the_communicative_approacH

1 The Communicative Approach
THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
Introduction
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is currently being
implemented into curricula across Asia; however, its roots date back to
the 1960’s, when language teaching in both Europe and North America
began undergoing a shift in focus. This change was prompted by a
growing dissatisfaction with then popular approaches (namely the
Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual Approaches) in addition to
newly evolving paradigms in the field of linguistics. British functional
linguists (e.g., Firth, Halliday) believed that language should be viewed
as “meaning potential,” in which structural contexts and understanding
of how language is used in these contexts should be of primary concern.
The need for such a view was highlighted by the large number of
immigrants flooding into Europe at the time. They required language
for work and other immediate social functions such as finding housing,
enrolling children in school, and using the public transportation system
(Savignon, 2001). During the same period, American sociolinguists
(e.g., Hymes, Labov, Gumperz) asserted the need to view language as a
“social behavior.” This model was very much in line with the one
developing in Europe, with particular emphasis on pragmatic aspects,
including social roles and register. As a result of these combined
movements, the interactive aspects of language received greater
attention, and language teachers began to recognize the value of
activities that focused on this notion of what Savignon (2001) labeled
“communicative competence1
.”
Communicative Competence
At the heart of CLT lies the idea of communicative competence.
Savignon first employed this term to categorize those activities that
required less discrete-point knowledge, such as drills and recitation, and
incorporated more “meaningful interaction” with other speakers
(2001). Similarly, Canale and Swain defined communicative

competence as “the underlying systems of knowledge and skill required
for communication” (1980), including such aspects as vocabulary and
knowledge of sociolinguistic conventions. They contrasted it with what
they labeled “actual communication,” sometimes referred to as
performance2
. Actual communication is the manifestation of this
underlying competence “under limiting psychological and
environmental conditions such as memory and perceptual constraints,
fatigue, nervousness, distractions, and interfering background noises
(1980).” Communicative competence is an integral part of actual
communication, however, it is demonstrated indirectly and often
imperfectly due to the constraints listed above. In other words, we may
estimate a student’s ability based on how well they speak, read, write, or
understand in our class, although their performance may vary on any
given day due to certain internal or external factors such as sickness,
poor lighting, bad mood, etc. For this reason, it is necessary to make
cautious judgments concerning a student’s communicative proficiency.
Although there are a variety of frameworks for communicative
competence (e.g., Lado, 1961,1964; Carroll, 1972; Bachman and
Palmer, 1990; Villmer and Sang 1983), Canale’s (1983) is commonly
accepted (Savignon, 2001), and consists of four main components:
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence. It is important to note that all
four components are interrelated; if one area of competence is improved,
the others will also react, and there will be an overall increase in
communicative competence (Savignon, 2001). As a result, analyzing
them as unitary aspects would provide an inaccurate and incomplete
picture of competence.
The first component of communicative competence, grammatical
competence, includes features that were traditionally associated with
language learning, such as grammar rules, vocabulary, word formation,
pronunciation, sentence formation, etc. This aspect does not refer to the
memorization of rules, but instead involves the ability to use the rules in
real communication (Savignon, 2001). In the communicative language
framework, this component makes up only a fraction of the knowledge
语言能力构成要素
- 语法能力
- 社会语言学能力
- 话语能力
- 策略性能力
performance
(语言应用)

that students require.
The second component, sociolinguistic or sociocultural competence,
takes into account the contextual relationship of language. Speakers
should be able to tailor their language appropriately according to the age
and social status of the interlocutor and the purpose of interaction
following the norms and conventions of that language (Canale, 1980;
Savignon, 2001). For example, the language, tone of voice, turn-taking
conventions, and nonverbal language that we use with a close friend of a
similar age would be markedly different from that we would use with a
boss who is significantly older. According to Savignon, this component
heightens the necessity of cultural awareness rather than cultural
knowledge. That is, learning about the target culture will not guarantee
effective communication; instead, one should be open to creating
dialogue with others, which involves constant understanding and
adaptation. Until fairly recently this aspect has been ignored, and it is
seldom explicitly implemented into language curricula.
Discourse competence is the third component and concerns
“mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to
achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres” (Canale,
1980). These genres refer to the type of language (written or spoken)
and might include: debate, narration, casual conversation, e-mail,
poetry, short story, etc. For the language to be unified it must be
coherent in meaning and cohesive in form. Coherence3
here deals with
the relation of all sentences or utterances in the text to the global topic,
and is necessary for interpreting the text (Savignon , 2001); in other
words, does the text make sense as a whole? On the other hand,
cohesion4
, which contributes to coherence, refers to “local connections”,
which are the structural linking of utterances using devices such as
synonyms, pronouns, ellipses, and conjunctions.
The final component, strategic competence, appears to be one of the
most important in real communication. This area encompasses the
dynamic nature of communication, which Savignon (1983) introduced,
and several others have alluded to since. Strategic competence involves
interlocutor
(对话者)
coherence
(连贯)
cohesion
(连结)

the coping strategies needed to maneuver through breakdowns in
communication and convey points despite such factors as
misunderstandings, environmental distractions, and insufficient
language proficiency. Those who are competent in this area will be able
to exploit their language knowledge to the fullest and will ultimately be
the most able to demonstrate their knowledge to those who are assessing
them. One might note that as the other areas of communicative
competence improve, there will be decreased reliance on this component
for the simple reason that the need will diminish (Savignon, 2001).
Although such a modular framework may seem daunting, and
assessing some of these components in the speech of young learners may
be more challenging due to the yet unsophisticated nature of their
language, the implication for teaching seems obvious: students should
be presented with naturalistic situations for learning (as discussed in
greater detail in the unit on the Natural Approach). Tasks should mimic
real-life encounters as much as possible. The more genuine
communicative interaction the learners encounter, the more they will be
able to develop and apply the above competencies.
Focus on Meaning and Function
This new view of language competence resulted in criticisms of
approaches such as Grammar Translation, which taught language as a
set of rules and separate pieces to be assembled at a later time. Many felt
that meaning was more important than form. That is, teachers needed
to move away from teaching grammar first. Instead they should begin
by introducing meaningful, contextualized language samples before
discussing the rules that underlay them. This caused a transition from
deductive5
to inductive6
presentation of language targets.
In deductive teaching, the instructor begins by presenting students
with a daily grammar point and/or vocabulary, for example the present
progressive. The teacher explains the rule, and perhaps makes
comparisons to the students’ first language (L1). While explaining the
rule, the teacher provides no context, and fails to highlight the
communicative function of the form. The teacher might say that the
强调语言意义和功能
- 意义比形式更重要
- 有意义、符合语境的
语言教学在先
- 语法讲解在后
- 演绎教学法向归纳教
学法过渡
演绎教学法
- 机械性
- 教师承担所有学习的
职责
归纳教学法
- 鼓励学习者自己发现
规律和意义
- 较类似于第一语言的
学习

present progressive tense is used to describe “something that we do
now,” despite the fact that it also has a variety of additional functions
(e.g., We are going to the store tomorrow.) The teacher would then drill
the students; perhaps giving them pronouns and verb stems and having
them to make present progressive sentences. (For example, if the teacher
says, “he study”, the students would reply, “He is studying.”) This may
or may not be followed by a brief application process, and the next day a
new grammar point would be introduced. Deductive language learning
becomes mechanical, and the teacher assumes all responsibility for
student learning.
In inductive teaching, the goal is to encourage learners to discover
rules and meanings themselves, in much the same way we learn our first
language. To begin with, the teacher introduces the target language
within a context such as a dialogue or short story. The language sample
itself should be clear, interesting, and relevant for the students, and the
target language should be included naturally; teachers should not
choose a sample that is designed artificially around the language point,
as is done in many textbooks. Since the goal of the lesson is to convert
input (what is heard or read) into intake (what is retained in learners’
competence) it is essential to direct learners’ attention to specific features
of the input (Smith, 1993, Schmidt, 1990). Schmidt’s “noticing
hypothesis” reinforces this idea that conscious noticing of the new
language is necessary for retention (1990, 1995). For this reason, in
inductive teaching, it is the teacher’s role to guide students to notice
certain aspects. This is best done by introducing language samples that
are motivating and authentic, yet include naturally occurring repetition
of the target language (Brown, 2001). Saliency of the language also
plays a big role in whether or not input becomes intake, particularly so
for young learners. For example, contracted forms are often not noticed
by children (Gabrielatos, 1994).
Many, however, believe that input alone is not enough. The next
important phase is using the new language. After the teacher introduces
the language, there must be some meaningful application of it, which
can take the form of a role-play, a problem-solving activity, a game,
input
(语言输入)
intake
(语言吸收)
目的语的运用
- 教师采用多种形式的
语言运用活动，与实
际生活紧密联系
- 学习者使用目的语进
行交际

