3 Principles of Instructed Second Language Learning ROD EL.docx

3 Principles of Instructed Second
Language Learning
ROD ELLIS
KEY QUESTIONS
~ How do you think about teaching? Do you think about it in
terms of what and how you will teach?
Or do you think about it in terms of how you can create the
conditions for successful second lan-
guage learning?
~ If you were asked to state general principles that could help
teachers create the conditions for
successful learning in the classroom, what would they be?
~ How can you tell that students are successfully learning in the
second language in your classroom?
EXPERIENCE
All teachers have a theoq' of how teaching can
assist learning. However, the theory that teachers
hold may be more or less explicit. That is, teach-
ers may base their teaching on intuitive notions
of what works rather than on explicit principles
of how they can best promote learning in their
students. Intuitive notions can result in highly
successful teaching-and are probably necessary
to enable a teacher to take the countless instant

decisions needed to accomplish a lesson-but they
may not promote critical reflection. If teachers
are to undertake a thoughtful evaluation of their
own teaching, they need to make the principles
that inform their actions explicit. A major goal of
this chapter is to offer a set of principles that can
inform such an evaluation. Let us look at how one
teacher undertook a principled evaluation of her
own teaching.
Juanita Watts (2009) elected to plan, teach,
and undertake an evaluation of an information-
gap task (i.e., spot the difference). This required
the students (upper-intermediate learners in a pri-
vate language school in Auckland, New Zealand)
to work together in pairs to identif)' the changes
evident in two pictures of the same location 100
years apart. Each student held only one of the pic-
tures. The main goal of Juanita's evaluation was to
determine to what extent the task resulted in the
kinds of interaction that have been hypothesized
to promote language learning-in particular the
negotiation of meaning that occurs when a commu-
nication problem arises. To help with this evalua-
tion, she recorded two pairs of students performing
the task and then transcribed their interactions.
Juanita identified a number of negotiation-
and-meaning sequences in both pairs' interac-
tions. Interestingly, all the sequences arose from
problems having to do with vocabulary or pro-
nunciation. There was no negotiation focused on
grammatical problems. She also reported some
differences in how the two pairs undertook the
task. One pair engaged much more extensively in

negotiation than the other and also worked harder
to resolve the communication problems that arose
and was more successful in doing so. There was also
a difference in how the two pairs negotiated. The
pair that negotiated extensively did so by means
of clarification requests, whereas the other pair
employed confirmation checks. The two examples
that follow illustrate these differences. In Example
1, the two students persist until they success-
fully resolve their communication problem with
Student 2 (S2) repeatedly requesting clarification.
In Example 2, Student 4 (S4) uses a confirmation
check to address a vocabulary problem, but even
though Student 3 (S3) indicates that Student 4
31
(S4) has not understood, no further attempt is
made to resolve the problem.
Example 1
Sl: on the left, I can see um lam- post. Lam-post.
S2: wh-pardon? vVhat? clarification request)
Sl: lam- sorry. Lam post.
S2: name post? ( = clarification request)
Sl: /leim/ post /laem/ post post post
S2: L A? clarification request)
Sl: L-A-M lam
S2: Ah, lamp. Ah lamp post (successfully resolved)
Example 2
S3: And ... can you see the, can you say, electronic

lines
S4: road? ( = confirmation check)
S3:no,no
S4: no (not resolved)
Juanita concluded that the task was successful in
generating interaction that created opportunities for
learning. She noted, however, that the task resulted
in very different behavior in the two students. She sug-
gested this was because Sl and S2 had different first
languages (Lis) whereas S3 and S4 shared the same
Ll. She also suggested that d1ey differed in terms of
the extent to which they worked together collahora-
tively. S1 and S2 displayed a high level of mutuality,
but S3 assumed a dominant role and S4 a more passive
role, reflecting differences in their English proficiency.
Juanita's evaluation drew on a number of
the principles of instructed language learning
discussed later in this chapter. Principle 8 states:
The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to devel-
oping L2 proficiency. This principle motivated her
to investigate one specific aspect of interaction-
the negotiation of meaning. Principle 9 states:
Instruction needs to take account of individual d~ffer-
ences in learners. Juanita found that the two pairs
of learners reacted very differently to the task and
sought explanations for why this was. Principle 4
states: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed
al develojJing irnplicil knowledge of the L2 while not
neglecting explicit knowledge. Juanita elected to use
an information-gap task because this caters to the
kind of incidental acquisition that fosters implicit
knowledge. However, in the conclusion to her
evaluation, she states that her lesson would have

benefited from some explicit attention to language
and suggests that this could have been provided in
32 Unit I
the form of a post-task activity that focused directly
on the errors the students were making.
Evaluation is a key element of good teaching.
For evaluation to be effective, it needs to draw on a
set of explicitly formulated principles of insUliCted
language learning. It also needs to su~ject these prin-
ciples to critical scmtiny in the light of a teacher's
reflection on her teaching. Juanita's task evaluation
is a good example of how this can be undertaken.
WHAT IS INSTRUCTED SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING?
Second language acquisition (SU), as a subdisci-
pline of applied linguistics, is still a very young field
of study. vVhile it may not be possible to identify
its precise staning point, many researchers agree
that the late 1960s marked the onset of an intense
period of empirical and theoretical interest in
how second languages are acquired. While some
researchers have been concerned with purely theo-
retical issues of little direct relevance to language
pedagogy, others have addressed how instruction
can assist SLA. There are now numerous stud-
ies that have investigated the effects of instruc-
tion on learning. Norris and Ortega (2000), for
example, identified a total of 79 such studies and
there have been many more since. Also, much
of the theorizing about SLA has been specifi-
cally undenaken with language pedagogy in mind;

for example, KI·ashen's Monitor Model (KI·ashen,
1981), Long's Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996),
DeKeyser's Skill-Acquisition theory (DeKeyser,
1998), VanPatten's Processing Instmction theory
(VanPatten, 1996, 2002), and my own theory of
instructed language learning (R. Ellis, 1994a) all
address the role of instruction in SLA.
However, the research and theory do not
afford a uniform account of how instruction
can best facilitate language learning. There is
considerable controversy (see R. Ellis, 2006). In
particular, there is no agreement as to whether
instruction should be based on a traditional focus-
onforms approach, involving the systematic teach-
ing of grammatical features in accordance with
a structural syllabus, or a focus-onform approach,
involving attention to linguistic features in the
context of communicative activities derived from
a task-based syllabus, or some combination of the
two. Nor is there agreement about the efficacy of
teaching explicit knowledge or about what type
of corrective feedback to provide or even when
explicit grammar teaching should commence.
These controversies reflect the complexity of the
object of enquiry (instructed language acquisition),
its contextual nature, and the fact that what consti-
tutes the most effective approach for one learner
may not do so for another.
Given these controversies, it might be
thought unwise to attempt to formulate a set
of general principles of instructed language

acquisition. Hatch's (1979) warning-"apply vvith
caution"-is as pertinent today as it was over 30
years ago.
Nevertheless, I think there is a need to try to
draw together a set of generalizations that might
serve as the basis for language teacher education. I
am not alone in this; Lightbown ( 1985, 2000) felt and
responded to a similar need. If SU is to offer teachers
guidance, there is a need to bite the bullet and prof-
fer advice, as long a~ this advice does not masquerade
as prescriptions or proscriptions (and there is always
a danger that advice will be so construed). The guid-
ance provided by this chapter should be viewed as
tentative, in the form of what Stenhouse (1975) calls
"provisional specifications."
I have chosen to present my own provisional
specifications in the form of principles. 1 I have
based these largely on a computational model
of SU (Lantolf, 1996). This model, which has
informed the bulk of the research that has investi-
gated instructed language learning, views acquisi-
tion as taking place in the mind of learners as a
result of attending to and processing the input that
they are exposed to. I do not expect that all SU
researchers or all language teachers will agree with
the principles, not least because the computational
model is disputed by researchers who view acquisi-
tion as more of a social than a cognitive activity.
I hope, though, that they ~11 provide a basis for
argument and for reflection.
Principle 1: Instroction needs to ensure that
learners develop both a rich repertoire of fonnulaic
expressions and a role-based competence.

Proficiency in a second language (L2) requires
that learners acquire a rich repenoire of formulaic
expressions, which cater to fluency and immediate
functional needs. Formulaic chunks such as: Hlhat's
the time?, I don't know, Can I have a_?, and I'm
very sony are part of a native speaker's linguistic
repertoire and are also important for L2 learners.
L2 proficiency, however, also requires that learn-
ers develop a mle-based competence consisting of
knowledge of specific grammatical rules in order
to understand and produce novel utterances of
greater complexity and accuracy (Skehan, 1998).
There is now widespread acceptance of the
importance played by formulaic expressions in
language use. Advances in corpus linguistics have
made it possible to identif)' the formulaic sequences in
specific language registers and testif)• to their frequent
use (e.g., see Simpson-Vlach & Ellis's [2010]
Academic Formulas List). Native speakers have been
shown to use a much larger number of formulaic
expressions than even advanced L2 learners (Foster,
2001). Formulaic expressions may also serve as
a basis for the later development of a rule-based
competence. N. Ellis (1996), for example, has
suggested that learners bootstrap their way to gram-
mar by first internalizing and then analyzing fixed
sequences into their component parts. Classroom
studies by R. Ellis (1984), Myles, Mitchell, and
Hooper (1998, 1999), and Myles (2004) demonstrate
that learners often internalize rote-learned material
from the input they are exposed to as chunks and
then break them down for analysis later on.

Traditionally, language instruction has been
directed at developing rule-based competence
(i.e., knowledge of specific grammatical rules)
through the systematic teaching of preselected
structures, what Long (1991) has referred to as a
focus-on-forms approach. 'While such an approach
certainly receives support from research that has
investigated direct intervention in interlanguage
development, curriculum designers and teachers
need to recognize that this type of instruction
may result in students learning rote-memorized
patterns rather than internalizing underlying rules
(Myles, 2004). This need not be seen as an
instructional failure, however, as such patterns are
clearly of value to the learner. It points, instead,
to an acknowledgment of what can be realistically
achieved by a focus-on-forms approach, especially
with young beginner learners.
If formulaic chunks play a large role in
early language acquisition, it may pay r.o focus
on these (and, more generally, on vocabulary)
with beginner learners, delaying the teaching
Chapter 3 33
of grammar until later, as I propose in R. Ellis
(2002). Lewis ( 1993) has argued that "language is
grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar"
(p. vi) and has developed his lexical approach
to prioritize formulaic chunks at first. One
way of achieving r.his is by means of a notional-
functional approach. This lends itself perfectly
to the teaching of routines (i.e., expressions that

are completely formulaic, such as I don't know)
and prefabricated patrerns (i.e., expressions that
are partly formulaic but have one or more empty
slots, such as Can I have a ?) , and may provide
an ideal foundation for direct intervention in
the early stages of language learning. Clearly,
though, a complete language curriculum needs
r.o ensure that it caters to the development
of both formulaic expressions and rule-based
knowledge.
Principle 2: Instmction needs to ensure that
leamers focus predominantly on meaning.
The term focus on meaning is somewhat ambiguous.
It is necessary to distinguish two different senses of
this term. The first refers to the idea of semantic
meaning (i.e., the meanings of lexical items or
of specific grammatical structures). For example,
can in the sentence I can swim expresses a seman-
tic meaning (i.e., ability). The second sense of
focus on meaning relates to pragmatic meaning
(i.e., the highly conrextualized meanings that
arise in acts of communication). Can also encodes
pragmatic meaning, as when it is used in requests
such as Can )'OU pass the salt? To provide oppor-
nmities for students to attend to and perform
pragmatic meaning, a task-based (or, at least, a task-
supported) approach to language teaching is
required. It is clearly important that instruction
ensures opportunities for learners to focus on both
types of meaning, but arguably, it is pragmatic
meaning that is crucial to language learning.
There is an important difference in the
instructional approaches needed for semantic

versus pragmatic meaning. In the case of semantic
meaning, the teacher and the students can treat
language as an object and function as peda-
gogue and learners. But in the case of pragmatic
meaning, they need to view the L2 as a tool for
communicating and to function as communica-
tors.2 In effect, this involves two entirely different
orientations to teaching and learning.
34 Unit I
The opportunity to focus on pragmatic mean-
ing is important for a number of reasons:
:...1 In the eyes of many theorists (e.g., Prabhu,
1987; Long, 1996), only when learners are
engaged in understanding and producing
messages in the context of actual acts of
communication are the conditions created
for acquisition to take place.
:J To develop true fluency in an L2, learners
must have opportunities to create pragmatic
meaning (DeKeyser, 1998).
D Engaging learners in activities during which
they are focused on creating pragmatic mean-
ing (and, therefore, treating language as a
wol rather than as an object) is intrinsically
motivating.
In arguing the need for a focus on pragmatic
meaning, theorists do so not just because they see
this as a means of activating the linguistic resources
that have already been developed but because they
see it as the principal means by which the linguistic

resources themselves are created. This is the theo-
retical position that has informed many highly
successful immersion education programs around
the world (see Johnson & Swain, 1997). However,
in advocating this principle, r do not wish to suggest
that instruction needs to be directed exclusively
at providing learners with opportunities to create
pragmatic meaning but only that, to be effective,
instruction must include such opportunities and
that, ideally over an entire curriculum, they should
be predominant.
Principle 3: Instructioll needs to ensure that leam-
ers also focus on fonn.
There is now a widespread acceptance that acqui-
sition also requires that learners attend to form.
Indeed, according to some theories of L2 acquisi-
tion, such attention is necessary for acquisition
to take place. Schmidt (l994a), for example, has
argued that there is no learning without conscious
attention to form. 3
Again, though, the term focus on fonn is capable
of more than one interpretation. First, it might refer
to a general orientation to language as fonn. Schmidt
(2001) dismisses this global attenrion hypothesis,
art,llting that learners need to attend r.o specific
forms (e.g., the-son a plural noun). Second, the
term might be taken to suggest that learners need
to attend only to the graphic or phonetic instantia-
tions of linguistic forms. Howe,er, themist~ such as
Schmidt and Long are insistent that focus on form

refers to form-function mapping (i.e., the correla-
tion between a particular fonn and the meaning[s]
it realizes in communication). For example, -s on
a noun conveys the meaning "more than one."
Third, fows on form might be assumed to refer to
the awareness of some underlying, abstract rule.
Schmidt, however, is careful to argue that attention
to form refers to the noticing of specific linguistic
items as they occur in the input to which learners are
exposed, not to an awareness and understanding of
grammatical rules.
Instruction can cater to a focus on form in a
number of ways:
:J through grammar lessons designed to teach
specific grammatical features by means of
input or output processing. An inductive
approach to grammar teaching is designed to
encourage the noticing of preselected forms;
a deductive approach seeks to establish an
awareness of the grammatical rule by provid-
ing learners with an explicit explanation
:J through structure-based comprehension
and production rasks (i.e., tasks that require
learners to comprehend and process specific
grammatical structures in the input, and/ or
to produce the structures in the performance
of the task)
o through consciousness-raising tasks that assist
learners to discover grammatical rules for
themselves and to develop an explicit repre-
sentation of them (e.g., see Eckerth, 2008a)

