one single best method that meets the goals and needs of all learners
and programs. What has emerged from this time is a variety of
Principles of Communicative
Language Teaching and
Task-Based Instruction
Effective teaching is not about a method. It is about
understanding and implementing principles of
learning.
1
In this chapter you
will learn about
• communicative
language teaching.
• task-based instruction.
• characteristics of
pedagogical and real-
life tasks.
• principles underlying
communicative
language teaching
methodologies.
• characteristics of good
input.
• practical guidelines on
how to maximize the
use of the target
language (TL) in the
classroom.
• challenges in
implementing
communicative
language teaching
methodologies.
1C H A P T E R
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 1

2 CHAPTER ONE
communicative language teaching (CLT) methodologies. Such method-
ologies encompass eclectic ways of teaching that are borrowed from myr-
iad methods. Furthermore, they are rooted not only in one but a range of
theories and are motivated by research findings in second language acqui-
sition (SLA) as well as cognitive and educational psychology. The purpose
of this chapter is to provide an introduction to CLT and furthermore
describe general methodological principles that function as theoretical
and practical guidelines when implementing CLT methodologies.
The Shift Toward Communicative Language Teaching
and Task-Based Instruction: A Historical Perspective
For many decades the predominant method of language instruction was
the grammar-translation method. This method is rooted in the teaching
of the nineteenth century and was widely used for the first half (in some
parts of the world even longer) of the last century to teach modern for-
eign languages (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Textbooks primarily con-
sisted of lists of vocabulary and rule explanations. By and large, students
engaged in translation activities. Little oral proficiency would result from
the Grammar-translation Method, and students often were expected to
go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker.
The Grammar-translation Method was not without its opponents,
and the demand for oral proficiency led to several counter and parallel
movements that laid the foundation for the development of new ways of
teaching, as we still know them today (Richards and Rodgers 2001).
One such method is the Direct Method, sometimes also referred to as the
Berlitz Method as it was widely used in Berlitz schools. Some reformers
of the nineteenth century (e.g., Gouin and Sauveur) believed that lan-
guages should be taught in a natural way, that is, how children learn lan-
guage. As Richards and Rodgers (2001) point out, “Believers in the
Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without
translation or the use of the learner’s native language if meaning was
conveyed directly through demonstration and action” (p. 11). For this
reason, they also strongly promoted the spontaneous use of language.
Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 12) describe principles of proce-
dures underlying the Direct Method in the following way:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in carefully graded progres-
sion organized around question-answer exchanges between teachers
and students in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstrating, objects,
and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.

Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 3
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
Despite its success in private schools, the Direct Method was met
with a great deal of criticism. Strict requirements to adhere to its princi-
ples and the need for native speakers or someone with native-like fluency
prevented this method from becoming widely adopted by academic insti-
tutions (see Richards and Rodgers 2001).
Hailed in its day as revolutionary in foreign language teaching, the
grammar-translation method was replaced by the Audiolingual Method in
the 1950s and 60s. The belief in the effectiveness of this method was so
strong that traces of audiolingual-based teaching theories can still be found
in teaching materials. The audiolingual method was based on the school of
behaviorism in psychology and structuralism in linguistics, for which rea-
son it also become known as the “structural” or “behaviorist” method.
Because of its primary emphasis on spoken language, it is also referred to
as the “Aural-oral” Method. The underlying assumption of this philoso-
phy was that, as Rivers (1964) put it, foreign language learning is basically
a mechanical process of habit formation and automatization. In practice,
this meant students were presented with language patterns and dialogues,
which they had to mimic and memorize. Language practice by and large
consisted of repetition of language patterns and drill exercises. Drill types
included substitution drills, variation drills, translation drills, and response
drills. The following Swedish example illustrates a combination of a substi-
tution and translation drill.
ILLUSTRATION 1
Substitution/transformation drill
Han har alltid HUNDEN med sig. [He always has his dog with him].
the map—the fountain pen—the ink—the paper—the car
The teacher says, “Han har alltid hunden med sig.” [He always has his
dog with him].
Student chooses from a given list of English words, translates it into
Swedish, and substitutes the underlined word of the example sentence.
A tenet of this method was that errors of any kind were to be
avoided, so the learners were not to establish bad habits. For this reason,
the native speaker teacher was considered the perfect model.
There were, however, many problems with audiolingual approaches.
The teacher, who was often seen like the drillmaster, carried the respon-
sibility of teaching and student learning like an atlas on his shoulder
(Lee and VanPatten 2003). One of the most widely brought forward
points of criticism toward this method is that the learners lacked engage-
ment in meaningful language use and had only limited opportunities to

4 CHAPTER ONE
use language creatively while interacting with their peers. As Willis
(2004) points out, “This was because the emphasis was on eradication of
errors and accurate production of the target forms, not on communica-
tion of meanings” (p. 4). Due to overcorrection of students’ errors by the
teacher, anxiety levels were often quite high among students. The
Audiolingual Method failed to have the desired effect of helping learners
become competent speakers in the TL.
Several factors and influences led to the demise of the Audiolingual
Method and caused a shift in language teaching methodology. This
brought forth communicative language approaches and a range of alter-
native methods.
1. The Audiolingual Method did not live up to its promise creating
speakers who were able to communicate in the target language.
2. Theories of learning moved away from behaviorist views of learning.
The most influential work was the one by Chomsky, which was pub-
lished in his book Syntactic Structures (1957). He argued that lan-
guage learning involves creative processes and perceived language as
rule-governed creativity. As Willis (2004) describes it, “He believed
that a basic rule system that underpins all languages is innate and
that, given exposure to a specific language, children will naturally
create the specific rules of that language for themselves. Learning is
thus seen as a process of discovery determined by internal processes
rather than external influences” (pp. 4–5).
3. Works by scholars and sociolinguists such as J. Firth, M. Halliday,
D. Hymes, and J. Austin led to a change in the way language was
viewed. As emphasized by many practitioners, the primary purpose
of language is to communicate.
4. The development of a functional-notional syllabus in the 1970s in
Europe by Van Ek (1973) and Wilkins (1976) initiated a new way of
how teaching materials were organized. Traditionally, syllabi had
been organized around grammatical structures and vocabulary units.
The functional-notional syllabus attempted to show what learners
need to do with language and what meanings they need to communi-
cate, and organized the syllabus around functions and notions.
Functions are communicative speech acts such as “asking,”
“requesting,” “denying,” “arguing,” “describing,” or “requesting.”
Notional categories include concepts such as “time” or “location.”
Notions and functions are different from topics and situations as
they express more precise categories. For example, a topic may be
“family,” the situation “coming for a visit and having dinner.” The
function and the notion that is addressed in this unit may involve
“inviting” and “time past” (e.g., past tenses, expressions like “last
week,” “a few days ago”). The functional-notional syllabus laid the
groundwork that ultimately led textbook writers to organize their
materials in terms of communicative situations, and some also in
very concrete communicative tasks.

5. A growing number of research studies in applied linguistics have
provided many new insights and a deeper understanding of second
language learning and SLA processes. Some of these include
• Learners move through different stages of development (Selinker
1972).
• Learners develop an underlying language system that develops in a
sequence that does not always reflect the sequence of what was
taught in a curriculum (Dulay and Burt 1973). Work by Pienemann
(1989) showed that learners develop language skills according to
their own internal syllabus.
Alternative approaches and methods to language teaching
While communicative language teaching methodologies kept evolving and
being more clearly defined, in the 1970s and 80s a set of alternative
approaches and methods emerged. Some of these include comprehension-
based methods such as the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural
Approach, the Silent Way, or Suggestopedia (for a detailed description of
these methods, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). Many of these methods
never became widely adapted and had only a short shelf life. This is not to
say that these methods did not contribute to the field of language teaching.
On the contrary, some of these methods have helped shape and continue to
have an influence on the field in many ways. For example, TPR, which
James Asher (1969) originally developed as a method to teach language by
combining action and speech, is still widely used. Many practitioners,
however, promote and use TPR as a technique to introduce some vocabu-
lary or grammatical structures. Some principles of learning that have been
promoted through these methods are integrated in the discussion below.
What Is Communicative Language Teaching?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is generally regarded as an
approach to language teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). As such,
CLT reflects a certain model or research paradigm, or a theory (Celce-
Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary function of lan-
guage use is communication. Its primary goal is for learners to develop
communicative competence (Hymes 1971), or simply put, communica-
tive ability. In other words, its goal is to make use of real-life situations
that necessitate communication.
Defining communicative competence
Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and
enact appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement
of the learner in the production of the target language (Canale and Swain

