REFLECTION
What kind of methods or techniques have you experienced as a
learner of (a) foreign language(s)? Which ones worked best for
you, and which ones did not work at all? Why?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Introduction
The field of second or world language teaching has undergone many
shifts and trends over the last few decades. Numerous methods have
come and gone. We have seen the Audiolingual Method, cognitive-
based approaches, the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural
Approach, and many others (for a detailed description of these meth-
ods and approaches, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). In addition,
the proficiency and standards-based1 movements have shaped the
field with their attempts to define proficiency goals and thus have
provided a general sense of direction. Some believe that foreign lan-
guage instruction has finally come of age (see Harper, Lively, and
Williams 1998); others refer to it as the post-method area (Richards
and Rodgers 2001). It is also generally believed that there is no
one single best method that meets the goals and needs of all learners
and programs. What has emerged from this time is a variety of
Principles of Communicative
Language Teaching and
Task-Based Instruction
Effective teaching is not about a method. It is about
understanding and implementing principles of
learning.
1
In this chapter you
will learn about
• communicative
language teaching.
• task-based instruction.
• characteristics of
pedagogical and real-
life tasks.
• principles underlying
communicative
language teaching
methodologies.
• characteristics of good
input.
• practical guidelines on
how to maximize the
use of the target
language (TL) in the
classroom.
• challenges in
implementing
communicative
language teaching
methodologies.
1C H A P T E R
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 1
2 CHAPTER ONE
communicative language teaching (CLT) methodologies. Such method-
ologies encompass eclectic ways of teaching that are borrowed from myr-
iad methods. Furthermore, they are rooted not only in one but a range of
theories and are motivated by research findings in second language acqui-
sition (SLA) as well as cognitive and educational psychology. The purpose
of this chapter is to provide an introduction to CLT and furthermore
describe general methodological principles that function as theoretical
and practical guidelines when implementing CLT methodologies.
The Shift Toward Communicative Language Teaching
and Task-Based Instruction: A Historical Perspective
For many decades the predominant method of language instruction was
the grammar-translation method. This method is rooted in the teaching
of the nineteenth century and was widely used for the first half (in some
parts of the world even longer) of the last century to teach modern for-
eign languages (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Textbooks primarily con-
sisted of lists of vocabulary and rule explanations. By and large, students
engaged in translation activities. Little oral proficiency would result from
the Grammar-translation Method, and students often were expected to
go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker.
The Grammar-translation Method was not without its opponents,
and the demand for oral proficiency led to several counter and parallel
movements that laid the foundation for the development of new ways of
teaching, as we still know them today (Richards and Rodgers 2001).
One such method is the Direct Method, sometimes also referred to as the
Berlitz Method as it was widely used in Berlitz schools. Some reformers
of the nineteenth century (e.g., Gouin and Sauveur) believed that lan-
guages should be taught in a natural way, that is, how children learn lan-
guage. As Richards and Rodgers (2001) point out, “Believers in the
Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without
translation or the use of the learner’s native language if meaning was
conveyed directly through demonstration and action” (p. 11). For this
reason, they also strongly promoted the spontaneous use of language.
Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 12) describe principles of proce-
dures underlying the Direct Method in the following way:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in carefully graded progres-
sion organized around question-answer exchanges between teachers
and students in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstrating, objects,
and pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 2
Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 3
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
Despite its success in private schools, the Direct Method was met
with a great deal of criticism. Strict requirements to adhere to its princi-
ples and the need for native speakers or someone with native-like fluency
prevented this method from becoming widely adopted by academic insti-
tutions (see Richards and Rodgers 2001).
Hailed in its day as revolutionary in foreign language teaching, the
grammar-translation method was replaced by the Audiolingual Method in
the 1950s and 60s. The belief in the effectiveness of this method was so
strong that traces of audiolingual-based teaching theories can still be found
in teaching materials. The audiolingual method was based on the school of
behaviorism in psychology and structuralism in linguistics, for which rea-
son it also become known as the “structural” or “behaviorist” method.
Because of its primary emphasis on spoken language, it is also referred to
as the “Aural-oral” Method. The underlying assumption of this philoso-
phy was that, as Rivers (1964) put it, foreign language learning is basically
a mechanical process of habit formation and automatization. In practice,
this meant students were presented with language patterns and dialogues,
which they had to mimic and memorize. Language practice by and large
consisted of repetition of language patterns and drill exercises. Drill types
included substitution drills, variation drills, translation drills, and response
drills. The following Swedish example illustrates a combination of a substi-
tution and translation drill.
ILLUSTRATION 1
Substitution/transformation drill
Han har alltid HUNDEN med sig. [He always has his dog with him].
the map—the fountain pen—the ink—the paper—the car
The teacher says, “Han har alltid hunden med sig.” [He always has his
dog with him].
