CommunICATIve lAnGuAGe TeAChInG

423 downloads 3122 Views 285KB Size Report
Ma (2009): An experimental study conducted with non-English major ..... a master's of education degree in tESOl from the University of Pennsylvania, USA,.

ChAPTeR 12

CommunICATIve lAnGuAGe TeAChInG Servet Çelik, Karadeniz Technical University

▶ A historical Perspective on the Communicative Approach ▶ Principles of Communicative language Teaching ▶ Instructional Practices in Communicative language Teaching ▶ Learner Outcomes in CLT – What the Research Says ▶ Considerations in Implementing ClT in an efl Context ▶ Suggestions for Practice and Further Study ▶ sample lesson Plans ▶ References & Image Credits ▶ Author Bio CommuniCative Language teaChing


Learning Goals in this chapter, we will discuss the theoretical principles behind communicative language teaching (Clt), as well as the practical aspects of teaching according to a communicative approach. Ater covering all of the material in this chapter, students should be able to: 1. Explain what is meant by communicative competence; 2. describe, in general terms, the linguistic theory behind communicative language teaching; 3. Articulate the main objectives of communicative language teaching; 4. discuss the practical considerations in teaching languages according to a communicative approach; 5. discuss the issues involved in adapting Clt to meet the needs of students in an English as a foreign language (EFl) context. 6. design an EFl lesson plan according to a communicative approach.

A historical Perspective on the Communicative Approach Until the latter part of the As you begin reading the material in this 20th century, the theoretical chapter, think about the purpose of language foundations of language education learning. Which of the following objectives were irmly anchored in behavioral do you think are most important in studying psychology and structuralism, a foreign language, and why? which held that learning mainly ▶ Understanding grammatical took place through a process structures and reproducing them of repetition and habit forming. correctly. language teaching was typically ▶ Negotiating meaning with other divided into four skill categories, speakers of the target language. including the active skills of speaking and writing, as well ▶ Choosing the appropriate forms of as the passive skills of listening the language according to a given and reading (Savignon, 1991); situation. and foreign language lessons ▶ developing “native-like” oten centered on rehearsing a pronunciation. ixed repertoire of grammatical ▶ learning to use various strategies to patterns and vocabulary items uphold communication, even when until they could be reproduced one’s knowledge of a language is easily and precisely, with a low limited. tolerance for error. However, richards (2006) points out that because the focus of learning was primarily conined to accuracy of production, rather than meaningful interaction, individuals taught according to this approach frequently experienced considerable diiculty in real-life communicative encounters. CommuniCative Language teaChing


Noted linguist and social theorist Noam Chomsky (1965) criticized this aspect of language instruction, arguing that: Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unafected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shits of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance (p. 3).

think about the textbooks you studied when you irst began learning a foreign language. What types of activities were presented more frequently in those texts – grammar exercises or communicative practice? How did those activities afect your views of language learning?

this criticism of the traditional view of language learning as a sterile, intellectual exercise, rather than as a practical undertaking resulting in skills that may be applied in real-life situations, was echoed by scholars such as Habermas (1970), Hymes (1971), and Savignon (1972), who based their understanding of language on the psycholinguisticand socio-cultural perspectives that meaning is generated through a collaborative process of “expression, negotiation and interpretation” (Savignon, 1991, p. 262) between interlocutors. Hymes (1971), in particular, stressed the need for language learners to develop communicative competence, which suggests that successful communication requires “knowing when and how to say what to whom” (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 115); in his view, knowledge of grammatical structures and vocabulary were not suicient to enable communication on a functional level. Hymes’ (1971) ideas were supported by an evolving understanding of how communication occurs. research on language and communication revealed that the so-called “passive” language learning skills – reading and listening – in fact require active engagement on the part of the learner; as a result, these skills were re-conceptualized as receptive Relective Activity: activities, while the skills of speaking research Hymes’ writings on the notion and writing were reclassiied of communicative competence. Write as productive (Savignon, 1991). a short paper on how this concept has Furthermore, it was recognized that afected the traditional approaches communication consists not only to foreign language education, and of production (message-sending) discuss how the need to encourage and reception (message-receiving), the development of communicative but negotiation of meaning, or competence in language learners collaboration between senders and may impact your future teaching receivers. Added to the dramatic practice. Support your arguments with shit in the international social and references to scholarly sources. political climate of the late 1960s


CommuniCative Language teaChing

and early 1970s, along with the expansion of global English, this changing viewpoint brought recognition of the need to reframe our conception of language education from that of teaching a language to teaching students how to use the language (Nunan, 1989).