storytelling or writing, an information gap5
activity, etc. (Many of these
will be explained in detail later or are explained in other units.) These
tasks should relate to the real life of the learner and should, by design,
require the learner to communicate using the new language. Therefore,
the lesson moves from comprehension to production (Brown, 2001),
continuing its focus on meaning over form and providing an ideal
environment for conscious noticing of the new language. Additionally,
the learner becomes intrinsically motivated, since completion of the task
is dependent on sufficient usage of the new language.
Because younger learners are still in the process of developing their
cognitive skills and lack sophisticated knowledge of their own first
language, such an inductive presentation of language is most suitable for
them. Teaching rules and drilling do not make sense because younger
learners are more capable of acquiring a second language in ways
similar to acquiring their first language, and one would find such
practices for teaching the first language uncalled for. As a result,
inductive immersion programs and elementary school foreign language
programs place minimal emphasis on grammar instruction.
Such a philosophy of meaning over form also provides some insights
on how to approach error correction in a communicative-centered
classroom. Direct error correction, particularly for younger learners, is
discouraged for several reasons. First, it obviously detracts from the
purpose of communication as a tool to convey meaning. A child might
not understand why the adult is correcting them and, even after
correction, might not fully be aware of what is wrong. Second, even
when children may be aware of a rule, they may not be able to apply it
consistently. The following example from Slobin (1978) illustrates this
point clearly:
Heida: She readed the book, you know, that green book.
Dan: Hmm?
Heida: That’s the book she read. She read the whole book.
Dan: That’s the book she readed, huh?
Heida: Yea, read! (annoyed)
归纳教学和小学外语
教学项目极少采用
语法教学法

Dan: Barbara readed you Babar (book name)?
Heida: She readed all the rest.
Dan: That’s right. I readed the beginning to you.
Heida: Readed? (annoyed and surprised) Read! Will you stop that
Papa?
The child obviously has passive knowledge of the rule, and in her
own mind is unaware that she is not producing it in some of the required
instances. As a result, she becomes frustrated with her father’s
correction. Finally, whether or not a learner is able to process the
question has much to do with their natural stage of development (as
discussed in detail in the units on Early Childhood Development Theory
and The Natural Approach). Pienemann suggested that there is a
hierarchical sequence of acquisition for questions (1985), and others
have found similar stages of “teachability” applied to other aspects of
language. Such beliefs suggest that, in many instances, direct correction
of students may prove fruitless, unless aimed specifically at their
individual levels of development, which vary.
If correction is used in the young learner classroom, it should not
interrupt the flow of student talk (Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004). For this
reason, recasting (restating with correct grammar) all or part of a
learner’s statement is recommended over overt correction. Since this
type of correction is often employed by parents to children (Doughty,
2000), it again adheres to the idea of authentic communication, and
retains an emphasis on meaning. An example of recasting follows:
S: I eated rice for lunch.
T: Oh, you ate rice for lunch? What else did you have?
Here the teacher recognizes and provides feedback to the student’s
error, but wants to encourage the student to continue speaking. The
student may or may not notice the error, but the opportunity to notice is
provided. In order to make the correction more salient, the teacher
might stress the form that the student produced incorrectly or omitted.
For example:
S: I eated rice for lunch.

T: Oh, really? You ate rice for lunch?
If the teacher does choose to occasionally focus on accuracy of a
particular form, they should begin by designing activities developed
around a recurring error. In these instances, it is recommended that the
teacher make the goal of the lesson or activity clear, so that students
understand what they are learning. Also, the activities, despite their
intention to focus on grammar, should be presented in an authentic,
communicative context, which will be discussed in the following section.
Authenticity
In order for the classroom to be truly communicative, lessons must be
based on authentic language and materials, even for young learners.
The texts, whether they be stories, songs, movie clips, or letters, should
be genuine in the sense that they do not focus on controlled vocabulary
or grammar points; they should not be modified solely for the purpose of
teaching isolated pieces of language. Such manipulated texts often
present artificial samples of language that are not used in real-life
situations. By using authentic texts to teach reading and listening skills,
learners are provided with real-life opportunities to use the target
language. Teachers should choose authentic materials that are aimed at
native speakers of a similar age to their students. Storybooks, cartoons,
comics, and children’s menus are good examples of authentic materials
for young learners.
The use of authentic materials alone, however, does not guarantee a
Communicative Approach; a teacher can just as easily turn a lesson that
uses authentic materials into one typical of grammar translation, in
which students dictate, memorize, and translate. We must also be
certain to introduce language that has an authentic function. This means
that it should be “real” language, not the language found so often in
textbook drills. Typical language lessons of the past included questions
that seem ridiculous had they been uttered in the L1. For example,
many language learners are familiar with the following scenario:
T: Are you a girl or a boy?
学习材料的真实性
- 确保交际的真实性
- 提供学习者真实使
用目标语的机会

S1: I’m boy.
T: Yes. You are a boy. He’s a boy. (Directed to the class.)
T: What is this? (Holding a pen)
S2: A pen.
T: Yes. It’s a pen.
These questions, aside from being painfully boring, have no
functional value and are non-communicative since we already know the
answers. This sequence illustrates “T-S-T syndrome.” That is, the
teacher asks a question; the student answers; the teacher gives
feedback, and then the teacher asks another student a question (Irujo,
1998). Such discourse would never be found in natural speech, and
limits students to the position of constantly responding to questions. In
place of this, students should be encouraged to take the role of both
questioner and answerer and should be allowed opportunities to direct
their own topics. This should be built into activities that the children do
and should be part of the daily classroom routine. Irujo (1998) writes:
What does a classroom based on authentic language look
like? Talk in such a classroom has to do with the work that goes
on in that room. It is negotiation of meaning among the teacher
and children revolving around what is going to be learned, what
activities will be done, what things mean, how we know, what we
know, and sharing what we have learned and how we learned it.
It is rooted in both the content that the children are learning and
the procedures used to learn it. It is democratic, with children
having both time to contribute and freedom to say what they
think (p. 65).
The teacher should begin by creating a comfortable classroom
atmosphere where students are encouraged to express their ideas. The
writer recalls an interesting class ritual that she witnessed while
observing an elementary English as a second language class in Hawai’i
that illustrates this. The teacher began each class by having students
gather in a small semi-circle. (Out of habit, most of the students ran to
their places after the bell rang.) She then announced that it was “news

time” and began with a small chant that the class knew and sang
together while clapping. It went something like:
What’s the news today?
What’s the news?
Is it happy? Is it sad?
Is it good? Is it bad?
What’s the news today?
What’s the news?
Each student was then given time to share his or her news, and the
other students were encouraged to ask questions. This was a natural
exchange of information that was nicely incorporated into the daily class
routine.
Activities that are designed to practice language should also include a
similar communicative element. As teachers, we should resist asking
artificial questions that would never be encountered outside the
classroom, and we should not place students in the position of
one-sentence respondents. We should encourage children to practice
language as communicatively as possible by using such activities as
role-plays and dramatizations (both of which are discussed in detail in
the Teaching Through Drama unit), in which functions such as
commands, apologies, invitations, and introductions become concrete to
students.
In order for communicative activities to be functionally authentic,
there must be an information gap. By definition, communication is the
exchange of ideas, opinions, or information. Before we listen to or read
something, we cannot guess everything that the speaker or writer is
going to say; there exists a “gap” that provides us with a reason for
listening or reading. The teacher should consider ways of making this
gap present when children are practicing language. Role-plays, when
done correctly, should include an information gap. For example, the
teacher might give students information cards (using simple words or
pictures) with different names and countries (see Figure 1).
交际活动的功能真实
性
- 包含“信息沟”
包含“信息沟“的
活动
- 角色扮演
- 头脑中拼图
- 日常生活信息问答

Name: Pierre
Country: France
Name: Ashley
Country: Canada
Name: So Young
Country: Korea
The teacher should check to make certain that students understand
the task and the information on their cards, but must do so individually
with students in order to insure preservation of the information gap.
Then, the teacher can ask students to do a short role-play to introduce
themselves, pretending that they are the characters on their cards. Other
information, such as hobbies, hometown, etc., can be added for higher
proficiency levels. Just as in natural communication, one student cannot
predict how another will answer.
Jigsaw activities are another type of information gap activity that can
prove stimulating for younger learners. Here each member of a group or
pair is given different information that is necessary to complete a task.
Following is an example of a jigsaw activity that could be performed
after a lesson about animals that live on the African continent (see Figure
2). Each group has information about one of the animals that the class
has studied, and within each group each member has unique
information that all members must piece together to help them guess the
animal’s identity (adapted from Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004).
Group Student A Student B Student C Student D
1 It looks like a
horse.
It has stripes. It is black and
white.
It ends in A.
2 It has black
spots.
It lives in the
forest.
It lives in Asia
& Africa.
It looks like a
cat.
3 It is tall. It has a long
neck.
It eats from
trees.
It is orange and
brown.
To adapt this for preliterate learners, pictures may be substituted for
sentences. Again, since each student has their own card and is not
Figure 1: Sample Role Play Cards for Self-Introductions
Figure 2: Animal and Habitat Jigsaw Activity