Student chooses from a given list of English words, translates it into
Swedish, and substitutes the underlined word of the example sentence.
A tenet of this method was that errors of any kind were to be
avoided, so the learners were not to establish bad habits. For this reason,
the native speaker teacher was considered the perfect model.
There were, however, many problems with audiolingual approaches.
The teacher, who was often seen like the drillmaster, carried the respon-
sibility of teaching and student learning like an atlas on his shoulder
(Lee and VanPatten 2003). One of the most widely brought forward
points of criticism toward this method is that the learners lacked engage-
ment in meaningful language use and had only limited opportunities to
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 3
4 CHAPTER ONE
use language creatively while interacting with their peers. As Willis
(2004) points out, “This was because the emphasis was on eradication of
errors and accurate production of the target forms, not on communica-
tion of meanings” (p. 4). Due to overcorrection of students’ errors by the
teacher, anxiety levels were often quite high among students. The
Audiolingual Method failed to have the desired effect of helping learners
become competent speakers in the TL.
Several factors and influences led to the demise of the Audiolingual
Method and caused a shift in language teaching methodology. This
brought forth communicative language approaches and a range of alter-
native methods.
1. The Audiolingual Method did not live up to its promise creating
speakers who were able to communicate in the target language.
2. Theories of learning moved away from behaviorist views of learning.
The most influential work was the one by Chomsky, which was pub-
lished in his book Syntactic Structures (1957). He argued that lan-
guage learning involves creative processes and perceived language as
rule-governed creativity. As Willis (2004) describes it, “He believed
that a basic rule system that underpins all languages is innate and
that, given exposure to a specific language, children will naturally
create the specific rules of that language for themselves. Learning is
thus seen as a process of discovery determined by internal processes
rather than external influences” (pp. 4–5).
3. Works by scholars and sociolinguists such as J. Firth, M. Halliday,
D. Hymes, and J. Austin led to a change in the way language was
viewed. As emphasized by many practitioners, the primary purpose
of language is to communicate.
4. The development of a functional-notional syllabus in the 1970s in
Europe by Van Ek (1973) and Wilkins (1976) initiated a new way of
how teaching materials were organized. Traditionally, syllabi had
been organized around grammatical structures and vocabulary units.
The functional-notional syllabus attempted to show what learners
need to do with language and what meanings they need to communi-
cate, and organized the syllabus around functions and notions.
Functions are communicative speech acts such as “asking,”
“requesting,” “denying,” “arguing,” “describing,” or “requesting.”
Notional categories include concepts such as “time” or “location.”
Notions and functions are different from topics and situations as
they express more precise categories. For example, a topic may be
“family,” the situation “coming for a visit and having dinner.” The
function and the notion that is addressed in this unit may involve
“inviting” and “time past” (e.g., past tenses, expressions like “last
week,” “a few days ago”). The functional-notional syllabus laid the
groundwork that ultimately led textbook writers to organize their
materials in terms of communicative situations, and some also in
very concrete communicative tasks.
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 4
Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 5
5. A growing number of research studies in applied linguistics have
provided many new insights and a deeper understanding of second
language learning and SLA processes. Some of these include
• Learners move through different stages of development (Selinker
1972).
• Learners develop an underlying language system that develops in a
sequence that does not always reflect the sequence of what was
taught in a curriculum (Dulay and Burt 1973). Work by Pienemann
(1989) showed that learners develop language skills according to
their own internal syllabus.
Alternative approaches and methods to language teaching
While communicative language teaching methodologies kept evolving and
being more clearly defined, in the 1970s and 80s a set of alternative
approaches and methods emerged. Some of these include comprehension-
based methods such as the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural
Approach, the Silent Way, or Suggestopedia (for a detailed description of
these methods, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). Many of these methods
never became widely adapted and had only a short shelf life. This is not to
say that these methods did not contribute to the field of language teaching.
On the contrary, some of these methods have helped shape and continue to
have an influence on the field in many ways. For example, TPR, which
James Asher (1969) originally developed as a method to teach language by
combining action and speech, is still widely used. Many practitioners,
however, promote and use TPR as a technique to introduce some vocabu-
lary or grammatical structures. Some principles of learning that have been
promoted through these methods are integrated in the discussion below.
What Is Communicative Language Teaching?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is generally regarded as an
approach to language teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). As such,
CLT reflects a certain model or research paradigm, or a theory (Celce-
Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary function of lan-
guage use is communication. Its primary goal is for learners to develop
communicative competence (Hymes 1971), or simply put, communica-
tive ability. In other words, its goal is to make use of real-life situations
that necessitate communication.