Principles of Communicative language Teaching Unlike many of the other instructional techniques covered in this book, communicative language teaching does not constitute a method in itself. rather, Clt is a set of principles framing an overarching approach to language teaching which may be carried out according to a variety of diferent methods (some of these, including Content-based instruction (Cbi) and task-based instruction (tbi) will be dealt with in separate chapters later on). these principles have been summarized by berns (1990) as follows: 1.

language teaching is based on a view of language as communication. that is, language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning; speakers communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing.


diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language development and use in second language learners and users, as it is with irst language users.

Which of the following activities are representative of a communicative approach to English language teaching?

A learner’s competence is considered in relative, not in absolute, terms.

reading a news article about a recent, significant event and discussing its implications in English.

Asking students to memorize lines of a Shakespeare play.

Playing a card game, using English to explain the rules and discuss the play.

Having students recite the days of the week in English until they can repeat them correctly.

directing students to label a map of Australia, using English names for the cities and other geographical features.

Pairing of students and asking them to create a role play (in English) of a familiar activity, such as buying tickets to a sporting match or buying a snack.





More than one variety of a language is recognized as a viable model for learning and teaching. Culture is recognized as instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative competence, in both their irst and subsequent languages. No single methodology or ixed set of techniques is prescribed.

Check Your understanding

CommuniCative Language teaChing



language use is recognized as serving ideational, interpersonal and textual functions and is related to the development of learners’ competence in each.


it is essential that learners be engaged in doing things with language— that is, that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases of learning (p. 104). because the communicative approach does not comprise a standardized framework for teaching, curriculum design is largely up to individual institutions and the language instructors who teach according to these principles. However, regardless of the speciic techniques employed, any teaching methods that can be classiied as truly communicative share these assumptions.

Instructional Practices in Communicative language Teaching As richards and rodgers (2001) stress, communicative learning activities are those which promote learning through communication itself; therefore, the range of instructional practices that may be employed in Clt is bounded only by the creativity of curriculum designers and classroom instructors in developing authentic communicative tasks. breen (1987) described these as structured activities which “have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problemsolving or simulations and decision making” (p. 23).

Designing Communicative Tasks Nunan (1989) enumerates six basic elements that should be taken into account in designing communicative tasks, including: (1) learning goals; (2) linguistic input; (3) classroom activities; (4) the teacher’s role; (5) the role of the students; and (6) the setting in which the activity is situated (p. 49), as illustrated in Figure 1.

learner Role


Task Activites


Figure 1: A framework for analyzing communicative tasks (adapted from Nunan, 1989)


CommuniCative Language teaChing

According to Nunan’s (1989) understanding, the learning goals of a communicative exercise denote the range of outcomes that are expected as a result of carrying out a speciied learning task. in terms of communicative language learning, these goals entail “establishing and maintaining relationships” (p. 50); exchanging information; carrying out daily tasks; and obtaining and utilizing information from a variety of sources (such as the internet, television, newspapers, public announcements, research materials and so on).

Linguistic Input the input of a communicative task refers to any type of information source on which the exercise is centered. For instance, depending on the learning objective and the needs of the students, a teacher might design an activity framed around a newspaper article, a class schedule, a recipe, a feature ilm, a schematic of a computer circuit, or a map.