6 CHAPTER ONE
1980; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995; Hymes 1972). Such a notion encom-
passes a wide range of abilities: the knowledge of grammar and vocabu-
lary (linguistic competence); the ability to say the appropriate thing in a
certain social situation (sociolinguistic competence); the ability to start,
enter, contribute to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in
a consistent and coherent manner (discourse competence); the ability to
communicate effectively and repair problems caused by communication
breakdowns (strategic competence).
As frequently misunderstood, CLT is not a method per se. That is to
say, it is not a method in the sense by which content, a syllabus, and
teaching routines are clearly identified (see Richards and Rodgers 2001).
CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods and tech-
niques. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model
that is universally accepted as authoritative (Richards and Rodgers
2001). By and large, it uses materials and utilizes methods that are
appropriate to a given context of learning.
CLT has spawned various movements such as proficiency-based or
standard-based instruction. While the early days of CLT were concerned
with finding best designs and practices, the proficiency-based movement
contributed to the field of language teaching by putting forward a set of
proficiency guidelines (see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages [ACTFL] guidelines in Chapter 8, Developing Oral
Communication Skills). These guidelines describe language ability and
are meant to be used to measure competence in a language (Omaggio-
Hadley 2001). In this sense, the proficiency-based movement focused
on measuring what learners can do in functional terms. By providing
evaluative descriptions, that is, by specifying what students should
know and how they should be able to use language within a variety of
contexts and to various degrees of accuracy at different stages, it pro-
vided a set of broadly stated goals and thus a sense of direction for
curriculum designers. The standard-based movement attempted to fur-
ther streamline descriptions of what students should know and be able to
do after completing a particular grade level or curriculum to meet
national standards in foreign language education from kindergarten to
university. In this way, both movements positively influenced and
strengthened the development and implementation of communicative-
oriented teaching practices.
As far as theories of learning and effective strategies in teaching are
concerned, CLT does not adhere to one particular theory or method. It
draws its theories about learning and teaching from a wide range of
areas such as cognitive science, educational psychology, and second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA). In this way, it embraces and reconciles many
different approaches and points of view about language learning and
teaching, which allows it to meet a wide range of proficiency-oriented
goals and also accommodate different learner needs and preferences.
Despite the lack of universally accepted models, from early on, there has

been some degree of consensus regarding the qualities required to justify
the label “CLT,” which Wesche and Skehan (2002) describe as:
• Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with
other interlocutors to exchange information and solve problems.
• Use of authentic (non-pedagogic) texts and communication activities
linked to “real-world” contexts, often emphasizing links across writ-
ten and spoken modes and channels.
• Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account
learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and generally allow
learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (p. 208).
With no one particular method or theory that underlies their practi-
cal and theoretical foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as
a set of macro-strategies (Kumaradivelu 1994) or methodological princi-
ples (Doughty and Long 2003). The following section describes such
principles in more detail.
Methodological Principles of Communicative Language
Teaching and Task-Based Instruction
Doughty and Long (2003) define methodological principles as a list of
design features that can be generally regarded as being facilitative to sec-
ond language acquisition. The following list, adapted from Doughty and
Long (2003), serves as a guideline for implementing communicative lan-
guage teaching (CLT) practices.
Principle 1: Use Tasks as an Organizational Principle
For decades traditional methods of language teaching have used grammar
topics or texts (e.g., dialogues, short stories) as a basis for organizing a
syllabus. With CLT methodologies this approach has changed; the devel-
opment of communicative skills is placed at the forefront, while grammar
is now introduced only as much as needed to support the development of
these skills. This raises questions on how to organize a syllabus. Some
proponents (see Breen 1987; Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Prabhu 1987) sug-
gest using tasks as central units that form the basis of daily and long-term
lesson plans. Such an approach to syllabus design has become known as
task-based instruction (TBI). The rationale for the employment of com-
municative tasks is based on contemporary theories of language learning
and acquisition, which claim that language use is the driving force for lan-
guage development (Long 1989; Prabhu 1987). For example, advocates
of such theories (see Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun 1993) suggest that, as
Norris et al. (1998) put it, “the best way to learn and teach a language is

8 CHAPTER ONE
through social interactions. [. . . they] allow students to work toward a
clear goal, share information and opinions, negotiate meaning, get the
interlocutor’s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on their
language production. In the process, learners not only use their interlan-
guage, but also modify it, which in turn promotes acquisition” (p. 31). In
other words, it is not the text one reads or the grammar one studies but
the tasks that are presented that provide learners a purpose to use the
grammar in a meaningful context. This gives task design and its use a piv-
otal role in shaping the language learning process.
What are tasks? Numerous competing definitions of tasks exist. Many
of these definitions focus on different aspects of what constitutes a task.
Below you will find three different interpretations of the word task, each
of which highlights different nuances of the term.
One of the most widely quoted definitions for task is offered by
Long (1985). He refers to a task as
a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some
reward. Thus examples of tasks include [. . .] filling out a form, buying a
pair of shoes, making an airline reservation, borrowing a library book,
taking a driving test, typing a letter, [. . .], making a hotel reservation,
writing a check, finding a street destination and helping someone across
the road. In other words, by “task” is meant the hundred and one things
people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between (p. 89).
Another well-known definition is provided by Nunan (1989). He
considers a task as
any classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manip-
ulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their
attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form ( p. 10).
More recently, Skehan (1998) summarizes the parameters for a task
activity in the following way:
“(a) meaning is primary, (b) learners are not given other people’s mean-
ings to regurgitate, (c) there is some sort of relationship to comparable
real-world activities, (d) task completion has a priority, and (e), the
assessment of tasks are done in terms of outcome” (p. 147).
From these definitions, despite the various interpretations, several
common design features can be identified. These features include: All
three definitions emphasize the importance of focus on meaning. This
criterion supports the notion that conveying an intended meaning is the
essence of language use (see Principle 4 for further discussion). Long
(1985) and Skehan’s (1998) definitions emphasize the use of real-world
tasks or activities that are comparable to authentic task behavior.
Performing real-world tasks also necessitates the use of real language to

accomplish these tasks. Skehan (1998) further suggests that task per-
formance often involves achieving a goal or an objective, or arriving at
an outcome or an end product. Meanwhile, Nunan’s (1989) definition
makes specific reference to the classroom environment and points out
that task performance may entail employing a single skill or a combina-
tion of several skills. His description recognizes the pedagogical needs for
focusing on skills in isolation in language learning.
One of the challenges of task-based learning and instruction is that
engaging students in a variety of tasks is necessary to promote acquisition.
Students have many pedagogical needs which often necessitate a different
approach to teaching. For example, learners need to engage in psycholin-
guistic and metalinguistic processes such as repeating, noticing forms,
hypothesizing and conceptualizing rules, which have been found by
research as being conducive to the language acquisition process. For this
reason, Nunan (1993) distinguishes between two kinds of tasks: Real-world
tasks and pedagogical tasks. Real-world tasks are designed to emphasize
those skills that learners need to have so they can function in the real world.
Such tasks normally simulate authentic task behavior, and their primary
focus is often the achievement of an end product. For such reasons, these
kinds of tasks normally make up the final goal of a lesson or a unit.
In contrast to real-life tasks, pedagogical tasks are intended to act as
a bridge between the classroom and the real world in that they serve to
prepare students for real-life language usage (see Long, 1998). Such tasks
are often referred to as “preparation” or “assimilation” tasks. They are
designed to promote the language acquisition process by taking into
account a teacher’s pedagogical goal, the learner’s developmental stage
and skill level, and the social contexts of the second-language learning
environment. They often have an enabling character, i.e., they aid the
learners in their understanding of how language works and also in the
development of learning skills and strategies in general. In addition, they
focus on skills in isolation and within a narrow context. Pedagogical tasks
do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks. For instance, the preparation
task in Appendix 3 illustrates such an example. In this assimilation task,
students complete descriptions with words that are missing. The rationale
for this design is that students first need to learn some basic facts.
Furthermore, their attention is directed to particular vocabulary and verb
forms in isolation, which they need to apply in the subsequent task.
Sample task-based lessons. Illustrations 2 and 3 describe two different
task-based lessons. The goal of the Lesson on organizing a welcome din-
ner (Illustration 2) is for learners to arrange a group of international stu-
dents at dinner tables based on factors such as what the students’ hobbies
are, what languages they speak, or their age. The final goal of the lesson
example in Illustration 3 is for students to set up and collect information
for an address book. They are to find out the following information from
three of their classmates: first name, last name, phone number or e-mail
address, and why they are learning French. While both lesson models are

10 CHAPTER ONE
organized by aiming at the achievement of a final task, they can be distin-
guished by what here is referred to as a “strong” or “dependent task”
design. In the lesson on organizing a welcome dinner, which follows a
“dependent” task design, all sub-steps are connected and situated within a
contextualized framework. Students have to do something with the infor-
mation they gather and also have to use this information in subsequent
tasks, which lead up to a final task. The completion of all tasks involves
multiple and different kinds of speech acts. For learners to achieve the
final lesson goal, the successful completion of all tasks preceding the final
tasks is required. Ultimately, performing the final target task is driven by
gathering information in a communicative way during each subtask.
Illustration 3 follows a “task independent” design. The purpose of
each task that leads up to the final task is to engage the learner in the
development of skills that are needed to perform the final lesson task.
While each task is contextualized and engages the learner in real-life
speech application, they are not necessarily connected by one common
theme. While communicative language use is still practiced during each
task, the need for exchanging and gathering information in a communica-
tive way to achieve the final lesson goal, however, is not the driving force.
ILLUSTRATION 2
Organizing a welcome dinner (see Appendix 3 for the entire
lesson)
Step 1. Students organize the group of international students around
three dinner tables. For example, a student might say: “On table
1, Andrew Smith and Sandra Mogambe sit next to each other,
because they both speak Spanish and collect butterflies.”
Step 2. Students listen to new information about the students given to
them by their Spanish teachers and if necessary rearrange stu-
dents at the tables.
Step 3. Students provide some personal information about themselves.
Then they choose a student from their own group, who also wants
to attend the welcome dinner, and select a table for this student.
Step 4. Now you are going to revise your distribution and write a brief
report.
Step 5. A representative from each group presents their report and jus-
tifies the group decision.
Step 6. The groups and the teacher compare the results.
ILLUSTRATION 3
Setting up an address book
Step 1. You are in a language school and the instructor is taking atten-
dance. Students read the names of students and check who is
present.

