Littlewood - Context-Sensitive Pedagogy

3
English Teaching, Vol. 68, No. 3, Autumn 2013
Developing a Context-sensitive Pedagogy

for Communication-oriented Language Teaching
William Littlewood
(Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong)
Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for

communication-oriented language teaching. English Teaching, 68(3), 3-25.
When communicative language teaching (CLT) was first developed in the 1970s, it
was widely seen as the definitive response to the shortcomings of previous
approaches and the communication needs of a globalized world. As such, it was
exported enthusiastically over the world as a ready-to-use package of ideas and
techniques. From the outset, however, there was no clear consensus about its nature,
and teachers expe꺼enced di에culty in defining and implementing it. There is now a
widespread view that teachers need to adapt CLT to suit specific contexts. CLT
cannot now be defined in terms of precise characteristics but seπes rather as an
umbrella term for approaches that aim to develop communicative competence
through personally meaningful learning experiences. In this spirit, we should aim to
develop principles which help each teacher to develop a form of
communication-oriented language teaching (COLT) suited to his or her own specific
context.
Key words: communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching,

postmethod era, communication-oriented language teaching
1. INTRODUCTION: THE RISE OF CLT
For some 40 years now, discussions of foreign language teaching have been dominated
by the concept of “ communication” and its various derivatives such as “ communicative
language teaching" (CLT) and “ communicative competence.” Hunter and Smith (2012)
analyzed the keywords in articles published in one leading UK-based journal (ELT Journal)
and showed how communicative ideas and terminology gradually climbed to a dominant
status in ELT professional discourse in the years up to 1986. Since 1986, this trend has
continued. Even if much discussion now refers to ‘ 'task-based language teaching" (TBLT)
rather than CLT, this is not so much a shift of direction as a continuation within the same
교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

4 William Littlewood
direction. As many writers have noted (e.g., Nunan, 2004, p. 10; Richards, 2005, p. 29),
TBLT is best understood not as a new departure but as a development within CLT, 띠 which
communicative tasks “seπe not only as m혜or components of the methodology, but also as
units around which a course may be organized” (Littlewood, 2004, p. 324).
National language education policies have shown a sπong tendency to follow this πend.
까iis is not surprising, since almost every nation has faced an increasing need for people
who can communicate with speakers of other languages, particul때y throu맹 “ English as a
lingua franca” (see Sewell, 2013). πiis trend to advocate CLT and TBLT is documented in
international surveys such as those of Butler (2011 ), Ho and Wong (2004 ), and Nunan
(2003). It is also confirmed by an abundance of repoπs from individual counσies, e.g.,
China (W:없ig, 2007; Wang & Lam, 2009), Japan (Butler & Iino, 2005; Nishino &
Watanabe, 2008), Korea (Jeon, 2009; Shin, 2007), Libya (Orafi & Borg, 2009), 끼iailand
(Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2009), Uzbekistan (Hasanova & Shadieva, 2008), and
Vietnam 따iep, 2007).
2. THE INDEFINABILITY OF CLT
Whilst Hunter and Smith ’s (2012) analysis shows the rising prominence of
communicative ideas, it also contradicts any claim that there was a general consensus 띠
the 1980s concerning the actual nature of a communicative approach or that there was ever
an agreed conception of what CLT really meant. This lack of consensus has been
confirmed in the ye따S since then. For example, in response to Bax ’s (2003) prediction of
“ the end of CLT.,” Harmer (2003, p. 289) su잃ests that ‘ 'the problem with communicative
l뻐guage teaching (CLT) is that the term has always meant a multitude of different things
to different people.” Spada (2007, p. 272) expresses a similar view in her review of CLT:
“ What is communicative language teaching? The answer to this question seems to depend
on whom you ask. ” Hall (2011, p. 93) agrees and goes on to note that “ everyday classroom
practices can appear to be quite different when CLT principles are applied in diffe띠g
social and educational contexts."
Not surprisingly, this lack of certainty has also been found in practising teachers'
conceptions of CLT. In Korea, for ex없nple, Li ( 1998) reported that teachers had unclear
conceptions of the nature of communicative approaches. In Hong Kong, Clark et al. ( 1999,
cited in Carless, 2003) found simil따 evidence with respect to teachers' ideas about
task-based learning and teaching. The ten teachers of Japanese in Australia who were
observed and interviewed by Sato 뻐d Kleinsasser (1999, p. 501) saw themselves as
adopting a communicative approach but “ held V없ying, even fra맑iented, views” about
what that meant. Most of them believed that it meant learning to communicate in the L2,

