Communicative Language Teaching Today: An Overview (Richards, 2006) | Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Đà Nẵng

lOMoAR cPSD|59062 190 Communica ve Language Teaching Today Jack C. Richards lOMoARcP SD| 59 062 190 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press
32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA www.cambridge.org
© Cambridge University Press 2006
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory excep on and to the
provisions of relevant col ec ve licensing agreements, no
reproduc on of any part may take place without the wri en
permission of Cambridge University Press.
Communica ve Language Teaching Today is distributed with
permission from SEAMEO Regional Language Centre and is part of
the Por olio series by SEAMEO Regional Language Centre which
holds the copyright to this material. First published 2006
Printed in the United States of America ISBN-13 978-0-521-92512-9 paperback
Book layout services: Page Designs Interna onal lOMoARcP SD| 59062190 Table of Contents Introduc on 1
1 What Is Communica ve Language Teaching? 1 2 The Background to CLT 6
3 Classroom Ac vi es in Communica ve Language Teaching 14
4 Current Trends in Communica ve Language Teaching 22
5 Process-Based CLT Approaches – Content-Based Instruc on and 26 Task-Based Instruc on 26
6 Product-Based CLT Approaches – Text-Based Instruc on and 35 Competency-Based Instruc on 35 lOMoARcP SD| 59 062 190 Conclusions 43 References 43 lOMoARcP SD| 59062190 Introduc on The
ever-growing need for good communica on skil s in English has created
a huge demand for English teaching around the world. Mil ions of people today want
to improve their command of English or to ensure that their children achieve a good
command of English. And opportuni es to learn English are provided in many
different ways such as through formal instruc on, travel, study abroad, as wel as
through the media and the Internet. The worldwide demand for English has created
an enormous demand for quality language teaching and language teaching materials
and resources. Learners set themselves demanding goals. They want to be able to
master English to a high level of accuracy and fluency. Employers, too, insist that
their employees have good English language skil s, and fluency in English is a
prerequisite for success and advancement in many fields of employment in today’s
world. The demand for an appropriate teaching methodology is therefore as strong as ever.
In this booklet we wil examine the methodology known as communicative
language teaching, or CLT, and explore the assump ons it is based on, its origins and
evolu on since it was first proposed in the 1970s, and how it has influenced
approaches to language teaching today. Since its incep on in the 1970s, CLT has
served as a major source of influence on language teaching prac ce around the
world. Many of the issues raised by a communica ve teaching methodology are s l
relevant today, though teachers who are rela vely new to the profession may not be
familiar with them. This booklet therefore serves to review what we have learned
from CLT and what its relevance is today. What Is Communica ve Language Teaching?
Perhaps the majority of language teachers today, when asked to iden fy the
methodology they employ in their classrooms, men on “communica ve” as the
Communica ve Language Teaching Today 1 lOMoAR cPSD|59 062 190
methodology of choice. However, when pressed to give a detailed account of what
they mean by “communica ve,” explana ons vary widely. Does communica ve
language teaching, or CLT, mean teaching conversa on, an absence of grammar in
a course, or an emphasis on open-ended discussion ac vi es as the main features
of a course? What do you understand by communica ve language teaching? Task 1
Which of the statements below do you think characterizes
communica ve language teaching?
1. People learn a language best when using it to do things rather than through
studying how language works and prac cing rules.
2. Grammar is no longer important in language teaching.
3. People learn a language through communica ng in it.
4. Errors are not important in speaking a language.
5. CLT is only concerned with teaching speaking.
6. Classroom ac vi es should be meaningful and involve real communica on.
7. Dialogs are not used in CLT.
8. Both accuracy and fluency are goals in CLT.
9. CLT is usual y described as a method of teaching.
Communica ve language teaching can be understood as a set of
principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language,
the kinds of classroom ac vi es that best facilitate learning, and the roles of
teachers and learners in the classroom. Let us examine each of these issues in turn.