Figure 3: Food Topic Biographical Database
allowed to show their information to the other members, there exists a
gap; one member has information that the other members do not, and
they must speak in order to retrieve the information and guess their
animal as a team.
Biographical databases are yet another type of information gap.
These are interview activities that require students to answer and ask
questions about personal likes or dislikes, interests, etc. They are
normally set up in table form with names or pictures of students across
the top. The teacher might also have students choose an icon or favorite
animal to represent themselves (see Figure 3). In the far left vertical
column there are questions, stems, or even pictures. For example, a
database with the title “What Did You Do Last Weekend?” might include
things ranging from the ordinary to the unusual, such as play with
friends, watch TV, ride a bike, go to the zoo, take a plane, etc. The
students would ask the members who are listed on their questionnaire if
they did any of the activities listed. If they are preliterate, students could
draw a smiley face in the box of an activity that their group member did,
and an X or sad face in the box of something that was not done.
Question
1. What is
your favorite
food?
2. When did
you eat it
last?
3. What is
your favorite
snack?

Biographical database topics could vary from sports to hobbies to future
dreams to wants to items in the students’ room at home. The teacher can
also make this more open-ended for higher proficiency students by
listing questions such as What did you do this weekend? Who did you
meet this weekend? and What did you eat for breakfast this weekend? in
the left column, and having students fill in responses in pairs. (A number
of other information gap activities are provided in the Applications
section below.)
In addition to authentic language function, the level of the language
and the context in which it is presented should be authentic for the age of
the learner. Teachers should consider topic, grammar, and register
appropriateness when introducing and having students practice
language. The writer recalls an incidence in which she was observing an
English as a foreign language class for elementary students. The theme
of the lesson was “going to the barber shop.” The language practiced
included such phrases as, How much for a trim? and I would like a
shave, please. This is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the
situation itself is unusual; it is rare that children would go to a hair shop
alone and ask a barber for a haircut. Second, the vocabulary is not
genuine for the age level. Elementary school students would use the
word cut over the more nuanced trim. Also, children at this age do not
have facial hair; therefore, the word shave here is not suitable. Finally,
the grammatical forms used are not those that a native English speaker
of the same age would use. How much is... would probably be used by a
native speaking child instead of How much for... and I would like... is,
for the most part, too formal a register for children. Other situations that
would be inauthentic for children might include going to the bank,
renting a car, buying a plane ticket, etc.
The final element that falls under this umbrella of authenticity is
authentic purpose. Irujo states, “So much of what we ask children to do
in school has no purpose other than to learn and practice a skill (1998).”
Although practice plays a role in the language classroom, the teacher
should make an effort to translate what students do into some sort of
meaningful product. In an L1 context, if we write a letter, then we expect
语言水平和语境的真
实性
- 应针对学习者的年龄
- 在学生练习时，教师
应考虑话题、语法及
其他合理性
目的的真实性
- 将学生的课堂练习转
化为具有实际意义
的成果

someone to read it, and if we invite somebody to a party, we expect them
to come. In the classroom, however, it is a teacher who reads the letter
and comments on it from a language point of view, and students end up
inviting the other students to an imaginary party. It would be ideal if we
could make language functions more tangible for the learner. Without
such an attempt, it would be easy for learners to lose motivation. Irujo
also comments, “If nobody is going to see a child’s story except the
teacher and perhaps a few other children who bother to look at the
bulletin board where it is posted, there is little incentive to write a good
story.... If the task has no other purpose than to do what the teacher says,
it doesn’t make any difference if they do it wrong in the first place.”
Taylor adds, “Students are not as likely to involve themselves as fully in
classroom activities, which are contrived and uncompelling, as they are
when they have a real stake in their endeavors (1983).”
There are ways that teachers can enable students to see the results of
their practice. For example, the teacher might make and distribute a
booklet of stories, poems, and artwork that students produced
throughout the year. (This can be adapted for lower level learners by
making a collection of stories or songs that the teacher introduced in
class with illustrations by students.) The teacher could also begin the
year by introducing an empty box as a “time capsule” or “gift box.”
Students would decide what kind of things they would like to place
inside it during the year. For each item they should explain the reason for
their choice, whether it be a story, art, a prop, or a tape. Each student
can also be asked to add something that represents himself or herself as
an individual. For example, the teacher could videotape
self-introductions or goodbyes, then use these materials with students
the following year or could plan ahead with a school in another country
or neighboring area, and exchange gift boxes at the end of the year.
Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) introduce a similar initiative called the
“Flat Stanley” project, which is based on the popular book by Jeff
Brown. Flat Stanley tells the story of a boy who is crushed by a bulletin
board, but who then has the magic ability of traveling via mail. This
dynamic plot has provided teachers worldwide with the idea of

exchanging “Flat Stanleys” with partner classes. For example, a class in
Boston, Massachusetts might, after initial teacher contact, send their
own “Flat Stanley” to a class in Seoul, Korea (via regular mail or
Internet), and vice versa. The Boston “Flat Stanley” would be
welcomed as a guest in the Seoul classroom. During Flat Stanley’s visit,
the Seoul class would keep a journal of events, take photos, collect
postcards, etc. After a specified period of time, the Seoul class would
mail Flat Stanley, along with his record of memories, back to Boston. In
this respect, students can travel the world through Flat Stanley. An
extensive website with curriculum ideas and participating schools is
available for teachers who seek this kind of meaningful culture exchange
(see http://flatstanley.enoreo.on.ca).
In summary, if we expect our students to be able to communicate
with native English speakers, then we must equip them with the tools
necessary to do so. This means that we must expose students to
authentic materials, provide them with authentic language, have them
practice authentic functions and motivate them with an authentic
purpose. If all of these requirements are met, then when students
encounter real situations, they will be fully prepared.
Integration of Skills
Closely related to the issue of authenticity is the idea of integrating
skills. In the past, language classes and programs have focused separate
lessons or lesson stages on reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
Brown (2001) points out that though some of the reasons for this make
sense, it goes in opposition to the way in which the skills are used in
actual language. Brown states that, “production and reception are quite
simply two sides of the same coin; one cannot split the coin in two,” and
many times multiple skills act together to complete a task. For example,
when we go to a restaurant, we read the menu, listen to the daily
specials, and speak our order to the waiter. In the language classroom,
students should be offered opportunities for the same type of interaction.
If they learn listening as only a unitary, detached skill, how then will they
be able to cope when they must listen and respond in real time?
小结：真实性
- 真实的材料
- 真实的语言
- 真实的活动
- 真实的目的
能力综合
- 听说读写能力在实际
语言中同时运用
- 语言的产生和接收不
能分割

Integration of skills is a main component of Content, Theme, and
Experiential-based teaching (to be discussed later), and can be easily
implemented in the young learner classroom. In fact, Irujo (1998) points
out that combining skills is natural for children. She writes, “For a young
child all are inseparable parts of life. Dividing them up is simply another
way of making them into nonsense.”
The following provides an example of a lesson that combines the four
skills. First, the teacher begins the class with a storytelling. The students
listen and ask questions as the teacher tells the story. (If possible they can
read along.) Next, the teacher encourages the class to work together
orally to change parts of the story (characters, setting, time, the ending,
etc.) Then, the teacher has students work in groups to create their own
version of the story. The teacher can provide templates for these stories
(shortening the original story to a more manageable length, possibly
four pages). By drawing pictures and writing words or short sentences, if
possible, each group decides together how they will change the story.
Each member might be responsible for one change. As a final step, the
teacher might have the individual groups present their story to the class.
Seated students must listen carefully for the changes and, if possible,
write them down. The teacher can then have the class choose the most
interesting new version of the story. In this activity, language is
introduced naturally, and the four skills are integrated as appropriate for
the age level.
There are obvious limitations for teachers of preliterate learners. In
such a case, teachers would focus more on speaking and listening and
could introduce writing and reading passively by having students follow
along when the teacher reads, or by having students trace writing. An
interesting activity that can be used in conjunction with storytelling
involves the teacher writing content words from a particular story, such
as tiger, tree, sun, etc., on paper cut-outs in shapes representing the
words. The children assemble a storybook by assembling the cutouts in
order and associating meaning through the shapes (Curtain and
Dahlberg, 2004).