:J through methodological options that induce
attention to form in the context of perform-
ing a task; two methodological options that
have received considerable attention from
researchers are: (l) the provision of time
for strategic and online planning (Foster &
Skehan, 1996; Yuan & Ellis, 2003); and (2)
corrective feedback (Lyster, 2004)
Instruction can seek to provide an mten-
tional and intensive focus on preselected linguistic
forms (as in a focus-on-forms approach or in a
lesson built around a structure-based production-
comprehension task or consciousness-raising task),
or it can offer incidental and extensive attention to
form through corrective feedback in task-based
lessons. There are pros and cons for both intensive
and extensive grammar instruction. Some struc-
tures may not be mastered without the opportunity
for repeated practice. Harley (1989), for example,
finds that Anglophone learners ofL2 French failed
to acquire the distinction between the preterite
and impm.fait past tenses after hours of exposure
(and presumably some corrective feedback) in an
immersion program but were able to improve their
accuracy in the use of these two tenses after inten-
sive instruction. However, intensive instruction is
time consuming (in Harley's study the targeted
structures were taught over an eight-week period!),
and thus there will be constraints on how many
structures can be addressed. Extensive grammar
instruction, on the other hand, affords the oppor-
tunity for large numbers of grammatical structures
to be addressed. Also, more likely than not, many
of the structures will be attended to repeatedly

over a period of time. Further, because this kind
of instruction involves a response to the errors
that each learner makes, it is individualized and
affords the skilled teacher communicative oppor-
tunities for the kind of contextual analysis that
Celce-Murcia (2002) recommends as a basis for
grammar teaching. Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen
(200 l) report that extensive instruction occurred
relatively frequently in communicative adult ESL
lessons through both preemptive (i.e., teacher-
or student-initiated) and reactive (i.e., corrective
feedback) attention to form. Loewen (2005) shows
that learners who experienced such momentary
form-focused episodes demonstrated the subse-
quent learning of the forms addressed in both
immediate and delayed tests. However, it is not
possible ro attend to those structures that learners
do not attempt to use (i.e., extensive instruction
cannot deal with avoidance). Also, of course, it
does not provide the in-depth practice that some
structures may require before they can be fully
acquired. Arguably, then, instruction needs to be
conceived of in terms of both approaches.
Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predomi1zantly
directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2
while not neglecting explicit knowledge.
Implicit knowledge is procedural, is held uncon-
sciously, and can be verbalized only if it is made
explicit. It is accessed rapidly and easily and thus
is available for use in rapid fluent communication.
Chapter 3 35

In the view of most researchers, competence in
an L2 is p1ima1ily a matter of implicit knowledge.
Explicit knowledge "is the declarative and often
anomalous knowledge of the phonological, lexical,
grammatical, pragmatic and socio-critical features
of an L2 together with the metalanguage for label-
ling this knowledge" (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 244). It is
held consciously, is leamable and verbalizable, and
is typically accessed through controlled processing
when learners experience some kind of linguisrjc dif-
ficult:y in the use of the L2. A distinction can be made
between explicit knowledge as analyzed knowledge
and as metaling:ual explanation. The fonner entails a
conscious awareness of how a structural feature
works, while the latter consists of knowledge of gram-
matical metalanguage and the ability to understand
explanations of rules. Thus a person can possess
explicit knowledge even though he or she lacks the
metalanguage needed to express it. Neuroling:uistic
research (e.g., Ullman, 2001) indicates that different
neural stmctures are involved in acquiring and stor-
ing these two types of knowledge.
Given that it is implicit knowledge that underlies
the ability to communicate fluently and confidently
in an L2, it is this type of knowledge that should be
the ultimate goal of any instructional program. How,
then, can it be developed? There are conflicting the-
ories regarding this. According to Skill-Acquisition
theory (DeKeysn, 1998), implicit knowledge arises
from explicit knowledge when the latter is procedur-
alized through practice. In contra<;t, ernergentistisrn
(Krashen, 1981; N. Ellis, 1998) sees implicit knowl-
edge as developing naturally from meaning-focused
communication, aided, perhaps, by some focus

on form. Irrespective of these different theoretical
positions, there is consensus that learners need the
opportuniry to participate in communicative activi-
ties to develop implicit knowledge. Thus, communi-
carjve tasks need to play a central role in instruction
directed at implicit knowledge.
The value in teaching explicit knowledge of
grammar has been and remains today one of the
most controversial issues in language pedagogy. To
make sense of the different positions relating to
the teaching of explicit knowledge, it is necessary
to consider two separate questions:
1. Is explicit knowledge of any value in and of
itself?
2. Is explicit knowledge of value in facilitating the
development of implicit knowledge?
36 Unit I
Explicit knowledge is arguably of value only
if it can be shown that learners are able to use this
rype of knowledge in actual pe1formance. Again,
there is a controversy. One position is that this use
is very limited. Krashen (1982) argues that learners
can use explicit knowledge only when they monitor
and that this requires that they be focused on
form (as opposed to meaning) and have sufficient
time to access the knowledge. Other positions are
possible. It can be argued that explicit knowledge
is used in both the process of formulating messages
and in monitming, and that many learners are
adroit in accessing their explicit memmies for these
purposes, especially if the rules are, to a degree,

automatized. Some current approaches to teaching
grammar emphasize the importance of ensuring
that learners develop clear and scientifically explicit
rules. Systemic-functional instruction (see Lanrolf
& Thorne, 2006) is based on three fundamental
piinciples: ( l) the instruction needs to be orga-
nized around full and precise descriptions of the
rules to be learned (as opposed to the kinds of rules
of thumb that figure in many pedagogical gram-
mars); (2) it needs to provide a material instantia-
tion of the target concepts by means of charts and
diagrams; and (3) learners need to verbalize the
concept-based explanation to foster a full under-
standing and internalization of the concepts.
Irrespective of whether explicit knowledge
has any value in and of itself, it may assist lan-
guage development by facilitating the develop-
ment of implicit knowledge. This involves a
consideration of what has become known as
the interface hypothesis, which addresses whether
explicit knowledge plays a role in L2 acquisition.
Three positions can be identified. According
to the non-interface position (KI·ashen, 1981),
explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge are
entirely distinct, with the result that explicit
knowledge cannot be converted into implic-
it knowledge. This position is supported by
research that suggests that explicit and implicit
memories are neurologically separate and do
not interact with each other (Paradis, 1994).
The interface position argues the exact opposite.
DI-awing on Skill-Acquisition theory (DeKeyser,
1998), this position argues that explicit knowl-
edge becomes implicit knowledge if learners
have the opportunity for plentiful communi-

cative practice. Systemic-functional instruction
is similarly premised on the assumption that
properly formulated explicit knowledge serves
as the foundation for developing implicit knowl-
edge. The weak interface position (R. Ellis, 1993)
claims that explicit knowledge primes a number
of key acquisitional processes, in particular notic-
ing and noticing the gap (Schmidt, 1994a). That
is, explicit knowledge of a grammatical structure
makes it more likely that learners will attend to
the structure in the input and can)' out the cog-
nitive comparison between what they observe in
the input and their own output. These positions
have not been resolved empirically and so con-
tinue to be argued at a theoretical level.
The three positions support very different
approaches to language teaching. The non-
interface position leads to a zero grmmnarapproach,
that is, one that prioritizes meaning-centered
approaches such as task-based teaching. The inter-
face position supports the idea that a grammatical
structure should be first presented explicitly and
then practiced by means of, first, controlled and,
then, free production activities (i.e., an approach
known as PPP) until it is fully proceduralized. The
weak interface position has been used to provide a
basis for consciousness-raising tasks (R. Ellis, 1991).
These provide learners with data that illustrate a
specific grammatical feature and guide learners to
a discovery of the underlying rule. There has been
considerable research (e.g., see Eckerth, 2008b)
that has investigated whether such tasks are effec-

tive in helping learners develop explicit knowledge
and whether they are subsequently able to use this
in L2 production.
This principle, then, asserts that instruction
needs to be directed at developing both implicit
and explicit knowledge, giving priority to the
former. However, teachers should not assume that
explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit
knowledge because the extent w which this is
possible remains controversial and it is clear that
it does not always happen. Teachers also need
to recognize that different types of instructional
activities are needed to develop the two types of
knowledge.
Principle 5: Instructian needs to take into account
the learner's built-in syllabus.
Early research into naturalistic SLA showed that
learners follow a natural order and sequence of
acquisition (i.e., they master different grammatical
structures in a relatively fixed and universal order,
and they pass through a sequence of stages of
acquisition en route to mastering each grammatical
structure). This led researchers like Corder ( l 967)
to suggest that learners have their own "built-in
syllabus" for learning grammar as implicit knowl-
edge. By and large, the built-in syllabus is universal
(i.e., it is the same irrespective of the learner's
age or Ll). Nevertheless, the Ll has been found
to have some influence. For example, Japanese
learners of English may master plural -s somewhat
later than Spanish learners because there is no
equivalent structure in Japanese whereas there is

in Spanish.
Krashen (1981) famously argues that gram-
mar instruction plays no role in the development
of implicit knowledge (what he calls acquisition),
a view based on the conviction that learners
(including classroom learners) automatically
proceed along their built-in syllabus as long as
they have access to comprehensible input and are
sufficiently motivated. He argues that grammar
instruction can contribute only to explicit knowl-
edge (i.e., learning).
A number of empirical studies were conducted
to: ( l) compare the order of acquisition in instructed
and naturalistic learners (e.g., Pica, 1983); (2)
compare the success of instmcted and naturalistic
learners (Long, 1983); and (3) examine whether
attempts to teach specific grammatical struc-
tures resulted in their acquisition (vVhite, Spada,
Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991). These studies show
that, by and large, the order and sequence of acqui-
sition is the same for instmcted and naturalistic
learners (e.g., R. Ellis, 1989a; Pienemann, 1989),
that instructed learners generally achieve higher
levels of grammatical competence than naturalistic
learners, and that instruction is no guarantee that
learners will acquire what they have been taught.
This has led to the conclusion that it is beneficial to
teach grammar but that it is necessary to ensure it is
taught in a way that is compatible with the natural
processes of acquisition.
How, then, can instruction take account of
the learner's built-in syllabus? There are a number
of possibilities:

Zero grammar approach. Adopt a zero grammar
approach, as proposed by Krashen; that is, employ
a task-based approach that makes no attempt to
predetermine the linguistic content of a lesson.
Chapter 3 37
Developmental readiness. Ensure that learners
are developmentally ready to acquire a specific
target feature. However, this is probably impracti-
cal because teachers have no easy way of deter-
mining which level individual students have
reached and it would necessitate a highly indi-
vidualized approach to cater to differences in
developmental levels among the students. Also,
as we noted earlier, such fine-tuning may not be
necessary. While instruction in a target feature
may not enable learners to "beat" the built-in
syllabus, it may serve to push them along it as long
as the target structure is not too far ahead of their
developmental stage.
Explicit knowledge. Focus the instruction on
explicit rather than implicit knowledge because
explicit knowledge is not subject tO the same
developmental constraints as implicit knowledge.
While it is probably true that some declarative
facts about language are easier to master than
others, this is likely to reflect their cognitive
rather than their developmental complexity,
which can be taken into account more easily in
deciding the order of instruction. Traditional
structural S)'llabuses, in fact, are graded on the

basis of cognitive complexity.~
It should be noted, however, that not all
researchers accept the universality and inviolabil-
ity of the built-in syllabus. Skill-learning theory,
for example, is premised on the assumption that
declarative knowledge of a grammatical structure
can be convened into procedural knowledge at any
time given the right amount and type of practice.
Similarly, the adoption of Vygotskian sociocultural
theory "would require that we ... eradicate the
assertion that SL' progresses along a predeter-
mined mental path" (M. Johnson, 2004, p. 172).
However, these researchers do not offer evidence
to support their claims-at least, nor where the
development of implicit knowledge is concerned.
Principle 6: Successful imtructed language
leaming requires extensive L2 input.
Language learning, whether it occurs in a natu-
ralistic or an instructed context, is a slow and
laborious process. Children acquiring their Ll
take between two and five years to achieve full
grammatical competence, during which time they
are exposed to massive amounts of input. Ellis
38 Unit I
and Veils ( 1980) demonstrate that a substantial
portion of the variance in speed of acquisition
of children can be accounted for by the amount
and the quality of input they receive. The same
is undoubtedly true of SLA. If learners do not
receive exposure to the target language, they
cannot acquire it. In general, the more expo-

sure they receive, the more and the faster they
will learn. Krashen (1981, 1994) adopts a ve1y
strong position on the importance of input. He
points to studies that have shown that length of
residence in the country where the language is
spoken is related to language proficiency and to
other studies that that have found positive corre-
lations between the amount of reading reported
and proficiency or literacy. For Krashen, however,
the input must be made comprehensible, either by
modifying it or by means of contextual support.
Other researchers (e.g., Swain, 1995) disagree
with Krashen's claim that compi'ehensible input
(together with motivation) is all that is required
for successful acquisition, arguing that learner
output is also important (see Principle 7), but
there is wide agreement about the importance
of input for developing the highly connected
implicit knowledge that is needed to become an
effective communicator in the L2.
How can teachers ensure their students have
access to extensive input? In a second language
teaching context, learners can be expected to gain
access to plentiful input outside the classroom,
although, as Tanaka (2004) has shown in a study
of adult Japanese students learning English in
Auckland, not all such learners are successful in
achieving this. In a foreign language teaching
context (as when French or Japanese is taught in
schools in the United Kingdom or United States),
there are fi:1r fewer opportunities for extensive
input. To ensure adequate access, teachers need
to do the following:
Maximize use of the L2 inside the classroom.