Step 2. Students listen to their teacher pronounce French names and
share with the class French names that they are familiar with.
Step 3. A. Students match (associate) numbers with twelve photos
that represent cultural themes. The photos are marked with
some letters from the alphabet.
B. Students count from 1-12.
Step 4. Students listen to the result of a song contest broadcasted on
TV. They complete a chart and write down the points that each
country was awarded.
Step 5. A. Students are asked to write down the names of seven
European countries. (The article and the first letter of each
country name are provided.) The teacher follows up with
the question: How do you spell L’Allemagne?
B. Students locate the names of European countries on the map.
Step 6. Students express their opinions about where they believe a set of
photos was taken. Students work in pairs. For example, one
student would ask in French: La photo numéro deux,
c’est la France? [Photo number 2, is this France?] Her partner
might respond, Non, ce n’est pas la France, je crois que c’est la
Grande-Bretagne. [No, it is not France, I believe it is Great Britain.]
Step 7. Students listen to a recording of first and last names, and com-
pare the spelling. They look for letters that are pronounced the
same way, and those that are pronounced differently.
Step 8. Students match names of famous French celebrities with a cor-
responding photo and caption. Students express who they
believe these people are. For example, a student might say:
La photo numéro 1, c’est Marguerite Duras? [Photo number 1,
is this Marguerite Duras?] Her partner might respond, Non,
ce n’est pas Marguerite Duras, je crois que c’est Isabelle
Adjani. [No, it is not Marguerite Duras, I believe it is
Isabelle Adjani.]
Step 9. A. Students listen to three different dialogues in which people
explain why they are learning French. They have to number
the sentences (reasons) to identify who says what.
B. Students share their reason for why they are studying French.
As seen from the examples above, task-based instruction as a model
of syllabus design has an emphasis on performance. Achievement is mea-
sured based on whether or to what extent learners can successfully per-
form the pedagogic and real-life tasks. However, it needs to be pointed
out that using tasks as organizational units of daily and long-term plans is
not without challenges. These challenges have to do with task choice, task
difficulty and sequencing. Furthermore, depending on the complexity of
target language structures, task designs often require careful adaptations
as to what linguistic structures learners can actually apply. Following a
task-based approach also requires careful pedagogical consideration,
especially in terms of task implementation. This includes knowledge of

12 CHAPTER ONE
when and how to integrate pedagogical tasks as lead-up and follow-up to
a real-life task. The topic of designing pedagogical and real life tasks is
further discussed in different chapters throughout this book.
Principle 2: Promote Learning by Doing
A task-based approach to learning implies the notion of learning by
doing. This concept is not new to communicative language teaching
methodologies, but it has been recognized and promoted as a fundamen-
tal principle underlying learning throughout history by many educators
(e.g., see Long and Doughty 2003 for a brief overview). It is based on the
theory that a hands-on approach positively enhances a learner’s cognitive
engagement. In addition, as Doughty and Long (2003) remind us, “new
knowledge is better integrated into long-term memory, and easier
retrieved, if tied to real-world events and activities” (p. 58).
In research on SLA, the “learning by doing” principle is strongly sup-
ported by an active approach to using language early on. For example,
Swain (1985, 1995) suggests that learners need to actively produce lan-
guage. Only in this way can they try out new rules and modify them accord-
ingly. According to Omaggio-Hadley (2001), learners should be encouraged
to express their own meaning as early as possible after productive skills
have been introduced. Such opportunities should also entail a wide range of
contexts in which they can carry out numerous different speech acts. This,
furthermore, needs to happen under real conditions of communication so
the learner’s linguistic knowledge becomes automatic (Ellis 1997).
Principle 3: Input Needs to Be Rich
Considering the rich input we each experience and are exposed to
while developing our native tongue, growing up speaking in our
native languages means that we are exposed to a plethora of language
patterns, chunks, and phrases in numerous contexts and situations over
many years. Such a rich exposure to language ultimately allows us to
store language in our brains that we can retrieve and access as whole
chunks.
Needless to say, there is no way we can replicate this rich input in the
classroom alone in order to develop native-like language skills.
Nevertheless, the input provided needs to be as rich as possible. As
Doughty and Long (2003) put it, rich input entails “realistic samples of
discourse use surrounding native speaker and non-native speaker accom-
plishments of targeted tasks” (p. 61). This makes one of the most obvi-
ous necessities in teaching a foreign language that the student get to hear
the language, whether from the teacher, from multimedia resources (TV,
DVDs, video and audio tapes, radio, online), from other students, or any
other source, and furthermore be exposed to as rich a diet of authentic
language discourse as possible. In the classroom environment, this can

be achieved through the use of a wide range of materials, authentic and
simplified, as well as the teacher’s maximum use of the TL.
Corollary 1: Materials need to be authentic to reflect real-life situ-
ations and demands. One of the instructional practices promoted by
communicative language teaching (CLT) is the extensive integration of
authentic materials in the curriculum. Authentic materials refers to the
use in teaching of texts, photographs, video selections, and other teaching
resources that were not specially prepared for pedagogical purposes
(Richards 2001). Examples of authentic audiovisual materials are
announcements, conversations and discussions taken as extracts or as a
whole from radio and television public broadcasting, real-life telephone
conversations, messages left on answering machines, or voice mail. There
are numerous justifications for the use of authentic materials. They con-
tain authentic language and reflect real-world language use (Richards
2001). In other words, they expose students to real language in the kinds
of contexts where it naturally occurs. Furthermore, they relate more
closely to learners’ needs and hence provide a link between the classroom
and students’ needs in the real world. The use of authentic materials also
supports a more creative approach to teaching; that is, its use allows
teachers to develop their full potential, designing activities and tasks that
better match their teaching styles and the learning styles of their students.
Last, the use of authentic materials requires the teachers to train their stu-
dents in using learning strategies early on. These are essential skills that
support the learning process at all levels of instruction.
Access to authentic data, such as text or audiovisual-based
resources, is no longer a problem for most teachers. But in lower-level
classrooms, the use of such materials faces numerous challenges. Authentic
materials often contain difficult language. Usually, there is no particular
text per se that ideally fits the learners’ level of proficiency as a whole.
For example, while one paragraph from a magazine article may be
appropriate for beginning students, the next may be far too advanced
and require special adaptation in task design to make it usable. In other
words, to develop learning resources around authentic materials, teach-
ers must be prepared to spend a considerable amount of time locating
suitable sources for materials and developing learning tasks that accom-
pany the materials and scaffold the learning process. Chapters 6 through 9
will address skill development and scaffolding the learning process in
more detail.
As pointed out above, with the inception of CLT, language teachers
have been turning to authentic materials for use in the classroom at
increasingly lower levels of learner proficiency. At the same time, many
published materials incorporate authentic texts and other real-world
sources. Considering the advantages as well as limitations of using
authentic materials, a mixture of both textbook-based and authentic
materials, in particular at beginning levels, justifies practices that are
pedagogically necessary and manageable.