Teacher Concerns
CLT is now widely employed in language classrooms in the United
States and is being transitioned into schools in many countries. Japan,
South Korea, and Taiwan have all phased it into their public school
curriculum; however, for many teachers, the concept remains poorly
defined and the goals are unclear. Added to this are concerns that they
will be unable to implement this style of teaching due to what they
perceive as their own limited proficiency, combined with factors such as
class size and facilities. Li conducted a survey of Korean teachers’
perceptions of CLT approaches, and found that participants felt general
confusion over the meaning of CLT (Li, 1998). Most of them had
received brief lectures on CLT in their university courses or subsequent
training sessions, which they found inadequate. Most believed that CLT
applied exclusively to the area of speaking; few understood the concept
as including other language skills. Many assumed that CLT ignored
problems relating to grammar and accuracy. Here we will clear up some
of these concerns by highlighting them and making certain distinctions
about what is not requisite of communicative language teaching.
To begin with, the Communicative Approach does not require a
native English speaking teacher. Language competence is not
necessarily defined as native-like. In fact there appear to be some
advantages to teachers sharing the same native language and culture as
their students. First, in terms of teaching children, having someone of
the same cultural and linguistic background would be beneficial for the
obvious reasons that they could provide L1 support if needed
(particularly for classroom management), and they could make full use
of culture in lessons. It is important to note that use of the L1 is not
prohibited in a communicative classroom, although the teacher should
try to limit the situations in which it is used. Second, in many instances
when students must use English in real life, it will be with another
non-native English speaker anyway. For this reason, the acceptance of
world Englishes, or English as an international language has become
widespread and merges well with the ideas behind communicative
教师关注的问题
交际教学法对教师的
目的语要求不高，必
要时可以使用母语

teaching. In fact, depending on the needs of the learner, a non-native
speaking teacher might actually provide the most authenticity. Ideally,
teachers should make a concerted effort to expose students to a variety of
Englishes.
A second misconception that teachers have is that the
Communicative Approach entirely ignores form. Although the main
emphasis of a lesson should be on meaning (form in context), there are
times when the teacher may decide to focus on the narrower aspects of
language. Savignon (2001) includes a broad set of “language arts,” such
as language analysis, syntax, phonology, spelling, and so on, in the
makeup of a communicative syllabus. Although meaning of the language
is certainly the primary goal, there is no reason why teachers cannot
spend some time working on such aspects as spelling, vocabulary,
synonyms and antonyms, phonics, short dictation, etc., even through
the use of teaching games and activities. These activities, however,
should be kept meaningful and contextualized for young learners by
using pictures, realia, and other materials.
One final worry is that a communicative classroom will be noisy and
unmanageable, especially if the class size is large. This is partly true, as
students will be talking more; however, if the teacher controls the tasks
by giving clear directions, goals, and time limits, then the noise level will
be minimized. The teacher should devise quick “attention getters,” such
as bells, whistles, or clappers, in order to signal the end of an activity.
The teacher might even have students close their eyes and listen to a
song to calm them. (Effective classroom management is the subject of
the Managing the Classroom unit of this course.)
Group work and pair work are often associated with the
Communicative Approach, as we will see later in this paper; however,
they are not required of it (Savignon, 2001). How often to use group and
pair work is up to the teacher. One way to make such activities easier to
manage is to have students work with the same group or the same
partner for an extended period of time. If the teacher does seek greater
variety, then he or she might make animal or color cards for students to
交际教学法以教授语
言意义为主，也适当
涉及语言形式
教师需采取一定手段
吸引学生注意力，控
制课堂局面
交际教学法中常采用
双人活动或小组活
动，但非必须采用

draw from, so that, for example, all of the tigers can meet in one group,
and all of the dragons can go in another, etc. This will make forming
groups more manageable.
It appears that teachers have many misconceptions regarding the
Communicative Approach due to its relatively general guidelines and
overall flexibility. However, many of their concerns are unfounded.
Role of the Teacher and Students
In a Communicative Approach the teacher assumes the role of a
facilitator, responsible for guiding the students in their learning process.
Unlike past models where the teacher was an all-knowing authority
figure, the teacher’s presence in this case is more muted. However, this
does not diminish the teacher’s role. In order to provide the most
conducive learning situation, the teacher must make extra efforts to plan
lessons carefully by choosing appropriate, authentic materials; by
providing comprehensible input (as discussed in the Natural Approach
unit); and by designing tasks and activities that guarantee successful
outcomes. The teacher becomes a backstage coordinator who prepares
students with costumes, props, and cues, none of which students could
perform without. It is the students, however, who are put in the spotlight
once class begins. During lessons, the teacher encourages students and is
available to help them. In order to fulfill this role, the teacher might
instruct students how to ask for assistance. For example, at the
beginning of the year, the teacher might make signs that say, “Can you
help me?” “How do you say…?” “What does this word mean?” etc.
Unlike the teacher-centered classrooms of the past, we call this
communicative classroom a learner-centered (or student-centered) one.
According to Brown, such a classroom, “accounts for learners’ needs,
styles, and goals (2001)” as its primary focus. Therefore, the teacher
must consider these when planning lessons. For example, they might
incorporate activities that address multiple intelligences. (For more
details, see the Multiple Intelligences Theory unit.) The goal of
learner-centered instruction is to empower students by affording them
opportunities to make choices, as well as to explore their creativity. Irujo
教师和学生的角色
教师的角色：学习的促
进者
learner-centered
(以学习者为中心)
- 在交际法的课堂中采
用
- 目标：让学生自主选
择，发挥学生创造力
交际能力

writes, “More and more teachers are now realizing that it is not enough
to link various activities through themes they presume children are
interested in. The children must have a part in the selection of themes
and planning how to implement them (1998).” In a learner-centered
lesson the teacher might introduce a song that the class can sing
together. The class can then develop a dance or gestures to go along with
the song. Each student might provide one idea. The teacher might even
prepare some simple musical instruments, such as bells, triangles,
clappers, whistles, etc. or even provide students with the materials to
make their own. (Instructions for making simple homemade musical
instruments for classroom use are included in the unit on Managing
Materials.) The teacher might have students make a list of things in the
song: characters, weather, food, etc., then have the children use the list
to make up a new song as a class or in small groups. The students can
draw pictures to illustrate their new song then perform it for the class. In
this case, multiple learning styles are accounted for, and students have
an enormous amount of choice and responsibility in the learning
process. The students can see the fruits of their work in the new songs
that they create, which can become part of the class repertoire.
An important aspect of learner-centeredness is the idea of
cooperative learning (or collaborative learning)8
. By working together to
perform activities, solve problems, and create small projects, students
learn language incidentally through the natural process of negotiating
meaning. Since students must understand what their partners say in
order to complete a task, they may need to ask for clarification, devise
strategies for communication breakdowns, and find ways to rephrase
something that their partner does not understand, which will lead to
increased production and greater opportunity for “noticing” (Doughty,
2000).
Cooperative learning is typically found in pair or small-group work.
Such activities have been found especially beneficial for children.
Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) state, “When children learn to work
cooperatively in small groups or pairs, their opportunities for language
use are multiplied many times over, as are their opportunities for active
cooperative learning
(合作学习法)

participation in concrete and meaningful experiences.” They cite a
variety of advantages, including more authentic student speech, a safe
communicative setting in which children can take risks, variety of class
routines, and a chance for further development of social skills.
Additionally, cooperative learning leads to higher motivation for
learning, more positive student attributions for learning success, better
attitudes toward school and learning, and greater self-esteem (Slavin,
1995, Grabe and Stoller, 1997).
In order for cooperative learning activities to be successful for
younger learners, they must contain certain elements. First, all children
must have a meaningful role, and there should be “positive
interdependence”(Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004). That is, the
participation of all of the members should be necessary for the
completion of the activity, and no member should feel their role is minor
compared to the others. Combined with this, children should also have
individual responsibility for completing their role. The children must
understand that if they do not participate, there will be a negative
consequence. Next, the teacher should ensure that certain social skills
are used. Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) suggest that teachers begin the
activities, “by making sure everyone has a turn to speak, giving
encouragement, and listening when other group members are talking.”
The teacher should monitor students as they are performing their
activities in order to make certain that the children are following these
rules. The teacher might provide a checklist of these things (simplified
with pictures or student names) and have the children tick them off as
they occur. As the children become accustomed to such activities, the
teacher may choose to add additional social skills to the list.
A final consideration when doing cooperative learning activities is
feedback. In many instances the teacher addresses the product of the
activity, but ignores mentioning the process itself. However, it is just as
necessary to inform students what they did well and what they need
work on in terms of their group processing; “the teacher helps children
analyze what is working well in their group and what can be improved,
offers suggestions when individual groups are having specific problems,