Ideally, this means that the L2 needs lO become the
medium as well as the oqject of instruction, espe-
cially in a foreign language setting. 5 A study by Kim
and Elder (2005) reveals that foreign language
teachers of French, Gennan,Japanese, and Korean
in Auckland secondai)' schools varied enormously
in the extent to which they employed the L2 in the
classroom (i.e., between 22 and 88% of the total
input).
Create opportunities for students to receive input
outside the classroom. This can be achieved most
easily by providing extensive reading programs
based on carefully selected graded readers, suited
to the level of the students, as recommended
by Krashen (1989). Elley (1991) reviews studies
that show that L2 learners can benefit from both
reading and from being read to. Also, ideally,
if more resources are available, schools need to
establish self-access centers that students can use
outside class time. Successful foreign language
learners seek out opportunities to experience
the language outside class time. Many students
are unlikely to make the effort unless teachers:
(1) make resources available; and (2) provide
learner training in how to make effective use of
the resources.
Much L2 learning is incidental rather than
intentional, and this requires access to massive
amounts of input. It can be claimed with confi-
dence that, if the only input students receive is in
the context of a limited number of weekly lessons
based on some course book, they are unlikely to

achieve high levels of L2 proficiency.
Principle 7: Successful instrncted language leanzing
also requires opportunities for output.
Contrary to Krashen's insistence that acquisition
is dependem entirely on comprehensible input,
most researchers now acknowledge that learner
output also plays a part. Skehan (1998), drawing
on Swain (1995), summarizes the contributions
that output can make:
::1 Production serves to generate better input
through the feedback that learners' efforts at
production elicit.
::.1 It. forces syntactic processing (i.e., obliges
learners to pay attention to grammar).
:J It allows learne1·s to rest hypotheses about the
target language grammar.
:.J It helps to automatize existing knowledge.
cJ It provides opportunities for learners to
develop discourse skills (e.g., by producing
"long turns").
.J Ir. is important for helping learners to
develop a "personal voice" by steering COli-
versation to topics they are interested in
contributing to.
R. Ellis (2003) adds one additional contribution
of output:

:J It provides the learner with "auto-in pur" (i.e.,
learners can attend to the input provided by
their own productions).
The importance of creating opportunities
for output, including what Swain ( 1985) has called
pushed output (i.e., output where the learner is
stretched to express messages clearly and explic-
itly), constitutes one of the main reasons for
incorporating tasks into a language program.
Controlled practice exercises typically result in
output that is limited in terms of length and com-
plexity. They do not afford swdents opportunities
for the kind of sustained output that theorists
argue is necessary for interlanguage development.
Research (e.g., Allen, Swain, Harley, & Cummins,
1990) has shown that extended talk consisting of
a clause or more in a classroom context is more
likely to occur when students initiate interactions
in the classroom and when they have to find their
own words. This is best achieved by asking learners
to perform oral and written tasks.
Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is
central to develo-ping L2 proficiency.
·while it is useful to consider the relative
contributions of input and output to acquisition,
it is also important to acknowledge that both
co-occur in oral interaction and that both cogni-
tive-int.eractional (e.g., Long, 1996) and sociocul-
tural (e.g., Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) theories of
SLA have viewed social interaction as the matrix
in which acquisition takes place. As Hatch (1978)
famously put it, "one learns how w do conversa-
tion, one learns how to interact verbally, and out

of the interaction syntactic strucmres are devel-
oped" (p. 404). Thus, inreraction is not just a
means of automatizing existing linguistic resources
but also of creating new resources. According to
the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), interac-
tion fosters acquisition when a communication
problem arises and learners are engaged in nego-
tiating for meaning. The interactional modifica-
tions arising help to make input comprehensible,
provide corrective feedback, and push learners to
modify their own output when they repair their
errors. In sociocultural theory, interaction sen1eS
Chapter 3 39
as a form of mediation, enabling learners to
construct new forms and perform new functions
collaboratively (Lantolf, 2000). According to this
view, learning is first evident on the social plane
and only later on the psychological plane. In
both theories, while social interaction may not be
viewed as necessary for acquisition, it is viewed as
the primary source of learning.
vVhat then are the characteristics of interac-
tion that are deemed important for acquisition?
In general terms, opportunities for negotiating
meaning and plen t:y of scaffolding (assistance from
experts) are needed. K. Johnson (1995) identifies
four key requirements for interaction to create an
acquisition-rich classroom:
1. creating contexts of language use where stu-
dents have a reason to attend to language

2. providing opportunities for learners to use
the language to express their own personal
meanings
3. helping students to participate in language-
related activities that are beyond their current
level of proficiency
4. offering a full range of contexts that cater for
a full performance in the language
Johnson suggests that these are more likely to
occur when the academic task structure (i.e., how
the subject matter is sequenced in a lesson) and
the social participation structure (i.e., how the
allocation of interactional rights and obligations
shapes the discourse) are less rigid. Once again,
this is more likely to be provided through tasks
than through exercises. R. Ellis ( 1999) suggests
that a key to ensuring interaction that is beneficial
to acquisition is giving control of the discourse
topic to the students. This, of course, is not easily
achieved given that teachers have a duty to ensure
that classroom discourse is orderly, which, in turn,
is most easily achieved by taking control of the
discourse topic by means of IRF (teacher initiates-
student responds-teacher provides feedback)
exchanges. Thus, creating the right kind of inter-
action for acquisition constitutes a major challenge
for teachers.
One solution is to incorporate small-group
work into a lesson. vVhen students interact among
themselves, acquisition-rich discourse is more likely
to ensue. Learners speak more and use the L2 for a

wider range of language functions (Long & Porter,
1985). However, there are a number of dangers
40 Unit I
in group work that may militate against this (e.g.,
excessive use of the L1 in monolingual groups
and exposure to interlanguage errors), and some
educators (e.g., Prabhu, 1987) have argued that
it is more important to ensure that learners are
exposed to well-formed L2 input from teacher-class
interaction.
Principle 9: Instruction needs to take into account
individual differences in leanzers.
While there are identifiable universal aspects of L2
acquisition, there is also considerable variability
in the rate of learning and in the ultimate level of
achievement. In particular, learning will be more
successful when:
Ill The instruction is matched to students'
particular aptitude for learning.
II The students are motivated.
It is probably beyond the abilities of most teachers
to design lessons involving the kind of matching
instruction employed in Wesche's ( 1981) study.
This used language aptitude tests to identify differ-
ent learning styles and then sought to match the
kind of instruction provided to the learners' pre-
ferred approach to learning. However, teachers
can cater to such variation in their students' apti-
tudes by adopting a flexible teaching approach

involving a variety of learning activities. They can
also make use of simple learner-training materials
(e.g., Ellis & Sinclair, 1989) designed to make
students more aware of their own approaches to
learning and to develop their awareness of alter-
native approaches. Good language Ieamer studies
(e.g., Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1996)
suggest that successful language learning requires
a flexible approach to learning. Thus, increasing
the range of learning strategies at the learners'
disposal is one way in which teachers can help them
to learn. Such strategy training needs to foster an
understanding that language learning requires
both an experiential and an analytical approach
and to demonstrate the kinds of strategies related
to both approaches. School-based students often
tend to adopt an analytical approach to learning
(even if this does not accord vith their natural
aptitude) because this is the kind of approach
generally fostered in schools (Sternberg, 2002).
They may have, greater difficulty in adopting
the kind of experiential learning required in
task-based language teaching. Some learner train-
ing, therefore, may be essential if learners are to
perform tasks effectively. 6
Dornyei's research has shown the kinds of
teaching strategies that teachers can employ to
develop and maintain their students' intrinsic
motivation. Dornyei (2001) also makes the obvi-
ous point that "the best motivational intervention
is simply to improve the quality of our teaching"
(p. 26). Dornyei and Csizer (1998) conducted

a study of 200 high school teachers in Hungary
and, based on their self-reported use of moti-
vating strategies, identified "l 0 commandments"
for motivating learners. Examples are "create a
pleasant and relaxed atmosphere in the classroom"
and "increase the learners' goal-orientedness."
Guilloteaux and Dornyei (2008), in a study of EFL
classrooms in Korea, find a significant positive
correlation between the teacher's motivational
practice and the learners' motivated behavior.
These studies show that motivation is not just
something learners bring to the classroom but
something that can be generated inside the class-
room. Teachers also need to accept that it is their
responsibility to ensure that students are motivated
and stay motivated. vVhile it is probably true that
teachers can do little to influence students' extrin-
sic motivation, there is a lot they can do to enhance
their intrinsic motivation.
Principle 10: In assessing learners' L2 proficiency,
it is important to examine free as well as controlled
production.
Norris and Ortega's (2000) meta-analysis of studies
investigating form-focused instruction demon-
strates that the extent of the effectiveness of
instruction is contingent on the way it is measured.
They distinguish four types of measurement:
1. metalinguisticjudgment (e.g., a grammaticality
judgment test)
2. selected response (e.g., multiple choice)
3. constrained constructed response (e.g.,

gap-filling exercises)
4. free constructed response (e.g., a communica-
tive task)
They find that the magnitude of effect was
greatest in Types 2 and 3 and least in Type 4.
Yet, arguably, it is Type 4 that constitutes the
best measure of learners' L2 proficiency because
it is this measure that corresponds most closely
to the kind of language use found outside the
classroom. The ability to get a multiple-choice
question right amounts to very little if the
student is unable to use the target feature in
actual communication.
Free constructed responses are best elicited
by means of tasks. The performance elicited by
means of tasks can be assessed in three ways
(R. Ellis, 2003): (1) a direct assessment of task
outcomes; (2) discourse analytic measures; and (3)
external ratings. Method 2 is not practical for busy
classroom teachers because it requires transcrib-
ing speech and then painstakingly calculating such
measures as number of error-free clauses and clause
complexity. Method 3 is practical, but it requires
considerable expertise to ensure that the ratings of
learner perfom1ance are valid and reliable. Method
l holds the most promise for classroom testing.
However, it is possible only with closed tasks (i.e.,
a task for which there is a single correct outcome),
such as a spot-the-difference task, where learners
are asked to interact to find a specified number
of differences in two similar pictures. In this task,
assessment consists of establishing whether learners

were able to successfully identif)' the differences.
FUTURE TRENDS
The 10 principles were first formulated in 2005 as
part of a report for the New Zealand Ministry of
Education, entitled Instructed Language Acquisition:
A Literature Review.' At that time, my work in
SLA was largely informed by the computational
model of learning, so the principles were mainly
based on this model. Since then, SLA has been
increasingly influenced by more socially oriented
theories of learning, in particular sociocultural
theory. This them)' differs from the computa-
tional model in a number of important ways,
most significantly in how it views learning. In
the computational model, learning occurs inside
the head of the learner; the role of instruction,
therefore, is to prompt the internal cognitive
processes required for learning to take place. In
sociocultural theory, learning is a social phenom-
enon; it occurs in the social interactions in which
learners participate. Interaction, in other words,
is not just a source of input but a powerful means
for mediating learning. Furthermore, research
Chapter 3 41
based on sociocultural theory has provided a much
richer account of how interaction can assist learn-
ing than does the computational model. It has
shown, for example, that the collaborative talk that
learners engage in when they experience linguistic
problems helps them not only to resolve these
problems in targetlike ways while they are talk-

ing but also to remember the solutions and use
them independently in their own language use at
a later date. In short, talking about language leads
to learning. Social learning is the precursor to
individual learning.
The insights provided by sociocultural theory
feed imo a number of the existing principles, as I
have indicated in this chapter (e.g., see Principle 8).
But they also point to a new principle:
Principle 11: Leanzers need to engage collabora-
tively in talk about linguistic problems and try to agree
on solutions to them.
This principle can be seen as an extension of
Principle 7 (Successful instntcled language learning also
requires ojJjJattunities for output) but it is, arguably,
so important that it should be stated as a separate
principle.
I am also aware of another gap. In general, the
principles assume a universalistic view of L2 learn-
ing; they view language learning as involving cogni-
tive processes that are common to all learners. To a
large extent, this is true. We know, for example, that
all learners follow a very similar order and sequence
of acquisition (see Principle 5), and certainly having
plenty of input and having the opportunity to inter-
act in the L2 are kev to successful learning for all. I
have acknowledged the role of learner factors such
as language aptitude and motivation in language
learning (see Principle 9), but I have so far made no
mention of one important area of individual differ-
ence in !em-nel-s-the subjecti'e nanu-e of language
learning_ Learning a new language is not just a

question of developing linguistic or communicative
ability bur also, potentially at least, an opportunity
to acquire a new syrnbolic form. Learners have the
opportunity to develop their subjective selves by
taking on new identities and even a new personality.
Learning an L2 can change how people ·iew 1·eality
and how they see the world around them. Thus, I
see a need for an additional principle:
42 Unit I
Principle 12: lnstntction needs to take into account
the subjective aspect to leanzing a new language.
This principle indicates the need for instruc-
tional activities that encourage learners to engage
in language play and to form an emotional
identification with the target language. One way
this can be achieved is through the introduction
of literature and creative writing into the L2
curriculum.
Finally, I emphasize that the 12 principles
I have proposed are not cast in stone. As I have
just shown, they will be subject to modification
as a result of new theoretical perspectives on L2
learning.
CONCLUSION
These general principles have been derived from
my understanding of SLA. I have drawn on
a variety of theoretical perspectives, although
predominantly from the computational model
of L2 learning. I am aware that this model has its
limitations and is open to criticism; in particular, it
is not socially sensitive because it fails to acknowl-

edge the imponance of social context and social
relations in the language learning process (for
an extended critique along these lines, see Block,
2003). Clearly, it would be useful to formulate a
set of principles based on the broader conceptu-
alization of SLA of the kind advocated by Block
and others, but this is not my aim here. There will
always be a need for a psycholinguistic account of
how learners internalize new linguistic forms and
how they restructure their linguistic knowledge
during the process of acquisition. Social theories
emphasize language use, but language use is
nol language acquisition, only a means to it. To
my mind, the computational model, along with
sociocultural theory, provides a solid foundation
for developing a set of principles that articulate
the relationships among instruction, language
use, and language acquisition. It also constitutes a
metaphor that teachers can easily relate to.
SUMMARY
This chapter draws together findings from a range
of second language acquisition studies to formulate
a set of general principles for language pedagogy.
These principles address such issues as:
)to- the nanu·e of second language competence as
formulaic and rule-based knowledge
)to- the contributions of both focus on meaning
and focus on form

)to- the need to develop both implicit and explicit
second language knowledge
)to- the problems posed by the learners' built-in
syllabus
)to- the roles of input, output, and interaction in
learning
)to- the importance of catering to individual
differences in learners
)to- the need to assess language learning in terms
of both free and controlled production
The principles are otfered as provisional speciftca-
tions for a leaming-centered language pedagogy.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Do you agree that formulaic sequences and
vocabulary are more imponant than grammar
in the early stage of L2 learning~
2. Explain the difference between semantic
meaning and pragmatic meaning, and think
of one instructional activity for each.
3. The chapter describes four ways of focusing
on form (see p. 35). Vhat do you see as the
advantages and limitations of each way?
4. Given that the main goal of teaching should
be to help students acquire implicit L2 knowl-
edge, how do you think this can be best
achieved?