Activities learning activities in a communicative context are drawn from the relevant input in order to develop competencies such interactional ability in real-life settings, skills building, or luency and accuracy in communication (Nunan, 1989, p. 59). these should be designed to mirror authentic communicative scenarios as closely as possible, and “methods and materials should concentrate on the message, not the medium” (Clarke & Silberstein, 1977, p. 51). Özsevik (2010) and richards (2006) suggest the use of information-gap and problem-solving exercises, dialogs, role play, debates on familiar issues, oral presentations, and other activities which prompt learners to make communicative use of the target language; in doing so, they develop the skills that they will need to use the language in unrehearsed, reallife situations. in addition to the elements of communicative activities outlined by Nunan (1989), it is useful to consider several further issues, including the role of the target language; the function of the students’ native language; the extent to which the skills-based competencies of grammar, accuracy and luency should be addressed; and how feedback and evaluation may be carried out in a communicative classroom.

Teacher Role


Learning Goals

Role of the Teacher the teacher’s role in implementing a communicative learning exercise is somewhat malleable in comparison with other, more instructor-oriented approaches to language learning. in traditional language classrooms, the instructor is generally the dominant igure; the focus of the class is on the teacher, and students may assume a passive role as they receive direct instruction. in the communicative classroom, on the other hand, the focus is on interaction between students. richards and rodgers (2001) emphasize the teacher’s role in this setting as that of a “needs analyst” who is responsible for “determining and responding to learner language CommuniCative Language teaChing


needs” (p. 167) within a speciic learning context. in this case, the teacher serves mainly as a facilitator, designing activities that are geared toward communication and monitoring students’ progress, as well as stepping in as necessary to resolve breakdowns in communication. beyond this, the instructor may take on the role of a participant in a given exercise, or even act as a co-learner herself, as students express themselves during the course of a communicative task (Nunan, 1989, p. 89). When errors occur, the instructor may note them without comment so as not to disrupt the low of the activity, instead addressing the issues that appear to cause diiculties at a later time (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). As richards and rodgers (2001) suggest, teachers who lack specialized training may ind classroom development to be challenging in such a learning environment, as they strive to ind a balance between providing structure to the learning process while still maintaining a natural low of communication.

Role of the Students Within the framework of a communicative approach, students are the focal point of classroom activity, assuming primary responsibility for their own learning. As it is assumed that using a language is the most efective way to learn it (richards, 2006), students are encouraged to work together to negotiate meaning in order to accomplish a given communicative task; thus, learning activities are highly interactive and may take place in smaller groups or with an entire class. in this context, learners are responsible for choosing which forms of the language they use to convey their messages, rather than following a prescribed lexis (belchamber, 2007).

Setting Finally, Nunan (1989) notes the signiicance of the setting in which communicative learning takes place. While the classroom is the most typical venue for language learning, communicative tasks may also be carried out in venues as diverse as occupational settings, online instruction or in the community at large; therefore, activities designers should consider the speciic requirements of the learning context in developing learning tasks.

Role of the Target Language because the goal of language learning in a communicative context is, by deinition, developing the ability to communicate in the target language, nearly everything is done with this in mind, as it is essential to make it clear to students that the language is not only a subject to be mastered, but a means for real interaction. Accordingly, not only learning tasks, but classroom management and direct instruction are carried out in the target language whenever practicable, with teachers turning to the students’ native language only when required to ensure comprehension. Activities are focused on authentic use of the target language, utilizing “games, role-plays and problem-solving tasks” (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 123), to approximate 190

CommuniCative Language teaChing

real-life situations in which the language may be used. in addition, the use of teaching materials – restaurant menus, greeting cards, music videos, comic strips, tv episodes, concert tickets, newspaper articles and travel guides – that showcase authentic functions of the language underscores its communicative nature and helps students to develop the skills they need to interact in real-life situations.

Role of the Native Language Unlike some modern approaches to language instruction, such as the direct Method, the use of the students’ mother tongue is not prohibited in Clt (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). However, in order to emphasize the communicative aspect of the target language, use of the mother tongue should be kept to a minimum and used only as needed for issues such as classroom management or giving complex instructions that are beyond the students’ level of proiciency in the target language.