and focuses the attention of the entire class on a limited, manageable
number of skills at one time (Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004).” The
teacher might also ask the students their opinion of their own
performance. For example, the teacher might ask, “How many people
spoke today?” or “How do you think you did today?” The teacher
might give students a rating system, or have them devise their own,
possibly based on colors, animals, icons, etc.
In summary, in the Communicative Approach, the classroom is a
learner-centered one in which cooperative learning activities are often
implemented. The teacher is the orchestrator of activities, but it is the
students who become active and responsible for their learning. Pair and
group work activities are used to maximize authentic communication
practice, as well as to encourage the development of social skills.
Content-Based Instruction
One well-known and promising embodiment of the Communicative
Approach is content-based instruction (CBI)9
, which is based on the
premise that, “people do not learn languages and then use them, but
that people learn languages by using them (Eskey, 1997).” The term
CBI is used to describe teaching that combines both content (such as
science, mathematics, and arts) and language. There are a variety of
interpretations in regard to the degree of emphasis on each of these
aspects.
Met (1999) writes of a continuum of language/content integration
with content-driven programs at one end and language-driven
programs at the other (see Figure 4). On the content-driven end of the
spectrum she cites the type of total immersion or partial immersion10
programs commonly found in elementary schools as a prime example;
students in such classes are expected to master the content, which is
delivered all or in part in the target language, with relatively little
explicit language instruction. At the polar end of the language-driven
side, Met describes programs that are focused on building language,
where content may be used as a means of enhancement, with no
expected goal of mastering it. The content for a single unit may come
小结：
- 以学生为中心
- 采用合作学习法
- 教师编排活动，学
生学习更积极主动
- 双人和小组活动增强
真实交流，提高社交
能力
content-based
instruction
(知识性内容教学)
知识性语言教学：从知
识为主到语言为主
的连续体
- 全部沉浸式教学
- 部分沉浸式教学
- 保护式课程
- 附属课程
- 主题式的课程
- 经常使用知识性语言
的课堂

from a variety of disciplines and is selected for its value in teaching
language objectives. Met provides an example of an elementary school
teacher who decided to integrate mathematics in a language lesson
about animals. Since the teacher was aware that students were learning
multiplication at the time, she gave students the following word
problem: “There are three trees. There are four monkeys in each tree.
How many monkeys are there?”
CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING: A CONTINUUM OF CONTENT
AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATION
 Content-Driven Language Driven 
Total
Immersion
Partial
Immersion
Sheltered
Courses
Adjunct
Model
Theme Based Frequent Use of
Content Language
Practice
Between these polar ends rests a middle area, which might be more
realistic for teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL). Brinton,
Snow, and Wesche (1989) discuss three of these: sheltered courses11
,
adjunct courses12
, and theme-based courses13
. The first, sheltered
courses are those in which subjects such as math, science, and social
studies are taught by a teacher who is informed about language teaching
techniques. The teacher should be able to show special sensitivity to the
language needs of the learner, but content mastery is still valued above
language improvement.
A second version of CBI that is even more accessible is the adjunct
model, which places equal importance on language and content. In such
a model, a content instructor works alongside a language instructor, and
the student receives evaluation from both teachers (Met, 1999). This
type of instruction demands a large degree of cooperation between the
two instructors, as goals should be arrived at together and their lessons
must overlap. The positive aspect of this model is that the language
instructor is not expected to be an expert regarding the content. As an
example of this, the language teacher might decide to partner up with
the science teacher. The science teacher would sit down with the
language teacher, explain the class syllabus, and cue the language
teacher in to the vocabulary that students need, the discourse level that
Figure 4: CBI Continuum From Met (1999)

students must understand and produce, and tasks that the students need
to accomplish. The language teacher could then make his or her own
syllabus, still focusing on meaning over form, but with more concretely
defined language learning goals.
A final model is a theme-based course. In such courses, the main goal
is developing target language skills, the content itself serving only as a
means to learning. “Language is used to explore content, and language
growth emerges as students need to comprehend or produce language
related content (Met, 1999).” Themes are chosen based on topics that
are interesting and appropriate for the age group and on their “potential
to contribute to the learner’s language growth in specific topical or
functional domains (Met, 1999).” The appeal of this type of CBI is that,
unlike the “stronger” content versions that have shown varying results in
language development, this version directly addresses language
concerns in the syllabus design. Thematic units themselves may be
broad, lasting for weeks, or may be focused on a single fairytale, video
clip, or holiday.
Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) suggest that thematic lessons for
younger learners could be in story form with clear beginnings,
midpoints, and resolutions. They offer a framework for using story form.
The teacher begins with the general theme (e.g., animals—a topic that
is interesting for young learners and for which it is relatively easy to find
materials at varying language levels). Next the teacher might compile
resources and materials in order to get an idea of more finite topics that
can be addressed and to decide a relevant and appropriate language
focus. In the sample lesson (see Figure 5), the teacher decides to narrow
the focus to topics such as animal habitats and animal characteristics
and includes matching language functions. The teacher also considers
specific language points that he or she would like to teach. This
theme-based unit may involve one story, several stories, or a series of
story-form activities, and might consist of the completion of several
tasks, like having children design their own fantasy animal, that
synthesize the language and content points that have been covered. If
possible, the teacher may finish the unit by having the students create an

authentic product, in this case mailing a booklet of drawings and
supportive statements to wildlife support organization.
Content Language Function Culture
Animal habitat Expressing needs Animal sounds
Animal characteristics Expressing fear Common animals in the
culture
What animals eat Describing Cultural animal songs
Relationships Suggesting Cultural animal story
Specific language goals (polar opposites):
Hungry -- Full
Sad -- Happy
Good -- Bad
Story form: sample activities for using stories
Choice:
• One story? Series of story-form activities?
• Fantasy animals: What does this baby animal need to eat and live?
• Stories of animals in need in various settings.
• Story of one endangered species, perhaps nearby.
Tasks/Activities:
• Draw pictures of animals children like and show how they get what
they need.
• Help mother and baby animals separated around the classroom to find
each other.
• Design fantasy animals; tell what they need to eat, be happy, where
they live, etc.
Product:
• Have the class make a booklet of drawings of animals that are
endangered and that they care about. Together or individually write a
class letter to the World Wildlife Association or some other organization,
and send the booklet to them.
Figure 5: Sample for a Theme-Based Unit on Animals Adapted from Curtain
and Dahlberg (2005)

Assessment/Product:
• Can children participate in problem-solving with fantasy animal in
need?
• Designing a fantasy animal and writing a simple description.
• Responsiveness group activities and fantasy situations.
Although there exists what Brown (2001) terms a “fuzzy distinction”
between theme-based courses and more traditional language courses
that use topics for discussion, reading practice and/or writing prompts,
the major difference is that, compared to the latter, all types of CBI have
a greater emphasis on learning from context, intrinsic motivation,
communicative competence, and automaticity (Brown, 2001). In a CBI
classroom, there is typically a high degree of cooperative learning and
frequent negotiation of meaning, which are both cornerstones of the
Communicative Approach. Talking about the content or topic presents a
very authentic medium for developing language. As a result, CBI has
been implemented successfully in K-12 settings in Western and Central
Europe, North America, and parts of Asia.
Task-Based Learning
The Communicative Approach also sometimes takes the form of
task-based learning (TBL). By designing courses around tasks that are
necessary and essential for the learner, teachers are able to increase
motivation, which will result in more rapid language improvement. TBL
lessons focus on completion of the task itself rather than any discrete
linguistic or vocabulary knowledge (Doughty and Long, 2003).
However, when deficient grammar knowledge is preventing
communication or when students are experiencing difficulties in the
naturally occurring language, there are times when the teacher may
choose to highlight a specific form as a means of getting students to
“notice” (Schmidt, 1990). Therefore, form is of concern only in its
relationship to overall communicative competence.
The rationale behind TBL is that students “learn by doing.”
“Practical hands-on experience with real-world tasks bring abstract
task-based learning
(任务教学法)