The Goals of Language Teaching
Communica ve language teaching sets as its goal the teaching of communicative
competence. What does this term mean? Perhaps we can clarify this term by first
comparing it with the concept of grammatical competence. Gramma cal
competence refers to the knowledge we have of a language that accounts for our
ability to produce sentences in a language. It refers to knowledge of the building
blocks of sentences (e.g., parts of speech, tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence
pa erns) and how sentences are formed. Gramma cal competence is the focus of
many grammar prac ce books, which typical y present a rule of grammar on one
page, and provide exercises to prac ce using the rule on the other page. The unit
of analysis and prac ce is typical y the sentence. While gramma cal competence
2 Communica ve Language Teaching Today lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
is an important dimension of language learning, it is clearly not al that is involved
in learning a language since one can master the rules of sentence forma on in a
language and s l not be very successful at being able to use the language for
meaningful communica on. It is the la er capacity which is understood by the term communica ve competence.
Communica ve competence includes the fol owing aspects of language knowledge:
Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and func ons
Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the se ng and
the par cipants (e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal
speech or when to use language appropriately for wri en as opposed to spoken communica on)
Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts
(e.g., narra ves, reports, interviews, conversa ons) Knowing
how to maintain communica on despite having limita ons in
one’s language knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communica on strategies) Task 2
Consider the fol owing sentences that are al requests for
someone to open a door. Imagine that the context is normal
communica on between two friends. Check if you think they
conform to the rules of gramma cal competence (GC),
communica ve competence (CC), or both. GC CC Please to opens door. ; ;
I want the door to be opened by you. ; ;
Would you be so terribly kind as to open the door for me? ; ; Could you open the door? ; ; To opening the door for me. ; ;
Would you mind opening the door? ; ;
The opening of the door is what I request. ; ; How Learners Learn a Language
Our understanding of the processes of second language learning has changed
considerably in the last 30 years and CLT is partly a response to these changes in
understanding. Earlier views of language learning focused primarily on the mastery
of gramma cal competence. Language learning was viewed as a process of
Communica ve Language Teaching Today 3 lOMoAR cPSD|59 062 190
mechanical habit forma on. Good habits are formed by having students produce
correct sentences and not through making mistakes. Errors were to be avoided
through control ed opportuni es for produc on (either wri en or spoken). By
memorizing dialogs and performing dril s, the chances of making mistakes were
minimized. Learning was very much seen as under the control of the teacher.
In recent years, language learning has been viewed from a very different
perspec ve. It is seen as resul ng from processes such as:
Interac on between the learner and users of the language
Col abora ve crea on of meaning
Crea ng meaningful and purposeful interac on through language
Nego a on of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at understanding
Learning through a ending to the feedback learners get when they use the language
Paying a en on to the language one hears (the input) and trying to
incorporate new forms into one’s developing communica ve competence
Trying out and experimen ng with different ways of saying things
The Kinds of Classroom Activities That Best Facilitate Learning
With CLT began a movement away from tradi onal lesson formats where the focus
was on mastery of different items of grammar and prac ce through control ed
ac vi es such as memoriza on of dialogs and dril s, and toward the use of pair work
ac vi es, role plays, group work ac vi es and project work. These are discussed in Chapter 3. Task 3
Examine a classroom text, either a speaking text or a general
English course book. Can you find examples of exercises that
prac ce gramma cal competence and those that prac ce
communica ve competence? Which kinds of ac vi es predominate?
The Roles of Teachers and Learners in the Classroom
The type of classroom ac vi es proposed in CLT also implied new roles in the
classroom for teachers and learners. Learners now had to par cipate in classroom
4 Communica ve Language Teaching Today lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
ac vi es that were based on a coopera ve rather than individualis c approach to
learning. Students had to become comfortable with listening to their peers in group
work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model. They were
expected to take on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning. And
teachers now had to assume the role of facilitator and monitor. Rather than being a
model for correct speech and wri ng and one with the primary responsibility of
making students produce plenty of error-free sentences, the teacher had to develop
a different view of learners’ errors and of her/his own role in facilita ng language learning. Task 4
What difficul es might students and teachers face because of
changes in their roles in using a communica ve methodology?