14 CHAPTER ONE
REFLECTION
Describe one of your former teachers’ uses of the target language (TL)
and the native language (L1) in the classroom. How much L1 versus
the TL did your teacher use? How did the teacher help you understand
the TL better?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Corollary 2: The teacher needs to maximize the use of the target
language. Another way to create rich input in the language classroom is
by using the target language (TL) as a means of instruction. The exclu-
sive or nearly exclusive use of the TL has been justified under what has
come to be called a “maximum exposure” hypothesis—that is, learners
need as much exposure as possible to the TL because the greater the
amount of input, the greater the gains in the new language (Cummins
and Swain 1986). The exclusive use of the TL by teachers in the foreign
language has also become a strong principle advocated by teaching
methodologies, notably in communicative approaches to language teach-
ing (Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie 2002).
Using the TL as the primary means of communication, however, has
not been an issue without controversies. As teachers’ practices reveal (see
Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie 2002), many teachers feel drawn in different
directions regarding when and how much English should be used in the
classroom. For example, Polio and Duff (1994) report that many teach-
ers prefer to use English mainly to explain grammar, to manage the class,
to indicate a stance of empathy or solidarity toward students, to trans-
late unknown vocabulary items, and to help students when they have
problems understanding.
Likewise, students’ reactions to the teacher’s use of the target lan-
guage and English show a mixture of preferences. By and large, many
students prefer the instructor to make extensive use of the TL. As Brandl
and Bauer (2002) have shown, in particular, in those beginning language
There are a number of reasons you should use the target language (TL) in the
classroom. Take the questionnaire in Appendix 1.1, Using the Target
Language and L1. Which reasons do you agree or disagree with? Draw a con-
clusion on how to use the TL and English in the classroom.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

classrooms where teachers tend to use English more than the TL, students
ask for an increase in the teacher’s use of the TL. On the contrary, in those
classes where teachers exclusively used the TL, many students expressed
preference for some occasional use of English, in particular when provid-
ing directions or confirming the students’ understanding.
There are numerous benefits to the extensive use of the TL.
Nevertheless, the input that is provided—such as information or concepts
teachers present in the TL—must be comprehensible to the students, oth-
erwise no learning can occur (see Principle 4 on comprehensible input).
A teacher’s goal needs to be to find the right balance between the use of
the TL and English, which makes sure students understand and at the
same time maximizes the use of the TL.
To deal with resistance and some potential frustrations by students
to this instructional practice of an extensive use of the TL, the following
guidelines provide some strategies.
1. Do not constantly switch back and forth between the TL and the
students’ L1. Use the TL in longer chunks as much as possible. Although
some purists suggest that the use of the TL and students’ native language
must be kept distinctively separated, switching between different lan-
guages is a common language phenomenon that occurs in any normal
social interaction between speakers who share knowledge of the same
languages. This language behavior is known as code switching. As such,
code switching must be seen as a vital communication strategy. Students
should not be discouraged from using code switching if they do not
know how to say something in the TL and if it keeps the communication
afloat. Nevertheless, code switching is different from language behavior
where a teacher begins a sentence in one language and ends it in
another—or constantly switches back and forth between languages due
to either lack of proficiency skills or laziness.
2. Set a good example for the students. Do not expect students to
use the TL if you cannot use it consistently yourself.
3. Provide clear guidelines. You need to let your students know
when it is appropriate to use English in the classroom and for what pur-
poses. Set aside specific times during each class for the use of English. For
example, students most frequently request English for task instructions,
brief explanations of grammar, or confirmation checks. Adhere to these
guidelines as much as possible.
What challenges might you encounter when making extensive use of the target
language (TL) in the classroom? What will your students’ reactions be? Can
you think of any other suggestions for helping your students deal with the
teacher’s extensive use of the TL?
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

16 CHAPTER ONE
4. Discuss the rationale for using the TL in the classroom early
in the term. Let students know why it is important to use the TL exten-
sively in the classroom. For communicative purposes, it is critical for
students to realize they do not need to understand every single word at
all times.
Principle 4: Input Needs to Be Meaningful, Comprehensible,
and Elaborated
A fundamental prerequisite for learning to occur is that the information
we process must be meaningful. This means the information being pre-
sented must be clearly relatable to existing knowledge that the learner
already possesses. This existing knowledge must be organized in such a
way that the new information is easily assimilated, or “attached,” to the
learner’s cognitive structure (Ausubel 1968). The necessity of meaning-
fulness is not in particular new to CLT. Throughout the history of lan-
guage teaching, there have always been advocates of a focus on meaning
as opposed to form alone, and of developing learner ability to actually
use language for communication. Meaningfulness, however, has emerged
as a primary principle of CLT—and as a counter-reaction to audiolingual
teaching, which was criticized for repetitive drills that did not require the
processing of language so the content made sense or was meaningful to
learner.
In addition to being meaningful, input should adhere to several gen-
eral characteristics that make it potentially useful to the learner. As Lee
and VanPatten (1995a) suggest, “the language that the learner is listen-
ing to (or reading, if we are talking about written language) must contain
some message to which the learner is supposed to attend” (p. 38).
In language learning, input cannot be meaningful unless it is compre-
hensible. This means, as Lee and VanPatten (1995a) put it, “The learner
must be able to understand most of what the speaker (or writer) is saying
if acquisition is to happen. [. . .], the learner must be able to figure out
what the speaker is saying if he is to attach meaning to the speech stream
coming at him” (p. 38). The authors further describe the importance of
this hypothesis in the following way:
Acquisition consists in large part of the building up of form-meaning
connections in the learner’s head. For example, the learner of French
hears the word chien in various contexts and eventually attaches it to a
particular meaning: a four-legged canine. As another example, a learner
of Italian might hear –ato in various contexts and eventually attach it to
a particular meaning: a past-time reference. Features of language, be
they grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, or something else, can only
make their way into the learner’s mental representation of the language
system if they have been linked to some kind of real-world meaning. If
the input is incomprehensible or if it is not meaning-bearing, then these
form-meaning connections just don’t happen. (p. 38)

As pointed out previously, ways of creating rich input in the class-
room environment are either through extensive use of the TL or through
a wide range of authentic or linguistically rich resources. On the down-
side, creating this environment involves numerous pedagogical chal-
lenges, particularly in regard to making such input accessible—that is,
meaningful and comprehensible to the learners. These challenges can be
met by means of numerous input strategies, or by what Doughty and
Long (2003) refer to as elaborating input. Elaboration in this context has
several meanings. On the one hand, it is the myriad ways native speakers
modify discourse, that is, the way they use language to make it compre-
hensible to the non-native speaker (Doughty and Long 2003). Such
strategies include
• confirmation checks (e.g., “You mean . . . ; What you are saying
is . . .”)
• comprehension checks, (e.g., “Is this correct? What you are saying
is . . .”)
• the teacher’s accessibility to students’ questions
• providing nonlinguistic input through body language (e.g., model-
ing, gestures, visuals)
• modified language use through
a. repetition
b. slower speech rate
c. enhanced enunciation
d. simplifying language (e.g., high-frequency vocabulary, less slang,
fewer idioms, shorter sentences)
e. use of cognates
f. limited use of English
Research supports such strategies and has pointed out numerous
benefits. For example, Hatch (1983) examined simplified input in terms
of five general categories: (1) rate of speech, (2) vocabulary, (3) syntax,
(4) discourse, and (5) speech setting. As a result, she suggests that such
speech modifications potentially aid with the comprehension process.
This is presumably the case because clear enunciation, repetition, and
slower speech rate make language acoustically more salient and provide
a greater chance for the learners to perceive language structures and
process form-meaning connections. Likewise, simplified syntax or modi-
fications of input further reduce the burden on process and increase the
chance that the learner will hear certain forms and structures (Lee and
VanPatten 1995a). In another study, Brandl and Bauer (2002) investi-
gated beginning language students’ preferences of teacher’s use of input
strategies. They report that students in particular find confirmation
checks, use of body language, visual representations, repetitions, slower
speech rate, and occasional use of English helpful with their comprehen-
sion of the input.

18 CHAPTER ONE
On the other hand, elaborating input can be further enhanced
through a thoughtful plan of how input is presented. This requires mind-
ful attention to task design by taking into account task choice and diffi-
culty, learner processing skills, and scaffolding strategies. This topic will
be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Principle 5: Promote Cooperative
and Collaborative Learning
In general education, cooperative or collaborative learning has long been
recognized as a strong facilitator of learning (e.g., see Kagan 1989). In
such an approach, classrooms are organized so that students work
together in small cooperative teams, such as groups or pairs, to complete
activities. In second language learning environments, students work
cooperatively on a language-learning task or collaboratively by achieving
the goal through communicative use of the target language. Particularly
in the latter case, if the learning tasks are designed to require active and
true communicative interaction among students in the target language,
they have numerous benefits on attainment (for a detailed list and discus-
sion, see Chapter 8, Developing Oral Communication Skills). Key to
learning in these situations is what takes place during the interaction
between the learners and the teacher, and among the learners.
While interaction normally involves both input and learner produc-
tion, learners cannot simply listen to input. Rather, they must be active
conversational participants who interact and negotiate the type of input
they receive. Speakers also make changes in their language as they in-
teract or “negotiate meaning” with each other. They do so to avoid con-
versational trouble or when trouble occurs. In this way, the interaction
functions like a catalyst that promotes language acquisition. This claim
has become widely known as Long’s “Interaction Hypothesis” (1983).
A large body of research supports this hypothesis. A recent meta-
analysis2
that investigated the empirical link between task-based interaction
and acquisition showed positive evidence for those tasks in particular that
push learner output, that is, tasks that require communicative exchange of
information and the production of the target language features during
learner-to-learner interaction.
While the ability to develop a new language is fostered between and
among learners, the social interaction between the teacher, as the expert,
and the student, as the novice, which has been the focus of traditional
instruction, is of equal importance and should not be ignored. The
importance of this kind of social interaction is well described by the
works of social psychologist Vygotsky (1978). Through the assistance of
the teacher and the social interaction, the learner is led to reach a poten-
tial that exceeds his current level of development. In communicative lan-
guage classrooms, however, as soon as students are able to perform

