Communicative Language Teaching (CL

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

CLT was a 1970s reaction to m uch that had gone before - namely the grammatical
patterning of structural-situationalism and the rigidity of the drill-type m ethodology that
Audio-lingualism (and later PPP) made varying use of.

CLT has two main guiding principles: the first is that language is not just patterns of
gram m ar with vocabulary items slotted in, but also involves language functions such as inviting, agreeing and disagreeing, suggesting, etc (see page 76), which students should learn how to perform using a variety of language exponents (e.g. we can invite by saying ‘Would you like to come to the cinema?’, ‘D’you fancy coming to the cinema?’, ‘W hat about coming to the cinema?’, ‘How about a film?’, ‘Are you on for a film?’, etc). Students also need to be aware of the need for appropriacy when talking and w riting to people in terms of the kind of language they use (formal, informal, tentative, technical, etc). CLT is not just about the language, in other words, it is about how it is used.

The second principle of Communicative Language Teaching is that if students get
enough exposure to language, and opportunities for language use - and if they are motivated- then language learning will take care of itself. Thus CLT has a lot in com m on with the acquisition view of language absorption that we discussed above. As a result, the focus of m uch CLT has been on students comm unicating real messages, and not just grammatically controlled language. The deployment of many communicative activities,
where students use all and any language they know to communicate, shows this aspect of CLT at work.

Communicative Language Teaching has had a thoroughly beneficial effect since it
rem inded teachers that people learn languages not so that they know about them, but so that they can communicate withthem. Giving students different kinds of language, pointing them towards aspects of style and appropriacy, and above all giving them opportunities to try out real language within the classroom hum anised what had sometimes been too rigidly controlled.


Task-Based Learning (TBL)
TBL is a natural extension of communicative language teaching. In TBL, the emphasis is
on the task rather than the language. For example, students perform real-life tasks such
as getting inform ation about bus timetables, or making a presentation on a certain topic.
Later, after the task has been completed, they can look at the language they have used and
work on any imperfections that have arisen, correcting grammatical mistakes or thinking
about aspects of style. In other words, instead of language study leading to a task, the task
itself is the main focus and jum ping-off point for (possible) subsequent study later. This
approach puts communicative activities (see above) at the heart of learning, and as a result
a TBL syllabus m ight well be a list of tasks and activities, not a list of language.


A typical TBL sequence starts with a pre-task (where students are introduced to the
topic and told what the task will be). This is followed by a task cycle where the students
plan the task, gathering language and inform ation to do it, and then produce the piece
of writing or oral performance that the task demands. In the final language focus
phase, students analyse the language they used for the task, making improvements and practising any language that needs repair or development.








TBL, like a communicative methodology, has allowed teachers and students to
concentrate on how we achieve things with language, and how we can use language for
certain tasks. It is a significant departure from the original PPP sequence, since it takes the
third element (production) as the starting point, not the end-point of the procedure.




Elements for successful language learning (ESA)
Most current language teaching tries to offer a judicious blend of many of the ideas
and elements discussed above. It recognises the value of language exposure through
comprehensible input, while still believing that most people (apart from young children)
find chances to concentrate on language forms and how they can be used extremely helpful. Current language teaching practice generally gives students the opportunity to think about how a piece of grammar works (or which words group together, for example), while at the same time providing opportunities for language use in communicative activities and task-based procedures. It offers students the security of appropriate controlled practice (depending on variables such as the students’ age, personal learning styles and the language in question), while also letting them have a go at using all and any language they know.

Such eclecticism - choosing between the best elements of a number of different ideas and methods - is a proper response to the competing claims of the various trends we have described. However, the danger of eclecticism is the possible conclusion that since we can use bits and pieces from different theories and methods, ‘anything goes’. O urlessons can then become a disorganised ragbag of different activities with no obvious coherence or philosophy to underpin them. This can be just as damaging as the methodological rigidity that eclecticism aims to replace.

However, eclecticism that makes use of an underlying philosophy and structure, in other words, a principled eclecticism avoids these risks. Believing that students need exposure, motivation and opportunities for language use, and acknowledging that different students may respond more or less well to different stimuli, it suggests that most teaching sequences need to have certain characteristics or elements, whether they take place over a few minutes, half an hour, a lesson or a sequence of lessons. These elements are Engage,Study and Activate. Having discussed what they mean, we will go on to look at how they can occur within three typical sequences (out of many).