concepts and theories to life and makes them more understandable
(Doughty and Long, 2003). When TBL is used in a Communicative
Approach, some kind of information gap, whether it be a natural one as
in real communication or one created by the teacher, is established. The
teacher may consider if they want to make the activity be open or closed.
In an open activity, there is no correct answer; each member may have
their own opinion. However, in a closed activity, the instructor can say
that the answer is necessarily right or wrong. Long (1990) finds the
latter type more effective since it requires greater negotiation of
meaning. Members must come to an agreement, express their opinions,
and find the correct answer. It also seems that, in terms of younger
learners, this second type would be more motivating. Jigsaw information
exchange activities, paired information gaps, and role-plays are
additional means of practice in TBL. (Task-based learning is discussed
in much greater detail in the unit entitled Experiential Learning
Theory.)
Communicative Approach Lesson Planning
There is not a single prescribed way of conducting a communicative
lesson. However, some teachers feel comfortable with what is known as a
PPP format. PPP stands for presentation, practice, and production. In
the first phase, presentation, the teacher typically presents a listening or
reading text that includes the target language point. The teacher makes
sure the children understand the main point and emphasizes certain
language that he or she wants the children to practice.
Next, the teacher makes the transition from engaging students’
receptive skills, to productive skill practice. In this phase the teacher
would begin to elicit the target form, but would somehow provide
language support; either all or some of the target language (grammar
and vocabulary) should be given. For example, the teacher might make
picture cards of a simplified version of the story that he or she told
during the presentation and place them out of order. The teacher might
also create accompanying sentences (complete or incomplete) that
students could match to the pictures. In small groups or as a class
open activity
(开放式活动)
- 无正确答案
- 允许有个人观点
closed activity
(封闭式活动)
- 有正确答案
- 更行之有效
PPP 模式
- 教师演示
- 学生实践
- 成果制作

students could then arrange the cards in the correct order and find the
corresponding sentence. The teacher can then have students retell the
story. She might give them key words that they must use when retelling
the story. During this practice phase it is important that the language
points be introduced inductively.
The final phase, production, should ideally be learner-centered and
cooperative. In this phase, there should be less language support than in
the practice phase. The extent of the support depends on both the
language proficiency and the cognitive level of the learner. Obviously,
novice level, younger learners would require more language support and
overall guidance than intermediate level adult learners. In this case, the
task should be clearly set up with a definite beginning and end. This
phase should give the students a chance to practice the language in a
new, but similar context. For example, the teacher might have students
create a new story, limited to about four scenes, with a similar theme to
the story he or she presented earlier in the lesson. (The PPP lesson
format and lesson planning in general is discussed in much greater detail
in the unit entitled Planning Lessons.)
Applications
Dialogues
Curtain and Dahlberg (2004) suggest using a dialogue as a precursor
to storytelling or as an introduction to a video clip or song. They write
that dialogues, “provide a structure for a series of expressions that
combine to develop a situation, idea, or experience.” They add that, if
carefully selected, dialogues can also serve to ignite a child’s imagination
and cater to a child’s love of dramatization. Dialogues should be
authentic, of reasonable length, and made up of short utterances and
should encourage a certain amount of creativity (Curtain and Dahlberg,
2004). Dialogues should also contain a relatively large amount of
recycled vocabulary and functions, so that children are not
overwhelmed by new language.
Below are examples of dialogues adapted from ideas in Curtain and
对话
- 猜礼物

Dahlberg (2004). In the following dialogues, the expressions in bold
print can be created by students. The teacher might encourage students
to think of humorous responses.
Dialogue A
(The teacher should prepare a box as a prop and give it to student 2.)
S1: Hi
S2: Hi. What’s that?
S1: A surprise.
S2: For me?
S1: Maybe.
S2: What’s inside? Is it a computer?
S1: No. It’s smaller.
S2: Is it a watch?
S1: No. It’s bigger.
S2: What is it? What is it? Please tell me.
S1: Ok. Here, Look inside!
S2: It’s a teddy bear! Thank you!
Layered Gifts—This activity can be used in conjunction with the
preceding dialogue. Instead of using a simple box as a prop, the teacher
can prepare a layered gift with numerous packages nested inside one
another. Inside each package is a small “gift” and another package. As
students take turns participating in the dialogue, one student gives the
gift to another and that student unwraps it in the process of practicing
the dialogue. That student then gives the package within to another
student, taking the other role in the dialogue while the new student
unwraps the smaller package, and so on (see Figure 6).

Dialogue B
S1: Hi!
S2: Hi!
S1: Where are you going?
S2: I’m going to the jungle.
S1: How?
S2: By bike.
S1: Me too!
S2: Great! Let’s Go!
S1: Look! A snake!
S2: Oh! It’s crawling.
S1: Look! A monkey!
S2: Oh! It’s swinging!
S1: Look! A tiger!
S2: It’s attacking! Let’s get out of here!
Gouin Series
Another useful type of activity that works to support the tenets of the
Communicative Approach is the Gouin series. This technique was
Gouin 句列
- 6-8 个命令句或陈述
句组成
- 每句约 7 个音节
- 每句的人称、时态统
Figure 6: Layered Gifts

invented by Francois Gouin, who believed that language could be
learned more easily if it were presented as a sequence of events, and is a
nice way of introducing functional chunks of language (Curtain and
Dahlberg, 2005). A Gouin series consists of six to eight commands or
statements of up to approximately seven syllables each. The statements
should include action verbs of uniform tense and person. The following
is an example:
Today is the Tim’s birthday.
He gets a present.
He opens the present.
He looks inside the box.
He sees a racing car.
He takes out the racing car.
He plays with the racing car.
The racing car breaks.
Episodes
Oller (1983) tinkered with Gouin’s series form and created the
“Episode Hypothesis.” Episodes are similar to dialogues, but each
dialogue the students are exposed to is connected by an ongoing
storyline to dialogues studied previously and those that will be studied in
the future. Oller writes that the linear sequence of episodes highlights
language connections, making language easier to recall and understand.
The key behind using episodes, according to Oller, is creating curiosity,
making learners wonder what will happen next. For this reason, an
episode looks much different from the type of emotionless dialogue that
appears in typical language textbooks. This combines cognitive
processes with language learning in a beneficial way (Brown, 2001;
Oller, 1983). The episodes can be presented in either written or spoken
form, and students can be encouraged to write their own episodes or
complete unfinished ones. The end result might be dramatization of the
episode in front of the class (see the unit entitled Teaching Through
Drama.) The following is an example of an episode that might be
appropriate for elementary learners.

Episode 1
Min: Did you see my notebook?
(He is worried because he needs it for the next class.)
Sue: Ummm…What notebook?
Min: It was on my desk.
Sue: Oh, it wasn’t there.
Min: Stop joking. Where is it?
Sue: (Smiling.) I don’t know.
Min: C’mon! Give it back!
(Students can provide their own ending or develop a subsequent
episode.)
Information Gap Activities
Many of the following activities are taken or adapted from Curtain
and Dahlberg (2004), and have been organized from those requiring
very simple language to those that require more advanced levels of
proficiency. With most of these activities, it is essential that the teacher
make certain that the students are not showing their information to their
partners, but using the language to share information across the gap. To
achieve this, some sort of blind, such as two open file folders or
notebooks with their backs clipped together (see Figure 7, for example),
may be helpful. (The construction of information gap blinds is discussed
in greater detail in the unit entitled Managing Materials.)
Mystery Dots—This activity involves a connect-the-dots picture in
which the numbers have been scrambled. Student A has a picture with
numbered dots, and Student B has the correct sequence of numbers
needed to complete the picture. (The teacher might add distracter
numbers and dots so that the picture is not immediately apparent.) The
teacher can also have students make guesses about the picture at
specified points, for example after connecting every three dots. As a
variation, the dots could be labeled with letters or even written words to
increase language practice.
Block Patterns—In this activity Student A has a set of colored
blocks, and Student B has a picture of how they should be arranged.
故事片段
含有“信息沟”的游戏
- 神秘的点
- 听口令搭积木

Student B must instruct Student A how to arrange the blocks using
colors, ordinal numbers, and location (top, bottom, middle, right, left,
etc.) (See Figure 7.) They can then switch roles and do this again with a
new picture.
Find the Differences and Similarities—Each student is given a
slightly different version of a picture. The pictures will be dependent on
what vocabulary and structures the students have learned in class. For
example, if the class has studied animals and prepositions, the pictures
may depict animals positioned in relation to each other or other known
vocabulary, such as tree or house (see Figure 8). Student A begins by
describing his or her picture to Student B, and Student B asks questions
or describes his or her picture to Student A. Working together in this way,
they should find any similarities and differences between their two
pictures.
- 寻找相同与不同
Put the triangle
above the square. It
looks like a house.
Figure 7: Block Patterns

Picture Dictation—Children are put in pairs and one member of the
pair is provided with or draws a picture. The subject matter of the
picture and its complexity might depend on what vocabulary and
sentence structures the students have been studying and their language
proficiency. The child with the picture then describes to his or her
partner how to draw a similar picture on a blank piece of paper (see
Figure 9). Once finished, the two compare pictures to see how well they
performed. (To reuse these pictures and to continue language practice,
have pairs exchange pictures and use their classmates’ drawings in the
above activity, Spot the Similarities and Differences.) As a variation on
this activity, children can describe to their partner a scene that they are
familiar with from memory, such as the layout of their own home or the
route they travel to get to school, while the partner draws it.
There are two
big rooms on the
first floor.
Are there only two
rooms on the first
floor?
Figure 8: Find the Similarities and Differences.