speech acts or language tasks on their own—that is, without a teacher’s
assistance—the focus shifts from teacher-led to student-centered lan-
guage application.
Principle 6: Focus on Form
One of the debates about grammar teaching centered on the issue of
whether to make grammar explicit or whether to have the learners figure
out the rules themselves. In this context, explicit means that the rules
become salient or are laid out to the learner at one point during the
course of instruction. Although not everybody agrees (see Krashen
1981), research provides ample evidence for the benefits of making
grammar rules explicit to adult language learners (for a review of studies,
see Norris and Ortega 2000). Within explicit ways of teaching grammar,
Long (1991) conceived a further distinction between what he calls “focus
on form” and “focus on formS.” A focus on formS approach represents
a fairly traditional approach to teaching grammar where “students spend
much of their time in isolated linguistic structures in a sequence predeter-
mined externally and imposed on them by a syllabus designer or text-
book writer . . .,” while meaning is often ignored (Doughty and Long
2003, p. 64). In contrast, a focus on form approach to explicit grammar
teaching emphasizes a form-meaning connection and teaches grammar
within contexts and through communicative tasks (see communicative
language teaching principles above).3
Doughty and Long (2003) point
out that overwhelming empirical evidence exists in favor of a focus-on-
form approach, hence they proclaim it a fundamental methodological
principle in support of CLT and task-based language instruction. (For a
statistical meta-analysis of some 60 studies comparing focus on form
with other types of instruction, see Norris and Ortega 2000).
Chapter 4, Grammar and Language Learning, discusses some of the
controversies on grammar teaching in more detail. It also provides an
overview of techniques ranging from self-instructional, discovery,
teacher-guided, or teacher-student co-constructed approaches to making
rules explicit.
Principle 7: Provide Error Corrective Feedback
In a general sense, feedback can be categorized in two different ways:
positive feedback that confirms the correctness of a student’s response.
Teachers demonstrate this behavior by agreeing, praising, or showing
understanding. Or, negative feedback, generally known as error correc-
tion (see Chaudron 1988), which has a corrective function on a student’s
faulty language behavior. As learners produce language, such evaluative
feedback can be useful in facilitating the progression of their skills

20 CHAPTER ONE
toward more precise and coherent language use. Both types are vital dur-
ing a learner’s interlanguage development since they allow the learner to
either accept, reject, or modify a hypothesis about correct language use.
The study of feedback in learning situations has a long history. In
language learning, many research studies have documented that teachers
believe in the effectiveness of feedback and that students ask for it,
believe in the benefits of receiving it, and learn from it. Yet the degree to
which information provided through feedback aids a learner’s progress is
not always clear. Such a claim can be illustrated by what teachers fre-
quently experience; namely, that their students, after receiving feedback,
often keep making the same mistakes—or even when they get it right ini-
tially, many still fall back into their previous and faulty language behav-
ior. “Acquisition is a process that is not usually instantaneous” (Doughty
and Williams 1998, p. 208). Achieving positive effects with error correc-
tive feedback involves a long-term process that depends on corrective
strategies and most of all on individual learner factors.
For example, in a classroom study of the effectiveness of various
feedback techniques, Lyster and Ranta (1997) found that recasts—that
is, when a teacher repeats a student’s faulty language production, but in
a correct way—were the most widespread response to learner error. Yet
recasts were in fact the least effective in eliciting learners to immediately
revise their output. Instead, direct error corrective strategies that
involved the teacher’s help—such as providing metalinguistic clues or
clarification requests—were the most effective in stimulating learner-
generated repairs (for a more detailed discussion, see Chapter 5,
Feedback and Error Correction in Language Learning).
As suggested by Lyster and Ranta’s study, the value of negative feedback
lies in drawing learner attention to some problematic aspect of their interlan-
guage. In other words, many learners may require help in “noticing”
(Schmidt 1990, 2001) their mistakes. Another factor that may also play a
crucial role concerns the timing of that feedback. “Where corrective recasts
are concerned, the information must be provided as-yet-little-understood
cognitive processing window [. . .] such that learners can make some sort of
comparison between the information provided in the feedback and their
own preceding utterance” (Doughty and Long 2003, p. 14).
While the type of error corrective strategy may make a difference,
learner readiness may be the most decisive factor in predicting success in
the acquisition process. Readiness implies that the learners are able to
make a “comparison between their internal representation of a rule and
the information about the rule in the input [i.e., feedback] they encounter”
(Chaudron 1988, p. 134). Simply put, if a learner makes a mistake and has
no clue that he made a mistake, nor does he know what he did wrong, in
other words there was no hypothesis that he was testing either, then any
kind of error corrective feedback may simply be ineffective as the learner is
not ready yet (see Brandl 1995).
In general, there is little doubt about the role of feedback as a facili-
tator to learning, despite many challenges in delivering it effectively. The

provision of “error corrective” and “positive” feedback as a fundamen-
tal principle permeates all areas of instruction and constitutes a necessity
in support of the learning process.
Principle 8: Recognize and Respect Affective
Factors of Learning
Over the years, consistent relationships have been demonstrated between
language attitudes, motivation, performance anxiety, and achievement in
second language learning (Gardner 1985; Gardner and McIntyre 1993;
Horwitz and Young 1991). Needless to say, all teachers eventually expe-
rience how learners feel about the target language or how their attitudes
toward it impact their motivation and subsequently their success. As
Gardner and McIntyre (1993) put it, a learner who is motivated “wants
to achieve a particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this
goal, and experiences in the activities associated with achieving this
goal” (p. 2).
One characteristic of language learning that has received a great deal
of attention over the past years is the role of anxiety during the learning
process. In particular, with active language performance as a major goal
of CLT, anxiety has been noticed as a trait with many individual learners.
Anxiety manifests itself in many ways such as self-belittling, feelings of
apprehension, stress, nervousness, and even bodily responses such as
faster heartbeat. Numerous studies have corroborated what Krashen con-
tended in his Affective Filter hypothesis, which states: “Language learning
must take place in an environment where learners are ‘off the defensive’
and the affective filter (anxiety) is low in order for the input to be noticed
and gain access to the learners’ thinking” (Krashen 1982, p. 127).
There is a clear negative relationship between anxiety and learning
success. Anxiety as a personal trait must be recognized and kept at a
minimal level for learning to be maximized. Anxiety and its impact on
learner performance are discussed in more detail in later chapters.
Challenges in Communicative Language Teaching
CLT or a task-based approach is not a panacea to language teaching.
There are numerous challenges to making communicative language
teaching happen. These issues have to do with the choice of content, con-
text, specific skill areas (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, etc.), and particular
learning tasks that determine a curriculum.
These choices are tightly linked to questions about what it means to
“know” a language, to be proficient in a language, and what commu-
nicative abilities entail. While the literature on language teaching has
attempted to provide answers to such questions, there are no universally
accepted standards. The proficiency and standards movements have

22 CHAPTER ONE
attempted to provide some guidelines, but they often remain broad in
learner performance descriptions (see Appendix 8.3, ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines). This ultimately makes assessment of individual learners’
communicative ability challenging, and it essentially leaves judgment of
learner progress up to the teachers.
Communicative abilities cannot be simply categorized as speaking,
listening, reading, or writing skills, as it was done in a traditional four-
skills approach. For example, when two people talk to each other, the
process normally involves speaking and listening skills as well as active
communicative strategies such as asking for clarification and adjusting
language to make each other understood. The endeavor to teach lan-
guages in a way that encompasses all skills, based on an interactive view
of language behavior, has posed many challenges on how to go about
integrating the four skills effectively in a daily and long-term curriculum.
The teaching of proficiency and communicative-based skills raises
the question not only about content but also about the choice of learning
tasks or best teaching practices. CLT does not promote one standardized
method or curriculum, but is eclectic in its approach. Being eclectic
means it promotes the best or most effective techniques or methodolo-
gies. At the same time, the choice of techniques and learning tasks is not
an arbitrary decision, but is firmly grounded in principles of learning as
they are motivated by research in second language acquisition (SLA) and
educational psychology. Learning what constitutes effective ways of
learning and teaching initially requires intensive training and in the long
run staying in touch with current SLA research findings.
As a last point, the quality of CLT also often depends on the quality
of teaching materials. Unfortunately, only in the most commonly taught
languages—such as English, Spanish, French, and German—does an
abundance of materials exist to support the development of communica-
tive language abilities over a wide range of skills.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an introduction to communica-
tive language teaching (CLT) and to describe methodological principles
that facilitate the language learning process. CLT furthermore takes
a pragmatic or performance-based approach to learning. Its goal is to pro-
mote the development of real-life language skills by engaging the learner in
contextualized, meaningful, and communicative-oriented learning tasks.
CLT methodologies embrace an eclectic approach to teaching, which
means they borrow teaching practices from a wide array of methods that
have been found effective and that are in accordance with principles of
learning as suggested by research findings in research in SLA and cognitive
psychology. Its open-ended or principle-based approach allows for a great
deal of flexibility, which makes it adaptable to many individual program-
matic and learner needs and goals. Such an approach further supports the