Developing a Context-sensitive Pedagogy for Communication-oriented Language Teaching 5
focusing mainly on speaking and listening, teaching very little grammar and spending a lot
of time preparing activities. In their actual practice, however, they were rarely guided by
these beliefs and adopted mainly a teacher-fronted approach with little interaction 없nongst
students. Thompson ( 1996) surveyed teachers from a range of countries and found
conceptions similar to those of the teachers in Ausσalia that it means using pair or group
work, teaching only speaking, not teaching grammar, and a lot of hard work for the teacher.
According to Ho & Wong ’s (2004, p. xxxiv) summary of fifteen national surveys in East
Asia, CLT has been implemented in various ways “ with the term almost meaning different
things to different English teachers. ” According to Ho (2004, p. 26), the most common
understanding of the communicative approach in East Asia is that it means “ providing the
teachers with communicative activities in their repertoire of teaching skills and giving
learners the opp뼈mity in class to practise the language S임lls taught. ”
In view of this lack of ceπainty, it is not surprising that (a) different people focus on
different features in characterizing CLT but also that (b) these same elements are found in
other approaches which are not explicitly described as CLT. For ex따nple, Byrne ( 1986)
does not use the label “ communicative” to describe his approach (in his Preface, his aim is
“ successful language teaching”), but a large proportion of the activities he describes (such
as information-gap activities, role plays, problem-solving, using visual stimuli and
authentic materials) form p빠 of the basic repertoire of teachers who would hope to be
identified as “ communicative.” π너s indefinable nature of CLT is highli양ited by Richards
and Rodgers (2001, p. 173), who say that many of the characteristics cited for CLT
“ address very general aspects of language learning and teaching that are now largely
accepted as self-evident and axiomatic throughout the profession.” In Harmer ’s view (2007,
p. 70), too, CLT is not a definable concept but simply “ a generalized ‘ umbrella’ term to
describe learning sequences which aim to improve the students ’ ability to communicate" in
contrast to “ teaching which is aimed more at learning bits of language just because they
exist - without focusing on their use in communication.”
3. THE TWO VERSIONS OF CLT
One important source of uncertainty about the meaning ofCLT is that from the outset, it
has existed in two different versions which correspond rou방tly to the two main sources of
CLT: a communicative perspective on language and a communicative perspective on
learning.
• The communicative perspective on language is primarily about what we le따n. It

proposes that when we learn a language we are primarily learning not language

structures but language “ functions” (how to “ do things with words”). These

communicative functions C없ne to play a central role in syllabus design and
methodology. The ELT world (especially the p따t influenced by the UK) came to
be dominated by so-called “ functional ” or “ communicative” courses, in which
students would practise expressing functions (such as “mak띠g suggestions”) and
then use them in “ communicative activities" (such as pair work, role-play,
discussion, and the use of authentic materials; see the activities discussed in
Johnson & Morrow, 1981 ).
• The communicative perspective on learning focuses attention on how we le따n,
especially on our natural capacities to “ acquire” language simply through

communication without explicit instruction. These ideas were embodied in
proposals such as Krashen 뻐d Terrell's (1983) “ natural approach,” which was
based on the belief that only natural acquisition processes can lead to effective
language learning; Prabhu ’s (1987) “ communicational language teaching,” which
insisted that conscious learning and error correction have no place in the language
classroom; and “ humanistic” approaches (e.g., Moskowitz, 1978), which
emphasized the importance of engaging learners in communication in which their
whole personality is invested.
In classroom practice, both perspectives lead to 뻐 emphasis on “ communication in the

classroom" (Johnson & Morrow, 1981). But if we focus only on the communicative
perspective on learning, we may draw the conclusion (as many have done) that
involvement in communication is sufficient in itself for learning and that we should not
make any use at all of “ traditional ” techniques such as explanations, drills, and
question-and-answer practice. This has often been called (after Howatt, 1984, p. 287) the
“sπong” version of CLT. The communicative perspective on Ian망'age, on the other hand,
still leaves open the possibility that teachers mi양1t present and practise individual items (in
a communicative context) before or after students use them for communication. πus has
often been called (again, after Howatt, 1984, p. 287) the “ weak” version ofCLT.
The two versions of CLT have different implications for how language is best learnt in
the classroom and for the role of the teacher. Both versions require the teacher to be a
creator and organizer of communicative activities, which presents challenging roles for
teachers and learners, but the weak version adopts a more familiar overall framework
through its recognition of controlled and analytic learning. Allwn링1t and Hanks (2009, pp.
47-49) argue that the “ much less challenging ideas" of this weak version (which they see
embodied in Littlewood, 1981) “ solved the commodity problem" of CLT (because it could
form the basis of published course books) but 비ndered the “ radical rethink about le따ners”