Communica ve Language Teaching Today 5 lOMoAR cPSD|59 062 190 The Background to CLT
In planning a language course, decisions have to be made about the content of the
course, including decisions about what vocabulary and grammar to teach at the
beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels, and which skil s and microskil s to
teach and in what sequence. Decisions about these issues belong to the field of
syllabus design or course design. Decisions about how best to teach the contents
of a syl abus belong to the field of methodology.
Language teaching has seen many changes in ideas about syl abus design
and methodology in the last 50 years, and CLT prompted a rethinking of approaches
to syl abus design and methodology. We may conveniently group trends in
language teaching in the last 50 years into three phases:
Phase 1: tradi onal approaches (up to the late 1960s)
Phase 2: classic communica ve language teaching (1970s to 1990s)
Phase 3: current communica ve language teaching (late 1990s to the present)
Let us first consider the transi on from tradi onal approaches to what
we can refer to as classic communica ve language teaching.
Phase 1: Traditional Approaches (up to the late 1960s)
As we saw in Chapter 1, tradi onal approaches to language teaching gave priority
to gramma cal competence as the basis of language proficiency. They were based
on the belief that grammar could be learned through direct instruc on and through
a methodology that made much use of repe ve prac ce and dril ing. The
approach to the teaching of grammar was a deductive one: students are presented
with grammar rules and then given opportuni es to prac ce using them, as
opposed to an inductive approach in which students are given examples of
sentences containing a grammar rule and asked to work out the rule for
themselves. It was assumed that language learning meant building up a large
repertoire of sentences and gramma cal pa erns and learning to produce these
accurately and quickly in the appropriate situa on. Once a basic command of the
language was established through oral dril ing and control ed prac ce, the four
6 Communica ve Language Teaching Today lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
skil s were introduced, usual y in the sequence of speaking, listening, reading and wri ng.
Techniques that were o en employed included memoriza on of dialogs,
ques on-and-answer prac ce, subs tu on dril s, and various forms of guided
speaking and wri ng prac ce. Great a en on to accurate pronuncia on and
accurate mastery of grammar was stressed from the very beginning stages of
language learning, since it was assumed that if students made errors, these would
quickly become a permanent part of the learner’s speech. Task 5
Do you think dril s or other forms of repe ve prac ce should play
any role in language teaching?
Methodologies based on these assump ons include Audiolingualism (in
North America) (also known as the Aural-Oral Method), and the Structural-
Situational Approach in the United Kingdom (also known as Situational Language
Teaching). Syl abuses during this period consisted of word lists and grammar lists, graded across levels.
In a typical audiolingual lesson, the fol owing procedures would be observed:
1. Students first hear a model dialog (either read by the teacher or on tape)
containing key structures that are the focus of the lesson. They repeat each line
of the dialog, individual y and in chorus. The teacher pays a en on to
pronuncia on, intona on, and fluency. Correc on of mistakes of pronuncia on
or grammar is direct and immediate. The dialog is memorized gradual y, line by
line. A line may be broken down into several phrases if necessary. The dialog is
read aloud in chorus, one half saying one speaker’s part and the other half
responding. The students do not consult their book throughout this phase.
2. The dialog is adapted to the students’ interest or situa on, through changing
certain key words or phrases. This is acted out by the students.
3. Certain key structures from the dialog are selected and used as the basis for
pa ern dril s of different kinds. These are first prac ced in chorus and then
individual y. Some gramma cal explana on may be offered at this point, but
this is kept to an absolute minimum.
4. The students may refer to their textbook, and fol ow-up reading, wri ng, or
vocabulary ac vi es based on the dialog may be introduced.
5. Fol ow-up ac vi es may take place in the language laboratory, where further
dialog and dril work is carried out.