notion that no second language teaching method can be the single best one.
It recognizes the wide range of factors—such as learner ability and motiva-
tion, teacher effectiveness and methodology—that contribute to success in
foreign language learning. Last, it leaves the door open to redefine and
adapt new teaching practices, as research findings evolve in the future.
Checking chapter objectives
Do I know how to . . .
❏ define communicative and task-based language teaching?
❏ describe different characteristics of pedagogical and real-life tasks?
❏ describe principles underlying communicative language teaching
methodologies?
❏ identify characteristics of good input?
❏ maximize the use of the TL in the classroom?
❏ deal with challenges in implementing communicative language
teaching methodologies?
Explorations
TASK 1: DISCUSSION
Discuss the following questions. In a communicative-based language class,
how is a lesson structured?
what promotes learning?
what is the role of input and resources?
what is the role of grammar?
what is the role of feedback?
what is the atmosphere like?
TASK 2: LESSON ANALYSIS
All of the following lessons have been claimed to follow communicative
language teaching methodologies. Read through the different lesson
descriptions and identify principles of CLT in action in each of these les-
sons. Which lessons are most in alignment with CLT?
Lesson 1
What’s her name?
1. Listen and read: Students listen to a taped recording and read a dia-
logue between two men talking about finding a suitable milkman to
deliver milk. They talk about two possible assistants, a boy and a girl.
The dialogue is tightly structured around giving personal information

24 CHAPTER ONE
in reply to Wh– questions: What’s her name? Where does she live?
The listening activity lasts around three minutes.
2. Answer: Students listen to the conversation again and complete a
chart about the girl and the boy. They listen for name, age, address,
hobbies, and description.
3. Listen and repeat: Students listen to the question format on the tape
and repeat what they hear: What’s her name? What’s his name?
4. Write and speak: Students are directed to look at the dialogue in Activity
1 and find all the questions. They need to write the questions in their
notebooks. Then they practice asking each other the questions and giv-
ing the appropriate reply for the boy and the girl in the textbook.
5. Write and speak: Students copy a chart similar to that in Activity 2.
They fill in the chart with information about themselves first; then
they interview a partner and fill in his/her information.
6. Listen: Students listen to a new conversation about a film producer
looking for a boy and a girl to act in a new movie. The producer has
a conversation (similar to that in Activity 1) to find out information
about two possible candidates. Students listen only and complete a
personal information form.
7. Write: Students are given a cloze passage about the girl the producer
in Activity 6 above was enquiring about. Then they write a similar
paragraph about the boy.
Source: Flowerdew and Miller (2005), 103–104.
Lesson 2
Who has the coolest room?
1. Warm up. The instructor points at object(s) in the classroom and stu-
dents name it or them.
2. Writing: Doing an inventory. Students individually make a list of the
objects that they have in their room. They compare their list with
another student asking their partner whether they have the same
things in their rooms. Students mark off those items they have in
common, and they write down those they do not have in common.
3. Guided control: Finding misplaced objects. Students switch partners
and do an information gap activity in pairs. Each student has a differ-
ent picture of a room containing many objects. They ask each other
about the location of a variety of objects they are looking for and
then mark them on their picture.
4. Communicative exchange: Describing and finding out what each
other’s room looks like. Students describe their rooms to each other.
They draw a picture of each other’s rooms.
5. Extension and task: Students identify who has the coolest room.
Students report to the class on what their partner’s room looks like.

The instructor asks the rest of the class which room they like best.
Students in addition have to provide the rationale for their decision.
Lesson 3
The topic of this Indonesian class was to introduce colors and learn expres-
sions such as “How much does it cost?” and “It costs. . . .” While showing
the students the colors in Indonesian, the instructor took the opportunity
to introduce expressions of preference, such as “What is your favorite
color?” She had a stack of cards made of different-colored paper, with the
Indonesian word written on the back of each one. There were two cards of
each color. Each student had to pick his or her favorite color from the
stack. Then the students had to ask each other what their favorite colors
were. This activity involved listening, reading, and speaking, since the stu-
dents first had to listen to the instructor for cues on how to ask and answer
the question, then had to read their color from their card, and finally had a
short conversation about their favorite color.
The instructor then moved to the main part of her lesson, which cen-
tered on buying things at a store. She introduced the basic vocabulary by first
posing the question, “How much is the . . .,” and then answering it. She
handed out copies of a real-world Indonesian advertisement for sunglasses,
contact lenses, and hearing aids. These products enabled the students to use
the expressions with vocabulary that consisted entirely of words borrowed
from English (sunglass, lensa kontak). The purpose of the pairs of colored
cards from the first activity now became clear, because the students had to
pair up according to their favorite color and then practice asking each other
how much each of the products from the advertisement cost.
For the last part of the class, the instructor introduced a guest as the
“mystery celebrity” and told the students to imagine that they were jour-
nalists who wanted to find out personal information about him. They
had to ask the guest speaker questions in English, but could use only the
questions they would also be able to ask in Indonesian. The guest
speaker answered in English, and the journalists took notes on his
answers. When they were done, each student had to volunteer at least
one piece of information about the guest speaker—in Indonesian.
Lesson 4
In this elementary-level Czech language class, the topic revolved around
a long list of vocabulary, most of it related to basic concepts such as peo-
ple and places and a few adjectives and verbs. The class period began
with a small quiz over the previous week’s vocabulary, and then the
instructor began the new lesson. She went down a list of new vocabulary
terms in the book, saying each word. The students would then repeat the
word after her. After a page of this vocabulary, the teacher had her
students go on to a text in the book. They went around the room, each

26 CHAPTER ONE
student reading a sentence of the text aloud, with the teacher correcting
any errors. Then they went around the room again, each student trans-
lating one sentence into English.
TASK 3: TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS
Analyze the chapter of a textbook. Make a list of all the learning tasks, iden-
tifying the kinds of skills in which the learners get engaged. Categorize the
tasks as non-communicative learning, pre-communicative language prac-
tice, communicative language practice, structured communication, and
authentic communication. In which skills do most of the learners get
engaged? Draw a conclusion about the communicative nature and focus of
the textbook.
TASK 4: DISCUSSION
Figure 1-1 contains a list of useful strategies that help you to create com-
prehensible input in the language classroom. Which of these strategies do
you believe are more important for beginning-level learners than for
learners who had two to three years of classroom exposure?
TASK 5: PART A. VIDEO ANALYSIS OF INPUT STRATEGIES
In the following microteaching performance (see video), the instructor
introduces the Spanish past-tense form imperfecto. Which of the strat-
egies listed in Figure 1-2 does the instructor use in her presentation?
Interactive strategies
1. confirmation checks/pauses
2. accessible for questions
Use of the target language
1. modeling/body language
2. examples
3. visual representation
4. repetition
5. clear enunciation
6. lower speech rate
7. rephrasing
8. use of simplified language
Use of English
1. use of English for directions
2. use of English for explanations
3. use of English for confirmations
FIGURE 1-1 List of input strategies
(Source: Brandl and Bauer (2002);
original materials.)

Use of language
• speaks slowly
• pauses frequently
• enunciates clearly
• uses repetitions
• uses simplified
syntax (S-V-O)
• uses short sentences
• uses examples
• uses high frequency
vocabulary
Visual input
(linguistic)
• writes words on the
board or overhead
Visual input
(nonlinguistic)
• models actions
• uses gestures
• uses pictures/props
Interactive strategies
• checks students’
comprehension
directly (e.g., Do you
understand x?)
• clarifies student’s
comprehension
indirectly (e.g., What
did he want? . . . a
book? . . . a pen?
. . . a pencil?)
FIGURE 1-2 List of strategies
Using the list in Figure 1-2, check off all the strategies that you can
identify.
NOTE!
If you do not have the video available, work with the transcript in
Figure 1-3.
If you are not familiar with Spanish, it may be more difficult to iden-
tify all the strategies used in Figure 1-3. In that case, make use of the
translation of the teacher’s script. Furthermore, place yourself in a stu-
dent’s position and focus on those strategies that helped you understand
the instructor’s presentation.
Ok clase, buenos días clase. Ustedes ya saben que estudiamos el verbo
de pasado que se llama “pretérito.” Hoy, vamos a estudiar el verbo pasado
que se llama “imperfecto.”Y se llama . . . El verbo pretérito ocurrió sola una
vez. Como cuando yo dejo caer muñeco, no más. [drops the doll on the table]
No se mueve más. Una sola vez al pasado. Cuando yo hablo del imperfecto, el
imperfecto es un verbo que ocurre repetidamente, como un yo-yo. Arriba, abajo,
arriba, abajo. [plays with the yo-yo] Es un verbo que tiene movimiento, que no
parada existir.
FIGURE 1-3 Transcript of a Spanish Microteaching Presentation
OK class, good morning class.You already know that we studied the past-tense
verb form that is called the preterite. Today, we are going to study the past-
tense verb form called “imperfective.” The preterite verb occurs only once. Like
when I let the doll fall . . . no more. [drops the doll on the table] It doesn’t move
any more. It only happens once. When I speak of the imperfective, it’s a verb
that occurs repetitively, like a yo-yo. Up, down, up, down. [plays with the yo-yo]
It’s a verb that has movement, that doesn’t cease to exist.