Where do Grammar, Fluency and Accuracy Fit In? As Nunan (1989) relates, in the earlier days of communicative language teaching, there was a tendency among certain linguists to de-emphasize the teaching of grammar and other aspects of form; this idea was based on the belief that learners would acquire this knowledge naturally through the process of learning how to use the language. However, the current thinking on this issue is that efective communication cannot take place without attention to the rules of grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, pronunciation, and other more formalized aspects of the language; and therefore, teaching these elements is seen as a necessary component of communicative language teaching (larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), as discussed later on in the section concerning learner outcomes in Clt.

Feedback, Evaluation and Assessment a inal consideration in designing and carrying out communicative activities concerns the need to provide meaningful feedback for students, as well as to evaluate their progress. in terms of feedback, as mentioned earlier in the chapter, ofering verbal corrections during the course of a communicative activity may constitute a disruption, as well as creating anxiety among learners; therefore, error correction should be administered with discretion. However, in this respect, larson-Freeman and Anderson (2011) point out that feedback may occur as a natural result of a communicative activity, since learners are able to determine whether or not their communication attempts have been successful based on the responses they receive from their instructor and classmates. Concerning the evaluation and assessment of learners in a communicative context, richards (2006) and Savignon (2002) point to current trends in language education CommuniCative Language teaChing


which favor holistic evaluation of learner progress based on the results of in-class presentations, writing portfolios, recorded interactions, and other types of projects. On the other hand, Savignon (2002) cautions that in many educational contexts, teachers have little leeway in choosing a more qualitative approach to assessment, as testing and evaluation are carried out according to nationalized standards.

Considerations in Implementing ClT in an efl Context in spite of ongoing debate concerning the most efective means of implementing Clt, the communicative approach to language teaching has become increasingly popular in the ield of English language education, not only in areas where it as taught as a second language, but in countries where English is not the primary means of communication and opportunities to use the language in real-life interactions are limited (Özsevik, 2010). As Wenjie (2009) explains, Clt is oten regarded in such contexts as a progressive, and therefore preferred, approach to foreign language teaching; however, Widdowson (1998) reasons that the notion of creating authentic communicative scenarios in a foreign language setting is, in essence, a contradiction. As he argues, the target language as it is used in the EFl classroom “cannot be authentic because the classroom cannot provide the contextual conditions for it to be authenticated by learners” (p. 711). in his view, Clt constitutes, at most, a sort of dress rehearsal, where learners have the opportunity to try out the language, engaging with and internalizing its semantic forms before putting it to use in real-life interactions. in this respect, Özsevik (2010) also points out that in an EFl context such as turkey, where learning English is an academic requirement rather than a means for survival, students are frequently under-motivated. their interest in learning the language may only extend to passing standardized tests such as university entrance exams; therefore, they are more likely to resist attempts to encourage them to interact in English and to develop their communicative skills. Furthermore, the mismatch between the principles of the communicative approach and the current national assessment methods, not to mention the content of standardized teaching materials, oten lead to problems with implementation on a practical level. in addition to these issues, richards and rodgers (2001) maintain that students who are accustomed to a more traditional, teacher-fronted approach to language instruction may resist the need to become active partners in the learning process. Under these circumstances, inceçay and inceçay (2009) contend that, as demonstrated by researchers such as Harley and Swain (1984) and Spada (1997), combining communicative exercises with conventional, form-focused learning tasks may be the most efective means for building communicative competence in the English language. 192

CommuniCative Language teaChing

Learner Outcomes in CLT – What the Research Says it seems logical that if the ultimate goal of studying a language is communication, then teaching according to a communicative approach should produce the desired results. However, in determining the efectiveness of a particular instructional method, real-life evidence concerning learner outcomes must be considered in addition to theoretical arguments. Accordingly, multiple studies have been carried out to evaluate the efects of communicative language teaching on learner success. researchers around the world have viewed the issue from a variety of perspectives, considering the impact of Clt on skills such as oral luency, accuracy, comprehension and overall proiciency. Some of the major indings concerning each of these aspects of communicative competence are summarized below.