5. Vhat are your own views about the value of
teaching explicit L2 knowledge?
6. Make a list of ways in which you can maximize
the input that your students are exposed to (a)
inside the classroom and (b) outside the class-
roon1.
7. "Controlled practice exercises typically result
in output that is limited in terms of length and
complexity" (p. 39). Do you agree with this
statement? Do you see any advantages of such
exercises?
8. In many classrooms, students have only limited
opportunities to interact using the L2. vVhy is
this? What can you do to provide students with
more opportunities to interact?
SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES
1. Observe a lesson of a teacher whom you
know well. Your aim is to investigate to what
extent the lesson manifests the principles of
instructed language learning. You can use
these questions to help you carry out your
observation:
Principle 1: Do the students use formulaic
chunks in the target language during the
lesson? Do the students produce utterances
in the target language that contain complex
constructions?

Principle 2: Are there opportunities for students
to focus on pragmatic meaning during the
lesson? Does the lesson contain any commu-
nicative tasks? What proportion of the lesson
time engages learners in processing pragmatic
meaning?
PrincijJle 3: What evidence is there of attention
to form in any of these ways?
:J through grammar/vocabulary I pronuncia-
tion lessons designed to teach specific lin-
guistic features
:J through focused tasks
:.:..J through methodological options designed
to induce attention to form (e.g., plan-
ning, preemptive attention to form, and
reactive attention to form)
D through an intentional (intensive) and
incidental (extensive) approach to
lessons
Principle 4: What opportunities are there for
the learners to develop implicit L2 knowl-
edge? Does the teacher attempt to teach
explicit knowledge of the target language? If
so, how?
Principle 5: If the lesson takes a focus-on-forms
approach, what specific grammatical structure
is the target of the lesson? How did the learn-
ers appear to handle this grammatical struc-
ture: (a) very easily, (b) with some difficulty,

(c) with great difficulty, (d) not at all?
Chapter 3 43
Principle 6: Hmv extensive is the input that the
learners are exposed to in the lesson? What
does the teacher do to try to make the target
language input comprehensible?
Principle 7: ~When the students speak in the
target language, how long are their utterances
typically: (a) single words, (b) short phrases,
(c) full clauses, (d) multiple-clause sentences?
Principle 8: Vlhat evidence is there that negotia-
tion of meaning is taking place? vVhat evidence
is there that the teacher is scaffolding students'
attempts to use the target language? Do the
students work in groups? If they do, do they
use English or their Ll?
Principle 9: To what extent are the instruction-
al activities designed to take into account dif-
ferences among the students? How intrinsically
motivated do the students seem to be during
the instructional activities? vVhat indicators are
there of their motivation or lack of it?
2. When you have finished your observation, dis-
cuss your findings with the teacher and ask him
or her to comment on them.
3. Choose an ESL or EFL textbook that you
know well. To what extent do the method-

ological approach and the activities in the
textbook accord with the principles discussed
in this chapter?
4. "<Thile it is probably true that teachers can
do little to influence students' extrinsic moti-
vation, there is a lot they can do to enhance
their intrinsic motivation" (p. 41). Note the
difference between extrinsic motivation (efforts
made by the learner in anticipation of external
rewards) and intrinsic motivation (efforts made
by the learner when there are are possible inter-
nal rewards). Dra~ng on your own experiences
as a language learner or as a teacher, make a
list of the strategies that teachers can use to
enhance their students' intrinsic motivation.
FURTHER READING
Ellis, R. (1999). Making the classroom acquisition
rich. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language
44 Unit I
through interaction (pp. 211-229). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis discusses how opportunities for language
learning are more likely to arise when the stu-
dents have the chance to initiate topics and
control their development in classroom dis-
course.
Erlam, R., & Sakui, K (2006). Instmcted second
language acquisition: Case studies. Wellington,
New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

This report presents the results of a study that
investigated the classroom practice of teachers of
foreign languages in terms of the extent to which
this conformed to Ellis's ten principles.
Gibbons, P. (2007). Mediating academic
language learning through classroom
discourse. In J. Cummins & C. Davison
(Eds.), International handbook of English lan-
guage teaching (pp. 701-718). New York, J'TY:
Springer.
Gibbons identifies four conditions that need to be
met for what she calls "progressive discourse" to
take place in the classroom.
Gray, S. (2009). From principles to practice:
Teachers' uptake of principles from instruct-
ed learning to plan a focus on language in
content lessons. System, 37, 570-584.
This article describes how a pair of secondary
content teachers used Ellis's principles in an
action research project to focus on form when
planning a task-based lesson sequence.
Johnson, K (1995). Understanding communication
in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson distinguishes "academic task structures"
(i.e., how the subject matter is sequenced in a
lesson and the sequential steps involved) and
"social participation structures" (i.e., how the
allocation of interactional rights and obligations

shapes the discourse).
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction:
teacher talk and learner involvement in the
EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6,
3-24.
Walsh identifies ten features of typical language
classroom discourse and then suggests ways m
which teachers can both enhance and impede
learners' participation in the classroom.
ENDNOTES
1 This chapter is an expanded 1·ersion of an article first
published as:
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning.
System.
33(2), 209-224.
2 It is also possible to teach pragmatic meaning as an "object."
That is,
specific pragmatic meanings (e.g., requesting or apologizing)
can
be identified and insmtctional materials developed to teach
learn-
ers the linguistic means for perfonning these strategies. See
Kasper
and Rose (2002) for examples of studies that have investigated
the
effectiveness of this approach. Such an approach constitutes a
ver-
sion of "focus on forn1s," discussed on p. 33. Here, however, I

wish to
emphasize the need to create materials that allow students to
create
their own pragmatic meanings through con1munication.
3 The extent to which attention to form is necessm)1 for
learning remains
controversial, however. A nlunber of researchers (e.g.,
Villiams,
2005) ha1·e provided evidence to demonstrate that some
learning
takes place without awareness. Schmidt (2001) has modified his
position somewhat to allow for the possibility of nonconscious
registration of linguistic form, arguing only that "more attention
results in more learning" (p. 30).
4 A good example of where cognitive complexity and
developmental
complexity can be distinguished is subject-1·erb agreement in
English. This is typically introduced very early in stmctural
courses, but it is invariably mastered only at a vel}' advanced
stage
of development.
5 In advocating use of the L2 as the medium of instruction, I do
not
wish to suggest that the learners' L1 has no role to play in the
classroom. Polio and Duff (1994) have identified a number of
ways in which the L 1 can be used in the L2 classroom.
6 Foster ( 1998) reports that the adult ESL learners she
im·estigated
engaged in ·ery little negotiation of tneaning when performing
tasks because they failed to take them seriously. They viewed
them
as ·'gan1es" and eschewed negotiation because it would detract

from the '·fun."
7 See http:/ /'"''~''.educationcounts.gon.nz/ publications/
schooling/ 5163
Chapter 3 45
v~ 1)vmCL
Teaching English
as a Second or
Foreign Language
FOURTH EDITION
MARIANNE CELCE-MURCIA
DONNA M. BRINTON
MARGUERITE ANN SNOW
EDITORS
GEOGRAPHIC ~ ~ HEINLE . D NATIONAL I ~I LEARNING
1-. c ENGAGE Learnmg·
Australia • Brazil • japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore· Spain •
United Kingdom • United States
ii
GEOGRAPHIC ~ .. D NATIONAL I ~-I .... HEINLE

LEARNING 1.,. CENGAGE Learning·
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language, Fourth Edition
Marianne Celce-Murcia,
Donna M. Brinton,
and Marguerite Ann Snow
Publisher: Sherrise Roehr
Acquisitions Editor: Tom Jefferies
Director of Global Marketing: I an Martin
Senior Product Manager:
Barbara Quincer Coulter
Director, Content and Media Production:
Michael Burggren
Content Project Manager:
Andrea Bobotas
Print Buyer: Mary Beth Hennebury
Cover Designer: Gina Petti
Cover Image: joel Sartore/National
Geographic Image Collection

Compositor: MPS Limited
Printed in the United States of America
345671817161514
© 2014, 2001, 1991 National Geographic Learning, a part of
(engage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the
copyright herein
may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or
by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to
photocopying,
recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution,
information
networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except
as permitted
under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright
Act, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
[email protected]
ISBN-13: 978-1-111-35169-4
ISBN 10: 1-lll-35169-4

National Geographic Learning
20 Channel Center Street
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning
solutions with
office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the
United Kingdom,
Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and japan.
(engage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson
Education, Ltd.
Visit National Geographic Learning online at elt.heinle.com
Visit our corporate website at www.cengage.com
FIRE PREVENTION
Discuss the type of record keeping system employed by your
organization for maintenance of records. Whether your
organization is public or private, there must be some form of
records keeping. Provide a narrative of what type of system
your organization utilizes and who is responsible for the
security and upkeep of the system.
CRITICAL THINKING
Identify a time when you were influenced by media bias in
relation to a world event, or perhaps an event on a more local
level. Explain why you think that the news media was biased in
this context and whether certain media outlets were overly
sensitive to advertisers, government, or powerful interests, or

competitors.
or h·ith
>anded
lrinton
erman
nre·er,
. 11ot a
hat of
"110"Jl
)roach
!ida~·,
tnmar.
'roach
on of
11 and
in his
d the
>plied
poses
nities
~rs to
5ocio-
that I

2 Communicative Language Teaching
PATRICIA A. DUFF
KEY QUESTIONS
~ What is communicative language teaching?
~ How is this approach related to other proficiency-based
approaches to language teaching?
~ How relevant or adaptable is communicative language
teaching to language teaching contexts
worldwide?
EXPERIENCE
Experience 1: Teaching young adult
learners in an ESL context
It is Monday morning and a group of young adult
English as a second language (ESL) learners have
just arrived for their language class. The teacher
starts the class by asking the students about their
weekend:
Teacher: So what did you do this weekend?
Student 1: I ran my first marathon!
Teacher: Wow! Did you finish?
Student 1: Yes, eventually .... But I can barely walk
today!
Several students: Congratulations! Nay to go!
Student 2: I saw the latest Harry Potter movie!
Student 3: How did you like it?
Student 2: It was great but not as good as the last
one.
Teacher: Did anyone else do anything interesting?