Communica ve Language Teaching Today 7 lOMoAR cPSD|59 062 190
(Richards and Rodgers 2001, 64–65)
In a typical lesson according to the situa onal approach, a three-phase
sequence, known as the P-P-P cycle, was o en employed: Presenta on, Prac ce, Produc on.
Presentation: The new grammar structure is presented, o en by means of a
conversa on or short text. The teacher explains the new structure and checks
students’ comprehension of it.
Practice: Students prac ce using the new structure in a control ed context, through
dril s or subs tu on exercises.
Production: Students prac ce using the new structure in different contexts, o en
using their own content or informa on, in order to develop fluency with the new pa ern.
The P-P-P lesson structure has been widely used in language teaching
materials and con nues in modified form to be used today. Many speaking- or
grammar-based lessons in contemporary materials, for example, begin with an
introductory phase in which new teaching points are presented and il ustrated in
some way and where the focus is on comprehension and recogni on. Examples of
the new teaching point are given in different contexts. This is o en fol owed by a
second phase in which the students prac ce using the new teaching point in a
control ed context using content o en provided by the teacher. The third phase is a
free prac ce period during which students try out the teaching point in a free
context and in which real or simulated communica on is the focus.
The P-P-P lesson format and the assump ons on which it is based have
been strongly cri cized in recent years, however. Skehan (1996, p.18), for example, comments:
The underlying theory for a P-P-P approach has now been discredited.
The belief that a precise focus on a par cular form leads to learning and
automa za on (that learners wil learn what is taught in the order in
which it is taught) no longer carries much credibility in linguis cs or psychology.
Under the influence of CLT theory, grammar-based methodologies such as
the P-P-P have given way to func onal and skil s-based teaching, and accuracy
ac vi es such as dril and grammar prac ce have been replaced by fluency ac vi es
based on interac ve smal -group work. This led to the emergence of a “fluency-first”
pedagogy (Brumfit 1984) in which students’ grammar needs are determined on the
basis of performance on fluency tasks rather than predetermined by a gramma cal
syl abus. We can dis nguish two phases in this development, which we wil cal
classic communicative language teaching and current communicative language teaching.
8 Communica ve Language Teaching Today lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
Phase 2: Classic Communicative Language Teaching (1970s to 1990s)
In the 1970s, a reac on to tradi onal language teaching approaches began and soon
spread around the world as older methods such as Audiolingualism and Situa onal
Language Teaching fel out of fashion. The centrality of grammar in language
teaching and learning was ques oned, since it was argued that language ability
involved much more than gramma cal competence. While gramma cal
competence was needed to produce gramma cal y correct sentences, a en on
shi ed to the knowledge and skil s needed to use grammar and other aspects of
language appropriately for different communica ve purposes such as making
requests, giving advice, making sugges ons, describing wishes and needs, and so
on. What was needed in order to use language communica vely was communicative
competence. This was a broader concept than that of gramma cal competence, and
as we saw in Chapter 1, included knowing what to say and how to say it appropriately
based on the situa on, the par cipants, and their roles and inten ons. Tradi onal
gramma cal and vocabulary syl abuses and teaching methods did not include
informa on of this kind. It was assumed that this kind of knowledge would be picked up informal y.
The no on of communica ve competence was developed within the
discipline of linguis cs (or more accurately, the subdiscipline of sociolinguis cs) and
appealed to many within the language teaching profession, who argued that
communica ve competence, and not simply gramma cal competence, should be
the goal of language teaching. The next ques on to be solved was, what would a
syl abus that reflected the no on of communica ve competence look like and what
implica ons would it have for language teaching methodology? The result was
communica ve language teaching. Communica ve language teaching created a
great deal of enthusiasm and excitement when it first appeared as a new approach
to language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s, and language teachers and teaching
ins tu ons al around the world soon began to rethink their teaching, syl abuses,
and classroom materials. In planning language courses within a communica ve
approach, grammar was no longer the star ng point. New approaches to language teaching were needed.