Chang (2011): in a comparative study of Chinese EFl students, it was found that learners taught according to the standard grammar-translation method performed better in an assessment of grammar skills than an experimental group taught via Clt.

Genesee (1987): Observation of students in a French language immersion program revealed that communicative language teaching allowed learners to develop near-native proiciency in comprehension.

Guo and Chang (2005): in an experimental study carried out with ithgrade EFl students, learners in a Clt course outperformed those taught via a form-based approach in an evaluation of their communicative competence.

Harley and Swain (1984): Students in a French language immersion program who were taught via a communicative approach that emphasized meaning over form did not develop accuracy in skills-based tasks to the same extent as peers who received instruction in form and function in addition to communicative skills.

Ma (2009): An experimental study conducted with non-English major Chinese EFl students demonstrated that learners taught through Clt scored signiicantly higher on listening comprehension tests than peers who were taught via a traditional, grammar-based method.

Savignon (1972): learners who participated in a communicative component of a French as a foreign language course performed better in both communicative assessments and linguistic tasks than peers who received instruction through the audio-lingual method.

Spada (1987): An observational study on learner outcomes in three separate Clt classrooms revealed that overall learner success depended in large part on the approach of the individual instructor in implementing Clt. CommuniCative Language teaChing


Spada (1997): in a review of classroom and laboratory research on Clt instruction, it was concluded that integrating form-focused instruction and communicative exercises, rather than relying on Clt alone, tends to have a positive efect on learner outcomes. Spada and Lightbown (1989): Francophone students in an intensive, content-based EFl course focused on communication showed signiicantly greater oral luency than their peers who were taught via traditional methods emphasizing the rules of grammar and structure; however, they tended to make frequent grammatical errors when speaking.

c. the materials needed to prepare/carry out the exercise; d. Any preparation required of the teacher; e. instructions for students; f. Suggestions for evaluation and feedback. iii. Considering your educational and cultural context and the framework in which you expect to teach English as a foreign language, discuss the following with your peers: a. the relevance of teaching English for communicative purposes speciic to your case;

Spangler (2009): in a comparative study with students of Spanish as a foreign language, it was demonstrated that learners taught according to a Clt approach underperformed with respect to oral luency in relation to their peers who received instruction through a tPrS (teaching Proiciency through reading and Storytelling) approach. Thuy (2009): A comparative study of vietnamese EFl students revealed that Clt-based instruction resulted in signiicantly greater oral luency than conventional, grammar-oriented language teaching.

An examination of the research outlined above makes it clear that, on the whole, communicative language teaching has had positive results in terms of comprehension, oral luency and overall communicative competence. However, in terms of grammar and other structural aspects of language, results have been mixed, with some learners showing no signiicant diference, or even underperforming, with respect to their peers who were taught using other approaches; while in other cases, the students taught according to Clt performed signiicantly better than their peers in terms of form-based as well as communicative tasks.

Suggestions for Practice and Further Study i. Using the internet, research the notional/functional dimension of language. Write a short paper (5-6 pages) which includes the following information, using references to reliable sources to support your discussion: a. the theoretical perspective on the notional/functional view of language learning; b. the scholars who are primarily associated with this concept; c. A description of the key points of the notional/functional view of language; d. A discussion of how you believe that this understanding of language relates to communicative language teaching. ii. design a single lesson plan that incorporates both receptive and productive aspects of communication. your lesson plan should include the following: a. the learner proiciency level targeted by the exercise; b. the objective of the exercise;


CommuniCative Language teaChing

b. the potential diiculties that might arise in implementing a communicative approach, from the point of view of the instructor as well as of learners; c. ideas that might be useful in overcoming these diiculties – give concrete examples.

sample lesson Plans because communicative language teaching does not adhere to a prescribed instructional method or format, teaching materials and lesson plans are highly diverse, depending directly on the needs of the students and on the context in which the language is being taught. However, for the purpose of illustration, some sample lesson plans have been included here.

lesson 1 Diiculty Level: beginner Age of Students: 6-7 years Lesson Topic: Home and Family duration of Class Period: 40 Minutes Language Skills: Speaking and listening; following simple instructions. Materials: drawing paper; crayons or pencils; lash cards with pictures of familiar items related to home and family (house, family members, pet animals, car, trees, sun, etc.). Learning Objectives:

Students will be able to recognize and say the names of familiar objects and people related to home and family.