Defining communicative competence
Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and
enact appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement
of the learner in the production of the target language (Canale and Swain
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 5
6 CHAPTER ONE
1980; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995; Hymes 1972). Such a notion encom-
passes a wide range of abilities: the knowledge of grammar and vocabu-
lary (linguistic competence); the ability to say the appropriate thing in a
certain social situation (sociolinguistic competence); the ability to start,
enter, contribute to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in
a consistent and coherent manner (discourse competence); the ability to
communicate effectively and repair problems caused by communication
breakdowns (strategic competence).
As frequently misunderstood, CLT is not a method per se. That is to
say, it is not a method in the sense by which content, a syllabus, and
teaching routines are clearly identified (see Richards and Rodgers 2001).
CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods and tech-
niques. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model
that is universally accepted as authoritative (Richards and Rodgers
2001). By and large, it uses materials and utilizes methods that are
appropriate to a given context of learning.
CLT has spawned various movements such as proficiency-based or
standard-based instruction. While the early days of CLT were concerned
with finding best designs and practices, the proficiency-based movement
contributed to the field of language teaching by putting forward a set of
proficiency guidelines (see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages [ACTFL] guidelines in Chapter 8, Developing Oral
Communication Skills). These guidelines describe language ability and
are meant to be used to measure competence in a language (Omaggio-
Hadley 2001). In this sense, the proficiency-based movement focused
on measuring what learners can do in functional terms. By providing
evaluative descriptions, that is, by specifying what students should
know and how they should be able to use language within a variety of
contexts and to various degrees of accuracy at different stages, it pro-
vided a set of broadly stated goals and thus a sense of direction for
curriculum designers. The standard-based movement attempted to fur-
ther streamline descriptions of what students should know and be able to
do after completing a particular grade level or curriculum to meet
national standards in foreign language education from kindergarten to
university. In this way, both movements positively influenced and
strengthened the development and implementation of communicative-
oriented teaching practices.
As far as theories of learning and effective strategies in teaching are
concerned, CLT does not adhere to one particular theory or method. It
draws its theories about learning and teaching from a wide range of
areas such as cognitive science, educational psychology, and second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA). In this way, it embraces and reconciles many
different approaches and points of view about language learning and
teaching, which allows it to meet a wide range of proficiency-oriented
goals and also accommodate different learner needs and preferences.
Despite the lack of universally accepted models, from early on, there has
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 6
Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction 7
been some degree of consensus regarding the qualities required to justify
the label “CLT,” which Wesche and Skehan (2002) describe as:
• Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with
other interlocutors to exchange information and solve problems.
• Use of authentic (non-pedagogic) texts and communication activities
linked to “real-world” contexts, often emphasizing links across writ-
ten and spoken modes and channels.
• Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account
learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and generally allow
learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (p. 208).
With no one particular method or theory that underlies their practi-
cal and theoretical foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as
a set of macro-strategies (Kumaradivelu 1994) or methodological princi-
ples (Doughty and Long 2003). The following section describes such
principles in more detail.
Methodological Principles of Communicative Language
Teaching and Task-Based Instruction
Doughty and Long (2003) define methodological principles as a list of
design features that can be generally regarded as being facilitative to sec-
ond language acquisition. The following list, adapted from Doughty and
Long (2003), serves as a guideline for implementing communicative lan-
guage teaching (CLT) practices.
Principle 1: Use Tasks as an Organizational Principle
For decades traditional methods of language teaching have used grammar
topics or texts (e.g., dialogues, short stories) as a basis for organizing a
syllabus. With CLT methodologies this approach has changed; the devel-
opment of communicative skills is placed at the forefront, while grammar
is now introduced only as much as needed to support the development of
these skills. This raises questions on how to organize a syllabus. Some
proponents (see Breen 1987; Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Prabhu 1987) sug-
gest using tasks as central units that form the basis of daily and long-term
lesson plans. Such an approach to syllabus design has become known as
task-based instruction (TBI). The rationale for the employment of com-
municative tasks is based on contemporary theories of language learning
and acquisition, which claim that language use is the driving force for lan-
guage development (Long 1989; Prabhu 1987). For example, advocates
of such theories (see Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun 1993) suggest that, as
Norris et al. (1998) put it, “the best way to learn and teach a language is
M01_BRAN9064_01_SE_C01.QXD 9/27/07 3:12 PM Page 7
8 CHAPTER ONE
through social interactions. [. . . they] allow students to work toward a
clear goal, share information and opinions, negotiate meaning, get the
interlocutor’s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on their
language production. In the process, learners not only use their interlan-
guage, but also modify it, which in turn promotes acquisition” (p. 31). In
other words, it is not the text one reads or the grammar one studies but
the tasks that are presented that provide learners a purpose to use the
grammar in a meaningful context. This gives task design and its use a piv-
otal role in shaping the language learning process.
What are tasks? Numerous competing defi