Student 4: I stayed home and finished today's
assignment-ha, ha!
Several students: Groan .... )
The discussion continues for a few more minutes
and one student finally asks the teacher if she had
a good weekend. She replies and then announces
the focus of today's class: producing personal nar-
ratives in the past tense.
WHAT IS COMMUNICATIVE
LANGUAGE TEACHING?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an
approach to language teaching that emphasiz-
es learning a language first and foremost for
the purpose of communicating with others.
Communication includes finding out about what
people did on the weekend, as in Experience 1, or
on their last vacation and learning about classmates'
interests, activities, preferences, and opinions and
conveying one's own. It may also involve explaining
daily routines to others who want to know about
them, discussing current events, writing an email
message with some personal news, or telling oth-
ers about an interesting book or article or Internet
video clip. Although the concept of communica-
tion underlying CLT may seem self-evident as a
goal for language education, a generation ago (and
still in many parts of the world today) teaching and
learning another language were often more con-
cerned with language analysis, literary text analysis,
memorization, translation, or high-stakes multiple-
choice language testing. Instead of describing one's
own weekend, students might have read a passage
and changed all present tense forms to past tense

or translated the passage into their first language
(Ll). Learning how to express and interpret ideas
in speech or in writing in their second language
(L2) and getting to know classmates or other L2
users better were not priorities. Often people did
IS
not imagine ever needing to communicate with
others using the language being taught. Or the
educational culture they were in and theories of
learning at the time placed a premium on linguistic
knowledge, such as the ability to analyze grammar
and vocabulary, rather than the ability to use the
language to speak or write to others about topics of
mutual concern.
In this chapter, I examine the principles and
history of CLT, how and why it has evolved, what
it represents today, and directions for CLT in the
future. The relationship between CLT and other
proficiency- or competency-based approaches to
language education is also considered. Finally, I
consider how communicative competence might
be reconceptualized for the purposes of language
education given the changes in the nature of
communication in the twenty-first century. This
involves a growing assortment of new media and
interfaces for communicating and sharing infor-
mation, especially using English.
Reflections on your own experiences
as a language learner
Think of your own expe1iences of learning another

language through fonnal instmction. Was the lan-
guage you learned a modern language that is used
in everyday communication in some region of the
world? Or was it a classical language, such as Latin,
learned more for the study or reproduction of par-
ticular sacred or literary texts but not widely spoken
in society? vVhat were your goals for learning the lan-
guage? Did the instructional methods used support
those goals? Did you have opportunities to interact
with others in the classroom using the language or in
other contexts outside of class or online? Or did the
instruction place much more emphasis on memo-
rizing lists of vocabulary items, grammatical forms,
sentence patterns, and mles mainly for the purpose
of using those structures appropriately on tests of
grammar, vocabulai)', and translation?
Historically, classical and modern languages
were often required courses at school and uni-
versity and taught as a form of intellectual and
literary enrichment, with no expectation that stu-
dents would ever have the opportunity to use the
language for either face-to-face communication
or to correspond with other readers and writers
of the language for their own purposes. In some
16 Unit I
contexts, however, the requirements might be
much more rigorous, involving speaking and lis-
tening and not just reading and writing, beginning
with primary education and continuing through-
out one's educational and professional career. Yet
many such programs place considerable emphasis
on grammatical and lexical sophistication and
accuracy with much less emphasis on fluency and

the ability to use the language for meaningful com-
munication with others.
The traditional grammar- and text-based
approach to teaching and learning language for the
sake of engaging with literary works or mastering
the grammatical conventions of language is still
cultivated in many institutions and can constitute
important intellectual and metalinguistic activity
(i.e., building an awareness of how language func-
tions as a system). However, people have many
other reasons for learning languages than the study
of grammar and classical literary texts; these rea-
sons relate to the increasing levels of immigration
and transnationalism worldwide, migrant worker
programs, and opportunities for travel and interna-
tional education. In addition, the Internet, global-
ization, more knowledge-based economies, and
new information and communication technologies
have all had an impact on language learning and
use as well as on perceptions about its significance
in people's lives. Learners may need to learn and
use a second or foreign language such as English to
participate in public education; to obtain employ-
ment; to communicate with relatives, friends, or
colleagues who speak that language; to travel to
regions of the world where the language is spoken;
or to communicate with newcon1ers in their own
neighborhoods who speak the language.
Experience 2: CL T in a secondary
school English as a foreign language
class
It has sometimes been argued that CLT is more
appropriate in ESL curricular contexts, as in
Experience 1, where English is spoken more

widely in the local community, than in English as
a foreign language (EFL) settings, where it is not
the dominant local language. Indeed, there has
sometimes been resistance to CLT in EFL contexts
(Littlewood, 2011). Yet there are still ways that
the principles of CLT can be applied, adopted,
t be
i lis-
11lng
Ltgh-
Yet
tasis
and
and
om-
sed
the
mg
nil!
ute
•1t:y
nc-
my
ldy
ea-
on
~er
Ja-

al-
1d
es
ld
:e
ld
to
y-
lr
0
n
or adapted in EFL contexts. This was apparent
in a 40-minute lesson I observed in 2009 in a
well-resourced, urban, public secondary school
classroom in China with over 50 grade 11 (senior
year 2) students.
The topic is art and architecture, based on a
unit in the textbook Senirrr English for China, Student
Book 2A (PEP Curriculum Team, 2003b, Unit 3). The
teacher begins by asking the students to generate
words or phrases that they associate with the word
mt (e.g., they volunteer beauty, creative, opera, music,
architecture, and culture). Using a Power Point (PPT)
presentation, she then shows them images of some
famous works of both modern and classical art (e.g.,
the lvfona Lisa and a famous Chinese painting) and
then iconic architectural landmarks from around
the world, such as the Eiffel Tower. The teacher
asks students to guess the name and location of
the works shown and to decide what they have in
common. They offer such responses as They are
special ... beautiful ... creatively designed ... famous.

The linguistic goal of the lesson is to introduce and
re1ew vocabulary related to art and architecture,
and also the grammatical structures for expressing
a preference for one artistic or architectural style
over another, such as the advantages and disadvan-
tages of traditional versus modern Chinese houses.
Guided by the teacher, students compare images of
modern houses (apartments) and more traditional
courtyard-style houses. Then, in groups of four, the
students discuss which housing style they would
want to live in and why. Students exchange their
personal preferences and compare the different
layouts of traditional and modern housing and ways
of describing them. Finally, for the main task of the
lesson, which takes 10-15 minutes, the students,
in small groups again, discuss and design their
"dream house" and then present it to the class, after
which others give their impressions of the dream
house. The lesson ends with a summary of the main
conceptual and linguistic points of the lesson (mod-
ern versus traditional architecture; shapes and styles
of housing; and building materials, such as concrete
or wood).
In their lesson the following day, they con-
tinue with this theme, discussing a reading about
some of the buildings designed for the Beijing
2008 Olympics, such as the "Bird's Nest" national
stadium. Most of the class is conducted in English.
What aspects of this class are consistent with
CL T? First, like the teacher in Experience 1, this
teacher has students communicating in English, to
the extent possible or desirable, about their per-
sonal experiences, opinions, and interests. Second,

they discuss students' knowledge and understand-
ings of art and architecture. They also discuss
their preferences for certain kinds of artistic form.
Third, a great deal of interaction (questions,
responses, and requests for more information and
for their opinions) occurs between the teacher and
students. Fourth, to encourage additional oral lan-
guage practice and a more personalized discussion
of the topic, the teacher has students work together,
here in groups of four, to create the prototype
of their "dream house." They are therefore com-
municating with one another-negotiating mean-
ings and preferences and showing their creativity
through drawings-and then communicating with
others in the class, as well. Finally, the students are
asked to explain why they chose certain features
and not others. There are many points of intersec-
tion between the curriculum and the students'
own lives, their background knowledge, perspec-
tives, and even hopes or dreams.
The teacher's approach to teaching this les-
son is constrained by a number of factors in
addition to class size: lesson length, prescribed
textbook materials (supplemented by the teacher's
PPT slides), and learning outcomes. Teachers and
students are held accountable for the curriculum
with monthly examinations for all classes in the
same grade, culminating in their final year with the
high-stakes College Entrance Examination, which
determines students' higher education prospects
and places considerable emphasis on English
grammar. Even so, this very experienced teacher
has managed to find ways of engaging students
in interactions about the topic and has also high-
lighted both the language structures required to

complete the task effectively that were also in the
textbook (e.g., nouns: architecture, balcony,fumiture;
adjectives: classical, modern; expressions of prefer-
ence: I'd rather . .. , In my opinion, ... , What !like
is ... ) and the grammar (past participles used as
object complements: We want traditional materials
[to be] used; hypothetical conditionals: If I were
to build a house, I would ... ) . The students seem
genuinely interested in the lesson and are able to
express themselves. The teacher espouses CL T but
concedes that she must provide balanced instruc-
tion given the very language-focused curriculum
mandated by the province.
Chapter 2 17
CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS
OFCLT
The CLT movement, often also referred to as the
communicative approach, began in the 1970s to
address shifting priorities in both education and
society associated with socioeconomic trends at the
time in continental Europe, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. Addressing the needs of
mobile or migrant language learners wishing to
convey and interpret meanings in actual social
contexts became paramount. These learners often
had very practical needs like getting a job, buying
groceries, finding housing, or speaking to neigh-
bors. Giving learners the tools to communicate
and some choice regarding what they might want
to say or write as well as the freedom to experiment
with language use distinguished CLT from other
widely used approaches based on pattern drilling,

recitation, and grammatical analysis (Richards &
Rodgers, 2001).
An important parallel development taking
place within theoretical linguistics was an emphasis
on understanding the functions of language in a
variety of social contexts. This included analyzing
the kinds of adaptations that competent speakers
know how to make when speaking to others of
higher versus lower status, when speaking formally
versus informally, when talking about technical
or academic topics versus everyday subjects, and
when interpreting others' speech and writing,
among other facets of sociolinguistics (the study
of language use in society). Savignon (1983, 2001,
2005, 2007), an American proponent of CL T,
documented some of these shifts in European and
British functional linguistics and also their impact
on language teaching internationally since then.
The growing convergence in social and func-
tional orientations in linguistics, along with the
needs of learners seeking practical language skills
for social, academic, occupational, and other pur-
poses in the United Kingdom and continental
Europe, gave rise to a very pragmatic and learner-
centered approach to language teaching and
learning. In the United States, similarly, a more
socially oriented linguistics was proposed by Hymes
(1971). He a1·gued that to function in society, to be
able to use language appropriately in social situ-
ations, speakers must know how to produce and
interpret language for a wide range of purposes, as
part of different types of activities in many settings,
18 Unit I

and with a variety of interlocutors. This ability to
use language effectively, which native speakers of
a language often take for granted, is known as com-
municative competence. Communicative competence
was contrasted with idealized, abstract representa-
tions of grammatical knowledge (linguistic com-
petence) or intuitions that native speakers have
about language (e.g., Chomsky, 1965) with little
reference to the observed real-world linguistic
behaviors, needs, or intentions of speakers.
In addition to changes in society and linguis-
tics that gave rise to the new field of sociolinguis-
tics, psychological theories of learning were also
evolving from more behavioral to more cognitive
and social approaches. New insights about the
nature of L1 and L2 learning, skill acquisition,
comprehension, production, and memory, in par-
ticular, acknowledged the interplay of multiple
factors in successful language learning and edu-
cation, going well beyond rote skills. Among the
many insights generated by the newer learning
theories was that learners need to be actively and
socially engaged in constructing meaning (either
as readers/listeners or as speakers/writers) by
interacting with both their textual environment
(e.g., linguistic and nonlinguistic material, ideas,
and texts) and with other language users. They
need to attend simultaneously to the basic building
blocks oflanguage, such as morphemes (the small-
est units of meaning or structure in language),
words (which may include more than one mor-
pheme), and grammatical structures (a bottom-up
approach to processing information), and also to
the larger meanings and types of discourse being

conveyed (a more top-down holistic approach).
In our earlier examples, students were
engaged in discourse about past evenL~ and lei-
sure activities (Experience 1) and preferred types
of art, architecture, and housing (Experience 2).
Students need to become effective communicators
in their L2 using many kinds of language (or dis-
course)-to compare and contrast items, describe
sequences in a complicated process or narrative,
categorize and classif)' information, present the
causes and effects of different actions or events,
provide evaluations, persuade people by making
a good argument, or use language creatively to
express themselves. Thus, the ability to learn and
use grammar effectively, though clearly impor-
tant, is only part of being able to communicate
well. Appropriate registers or styles of speech
I
J
ility to
'ers of
as com-
~tence
~senta-
com-
have
little
;uistic

1guis-
1guis-
~ also
11itive
t the
:tion,
par-
tiple
edu-
; the
nmg
and
ther
by
1ent
'eas,
'hey
ling
1all-
~e),
lOr-
-up
' to
mg
~re
lei-
Jes
2).
lrS

lis-
be
l.e
ts,
lg
to
tel
r-
te
h
---
(academic, nonacademic; formal, informal) and
other socially appropriate ways of engaging in oral
or written communication (making requests, com-
plimenting others, complaining, apologizing, and
expressing humor or passion) are also required in
particular situations.
To develop communicative abilities, it was
argued, learners need to experience or practice
communicating in the language they are learning
by negotiating meanings with others (e.g., Scarcella,
Andersen, & K.t·ashen, 1990). The term negotiation
of meaning comes up often in discussions of CL T,
and it refers to efforts to make oneself understood
and to understand others-to convey messages
or meanings-by asking such questions as "Is this
what you mean?" and "Do you understand what
I'm trying to say?" After all, communication-and
learning-cannot occur if people do not under-

stand what others have tried to express. The first
wave of research in the new subfield of second
language acquisition (SLA) also provided compel-
ling evidence that learners do not simply learn
what they are taught or are exposed to, especially
if the grammatical and lexical (vocabulary) struc-
tures are too complicated or too numerous, or if
students are not cognitively (mentally) ready to
acquire them (R. Ellis, 1994b). (See also Ellis, this
volume.)
In Canada, French immersion researchers
Canale and Swain ( 1980) began to operationalize
communicative competence for the purposes of
instructing and assessing English-speaking learners
of French in special programs in which most of the
instruction was delivered in French. They sought to
compare students' ability to communicate in their
L2, French, with that of native French speakers or
of learners of French in more traditional L2 pro-
gi·ams. In addition to grammatical competence,
long the hallmark of language teaching interna-
tionally, the following three components were
added: sociolinguistic competence, strategic com-
petence, and later, discourse competence (Canale,
1983). These four kinds of competence represent
interrelated aspects of speakers' being able to use
language effectively for purposes of communica-
tion both inside and outside classrooms.
vVhereas grammatical competence refers to the
ability to use and interpret sentence-level fea-
tures of language effectively, including vocabulary
(lexis), syntax (grammar), morphology (word con-
struction), semantics (meaning), and phonology