Students will be able to give and respond to simple instructions.

introduction (10 minutes): teacher introduces new vocabulary related to home and family life, using lashcards to familiarize students with the terms. Practice Activity (15 minutes): “draw a…” Students are divided into pairs. Student #1 from each pair receives 4-5 random lashcards containing some of the vocabulary items; student #2 receives drawing CommuniCative Language teaChing


materials. Without showing the cards, student #1 gives simple instructions: “draw a house;” “draw a family;” “draw a bird;” and so on. Student #2 draws the items on the paper. Halfway through the exercise, the students exchange materials so each gets a turn to draw. Presentation (10 minutes): Students present their drawings to the class and explain their pictures: “this is a house;” “this is a family;” “this is a bird.” Wrap-up (5 minutes): Students and teacher inish the lesson by singing a song about “my family.”

lesson 2

RefeRenCes belchamber, r. (2007). the advantages of communicative language teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 13(2). retrieved from berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New york, Ny: Plenum. breen, M. (1987). learner contributions to task design. in C. Candlin & d. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice Hall. buttjes, d. (1991). Mediating languages and cultures: the social and intercultural dimension restored. in d. buttjes & M. byram (Eds.), Mediating languages and cultures: Towards an intercultural theoryof foreign language education (pp. 3-16). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Guo, y.-H., & Chang, t.-S. (2005). the efect of communicative language teaching on English oral communicative competence of the ith-grade students. Contemporary Education Research Quarterly, 13(1), 135-164.

Diiculty Level: intermediate

Chang, S.-C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13-24. doi: 0.5539/ elt.v4n2p13

Age of Students: 11-12 years

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: Mit.

Lesson Topic: treasure Hunt

Clarke, M., & Silberstein, S. (1977). toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the ESl reading class. Language Learning, 27(1), 48-65.

duration of Class Period: 40 Minutes Language Skills: reading; following directions about where to go. Materials: Written “clues,” small rewards (stickers, pencils, etc. as appropriate to the age of the learners); pencils and drawing paper. Preparation: teacher writes a numerical series of instructions, or “clues,” on small pieces of paper: e.g., “look under the plant,” “check behind the door,” etc. All but the irst clue should then be hidden accordingly. in addition, the rewards should be hidden in the location speciied by the inal clue. Learning Objectives:

Students will be able to read simple directions (such as up, down, let, right, in, out, and so on).

Students will be able to follow simple instructions about where to go or look (e.g., “look on the shelf;” “turn let;” “walk through the door”).

Introduction (10 minutes): teacher introduces new vocabulary related to directions and objects in the classroom, demonstrating “turn let (right);” “look under the desk (bookshelf/chair);” “look behind the door (board/clock),” etc. Practice Activity (15 minutes): Students work alone or in pairs. Each student or pair of students is given the irst “clue” from a set of clues and is asked to follow the instructions. if they follow them correctly, they will discover their “treasure” at the end of the exercise. Practice Activity (15 minutes): Students are given drawing materials, and the teacher gives directions such as “draw a school on the let side of the paper;” “draw a street in the center of the paper;” “draw a house on the right side of the street;” and so on. 196