TASK 6: PART B. VIDEO ANALYSIS OF INPUT STRATEGIES
How would you continue this lesson? What input strategies would you
make use of next? Briefly outline how you would continue this lesson.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
When you are finished, watch the second part of the video excerpt to see
how the teacher continues her mini-lesson. What strategies did she fur-
ther use to make herself understood? Compare the teacher’s script with
your own and discuss the results with your class.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
NOTE!
If you do not have the video available, see the transcript in Appendix 1.2.
TASK 7: ANALYSIS
Evaluate how comprehensible the language in each of the following
contexts would be to first-year learners of the language you (will)
teach. Why does the language differ so much from one context to the
next?
a. a TV commercial for laundry detergent
b. a comic strip
c. a cooking demonstration
d. a diary entry
e. the beginning of a fairy tale
f. an interview about your life on campus
Source: Lee and VanPatten (1995b), p. 24.
TASK 8: EXPLORING YOUR BELIEFS
Find out whether your classmates agree or disagree with the statements
below. Choose three to four issues and discuss them with at least three to
four different students in class. Make sure to provide a rationale for your
answers.
28 CHAPTER ONE

Application
TASK 9: MAXIMIZING STUDENT INTERACTION
The goal of this foreign language lesson is for students to talk about and
compare the lifestyles of male and female adolescents. The setting is an
American classroom. In a traditional classroom, the teacher might ask
questions such as: What do young American women and men like to do
in their free time? What are their hobbies? What are common activities?
Which ones are less common? In communicative language teaching, the
STATEMENT I agree I disagree
I agree with
reservations.
1. People have learned languages for centuries,
so the methods we use do not really matter.
2. The most important thing is to let students
experiment with the language (spoken and
written). They learn the language by using it
and need to be given many opportunities to
do so.
3. Students learn best when they are first
presented with a clear explanation of
grammar rules. Then, they can apply the rules
and use them freely.
3. Class time should mostly be spent focusing
on language structures. Meaning can be
added later on, once students can express
themselves.
4. Drilling language patterns does not guarantee
that the students will internalize them and
produce them on their own outside the
framework of the exercise.
5. Accuracy develops naturally. We should not
worry too much about students producing
perfect structures right away. It is best for
teachers not to overcorrect.
6. Teacher input needs to be rich but
comprehensible if learning is to take place.
7. Language is best learned interactively, in a
social environment. In an ideal class, students
work together a lot.
8. Student motivation does not matter. They will
learn regardless of their motivation.
Source: Hedwige Meyer, University of Washington

30 CHAPTER ONE
teacher would maximize the communicative use of language by creating
multiple opportunities for students to interact with each other.
Design a lesson outline that consists of different steps. Project your-
self into the classroom, and demonstrate how you would enact each step
to create maximum interactions among students.
NOTE!
Step 1 below is a possible way of getting started, but feel free to change it.
TASK 10: ELABORATING A TEXT
Review the following conversation between two adults. Then modify the
second person’s (the friend’s) speech, so that a beginning learner could
more easily understand it.
PARENT: I’m pretty fed up with my job these days. I mean, I can’t
believe that the company thinks we will take a cut in pay
and not say anything. I mean, it’s just—I don’t know.
FRIEND: But it’s like that everywhere! Last week I read in Newsweek—
at least I think it was Newsweek. We get both Newsweek and
Time—but anyway I read where IBM is cutting another 500
jobs this next week. I bet those people wouldn’t mind a cut in
pay just to keep food on the table.
Steps Task description and teaching routine
1 In pairs (preferably pairs consist of male and female students only), students make a list of
activities that describe the lifestyles of young men or women.
2
3
4
5

PARENT: Come on! It’s not that easy and you know it . . .
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Source: Lee and VanPatten (1995b), p. 24.
TASK 11: TRYING OUT INPUT STRATEGIES
Spontaneously describe the picture story of the lion and the mouse (see
Appendix 1.4) in the target language (TL) to your partner or the whole
class. Make use of as many input strategies as possible to help your part-
ner understand the story.
NOTE!
This activity works best if a true immersion experience can be created in
the classroom. If possible, have the story told in a language that is
unknown to most class participants.
With the whole class, discuss how well you accomplished your goal.
As the “input provider,” were you capable of making yourself understood?
What means did you make use of? As the listener, were you able to under-
stand your partner’s story? What challenges did you both encounter? How
can you deal with such challenges in the language classroom?
APPENDIX 1.1
Using the Target Language and Native Language
There are a number of reasons you should use the target language in the
classroom. Test yourself! Check off those items that you consider most
appropriate:
❏ I don’t speak my students’ native language, or I don’t feel confident
speaking my students’ native language because I make many mistakes.
❏ I teach multinational students.
❏ The students should be prepared for real communicative situations
in the target language.
❏ Students should learn to make themselves understood by making use
of the limited vocabulary and grammatical structures they know.
❏ Students should learn to work with monolingual dictionaries.
❏ In the foreign language classroom, the primary mode of articulation
[i.e., the target language] should not be changed to improve the stu-
dents’ pronunciation.
❏ I want to create an environment in which students pay attention when I
speak the target language. They should not be waiting for a translation.

32 CHAPTER ONE
Then, gustar (to be pleasing; to like) is a verb that we say. It is the infinitive form of the
verb me gusta (it is pleasing to me; I like). In the past tense, in the imperfective, the verb
gustar is gustaba. When I liked everything all the time, repeatedly, always, “gustaba”—it’s
the imperfective of the verb gustar. Gustaba (I liked).
[referring to the items on the overhead screen]
For example, here. When I was a little girl, when I was small, I liked to climb trees, to get
up to a good height. To climb trees. Say it, please: trepar los árboles. When I was a little
girl, I liked to throw stones. . . . throw. Liked. Always. I did it always, a repetitive verb. . . .
❏ The students should learn how to comprehend texts globally and not
always translate word by word.
❏ The students should learn how to think and speak in the target lan-
guage as much as possible.
❏ It is difficult to find the correct answer from all the entries listed in a
bilingual dictionary.
If you checked off most of the items above, you principally are in
favor of using the target language as much as possible in the classroom.
Reasons for occasional use of the students’ native language are:
❏ when there is the risk of miscomprehension.
❏ when the expenditure of time required to give an explanation in the
target language cannot be justified by the results.
❏ when the exclusive use of the target language interferes with inter-
personal communication.
❏ to explain difficult cultural concepts.4
Source: Weigmann (1992), 22–23. Translated here by Klaus Brandl.
APPENDIX 1.2
Transcript of the Microteaching Lesson Introducing
the Preterito (second half)
Entonces, gustar es un verbo que habla. Gustar. Es el infinitivo del verbo “me
gusta.” En el pasado, en el imperfecto, el verbo “gustar” era “gustaba.”
Cuando todo me gustaba siempre, repetidamente, siempre gustaba—
gustaba. Es el imperfecto del verbo gustar. Gustaba.
[referring to the items on the overhead screen]
Por ejemplo, aquí. Cuando yo era niña, cuando yo era pequeña, me
gustaba trepar los árboles, subir bien alto. Trepar los árboles. Digan por
favor—trepar los árboles. Cuando yo era niña, me gustaba tirar piedras.
Tirar piedras. Tirar. Me gustaba. Siempre. Yo era así siempre, un verbo
repetido. . . . Me gustaba romper vítreos. Romper. Romper vítreos. Me
gustaba.