What’s In My Backpack?—Each student draws a picture of a
backpack on a sheet of paper. The teacher should try to make it so the
paper is folded over, so that students can actually “look inside.” The
class then brainstorms a list of items that could be included in the
backpack. The students then draw whatever items they choose from the
list “inside” of their backpacks. After this is finished, students form pairs
and ask or try to guess what their partner has in his or her backpack (see
Figure 10). By the end of this, Student A should note down all of the
items that Student B has in their backpack (by drawing if the children
are preliterate) and vice versa. Then, Student A will introduce to the
class what Student B’s backpack contains. A variation of this activity
asks students to find other students with contents identical to theirs by
asking around the room.
Dress the Bear—Each student has a picture or figure of a bear (or
paper doll) and a variety of pieces of clothing, with different colors and
designs. Student A dresses the bear and then tells Student B how to dress
the bear. Student B can ask questions for clarification. When finished,
they show each other their bears, and they should have twins. This can
also be adapted to a “find the differences” activity. Each student dresses
- 背包里有什么
- 帮小熊穿衣
There are a
turtle and a
monkey next
to a tree.
Is the tree between
the turtle and the
monkey?
Figure 9: Picture Dictation

the bear as they want, and when they finish they ask each other
questions to find the differences.
Where’s My Teddy Bear?—Each student has a picture of a house or
apartment with a number of rooms and furniture. Each child is asked to
“hide” something in the house, for example a teddy bear, a piggy bank,
etc. by drawing it into the picture. They must then each find their
partner’s object by asking questions. The language focus can include
prepositions of location, furniture vocabulary, adjectives etc. Other
illustration frames can also be used, such as a zoo, a neighborhood, a
school, etc.
Corners—In this activity, the teacher should post visuals in each
corner of the classroom. The teacher has students make choices about
which corner they would like to go to. For example, the teacher might
ask students to imagine that they are going on a class trip and must
decide on the following options: seashore, mountain, woods, or lake.
- 寻找我的玩具熊
- 童话故事填充 Is there a
pencil in
your
backpack?
Yes, there is. Is
there a pen in
yours?
Figure 10: What’s In My Backpack?

Students must think about which choice they prefer and what they want
to do there. They should then go to the corner that has the matching
visual. Once in the corner, they should find a partner, and should tell
him or her one thing that they want to do on their trip. After both
students exchange information, they raise their hands to indicate they
are looking for a new partner. They can do this for several turns. Then
the teacher can stop the activity and ask questions such as, “What does
Jane want to do at the beach?”
Integrated Skills Activities
As discussed earlier, integration of the four language skills (listening,
speaking, reading, and writing) is a hallmark of Communicative
Approach activities. Although the possibilities for integrated skills
activities are limited only by the teacher’s imagination, a few are
described here to provide further clarity as to how skills may be
integrated in classroom activities. Some of the following examples are
taken or adapted from Wright (1997).
A Fairy Tale with a Hole in It—Before presenting this activity, the
teacher should have already told fairytales to students in previous
lessons. In this activity, groups of students work on creating their own
fairy tale, using a written partial story as a guide to help them. (See, for
example, Figure 11.)
Once upon a time there was a/an (main character) who lived in a/an (place).
He/she was very sad because ______. Then one day he/she met a/an (magic
person/animal/monster of some sort) who said, “Can I help you?”
“Yes, please,” said the (main character). The
(magic character) gave him/her a/an ______
(a magic object) and said, “______”
The (main character) did what the
(magic character) said, and the next morning ______
Now the (main character) was very happy and lived happily ever after.
- 教室之角
综合能力的游戏
Figure 11: A Fairy Tale With a Hole in It

Additionally, the teacher may number the spaces and provide a list
of possibilities from which the students can choose. The students might
then write their own, individual version, and act it out or tell it to the
class. The remaining students in the class listen, and after the story has
been acted out, may ask questions to the group members about their
story.
Dialogue with a Dragon—Tell the children that you are going to tell
a story and that they must be very quiet because they are going to leave
the classroom and go into the forest. Divide the class into groups of
three. (They will need to be in these groups immediately after the story.)
One student in each group will be a dragon. Pre-teach necessary
vocabulary, then tell the story shown in Figure 12. Use a lot of visuals
while telling the story to connect meaning.
A dragon is lying in the middle of the forest. He is not asleep, but his eyes are
closed and he is thinking and listening. He hears two people walking in the
forest, between the trees. The people are trying to walk quietly. They look
around the forest—at the trees, up at the sky, down at the ground. It is very
quiet and very dark. The people have a strange feeling. They feel a little scared.
One of the people sees two sticks on the ground. The person picks the stick up;
it is not just a stick, it is a very special, magic stick! Suddenly, the people hear a
noise. What is it? They see a dragon. The dragon opens his eyes and sees the two
people.
The students should be curious at this point. Now the teacher should
have students think about what happens next, and have them work in
groups to write a dialogue, one student is the dragon, and the other two
are people. After they are finished writing, they should act out their
version of the story for the class. A variation of this is having the students
work in pairs or individually to finish the story.
Conclusions
CLT, or the Communicative Approach is not a teaching method;
rather, it is a view of language teaching that emphasizes authentic,
- 和龙的对话
Figure 12: Dialogue with a Dragon Story Starter

interactive communication as a means of empowering students to
interact in “real life” contexts. Teachers using such an approach may
have very different ways of implementing it, including unique teaching
styles, activities, and lesson design. However at the focus of every lesson
should be the needs of the learner.
At the center of the Communicative Approach is the concept of
communicative competence, which can most easily be described as the
whole of all the skills required to communicate effectively. Generally,
several types of skills are recognized as making up communicative
competence. These include: 1.) grammatical competence (knowledge of
grammar rules, vocabulary, pronunciation, sentence formation, etc.), 2.)
sociolinguistic competence (awareness of what tone, register, and level of
formality should be used in varying social contexts), 3.) discourse
competence (understanding how to communicate in various genres
ranging from formal debate to casual conversation with proper
coherence of meaning and cohesion of language form), and 4.) strategic
competence (knowing how to use the language to cope with distractions
or breakdowns in communication).
The Communicative Approach puts the focus of lessons on the
meaning and function of the language rather on its grammatical form.
In this way, language acquisition is achieved through inductive learning,
in which students are allowed to “notice” or discover the structural rules
and meaning of the language through repeated exposure, as opposed to
deductive learning, which usually takes the form of rote memorization
and drilling of vocabulary, grammar rules, and sentence patterns
removed from meaningful context. The teacher then moves students
from simple comprehension of the language to production of it through
the use of contextualized role-plays, games, stories, and information gap
activities, such as group jigsaw activities and biographical databases.
The Communicative Approach’s focus on meaning over form also affects
how errors are corrected. Instead of overtly correcting student errors in
speech, for example, the teacher might simply recast or restate the
student’s utterance correctly in such a way as to encourage continued
conversation. Rather than forcing the student to notice his or her

mistake then, this type of error correction simply gives the student the
opportunity to notice the mistake on his or her own.
Another essential component of the Communicative Approach is
authenticity. The materials used must be authentic for the age group,
representing the types of language the student would encounter in real
life. Similarly, structures or vocabulary presented should also be
authentic for the age and surrounding culture of the learners.
Furthermore, students should have the opportunity to both ask and
answer questions rather than exclusively answering questions posed by
the teacher. The Communicative Approach also features teaching the
four primary language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing
in an integrated manner, often mixing practice of them within the same
lesson or activity, just as they are likely to be used in authentic
communicative situations.
The roles of the students and the teacher in a Communicative
Approach differ markedly from those of a more traditional classroom.
Communicative Approach classes are student-centered, while the
teacher’s role becomes one of facilitating communication and providing
support only when necessary. This sort of learner-centeredness is often
achieved through the use of cooperative learning activities, or open or
closed tasks in a type of learning known as task-based learning (TBL).
Sometimes the Communicative Approach also takes the form of
content-based or theme-based instruction in which students learn the
language inductively through varying degrees of emphasis on the
content of other traditional school subjects or topical themes rather than
exclusively on language learning targets. Curricula following this sort of
instruction may range from being fully content-driven to being mostly
language-driven with several models occurring along the continuum.
Existing models include total immersion, partial immersion, sheltered
language, adjunct model, theme-based, and content language practice
programs.
Research has revealed that teachers have a number of
misconceptions about the Communicative Approach. These