(the mapping of structure and meaning onto
sound patterns), the other three domains of
competence operate across different levels of
language-from the word or sentence level to
the larger social and discourse contexts. These
larger units of language involve strings of phrases,
sentences, or spoken utterances and the ability to
cope with communicative needs in interactional
contexts in strategic ways. An example of strategic
language use is speakers' being able to paraphrase
or find a synonym when unable to retrieve a word
or other desired expression. So, if learners cannot
think of the English word enormous but produce
very large, huge, or gigantic, they have strategically
managed their communication by finding a similar
expression.
These additional, newly elaborated, and test-
ed kinds of competence under the larger umbrella
of communicative competence were important
because they signaled to teachers, administrators,
textbook writers, testers, and language learners
themselves that learning phrase-level or sentence-
level grammar and vocabulary alone does not
enable one to communicate well across a variety of
contexts. Furthermore, people must learn to cre-
ate and comprehend cohesive and coherent oral
and written texts on different topics (reflecting
discourse competence); that is, they must produce
language that makes sense, with ideas tied together
in a logical, smooth manner so the relationship
between ideas and sentences is clear, involving
neither too much repetition nor too much discon-
nected switching between topics or other things
being discussed. They must also learn to produce
and interpret different genres or types oflanguage

use (e.g., a dialogue, a short narrative, a news or
weather report, a personal letter, or a research
paper) and in different disciplines or content
areas (e.g., in the sciences versus the humanities).
Nevertheless, learners cannot be expected to know
everything there is to know about language across
disciplines-not even native speakers do-since
language learning, including Ll learning, is a life-
time process guided by need and opportunity.
Other aspects of language education not
originally given prominence in CLT include criti-
cal thinking (e.g., Benesch, 1993) and critical
literacies (e.g., Pennycook, 1999), which are now
sometimes folded into CLT as well. Critical think-
ing is the ability to analyze information rationally,
solve problems, and discern and evaluate implicit
Chapter 2 19
assumptions, values, and points of view while con-
sidering alternative perspectives; critical literacies
are similar analytic skills applied to various kinds
of texts-reading between the lines-to expose
issues of bias (both explicit and implicit), misrep-
resentation, and possible manipulation of readers
and listeners by texts and to consider alternative
interpretations or versions of the same texts.
Despite CL T' s origins in the teaching of
European languages in Europe, the United
Kingdom, and North America, its current reach
is much more global, with educators worldwide
recognizing the importance of a more functional

and practical approach to language education.
CLT is by no means a uniform method, however.
If anything, like the term democracy, CLT is used to
describe an increasingly diverse array of practices,
principles, and contexts.
Indeed, many scholars have wondered wheth-
er the term CLT has outlived its usefulness because
of the many different ways it has been interpreted
and applied. However, Littlewood (2011) argues
that "CLT still serves as a valuable reminder that the
aim of teaching is not to learn bits of language but
to 'improve the students' ability to communicate"'
and that "every country needs people who can com-
municate internationally" (p. 542). He also asserts
that both analytical and experiential aspects of lan-
guage learning are valuable. Therefore, CLT should
emphasize learners' experiences with language, life,
and the curriculum and language analysis.
As I have suggested, the implementation of
CLT is very context-dependent, based on local
language education policies, educational cultures,
assessment practices, and the availability of profi-
cient and trained teachers and resources (e.g., text-
books, multimedia, classroom layouts, and number
of students per class). Local demographics, languag-
es, and the primary purposes for which languages
are being taught and learned must be considered.
No two countries or contexts are identical.
According to J. Richards (2006a), language
instruction and learning in the early decades of
CLT focused on fluency and the integration of
language skills, rewarding learners' efforts to speak
or write even if errors resulted. Many kinds of

instructional activities were recom1nended, frmn
mechanical language practice initially, involving
the entire class or individuals, to much more
open-ended communicative practice, some of it
20 Unit I
requiring either one-way or two-way exchanges of
information through activities in which partners
need to share and consolidate information to carry
out the task. These principles still apply. However,
now other types of activities, such as inductive
discovery-oriented learning, are also encouraged
where students try to find patterns in language
texts and data sets (e.g., common collocations of
words) and guess their meanings or usage. The
teacher's role is to create a nurturing, collabora-
tive learning community and worthwhile activities
for students. Richards's own English language
textbooks embody CLT principles as well (e.g., New
Interchange, J. Richards, 2012; Passages, Richards &
Sanely, 2008). The existence of a flexible curricu-
lum (over which the teacher and students have a
fair amount of control and input), small class sizes,
and relatively little formal assessment is assumed
in much CLT pedagogy, unlike the situation in
Experience 2.
How does CL T relate to other
proficiency-based approaches to
language teaching?
As CLT was developing, particularly for adult
English language teaching, other highly compat-
ible theoretical frameworks were being developed.
Three are discussed in this section.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages Standards. The first related profi-
ciency framework or model that arose alongside
CLT was the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Standards for Foreign
Language Learning for the 21st Centwy, also known
as the Five Cs model. This model consisted of the
following components:
1. Communication: fostering communication with-
in and across cultures (oral and written)
2. Cultures: encouraging the development of deep
cultural understanding and insight
3. Connections: forging connections with other
disciplines and information sources
4. Comparisons: facilitating metalinguistic and
metacultural understanding by comparing
one's own and the target language
5. Communities: making connections with mul-
tilingual communities of target-language
~es of
lners
carry
·ever,
1ctive
aged
uage
1s of
The

>ora-
'ities
1age
New
is &
"icu-
zes,
11ed
111
ult
at-
~d.
~
fi-
le
)f
~n
11
e
1-
speakers near and far and becoming lifelong
learners (American Council for the Teaching
of Foreign Languages, n.d.)
Each component represents an interlocking knowl-
edge domain for language education, although
communication (the first C) is part of all of them.

This model, which evolved in the late twentieth
century, is widely used in postsecondary and,
increasingly, elementary and secondary foreign
language ("world language") programs across the
United States (Omaggio Hadley, 2001; Shrum &
Glisan, 2010). Like CLT, the ACTFL Standards
movement stresses contextualizing language itself,
contextualizing learning activities and language
use, fostering communication, and integrating
the learning of language, culture, communica-
tion, and (academic) content of different types
within and across communities. An emphasis on
oral-aural language, particularly at lower levels,
was a remedy to earlier approaches devoted to
written literary text analysis and interpretation at
the expense of a wider range of functional oral
abilities on the part of college-level learners in
particular (Higgs & Clifford, 1982) .1
Also like CLT, learning theories inform-
ing the model underscored both top-down and
bottom-up orientations to learning and processing
language. People must be able to attend to global
meanings and structures of texts (What is the
overall purpose and meaning of the text, and what
cultural or other background knowledge is rel-
evant?) and to details (vVhat vocabulary or gram-
matical forms are involved, and what meanings
are being conveyed by these?) at more or less the
same time (see Shrum & Glisan, 2010). However,
when first exposed to oral or written texts, students
may need to focus initially on more holistic, top-
down strategies that enable them to understand
the linguistic elements used. In addition, the three
primary modes of communication cultivated by
this proficiency-based approach are known as inter-

personal (e.g., conversing, and exchanging ideas
or information with others), interpretive (providing
impressions or understandings of content), and
presentational (e.g., communicating through oral or
written reports and public speaking). Assessment,
according to ACTFL guidelines, includes deter-
mining the functional level of students as Novice,
Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior. 2
Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. The second framework or model
with communicative ability and proficiency at
its core originated in Europe and is now spread-
ing to other parts of the world. It is known as
the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages ( CEFR, 2011). Developed under
the direction of the Council of Europe, CEFR is
an impressive functional approach to task-based
teaching and assessment designed for at least 20
languages across a broad spectrum of proficiency
levels (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Little, 2007).
CEFR now guides language teaching policies, plan-
ning, and assessment in countries in the European
Union and is gaining ground in the Asia-Pacific
region, Canada, and elsewhere. CEFR encour-
ages learners, teachers, and teacher educators
to collect evidence of learners' proficiency and
language learning biographies through various
media, including multimedia personal learning
portfolios that include statements and illustrations
of what learners can do in the various languages
that are part of their L2 or multilingual repertoire
(Duff, 2008; Little, 2007).
Like ACTFL, which provides descriptors of
different levels of proficiency, CEFR is based on a

common template that enables people working in
different program contexts to have the same (i.e.,
common) frame of reference for what is meant
by a Basic, Independent, and Proficient user (to
use the CEFR labels). Functional descriptors help
direct pedagogy by focusing teachers' and students'
attention on practical competencies and serve as a
means of assessing students' abilities and progress.
Having a shared framework that is understood by
other end users also allows for greater mobility
and information sharing as learners move across
or through different institutions and countries.
Increasingly, programs adopting one or the other
scale (i.e., ACTFL or CEFR) also specify the
expected learning outcomes in terms of the level
students are expected to reach after specified
types and amounts (hours or years) of instruction.
For example, a Basic A2-level learner, according
to CEFR (2011), can (or is expected to) do the
following:
Can understand sentences and frequently
used expressions related to areas of most
immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal
Chapter 2 21
and family information, shopping, local geog-
raphy, employment). Can communicate in
simple and routine tasks requiring a simple
and direct exchange of information on famil-
iar and routine matters. Can describe in
simple terms aspects of his/her background,
immediate environment and matters in areas

of immediate basic need. (p. 24)
At a much higher le·el, on the other hand, a
Proficient C 1-level learner is described as:
Can understand a wide range of demanding,
longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning.
Can express him/herself fluently and spon-
taneously without much obvious searching
for expressions. Can use language flexibly
and effectively for social, academic and pro-
fessional purposes. Can produce clear, well-
structured, detailed text on complex subjects,
showing controlled use of organisational pat-
terns, connectors and cohesive devices. (p. 24)
Canadian Language Benchmarks. The third com-
municative, proficiency-based framework embody-
ing the principles ofCLT is the Canadian Language
Benchmarks (CLB) 2000 (Centre for Canadian
Language Benchmarks, 2000) project for adult
ESL learners in Canada. The theoretical rationale
for the document, which includes benchmarks and
tasks for diagnostic/placement, instructional, and
assessment purposes, makes its CLT foundations
very clear (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2002):
The Canadian Language Benchmarks is based
on a functional view of language, language
use, and language proficiency. Such a view
relates language to the contexts in which it is
used and the communicative functions it per-
forms. The focus of the Canadian Language
Benchmarks is thus on communication and
communicative proficiency in English as a
second language. ( p. 5)

The five communicative components promoted
through the CLB 2000 also bear a direct rela-
tionship to the early theoretical development in
Canada and elsewhere (e.g., Bachman, 1990)
regarding features of communicative competence
that can be assessed: linguistic competence, textual
competence (coherence and cohesion), functional
competence (ability to "convey and interpret com-
municative intent"), sociocultural competence
22 Unit I
(related to sociolinguistic appropriateness), and
strategic competence (managing actual communi-
cation across all components).
Other curricular program types
compatible with CL T
Several other developments in language education
that have had an impact on CLT are dealt with in
more depth by other authors in this volume. Here
I briefly introduce a few of them.
Content-based language teaching. One curricular
trend favors attention to content learning together
with language learning. Known as content-based
language teaching (or content and language inte-
grated learning in Europe), this type of curriculum
is usually found at the intermediate to advanced
levels of study and appears to be gaining in popu-
larity worldwide, particularly in programs where
English is the medium of instruction but not the
language of the wider community or the L1 of the
students. Content-based teaching is often adopted
after students have participated in the equivalent of

a year of intensive communication-based language
instruction or several years of regular L2 coursework
incorporating theme-based and task-based discus-
sions and acti~ties. However, these students have not
yet studied a particular content area over a sustained
period using the L2. Content-based approaches can
also be used at lower proficiency levels, such as early
immersion or bilingual programs in which students
study curricular subjects (content) through the
L2 following an initial period in which language
arts and literacy are introduced in that language.
(See also Snow, this volume.)
The rationale for content-based approaches
is that students must communicate (read, write,
speak, and listen) in the L2 to make meaning and
construct knowledge about topics using "authen-
tic" texts, which are core principles in CL T.
Authentic, a synonym for genuine (versus contrived,
bookish, or artificial), refers to language naturally
produced by speakers or writers of the target lan-
guage; it also refers to the kinds of communication
that people might normally engage in when using
the language. Very often the test of authenticity
has been whether the language forms, texts, or
types of interaction used for instructional purposes
represent contemporary oral or written language
1, and
muni-
ation
!thin
Here

cular
~ther
~ased
inte-
tlum
Ked
opu-
1ere
the
the
>ted
1t of
age
ork
:us-
not
1ed
'an
trlv
nts
he
tge
se.
1es
te,
1cl
11-

T.
~d,
lv
n-
ty
)['
~s
e
produced or used by native speakers for purposes
other than language teaching.
Academic/professional purposes language teach-
ing. Closely related to content-based instruction
is an increasing focus on learning to communicate
more effectively in another language for academic
or professional purposes. (See Johns & Price, this
volume.) Teaching languages (especially English)
for specific occupational, vocational, scientific, and
academic purposes was an early priority of CLT
internationally for engineers, pilots, graduate stu-
dents, hotel workers, and other groups. However, as
more English learners worldwide participate in aca-
demic programs requiring high levels of oral and
written communication, advanced CLT typically
extends into academic study as well. Since learner-
centered pedagogy has influenced academia in
recent years as well, in lieu of transmission-based
approaches in which teachers lecture and students
passively take notes, students now work together
to solve problems, create projects, and investigate
real-world issues of interest to them.