CommuniCative Language teaChing

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. rowley, MA: Newbury House. Habermas, J. (1970). Zur logik der socialwissenschaten. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp. Harley, b., & Swain, M. (1984). the interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. in A. davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hymes, d. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. in r. Huxley & E. ingram (Eds.). Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-28). New york, Ny: Academic Press. Hymes, d. H. (1972). On communicative competence. in J. b. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings (Part 2, pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. inceçay, G., & inceçay, v. (2009). turkish university students’ perceptions of communicative and noncommunicative activities in EFl classroom. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Sciences, Nicosia, North Cyprus, 618-622. kramsch, C. (1993). Language and culture. H. G. Widdowson, (Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. larsen-Freeman, d., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). london, England: Oxford University Press. Ma, t. (2009). An empirical study on teaching listening in Elt. International Education Studies, 2(2), 126-134. Nunan, d. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Özsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived diiculties in implementing CLT in Turkey (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of illinois, Urbana-Champaign, il. richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press. richards, J. C., & rodgers, t. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum development. Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: linguistic theory and classroom practice. in S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching (pp. 1-28). New Haven, Ct: yale University Press.

CommuniCative Language teaChing


Spada, N. M. (1987). relationships between instructional diferences and learning outcomes: A process–product study of communicative language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 137-161. doi: 10.1093/applin/8.2.137 Spada, N. M. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87. Spada, N. M., & lightbown, P. M. (1989). intensive ESl programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11-32. Spangler, d. E. (2009). Efects of two foreign language methodologies, communicative language teaching and teaching proiciency through reading and storytelling, on beginning-level students’ achievement, luency, and anxiety (doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest theses and dissertations database (UMi No. 854554814) thuy, t. t. (2009). Efects of communicative language teaching approach in the speaking skills of second year students of Vietnam Germany industrial college school year 2008- 2009 (Unpublished master’s thesis). laguna State Polytechnic University, thai Nguyen City, viet Nam.

Author Bio Servet ÇELİK is an assistant professor in the department of Foreign language Education at karadeniz technical University, turkey. He also serves as a senior researcher for the Scientiic and technological research Council of turkey (tÜbitAk). dr. Çelik holds a bachelor’s degree in Elt from Gazi University, turkey; a master’s of education degree in tESOl from the University of Pennsylvania, USA, and a doctoral degree in literacy, Culture, and language Education from indiana University-bloomington, USA. Some of dr. Çelik’s professional interests include language teacher education, teaching of culture and intercultural competence, narrative inquiry and qualitative research.

Wenjie, C. (2009). Using communicative language teaching (CLT) to improve speaking ability of Chinese non-English major students (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Wisconsin, Platteville,, wi. Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 705715.

Image Credits 1. Telling a secret. image No. MP900448485. Courtesy of Fotolia. retrieved from http://oice.| 2. female teacher in classroom. image No. MP900439542. Courtesy of iStockphoto. retrieved from #ai:MP900439542| 3. Photograph of globes for geography studies. image No. MP900305797. Courtesy of retrieved from x?qu=globe&ex=1#ai:MP900305797| 4. Globe with cutouts of igures. image No. MP900433193. Courtesy of iStockphoto. retrieved from i:MP900433193| 5. Diverse young adults on a bench. image No. MP900439453. Courtesy of iStockphoto. retrieved from #ai:MP900439453| 6. Teacher. image No. MC900438963. Courtesy of retrieved from |mt:1| 7. Three students writing homework and studying in a library. image No. MP900427825. Courtesy of retrieved from images/results.aspx?qu=study&ex=1#ai:MP900427825| 8. Young boy in classroom. image No. MP900439406. Courtesy of iStockphoto. retrieved from 1#ai:MP900439406| 9. Color crayon drawing a wavy line. image No. MC900013073. Courtesy of retrieved from n&ex=1#ai:MC900013073| 10. A child’s illustration of a two-story house on top of a hill. image No. MC900391412. Courtesy of retrieved from images/results.aspx?qu=child%27s+drawing&ex=1#ai:MC900391412| 11. A pirate treasure map. image No. MC900055651. Courtesy of retrieved from &ex=1#ai:MC900055651|


CommuniCative Language teaChing

CommuniCative Language teaChing