misconceptions include: 1.) teachers of a Communicative Approach
must be native-like speakers of the target language; 2.) it is impossible to
use the Communicative Approach with large classes; 3.) the
Communicative Approach precludes any attention to language form; 4.)
and the Communicative Approach leads to classes that are difficult to
manage. None of these are true. On the contrary, non-native speaking
teachers are often preferred because they have better awareness of the
student’s culture and life context and because they can occasionally use
the students’ mother tongue for support and explanation if necessary.
Group and pair practice is very often used in the Communicative
Approach, making it possible to use it with the largest of classes. The
Communicative Approach does allow occasional practice of problematic
language forms so long as the practice is put into a meaningful
communicative context, and finally, although classes in which the
Communicative Approach is used will naturally be a bit noisier due to all
the communication going on, they are certainly manageable if the
teacher learns some useful techniques for regaining student attention
when it is necessary to provide further instructions or clarification or to
move on to another lesson phase.
Although there is a great deal of variation in how Communicative
Approach teachers organize and plan their lessons, one popular model is
known as PPP. This model of lesson planning takes students through
contextualized presentation, practice, and production stages. In terms of
applying the Communicative Approach, again teachers use a wide
variety of techniques, ranging from using dialogues, to stories (often in
the form of a Gouin series), to episodes, to information gaps, to
integrated skills activities. No matter how a teacher goes about planning
and implementing Communicative Approach lessons, however, CLT
provides him or her with a framework based on proven principles, and
at the same time allows a unique degree of flexibility that was seldom
seen in the past.
Notes
1) communicative competence (交际能力): 指不仅能够使用语

法规则来组成语法正确的句子，而且知道何时何地向何人
正确使用这些句子的能力。交际能力包括：语言的词汇及
语法知识；说话规则（如知道如何开始并结束谈话，不同
言语活动中谈论什么话题，不同场合下对不同的人用什么
称谓形式）；掌握如何使用不同的言语行为，如请求、道
歉、致谢和邀请，并对其作出反应；掌握如何适当地使用
语言。如果想与别人进行交际，就必须注意社会场景、他
们之间的关系及特定场合中可以使用的语言的类型，还必
须理解书面或口头表达出来的句子在上下文中的意思。例
如，英语句子 It’s rather cold in here (这里挺冷的)，特别是
对下属角色来说，可能是一个请求，表示关窗、关门或打
开暖气。
2) performance (语言运用): （转换生成语法中）指人对语言
的实际运用。一个人的语言知识（语言能力 competence）
不同于他用这种知识来造成句子和理解句子的方式（语言
运用）。语言能力和语言运用的差异，可从生成长而复杂
的句子中看出来。根据语言知识人们可以说出无限长的句
子，但真的试图使用这种知识（即“运用”）时，却有种种
原因限制句子中的形容词、副词和字句的数量。说话的人
可能会喘不过气来，听话的人会感到乏味，或者如果句子
太长就会忘了所说的内容。在第二语言和外语学习中，学
习者对一种语言运用可以表明他或她的语言能力。
3) coherence (连贯): 连接语篇中话语的意义或语段中句子的
意义的关系。这些联系可能建立在说话者共有的知识之
上。一般来说，如果一段话的各个句子都围绕中心大意展
开（即主题句和展开论证的有关句子）这段话就具有连贯
性。
4) cohesion (连结): 语段中不同部分之间的语法和/或词汇关
系，这种联系可能存在于句子之间，也可能存在于一个句
子中不同部分之间。
5) deductive learning (演绎学习法): 语言教学的一种方法，向
学习者传授语言规则并列出语言的具体知识。学习者然后
在使用语言的过程中运用这些规则。强调学习语言语法规

则的教学方法（如语法翻译法）使用演绎学习法原理。
6) inductive learning (归纳学习法): 该语言教学方法不向学习
者直接传授语法或其他类型的规则，而是让他们从使用语
言的经验中发现或归纳出规则，强调语言运用而不是语言
知识的描述。
7) information gap (信息沟): （两个或更多人之间的交际中）
信息只有在场人中的一些知道的一种情形。“交际语言教
学”中认为，为在学生之间创造真实的交流，他们之间或
者他们与老师之间必须有一个信息沟，否则课堂活动或联
系将变得机械和不自然。
8) cooperative learning (合作学习法): 教和学的一种方法，把
班级分成合作小组，学生们以合作小组的形式进行学习。
这种方法能够促进学习，因为对许多学生来说这种方法压
力相对小些；提高了学生的课堂参与；减少竞争；减少教
师的课堂支配作用。
9) content-based instruction (CBI) (知识性内容教学): 作为第二
语言的英语课程，以教学正规课堂上所需技能为主，即为
学习知识性学科如数学、地理或生物作准备。该课程向学
生传授转正规课程所需的技能。
immersion program (沉浸式教学): 双语教学的一种形式，只
说一种语言的儿童在以另一种语言作为教学媒介的学校
里上课。如果全天用另一种语言给儿童授课，则称之为全
部沉浸式教学 (total immersion program)；如果只在一天的
部分时间里使用，则称之为部分沉浸式教学 (partial
immersion program)。
10) sheltered course (保护式课程): 指一些知识性学科，如数学、
科学、社会课程等，让有语言技能的教师采用目的语教授，
教师对学生语言水平的提高有所关注，但是对知识的掌握
还是占主要地位。这种课程的目的是，在帮助英语水平
有限的学生提高英语水平的同时，也让他们在知识性学科
上学有所得。
11) adjunct course (附属课程): 在此教学模式下，语言与知识教

学同样重要，有两位教师分别教授语言和知识，学生所学
受到两位教师的评估。
12) theme-based course (主题式课程): 该课程的主要目的为发
展学习者目的语能力，而知识作为目的语学习的一种媒
介。主体的选择应具有趣味性，并与学习者的年龄相符。
References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1990). The construct of the FSI Oral
Interview. Language Learning, 31(1), 67-86.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. White Plains, NY:
Addison-Wesley Longman.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative
language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.).
Language and Communication (pp. 1-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied
Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Carroll, J. B. (1972). Fundamental considerations in testing for English
language proficiency of foreign students. In H. B. Allen & R. N.
Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A book of
readings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children: Making
the match. Boston: Pearson.
Doughty, C. (2000). Negotiating the linguistic environment. University
of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 18(2), 47-85.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic
environments for distance foreign language learning. Language
Learning and Technology 7(3). 50-80.
Eskey, D. (1997). Syllabus design in content-based instruction, In D.
Brinton & M. Snow (Eds.). The content-based classroom. New York:
Longman.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research
foundations. In D. Brinton & M. Snow (Eds.). The content-based
classroom. New York: Longman.
Gabrielatos, C. (1994). Minding our Ps: A framework for grammar
teaching. Current Issues 3. 5-8.
Irujo, S. (1998). Teaching bilingual education. New York: Heinle &
Heinle.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing. London: Longman: 1-37.
Leloup, J. & Ponteiro, R. (2005). Let’s go to the zoo! Site for young
language learners. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 4-16.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”:
Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the Communicative
Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32(4). 677-699.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition:
Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann
(Eds.). Modeling and assessing second language development (pp.
77-99). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative
feedback in SLA: Models & recasts in Japanese & Spanish. Modern
Language Journal. 82(3). 357-371.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making
decisions. NFLRC Reports, January. 1-35.
Oller, J. (1983). Story writing principles and ESL teaching. TESOL
Quarterly. 17. 39-53.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability & syllabus construction. In K.
Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.). Modeling & assessing second
language acquisition. Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters:
23-76. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11(2).

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement and instructed second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2).
Slobin, P. I. (1978). A case study of early language awareness. In A.
Sinclair, P. J. Jarvelle, & W. J. M. Levalt (Eds.). The child’s conception
of language. Berlin: Germany: Springer Verlag.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence theory and classroom
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the
twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language. (pp. 13-28). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Taylor, B. (1983). Teaching ESL: Incorporating a communicative,
student-centered component. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1) 69-87.
Vollmer, H. J., & Sang, F. (1983). Competing hypotheses about second
language ability: A plea for caution. In J. W. Oller Jr. (Ed.). Issues in
language testing. (pp. 29-79). Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Wright, A. (1997). Creating stories with children. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

the_communicative_approacH

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to the_communicative_approacH

More from gingerfresa

Recently uploaded

the_communicative_approacH