Rather than simply specifying the grammar and vocabulary learners
needed to master, it was argued that a syl abus should iden fy the fol owing aspects
of language use in order to be able to develop the learner’s communica ve competence:
1. As detailed a considera on as possible of the purposes for which the learner
wishes to acquire the target language; for example, using English for business
purposes, in the hotel industry, or for travel
Communica ve Language Teaching Today 9 lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
2. Some idea of the setting in which they wil want to use the target language; for
example, in an office, on an airplane, or in a store
3. The social y defined role the learners wil assume in the target language, as wel as
the role of their interlocutors; for example, as a traveler, as a salesperson talking to
clients, or as a student in a school
4. The communicative events in which the learners wil par cipate: everyday
situa ons, voca onal or professional situa ons, academic situa ons, and so on; for
example, making telephone cal s, engaging in casual conversa on, or taking part in a mee ng
5. The language functions involved in those events, or what the learner wil be able
to do with or through the language; for example, making introduc ons, giving
explana ons, or describing plans
6. The notions or concepts involved, or what the learner wil need to be able to talk
about; for example, leisure, finance, history, religion
7. The skil s involved in the “kni ng together” of discourse: discourse and rhetorical
skills; for example, storytel ing, giving an effec ve business presenta on
8. The variety or varie es of the target language that wil be needed, such as
American, Australian, or Bri sh English, and the levels in the spoken and wri en
language which the learners wil need to reach
9. The grammatical content that wil be needed
10. The lexical content, or vocabulary, that wil be needed (van Ek and Alexander 1980)
This led to two important new direc ons in the 1970s and 1980s – proposals
for a communica ve syl abus, and the ESP movement.
Proposals for a Communicative Syllabus
A tradi onal language syl abus usual y specified the vocabulary students needed to learn
and the gramma cal items they should master, normal y graded across levels from
beginner to advanced. But what would a communica ve syl abus look like?
Several new syl abus types were proposed by advocates of CLT. These included:
A skills-based syllabus: This focuses on the four skil s of reading, wri ng, listening, and
speaking, and breaks each skil down into its component microskil s. For example, the skil
of listening might be further described in terms of the fol owing microskil s:
Recognizing key words in conversa ons
Recognizing the topic of a conversa on
Recognizing speakers’ a tude toward a topic lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
Recognizing me reference of an u erance
Fol owing speech at different rates of speed
Iden fying key informa on in a passage
Advocates of CLT however stressed an integrated-skills approach to the
teaching of the skil s. Since in real life the skil s o en occur together, they should also be
linked in teaching, it was argued.
A functional syllabus: This is organized according to the func ons the learner should be
able to carry out in English, such as expressing likes and dislikes, offering and accep ng
apologies, introducing someone, and giving explana ons. Communica ve competence is
viewed as mastery of func ons needed for communica on across a wide range of
situa ons. Vocabulary and grammar are then chosen according to the func ons being
taught. A sequence of ac vi es similar to the P-P-P lesson cycle is then used to present
and prac ce the func on. Func onal syl abuses were o en used as the basis for speaking and listening courses. Task 6
What are some advantages and disadvantages of a skil s-based
syl abus and a func onal syl abus?