Work from Australia that integrates sociocul-
tural, functional, and communicative aspects of
learning language for academic purposes has also
had great traction (see Byrnes, 2006), especially in
advanced language and literacy education. Much
like Hymes's (1971) conceptualization of commu-
nicative competence but with a more fully elabo-
rated application to education, Halliday's systemic
functional linguistics (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1989)
focuses on text types, different registers and genres
of language (e.g., in academic spheres), particular
audiences or interlocutors in various social contexts,
and the linguistic r-esources or- choices available to
produce or interpret specific meanings.
Task-based language teaching. CL T spawned
important developments in task-based language
teaching and learning in the late 1970s that con-
tinue to be researched in terms of theory, pedagogy,
and task and curriculum design. (See Nunan, this
volume.) Now there is an increasing focus on more
elaborate, multiskill, and multimodal collaborative
project work that involves many subtasks over an
extended curricular period (e.g., Beckett & Miller,
2006) 0
Service leaming. An additional area of increased
curricular and extra-curricular activity for the
development of communicative competence and
community well-being is (community) serv1ce
learning. Students are encouraged to use the lan-
guage they are learning to assist other speakers of
that language living within their own community,
thereby gaining genuine language practice but

also contributing to society by helping others.
Service learning is now included in many lan-
guage programs' community outreach and global
citizenship efforts, for which students can receive
course credit (e.g., vVurr & Hellebrandt, 2007).
It is sometimes combined with content-based lan-
guage learning where issues related to immigra-
tion, housing, or social justice, for example, are
dealt with in course readings and discussion. This
academic content provides advanced linguistic
material and helps students better understand
the learning contexts they are in. In the United
States, for example, learners of Spanish might
reach out to local (Spanish-speaking) Latino com-
munities, or ESL learners in Canada might spend
time at soup kitchens feeding local homeless
people or interact with English-speaking seniors
at a local nursing home. Thus, a growing number
of approaches to contemporary language teaching
stress communication skills, intercultural sensitiv-
ity, and social action, together with language and
content learning.
CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS:
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF
CLTINTESOL
Two additional examples of English teaching
informed by CL T are provided next; these invol'e
young children in an EFL context (Experience 3)
and students in an academic preparation program
at a Canadian university (Experience 4).
Experience 3: Teaching young
learners in an EFL context
In an elementary school in China, an enthusiastic
English teacher is teaching 9-year-olcl students a

lesson about discussing the weather. She begins by
asking the students about the weather outside that
clay. Individual students reply: It's warm . .. cloudy . ..
sunny . .. fine, and so on. The teacher continues by
asking about the weather in other parts of China,
for example, up north, where it is much colder.
Chapter 2 23
She even pretends that she has caught a cold,
shivering and sneezing, and asks the students to
guess what is wrong. She then goes over a dialogue
about two characters named Zip and Zoom, one
of whom has traveled up north, where the weather
is cold, and has caught a cold. The students do
role plays of the dialogue seated in pairs and then
perform it at the front of the class. Later they sing
a song about the weather. In subsequent classes,
the teacher asks students about the weather at the
beginning of class.
In other chapters, the colorful textbook
series used at the school, PEP Primary English
(PEP Curriculum Team, 2002, 2003a), has stu-
dents talk about their school, their families,
their friends, their own personal characteristics
(height, size, health, and likes and dislikes),
holidays, and how they spent the last weekend.
The curriculum aims to prepare students for
language use that relates to their own lives and
interests and not just those of the human and
animal characters in the textbook. Section head-
ings in each lesson also ref1ect CLT principles:
Let's Learn, Let's Play, Let's Try, Let's Talk,

Group Work, Let's Read, Pair Work, Task Time,
Let's Sing, Story Time, and Let's Chant.
However, as in all educational contexts, the
same textbook and lesson content can be used in
many different ways by different teachers, some
much more effectively than others. This teacher
tries to make the lesson as meaningful as possible
to the children, relating the content to their lives
and settings, and she also gives them opportuni-
ties to practice the lesson content in a variety of
social participation formats (whole class, pairs, and
groups offour), despite the large class size (60-70
students).
Experience 4: Fostering
communication in English for
academic purposes classes
Now consider what CLT principles might look like
when applied to a completely different educational
context, in an English for academic purposes
(listening and speaking skills) class at a university
in western Canada.
In addition to espousing principles of CLT,
the instructor incorporates into the curriculum
a social justice orientation to teaching known as
24 Unit I
critical pedagogy, which raises students' awareness
of and seeks to redress various forms of oppres-
sion and unfairness in society (e.g., Benesch, 2001;
Norton & Toohey, 2004). The students here are
lower-advanced international and immigrant stu-

dents. Students reflect on, discuss, and listen to
news reports and watch and discuss films about
social issues (e.g., discrimination) of different
types, based on race, gender, class, sexuality, and
certain political and cultural ideologies (see Royal,
2010).
First, the instructor engages the students
in a negotiated curriculum (Breen & Candlin,
1980), in which students have some choice
regarding the topics to be included in the course
or aspects of assignments. This level of student
involvement is not uncommon in CLT and, par-
ticularly, in ESL classes with adult immigrant
students to make the instruction relevant to the
students and to give them a sense of ownership
of the curriculum. One class activity early in the
course asks students to discuss "the five most
serious problems facing the world and then the
five most serious concerns in their own lives."
The purpose is not only to broach social justice
at the macro-societal level (about which students
needed to reach a group consensus and make a
short presentation to the class later) but also to
deal with students' own lives and to give them a
chance to discuss their perspectives with others
in small groups. In the process, they get to know
one another better, practice speaking English
and listening to others, and offer advice and
feedback to one another about homesickness,
parental pressure, and the lack of opportunities
to practice English outside of class. They also
report back to the class the world problems they
have identified. The curriculum involves prob-
lem solving and role plays related to academic
life and discussions about cultural issues in the

community (e.g., arranged marriages).
The students later report that they appreci-
ated being able to discuss real-life problems, learn
more about Canadian society and culture, talk
about issues that are personally meaningful to
them, and consider human rights, critical media
literacy, and social and political issues not talked
about in their countries of origin. These aspects
are all clearly connected with learning to use
English for both everyday and academic commu-
nication. The learning objectives include listening
:ness
pres-
001;
are
stu-
1 to
lOut
·em
and
•yal,
·nts
lin,
Ice
rse
~nt
ar-
tnt

he
tip
he
lSt
1e
'" '·
:e
ts
a
:o
a
rs
h
d
i,
s
and speaking subskills, content objectives related
to social justice, and employability skills, such as
being able to take part in discussions, presenta-
tions, and interviews (for course purposes and
job-seeking).
Although the contexts and goals for these
two courses are completely different, both aim to
make clear connections between the topics being
discussed and the world outside the classroom.
Both help build up students' linguistic knowledge,
enabling them to produce and interpret oral, writ-
ten, and multimedia texts; use language actively;

and relate topics to their own lives, interests, and
understandings, whether they are children or
young adults.
Challenges in CL T
CLT in theory versus practice. In an influential
early study on CLT, Spada (1987) documents how
teachers might say they were using a particular
teaching method, especially a popular one such as
CLT, but observations of their classroom teaching
revealed wide disparities between their self-reports
and actual practice. Some of the teaching pro-
cesses the teachers characterized as "CLT" in her
study were not at all communicative and seemed
indistinguishable from earlier, more traditional
approaches to language teaching.
My observations have also revealed how
differently the same curriculum materials and
objectives are taken up by individual teachers;
some were more focused on recitation and rote
work, and others were more focused on truly com-
municating about topics in addition to working
on language structures and skills. The teachers'
confidence and competence in teaching and using
English, managing class time, and covering the
curriculum are major factors.
Sometimes teachers simply need additional
mentoring and constructive suggestions from
trusted colleagues to help them extend the lan-
guage practice in more personally meaningful
directions. In one elementary school EFL class-
room I obsenred, for example, an enthusiastic
young teacher was teaching a lesson based on
transportation and specifically about how people

get to school. The class energetically rehearsed
and even acted out statements in their textbook
lesson such as I go to school by bus and I go to school
by taxi; they also sang songs and chanted relevant
lyrics and seemed fully engaged with the mate-
rial. However, the teacher never asked any of the
students how they themselves traveled to school-
on foot, by bus, bicycle, or by other means? By
moving beyond the structures and prompts in the
textbook, PPTs, and audio recordings, the teacher
could quite easily have helped students make con-
nections between the English expressions being
taught and their own routines. This extension of
the lesson would have taken relatively little time
and would have made the language more engag-
ing and memorable.
One strategy to help preservice or in-ser-
vice teachers learn concrete new ways of making
their teaching more consistent with desired or
mandated methods is to invite them to take part
in lesson study, an instructional approach in which
sample lessons taught by highly effective teachers
are video-recorded (with permission) and then
analyzed for professional development purposes
by groups of teachers.3
Even teachers who subscribe to the principles
of communicative methodology must sometimes
compromise their own beliefs about instruction
to prepare students for the high-stakes assess-
ment that might reward very traditional forms
of knowledge, such as grammar and detection of
written errors. This negative effect of assessment
practices on teaching, known as negative washback,

plagues language teaching all over the world;
when written examinations do not match the
curriculum, short shrift is typically given to oral,
integrative communication skills because they
are more expensive and logistically challenging
to assess than grammatical or lexical knowledge.
Teachers embracing a communicative orien-
tation usually need to be resourceful, constantly
looking for current print-based and multimedia
materials of potential interest to the class and for
new formats for activities. Sometimes students
are asked to bring in relevant materials as well.
For example, the lessons in the Chinese English-
teaching materials for middle school students that
I examined dealt with a number of topics that
students said appealed to them, such as "heroes"
(e.g., great women, freedom fighters), the "Special
Olympics," "Australia," "World Englishes," "pop
culture" (e.g., movies, music), "new technologies,"
and "advertising." Sometimes students were asked
to do Internet searches before class to contribute
examples for the different topics.
Chapter 2 25
CLT and language education reforms. Savignon
(2007) offers examples of curricular reform in
the direction of more communicative language
education in Asia and Central America. She also
documents some of the factors conspiring against
a more truly communicative approach related
to testing or teacher development, teachers'
L2 proficiency, and their epistemologies. Such

challenges are particularly salient when teach-
ing is extended to new contexts with inadequate
preparation of teachers, such as in elementary
schools in many regions of the world where the
age of initial English education has been lowered
and teachers are expected to teach English with
insufficient training and L2 proficiency. Similarly,
Hasanova and Shadieva (2008) describe the chal-
lenges of implementing CLT in Uzbekistan. An
online search of research on CLT yields a long
list of dissertations around the world that have
examined its relevance, utility, implementation,
effectiveness, and reception on the part of teach-
ers, parents, administrators, students, and other
stakeholders, along with some of the challenges
facing language education reform.
CLT and English as a lingua franca. Teaching
in contexts where English is a lingua franca (a
widely used language among speakers of mutu-
ally unintelligible languages) also raises interest-
ing challenges for CL T in terms of the desired
accuracy-fluency balance that CLT now embraces
(see Kirkpatrick, 2007). For example, many learn-
ers of English, even advanced speakers, often pro-
duce similar sorts of ungrammatical features (e.g.,
deleting third person-s, producing he go instead of
he goes) and yet can understand one another quite
well. The argument goes: vVhy insist on accuracy
in such structures when they are pervasive and
do not seem critical to mutual understanding?
However, some forms of ungrammatical language
use can have serious consequences for L2 users.
The issue, then, is how to determine what levels
of accuracy are appropriate (and worth attaining)
and for what purposes.

Classroom management and social organiza-
tion. Finally, while CLT can be a very promis-
ing way of helping students learn and lean1 to
use language, the social organization of activi-
ties must also be carefully considet·ed and moni-
tored to ensure its effectiveness. How students are
perceived, referred to, or even grouped in class by
26 Unit I
themselves, by teachers, or by classmates in terms
of their abilities, identities, proficiency level, and
cultural backgrounds can have a direct impact
on their learning and retention in courses (Duff,
2012).
FUTURE TRENDS
How and why is CL T evolving in the
twenty-f'rrst century?
Proponents of CLT maintain that, although it
might not be possible to create exactly the kind
of learning environment described by J. Richards
(2006a) for a variety of cultural and institutional
reasons, much can nevertheless be learned from
CLT to make learning under other conditions
more meaningful, effective, and rewarding. CLT
is evolving in response to contextual constraints,
priorities, technological possibilities, and prefer-
ences. As Savignon (2007) points out, although
certain aspects of CL T are commonly observed in
vVestern teaching contexts, especially those invoh·-
ing European target languages, CL T does not
or need not involve primarily oral or face-to-face

communication and small-group work, nor should
CLT preclude the development of students' meta-
linguistic or metacommunicative awareness (i.e.,
understanding and being able to discuss both the
nonverbal and verbal elements of communica-
tion). Spada (2007) and Littlewood (2011) concur
strongly with this view. Spada also notes that avoid-
ance of the learners' Ll is not a necessary feature
of CLT, although in early CLT that practice was
common because migrant learners in the same
class might come from diverse language back-
gt·otmds and not share a common language apart
from the L2. Furthermore, the goal was to have
learners practice using the L2 as much as possible
in all four skills.
In CLT, contextualization, meaning making,
and the usefulness of the language being learned
and the activities being engaged in should be very
evident in curriculum and instruction, keeping in
mind that communication takes place in differ-
ent ways, using different media. For example, I
might read an online article in my L2 about the
environment but never discuss it with others. Yet
I am interacting with the text and with its author.
I might also write a journal in my L2 that is not
terms
, and
npact
Duff,
1e

h it
.;.ind
ards
mal
rom
ons
:LT
lOt
Ke
tid
:ta-
e.,
he
=a-
re
as
1e
k-
rt
it
le
T ,,
d
y
11
intended for anyone but myself. But that too

is certainly a form of communication and self-
expressiOn.
Information and communication
technologies and CL T
Contemporary educational policy, curriculum,
and pedagogy have been profoundly affected
by the impressive new global information and
communication technologies used in many sec-
tors of society. Twenty-first-century competencies
include being able to collaborate with others in
processes of problem solving, data mining and
induction, textual co-construction and negotia-
tion, and cooperative report production and pre-
sentation even when working in different locations
and connected only by these new technologies.
Language education is no exception. '•Vith grow-
ing access to Internet resources in many parts of
the world, English language learners have a wealth
of authentic oral, written, and multimodal texts
at their disposal, as well as linguistic corpora and
concordance programs, to help them solve linguis-
tic puzzles of their own choosing and to work on
projects with others elsewhere. (See chapters by
McCarthy & O'Keeffe and Sokolik, this volume.)
They can take part in the interactive creation or
analysis of Internet video clips, or they can read
or respond to blogs with English language users
worldwide who share their interests (Dudeney,
2007; Dudeney & Hockly, 2007). Indeed, one of
the benefits of developing communicative compe-
tence in more than one language is precisely to tap
into such resources for a variety of interpersonal,
informational, and creative purposes.
In addition, forms of delivery and venues

for CLT or communication-driven learning activi-
ties now increasingly include both in-class and
out-ofclass online programs involving websites,
Internet-based project work, email, chat, blogs,
wikis, Skype (a free means of teleconferencing
or video-chatting with others via the computer),
podcasts, and electronic portfolios. Moreover,
as new online tools and devices (e.g., mobile
phones and small portable tablet computers with
wireless capability) become more widely available
and more versatile, new possibilities will exist for
people to access and produce language in innova-
tive ways online.
One particular innovation that is likely
to evolve further is virtual or simulated worlds
for educational purposes, such as Second Life. 4
Three-dimensional online sites ("worlds") such
as Second Life allow users to create different
personas or identities for themselves. They can
then interact with others (real people using their
personas in that same virtual space) by means
of the L2 and tools for building a simulated
physical or cultural environment, which they also
co-create. Language practice in such a game-
like environment often appeals to adolescents
and young adults accustomed to video gaming.
However, virtual worlds such as Second Life are
more than games. They provide a site for social,
cultural, and intellectual networking mediated by
language, and increasingly, they are being used in
university education to support problem solving,
improved communication, and creativity (e.g.,
Bradley, 2009).