APPENDIX 1.3
The Dinner Game
etnegnocetneG2
32 TAREA
PREPARACIÓN
La clase se divide en grupos. Ustedes están (you are) en un curso de verano (summer) en la
“Escuela de Español Golfo de México”. Estos estudiantes también están en la escuela. Son
estudiantes de todo el mundo. ¿Conocen a sus compañeros/as de escuela? Completen estas
descripciones con las palabras que faltan (are missing).
Conocer (meet) a un grupo de estudiantes internacionales y organizarlos para una cena
de bienvenida (welcome dinner).
NOTAS
TN02-17
1. SANDRA MOGAMBE
ES ____________ DE BIOLOGÍA.
TIENE 17 ____________.
HABLA ESPAÑOL.
ES ____________ GUINEA ECUATORIAL.
COLECCIONA MARIPOSAS.
2. MARK SELLIGSON
ES ____________ DE ARTE.
____________ 45 AÑOS.
____________ ESPAÑOL Y ALEMÁN.
MUY ____________ AL FÚTBOL.
3. SILVIA OLIVEIRA
____________ 23 AÑOS.
____________ PROFESORA DE PORTUGUÉS.
____________ PORTUGUÉS E INGLÉS.
ES SOLTERA.
4. ANDREW SMITH
PROFESOR ____________ GIMNASIA.
____________ 50 AÑOS.
____________ SEPARADO.
HABLA ESPAÑOL E INGLÉS.
____________ MARIPOSAS.
5. KEIKO TANAKA
____________ 20 AÑOS.
____________ JAPONÉS Y UN POCO
DE ESPAÑOL.
____________ CASADA.
6. AKIRA TANAKA
____________ PINTOR.
TIENE 22 ____________.
HABLA JAPONÉS Y UN ____________
DE ESPAÑOL.
7. SAMUEL SOHAMY
____________ ISRAELÍ.
____________ ESTUDIANTE.
TIENE 18 AÑOS.
____________ HEBREO Y UN ____________
DE INGLÉS.
8. LANA SOHAMY
____________ ISRAELÍ.
____________ ESTUDIANTE.
TIENE 20 AÑOS.
____________ HEBREO, INGLÉS Y UN POCO
DE JAPONÉS.
MUY ____________ AL FÚTBOL.
9. JENNY DONALDSON
ES ____________ ESTADOS UNIDOS.
____________ PIANISTA.
TIENE 20 AÑOS.
____________ SOLTERA.
____________ INGLÉS.
10. NICOLE TOMBA
____________ ESTADOUNIDENSE.
____________ INFORMÁTICA.
TIENE 26 ____________.
____________ SOLTERA.
HABLA INGLÉS Y ESPAÑOL.
11. MISHA GÁLVEZ
____________ FUNCIONARIA.
____________ 33 AÑOS.
____________ CASADA.
SÓLO ____________ TAGALO Y UN POCO
DE ESPAÑOL.
MUY AFICIONADA AL FÚTBOL.
12. ALI AL-HALEB
EXPERTO EN COMPUTADORAS.
____________ SOLTERO.
TIENE 30 AÑOS.
____________ ÁRABE, INGLÉS Y ESPAÑOL.
13. MARK DORFMAN
____________ ARQUITECTO.
____________ SOLTERO.
TIENE 47 AÑOS.
____________ ALEMÁN E INGLÉS.
____________ AFICIONADO A LA
____________ CLÁSICA Y AL PIANO.
9
5
6 2
43
01
31
21
11
7
8
1
TASK
Meet a group of interna-
tional students and organ-
ize them for a welcome
dinner party.
1. SANDRA MOGAMBE
She is a biology student.
She is 17 years old.
She is from Equatorial Guinea.
She collects butterflies.
2. MARK SELLIGSON
He is an art student.
He is 45 years old.
He studies Spanish and German.
He is very good at soccer.
3. SILVIA OLIVERA
She is 23 years old.
She is a Portuguese teacher.
She speaks Portuguese and English.
She is single.
Preparation
The class is to divide into
groups. You are participating
in a summer course in a
Spanish language school,
“Golfo de México.” These
students are also in the
school. They are students
from around the whole
world. Have you met your
classmates? Complete the
descriptions with the words
that are missing.

etnegnocetneG2
TAREA 33
Paso 1: La distribución de los estudiantes en la cena de bienvenida.
Organicen a los estudiantes en las tres mesas para cenar. Es importante tener en cuenta (keep in
mind) la información que ustedes saben (you know) sobre estas personas.
Paso 2: Escuchen (listen to) ahora a estos profesores
de español. Hablan de los nuevos estudiantes y ofrecen
mucha información nueva. ¿Necesitan cambiar (do you
need to change) las mesas?
Paso 3: Un/a estudiante
de su grupo también asiste
(attends) a la cena de
bienvenida. ¿Dónde va a
sentarse? Elijan (choose) al/a
la estudiante, completen
la ficha con sus datos y
seleccionen la mesa.
Paso 4: Ahora van a revisar su distribución y escribir un pequeño informe (report).
Paso 5: Un/a representante del grupo presenta a la clase el informe y justifica las decisiones
del grupo.
Paso 6: Los grupos y el/la profesor/a comparan sus resultados.
:DADE
.soña______ogneT
:LIVICODATSE
yoS .a/oretlos
.a/odasac
.a/oduiv
.a/odaicrovid
:RETCÁRAC .____________________yumyoS .________________etnatsabyoS .________________ocopnuyoS .________________adanyosoN
:SAMOIDI ._____________________olbaH
:SENOICIFA
____________________
.___________________
LES SERÁ ÚTIL
En la mesa 1: Manuel, Celia…
Manuel al lado de Celia porque…
Manuel y
la misma edad.
Celia tienen
el mismo hobby.
los mismos intereses.
Los dos estudian español.
Manuel habla francés y Celia también.
{
A
W
34 CHAPTER ONE
Step 1: The distribution of the
students at the welcome
dinner.
Organize the students around
three tables for the dinner. It is
important to keep in mind the
information you know about
these people.
Step 2: Now listen to the following
Spanish teachers. They talk about
the new students and offer a great
deal of new information. Do you
need to change the tables?
Step 3: A student from your group also attends the welcome dinner. Where is s/he going to sit
down? Choose the student, complete the card with their information and select the table.
Step 4: Now you are going to revise your distribution and write a brief report.
Step 5: A representative from your group presents your report and justifies your group decision.
Step 6: The groups and the teacher compare the results.
AGE CHARACTER
I am... years old I am very...
I am fairly...
I am a little...
I am not all...
CIVIL STATUS LANGUAGES
I am single I speak___
I am married
I am widowed WHAT I LIKE.
I am divorced ________
Source: De la Fuente, Martín, and Sans (2007a), 32–33.

APPENDIX 1.4
The lion and the mouse

36 CHAPTER ONE
Endnotes
1 Standards is a discipline-specific document that was triggered by the
national reform effort initiated at the 1989 Education Summit in
Charlottesville, Virginia. Essentially, this document constitutes content
standards that define what students should know and be able to do in
foreign language instruction in a K–12 sequence. Given that states and
school districts have their own specific goals and define their own curric-
ula, the Standards provide a description of a set of common goals. In this
sense, the standards document is a political document, delineating the
goals of the profession and setting a direction for the field of foreign lan-
guage learning in the United States.
The standards are not a curriculum guide. As LeLoup and Ponterio
(1998) emphasize, “They are not meant to dictate local curricula or even
assessment . . . . Nor are the standards tied to any particular instruc-
tional method.” The standards articulate in a fairly generic way essential
skills and knowledge students need in order to achieve language profi-
ciency as lifelong learners.
The standards are organized around five main goals. These are as
follows:
COMMUNICATION
Communicate in Languages Other than English
Standard 1.1: Students engage in conversations, provide and obtain
information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions.
Standard 1.2: Students understand and interpret written and spo-
ken language on a variety of topics.

Standard 1.3: Students present information, concepts, and ideas
to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics.
CULTURES
Gain Knowledge and Understanding of Other Cultures
Standard 2.1: Students demonstrate an understanding of the rela-
tionship between the practices and perspectives of the culture
studied.
Standard 2.2: Students demonstrate an understanding of the rela-
tionship between the products and perspectives of the culture
studied.
CONNECTIONS
Connect with Other Disciplines and Acquire Information
Standard 3.1: Students reinforce and further their knowledge of
other disciplines through the foreign language.
Standard 3.2: Students acquire information and recognize the dis-
tinctive viewpoints that are available only through the foreign
language and its cultures.
COMPARISONS
Develop Insight into the Nature of Language and Culture
Standard 4.1: Students demonstrate understanding of the nature
of language through comparisons of the language studied and
their own.
Standard 4.2: Students demonstrate understanding of the concept
of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their
own.
COMMUNITIES
Participate in Multilingual Communities at Home and Around the
World
Standard 5.1: Students use the language both within and beyond
the school setting.
Standard Students show evidence of becoming lifelong learners by
using the language for personal enjoyment and enrichment.
The standards document is promoted at the K–12 level. As such, any
teacher or trainer of secondary school teachers needs to be informed
about this document and understand its benefit and value. To this
author’s knowledge, the document is not used at the higher educational
level. More information about the standards can be found at the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

website at http://www.actfl.org/ or the Center for Applied Linguistics at
http://www.cal.org/.
2 A meta-analytic study synthesizes the findings of a body of experimen-
tal research studies based on the effect size of each study, and conse-
quently draws a conclusion of the research question in focus. Keck et
al.’s study (2006) includes 14 studies on task-based interaction that were
published between 1980 and 2003.
3 For a detailed discussion of other psycholinguistic characteristics that
distinguish a focus-on-formS versus a focus-on-form approach, see
Doughty and Williams 1998.
4 This item is not part of the original source as listed in Weigmann’s
text.
38 CHAPTER ONE

Communicative Language Teaching

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Communicative Language Teaching (20)

More from Rajabul Gufron (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Communicative Language Teaching