Other syl abus types were also proposed at this me. A notional syllabus was
one based around the content and no ons a learner would need to express, and a task
syllabus specified the tasks and ac vi es students should carry out in the classroom. (We
wil examine this in more detail in Chapter 5). It was soon realized, however, that a syl abus
needs to iden fy al the relevant components of a language, and the first widely adopted
communica ve syl abus developed within the framework of classic CLT was termed
Threshold Level (Van Ek and Alexander 1980). It described the level of proficiency learners
needed to a ain to cross the threshold and begin real communica on. The threshold
syl abus hence specifies topics, func ons, no ons, situa ons, as wel as grammar and vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes
Advocates of CLT also recognized that many learners needed English in order to use it in
specific occupa onal or educa onal se ngs. For them it would be more efficient to teach
them the specific kinds of language and communica ve skil s needed for par cular roles,
(e.g., that of nurse, engineer, flight a endant, pilot, biologist, etc.) rather than just to
concentrate on more general English. This led to the discipline of needs analysis – the use
of observa on, surveys, interviews, situa on analysis, and analysis of language samples
col ected in different se ngs – in order to determine the kinds of communica on learners
would need to master if they were in specific occupa onal or educa onal roles and the
Downloaded by Quyên Nguy?n lê tú (nltquyen10031998@gmail.com) lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
language features of par cular se ngs. The focus of needs analysis is to determine the
specific characteris cs of a language when it is used for specific rather than general
purposes. Such differences might include:
Differences in vocabulary choice Differences in grammar
Differences in the kinds of texts commonly occurring Differences in func ons
Differences in the need for par cular skil s
ESP courses soon began to appear addressing the language needs of university
students, nurses, engineers, restaurant staff, doctors, hotel staff, airline pilots, and so on. Task 7
Imagine you were developing a course in English for tour guides. In order
to carry out a needs analysis as part of the course prepara on:
Who would you contact? What kinds of informa on would
you seek to obtain from each contact group?
How would you col ect informa on from them? Implications for Methodology
As wel as rethinking the nature of a syl abus, the new communica ve approach to
teaching prompted a rethinking of classroom teaching methodology. It was argued that
learners learn a language through the process of communica ng in it, and that
communica on that is meaningful to the learner provides a be er opportunity for
learning than through a grammar-based approach. The overarching principles of
communica ve language teaching methodology at this me can be summarized as fol ows:
Make real communica on the focus of language learning. Provide
opportuni es for learners to experiment and try out what they know.
Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building up
his or her communica ve competence.
Provide opportuni es for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency.
Link the different skil s such as speaking, reading, and listening together, since
they usual y occur so in the real world. lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
Let students induce or discover grammar rules.
In applying these principles in the classroom, new classroom techniques and
ac vi es were needed, and as we saw above, new roles for teachers and learners in the
classroom. Instead of making use of ac vi es that demanded accurate repe on and
memoriza on of sentences and gramma cal pa erns, ac vi es that required learners to
nego ate meaning and to interact meaningful y were required. These ac vi es form the focus of the next chapter.
Downloaded by Quyên Nguy?n lê tú (nltquyen10031998@gmail.com) lOMoARcP SD| 59062190 Classroom Ac vi es in
Communica ve Language Teaching
Since the advent of CLT, teachers and materials writers have sought to find ways of
developing classroom ac vi es that reflect the principles of a communica ve
methodology. This quest has con nued to the present, as we shal see later in the
booklet. The principles on which the first genera on of CLT materials are s l relevant to
language teaching today, so in this chapter we wil briefly review the main ac vity types
that were one of the outcomes of CLT.
Accuracy Versus Fluency Activities
One of the goals of CLT is to develop fluency in language use. Fluency is natural language
use occurring when a speaker engages in meaningful interac on and maintains
comprehensible and ongoing communica on despite limita ons in his or her
communica ve competence. Fluency is developed by crea ng classroom ac vi es in
which students must nego ate meaning, use communica on strategies, correct
misunderstandings, and work to avoid communica on breakdowns.
Fluency prac ce can be contrasted with accuracy prac ce, which focuses on
crea ng correct examples of language use. Differences between ac vi es that focus on
fluency and those that focus on accuracy can be summarized as fol ows:
Activities focusing on fluency
Reflect natural use of language
Focus on achieving communica on
Require meaningful use of language
Require the use of communica on strategies
Produce language that may not be predictable
Seek to link language use to context
Activities focusing on accuracy lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
Reflect classroom use of language
Focus on the forma on of correct examples of language
Prac ce language out of context
Prac ce smal samples of language
Do not require meaningful communica on Control choice of language Task 8
Can you give examples of fluency and accuracy ac vi es that you use in your teaching?