Live tutoring systems and other social net-
working tools that enable language learners to
practice using language with others around the
world are another growing phenomenon made
possible by the Internet. 5 Indeed, the Internet,
Skype, and other digital tools provide endless
possibilities for teachers and students to connect
with other L2 users for a variety of meaningful
purposes, including the creation or analysis of
pop culture (see Duff & Zappa-Hollman, 2013).
(See also Sokolik, this volume.) Online discussion
forums and distance learning, furthermore, are
increasingly part of language courses and (other)
academic courses as well, providing students with
alternative means of participating in and contrib-
uting to discussions outside class (e.g., Yim, 2011).
Students and classes in different locations can
meet online via email, Skype, or other programs
through formal or informal class exchanges or
partnerships.
However, having access to a wealth of
resotu-ces and new communication media does
not in itself lead to learning; nor does it consti-
tute sound pedagogy. Teachers (and learners in
more self-directed learning contexts) must care-
fully select sites, activities, and texts to ensure
that they are appropriate for the cognitive,
social, and linguistic levels of their students. For
example, vVebQuests 6 allow students to engage
in tasks or projects involving sets of (authentic)
online materials and media carefully preselected
Chapter 2 27

in advance by teachers. Alternatively, students
can design the WebQuest themselves and prese-
lect sources for their peers (see the example in
Dudeney & Hockly, 2007, on how to be a respon-
sible consumer of running shoes). But these
activities should notjust be a low-cost substitute
for textbooks or printed handouts. Because of
their multimodality (e.g., images, text, sound,
and links) and the ease of providing updates
and thus timeliness of the materials, students
can easily access important media materials for
analysis, synthesis, evaluation, transformation,
and presentation.
CONCLUSION
vVhereas early CLT focused on functional (oral)
language ability in which f1uency and comprehen-
sibility were key, CLT now typically also integrates
formal attention to language features in a variety
of ways, from direct instruction and metalinguis-
tic awareness-raising to more inductive learning
through the use of language-corpus data (e.g.,
Spada, 2007). (See also McCarthy & O'Keeffe, this
volume.) In addition, a wider range of learning
and communication formats now exists. Clearly
CLT cannot offer a common template or prescrip-
tion for all L2 teaching and learning contexts, all
the different ages and stages of learners, or all the
different purposes for learning. However, making
connections between formal instruction and stu-
dents' own lives, interests, prior knowledge, and
existing linguistic and sociocultural knowledge is a
central tenet not just of CLT but of current learn-
ing theory and pedagogy.

Developments in digital information and
communication technologies, moreover, offer
students almost limitless access to language input,
interaction, and output; they also offer real pur-
poses for communicating. Yet, like other innova-
tions, the actual learning, skills, and forms of
participation should be monitored carefully to
ensure that they are compatible with learning
objectives of the students and the programs. That
is, novel interaction formats may initially engage
students' interests but soon wear off if the content
is unsubstantial and motivation is not sustained in
meaningful ways. (See Dornyei, this volume.)
There is a renewed emphasis in education
on teaching for global citizenship, intercultural
28 Unit I
understanding, and lifelong learning and not
only for the development of language proficiency
across skill areas for more immediate, local pur-
poses. However, there is also a greater wariness
of educational colonialism and orthodoxies that
export language curricula, materials, tests, and
methods to very diverse pans of the world but
that might be incompatible with local priori-
ties, purposes, and sensibilities. Moreover, new
understandings of how communication takes
place among speakers of English (as an L2 and
lingua franca) suggest that a priority in language
teaching (and teacher education), quite in keep-
ing with the original focus of CLT, should be to
maximize the speakers' (or writers') intelligibility
and comprehensibility-that is, their functional
ability in real contexts of need and use-and not

to focus relentlessly on grammatical accuracy or
on any one culture's notions of cultural or socio-
linguistic niceties.
In addition, according to sociocultural and
critical pedagogical perspectives, the goals of lan-
guage education should be to help learners find
an appropriate "voice" and identity in their target
language and feel confident enough as legitimate
users of the language to pursue their own edu-
cational, career, and personal aspirations (Duff,
2012). After all, as we learn additional languages,
we learn possibly as much about ourselves and our
own languages and cultural frames of reference as
we do about those of others (Kramsch, 1993). As
Rifkin (2006) has pointed out, however, learners,
programs, and those who make language educa-
tion policies often underestimate how much time,
exposure, and instruction are required to help
learners achieve high levels of proficiency or com-
municative competence. The instruction needs to
take place over a well-articulated, multiyear period
and must be very carefully planned and delivered,
with students having ample opportunities to use
the language.
SUMMARY
~ CLT focuses on helping language learners
communicate effectively in another language
by enabling them to convey and interpret
messages and meanings of various types for
various real, or realistic, purposes.

not
ency
pur-
ness
that
and
but
'ori-
1ew
kes
md
age
ep-
to
litv
I
11al
lOt
or
10-
11d
m-
1d
:et
te
ll-
ff,
:s,
1r

lS
lS
s,
l-
p
l-
)
~ Some core principles ofCLT include develop-
ing learners' confidence, fluency, resource-
fulness (strategies), and autonomy in the L2;
making language practice interesting and
social; and teaching language skills, content,
and forms that are useful, relevant, and
meaningful.
~ Teachers must ensure that learning is con-
textualized in discourse that is relevant to
learners and appropriate to the curriculum;
that the language appears in the kinds of
genres or text types normally associated with
a particular activity; and that activities are
structured (designed or modeled) in such a
way that students have the means, motivation,
and assistance to carry out tasks on their own
and with others.
~ CL T has evolved over the past four decades
and has been adapted for use in a wide variety
of curricular and cultural contexts and with
new information and communication tech-
nologies.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Answer the questions in the section "Reflections
on your own experiences as a language learn-
er" (p. 16), and compare your experiences
with those of two classmates.
2. What kinds of topics, communication activities
(e.g., activities, role plays, presentations, and
debates), and participation formats (teacher-
fronted, pair, or small-group) did you most
e1~oy using as a language learner, and why?
·which did you enjoy the least? Did the instruc-
tion enable you to use the language later in
noninstructional situations? Can you recall
any activity or project that integrated listening,
speaking, reading, and writing?
3. How do (or might) you use technology for
language teaching and learning in your con-
text? What constraints do you face? Do you
think that you as a language learner or your
(future) students would want to engage in
virtual or simulated learning environments
online? Why or why not? vVhat possibili-
ties might there be for other non-face-to-
face interactions (via chat, email, or online
discussion groups) as a way of developing
learners' communicative competence? vVhat
advantages do those have over more tradi-
tional print-based or face-to-face instruction
and practice?
4. Is it reasonable to assume that CLT can be

implemented in the same sort of curriculum
and manner in EFL contexts (where students
may never need or be able to interact in
the target language) as students do in ESL
contexts (where English is the dominant lan-
guage in the wider community)? How might
you motivate students in EFL contexts to
use English to take part in communicative
activities?
5. How might the principles of CL T be applied
or adapted to meet the challenges posed by
the following sorts of contexts? Choose three
situations from the list below to discuss with a
classmate:
a. Learners have limited access to new infonna-
tion and communication technologies or to
authentic samples of oral or written language.
b. Existing teaching materials represent a very
different orientation to teaching.
c. The goals of the course are much more
traditional, for example, to help stu-
dents pass high-stakes language tests like
TOEFL.
d. Class sizes are very large, and acoustics are
poor.
e. Students seem to be shy and unaccustomed
to discussing topics of a personal or social
nature with one another, and the teaching
approach is very teacher-centered.

f. Teachers (and students) have difficulty
teaching using the L2 primarily due to a
lack of proficiency in it.
SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES
1. Consider the generic topics: (l) my commu-
nity; (2) technology in modern life; and (3)
popular culture and education. vVith a part-
ner, brainstorm possibilities for creating a les-
son plan (or possibly a whole unit) related to
one of these topics, comprising several lessons.
Include possible tasks that would allow you, as
a teacher using CLT, to engage learners of spe-
cific ages and proficiency levels in a variety of
stimulating, integrated oral and written activi-
ties related to the topic.
Chapter 2 29
a. vVhat strategies would you use initially to
arouse students' interest in the topic?
b. What vocabulary and grammatical struc-
tures might be useful? How would you
teach them?
c. What images or multimedia might further
arouse students' interest in the topic? '•Vhat
kind of pair- or small-group work would
you have them do (if any)?
d. What core task might be the focus?
e. How might you adapt your teaching of

these themes for more academic purposes?
f. What cultural themes might be incorpo-
rated?
g. How might you adapt the topic further if
you wanted to address community issues
more critically?
h. What kind of project could students do if
an entire unit or course focused on the
topic?
1. vVhat kinds of literacy activities and assess-
ment might you include?
2. Observe a language class, and note which
aspects of CL T seem to be present. Discuss
ways in which the same lesson could be taught
(even) more communicatively. If the original
lesson was already consistent with CLT, discuss
some alternate activities that you could use if
you were to teach the same lesson.
3. For the lessons described in Examples 1 to 4
in the chapter, how might you adapt the topics
for students of different ages (much younger
or much older) and proficiency levels (much
lower or much more advanced)?
FURTHER READING
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teach-
ing in action: Putting j;rinciples to work. Upper
Saddle River, l'{J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

This is a very user-friendly, practical book
especially suitable for novice foreign language
teachers. Many examples of classroom activities
are included.
30 Unit I
Savignon, S. ( 1997). Communirative comjJetence: The01y
and classroom practice (2nd eel.). New York, tTY:
l'vicGraw Hill.
The author's approach to CLT, to theoretical
understandings of communicative competence in
language education, and to the professional devel-
opment of teachers are worth examining.
Savignon, S. (Ed.). (2002). lnte1preting commu-
nicative language teaching: Contexts and con-
cerns in teacher education. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
This edited volume examines some of the chal-
lenges of implementing CLT in language class-
rooms in different pans of the world, addressing
issues of technology, learner autonomy, the mis-
placed emphasis on the native speaker as teacher,
and problems with high-stakes assessment that
thwarts communicative teaching.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language
teaching: Current status and future prospects.
In J. Cummins & C. Davis (Eels.), International
handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271-
288). New York, tTY: Springer.

The author's observations of CLT as a teacher
educator and researcher are very insightful.
ENDNOTES
1
In addition, in the post-l"orld 'ar IT period (and again in the
post-
9/11 tTa), U.S. personnel in rhe military, foreign scn:ice, and
other federal domains were found to be relati,·eh· ill-prepared
for the high ]e,-eJs of functional proficiency required across
a range of critical languages. Cra1nmar ,,·as recast as one tool
among many others required for effecti·e con1municarion, and
not simplv an end in itself, and this has p;n·ed the"''"" for a
wider
implementation of CLT in the United States.
~The ACTFL proficiency guidelines for speaking and writing
are ;:n·ail-
able at http://"-""·.actfl.org/i-!a/pages/index.crm:pageid~-!236
3
I learned about this initiative "·hen participating in the .-.sia-
Pacific
Economic Cooper~uion (.-PEC) Education ren,·ork 1neeting
in Xian, China, in January 2008. Examples using m~uhematics
education in Japan were modeled, and lesson stud~· ·as recom-
rnendecl for inren1ationa! 1nodern language education as ,,·ell.
See h up:/ ;hrd.apec.org/index.php/Projects
4
See http://wmv.secondlife.com (Caution: Sections of this
website
contain adult content.)

~ Liemocha is one such online peer tutoring system,
http://nrw.
lh·emocha.coJn
G See http://'"'"·.WebQuest.org
Teaching English
as a Second or
Foreign Language
FOURTH EDITION
MARIANNE CELCE-MURCIA
DONNA M. BRINTON
MARGUERITE ANN SNOW
EDITORS
GEOGRAPHIC ' # HEINLE . 0
NATIONAL I ...
LEARNING 1., CENGAGE Learn1ng·
Australia • Brazil ·japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain •
United Kingdom • United States
iii
GEOGRAPHIC r ..,.. D NATIONAL I ....... HEINLE

LEARNING •• CENGAGELearning·
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
language, Fourth Edition
Marianne Celce-Murcia,
Donna M. Brinton,
and Marguerite Ann Snow
Publisher: Sherrise Roehr
Acquisitions Editor: Tom Jefferies
Director of Global Marketing: I an Martin
Senior Product Manager:
Barbara Quincer Coulter
Director, Content and Media Production:
Michael Burggren
Content Project Manager:
Andrea Bobotas
Print Buyer: Mary Beth Hennebury
Cover Designer: Gina Petti
Cover Image: Joel Sartore/National
Geographic Image Collection
Compositor: MPS Limited
Printed in the United States of America

345671817161514
© 2014, 2001, 1991 National Geographic Learning, a part of
Cengage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the
copyright herein
may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or
by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to
photocopying,
recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution,
information
networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except
as permitted
under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright
Act, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
[email protected]
ISBN-13: 978-1-lll 35169-4
ISBN-10: 1-lll-35169-4
National Geographic learning
20 Channel Center Street

Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning
solutions with
office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the
United Kingdom,
Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan.
(engage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson
Education, Ltd.
Visit National Geographic Learning online at elt.heinle.com
Visit our corporate website at www.cengage.com

3 Principles of Instructed Second Language Learning ROD EL.docx

More Related Content

Similar to 3 Principles of Instructed Second Language Learning ROD EL.docx (20)

More from tamicawaysmith (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

3 Principles of Instructed Second Language Learning ROD EL.docx