The fol owing are examples of fluency ac vi es and accuracy ac vi es. Both
make use of group work, reminding us that group work is not necessarily a fluency task (see Brumfit 1984). Fluency Tasks
A group of students of mixed language ability carry out a role play in which
they have to adopt specified roles and personali es provided for them on cue
cards. These roles involve the drivers, witnesses, and the police at a col ision
between two cars. The language is en rely improvised by the students,
though they are heavily constrained by the specified situa on and characters.
The teacher and a student act out a dialog in which a customer returns a
faulty object she has purchased to a department store. The clerk asks what
the problem is and promises to get a refund for the customer or to replace the
item. In groups, students now try to recreate the dialog using language items
of their choice. They are asked to recreate what happened preserving the
meaning but not necessarily the exact language. They later act out their
dialogs in front of the class. Accuracy Tasks
Students are prac cing dialogs. The dialogs contain examples of fal ing
intona on in Wh-ques ons. The class is organized in groups of three, two
students prac cing the dialog, and the third playing the role of monitor. The
monitor checks that the others are using the correct intona on pa ern and
corrects them where necessary. The students rotate their roles between those
reading the dialog and those monitoring. The teacher moves around listening
to the groups and correc ng their language where necessary.
Downloaded by Quyên Nguy?n lê tú (nltquyen10031998@gmail.com) lOMoARcP SD| 59062190
Students in groups of three or four complete an exercise on a gramma cal
item, such as choosing between the past tense and the present perfect, an
item which the teacher has previously presented and prac ced as a whole
class ac vity. Together students decide which gramma cal form is correct and
they complete the exercise. Groups take turns reading out their answers.
Teachers were recommended to use a balance of fluency ac vi es and accuracy
and to use accuracy ac vi es to support fluency ac vi es. Accuracy work could either
come before or a er fluency work. For example, based on students’ performance on a
fluency task, the teacher could assign accuracy work to deal with gramma cal or
pronuncia on problems the teacher observed while students were carrying out the task.
An issue that arises with fluency work, however, is whether it develops fluency at the
expense of accuracy. In doing fluency tasks, the focus is on ge ng meanings across using
any available communica ve resources. This o en involves a heavy dependence on
vocabulary and communica on strategies, and there is li le mo va on to use accurate
grammar or pronuncia on. Fluency work thus requires extra a en on on the part of the
teacher in terms of preparing students for a fluency task, or fol ow-up ac vi es that
provide feedback on language use.
While dialogs, grammar, and pronuncia on dril s did not usual y disappear from
textbooks and classroom materials at this me, they now appeared as part of a sequence
of ac vi es that moved back and forth between accuracy ac vi es and fluency ac vi es.
And the dynamics of classrooms also changed. Instead of a predominance of
teacher-fronted teaching, teachers were encouraged to make greater use of smal -group
work. Pair and group ac vi es gave learners greater opportuni es to use the language and to develop fluency.
Mechanical, Meaningful, and Communicative Practice
Another useful dis nc on that some advocates of CLT proposed was the dis nc on
between three different kinds of prac ce – mechanical, meaningful, and communica ve.
Mechanical prac ce refers to a control ed prac ce ac vity which students can
successful y carry out without necessarily understanding the language they are using.
Examples of this kind of ac vity would be repe on dril s and subs tu on dril s designed
to prac ce use of par cular gramma cal or other items.
Meaningful prac ce refers to an ac vity where language control is s l provided but
where students are required to make meaningful choices when carrying out prac ce. For
example, in order to prac ce the use of preposi ons to describe loca ons of places,
students might be given a street map with various buildings iden fied in different
loca ons. They are also given a list of preposi ons such as across from, on the corner of,
near, on, next to. They then have to answer ques ons such as “Where is the book shop?
Where is the café?” etc. The prac ce is now meaningful because they have to respond
according to the loca on of places on the map.