that the strong version might have stimulated, if it had been commercially viable.
4. THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING CLT
Chow and Mok-Cheung (2004, p. 158) refer to the shift from a teacher-cenσed
pedagogy to a student-centred CLT pedagogy as a “ quantum leap” in the
transmission-oriented context of Hong Kong schools. Wang (2007, p. 10) summarizes
some of the practical challenges faced by teachers in China when they are asked to make
this “ leap” from a traditional approach to a communication-oriented approach: they are
expected to develop new practical skills for classroom teaching; change how they evaluate
students; develop the ability to adapt textbooks; use modern technology; improve their own
language proficiency; change their conception of their own role from being a transmitter of
knowledge to being a multi-role educator; and change their conception of language
learning from one based on knowledge-acquisition to one based on the holistic
development of competence. Jeon (2009, p. 126) describes a similar situation in Korea,
where “ emphasizing the communicative language approach was a drastic change compared
to the previous, traditional approach to language insπuction in Korea. ” The factors in this
“ drastic change" which Jeon highlights include setting the unit of analysis at the discourse
level rather than the sentence level; emphasizing communicative competence rather than
only linguistic competence; moving from teacher-fronted to learner-centred classes;
changing the teacher’ s role from lecturer to facilitator; and working with textbooks which
focus on communicative situations rather than language based on sentence examples.
Practical challenges are reported from numerous countries when teachers have been
asked to implement CLT in primary and secondary schools, where classes are often large
and resources are limited (e.g., Carless, 2004 in Hong Kong; Hiep, 2007 in Vietnam; Hu,
2005 in China; Jeon, 2009 and Li, 1998 in Korea; Orafi & Borg, 2009 in Libya; Nishino &
Watanabe, 2008 in Japan; see also S따veys of a range of East Asian countries in Butler
2011; Ho & Wong, 2004; Littlewood, 2007). These challenges include:
• Difficulties with classroom management, especially with large 이asses, and

teachers' resulting fear that they may lose control;
• New organizational skills required by some activities such as pair or group work;
• Students' inadequate language proficiency, which may lead them to use the
mother tongue (or only minimal English) rather than trying to “sπetch” their
English competence;
• Excessive demands on teachers' own language skills, if they themselves have had
limited experience of communicating in English;

• Common conceptions that formal learning must involve item-by-item progression

through a syllabus rather than the less observable holistic learning that occurs in
communication;
• Common conceptions that the teacher’ s role is to transmit knowledge rather than
act as a facilitator of learning and supporter of autonomy;
• The negative “ washback” effect of public examinations based on pencil-and-paper
tests which focus on discrete items and do not prioritize communication; and
• Resistance from students and parents, who fear that important examination results
may suffer as a result of the new approach.
Following her S따vey of teachers in the Asia-Pacific region, Butler (2011, p. 36)
classifies the challenges as involving “ (a) conceptual constraints (e.g., conflicts with local
values and misconceptions regarding CLTffBLT); (b) classroom-level constraints (e.g.,
various student and teacher-related factors, classroom management practices, and resource
availability); and (c) societal-institutional level constraints (e.g., curricula and examination
systems).” With specific reference to the Korean experience with CLT, Li (1998) groups
teachers' difficulties with CLT under four factors simil따 to those of Butler (2011 ): the
teacher factor, the student factor, the education system factor, and the method factor. The
factors which emerge from Kim ’ s (2008) analysis of one teacher’ s behaviour could be
grouped under similar categories: the teacher’ s own experience as an English learner,
students ’ low proficiency level in English, the eff농ctiveness of traditional methods of
instruction for preparing students for high-st와@ school exams, top-down teacher training,
class size, teachers' and students' socialization in the educational context, and teachers'
and students' beliefs about language teaching and learning. After a survey of 305 teachers
in Korea, Jeon (2009) notes that “ while it can be seen that many EFL teachers support the
introduction of the communicative approach in Korea, it is also evident that too many
discouraging factors will i떠libit their enthusiasm for actually implementing the
communicative approach in reality” (p. 146).
5. ADAPTING CLT TO LOCAL SITUATIONS
In its early days CLT was perceived by many as a new and unquestionable orthodoxy.
As Morrow and Johnson (1983, p. 4) put it with reference to a seminal conference that they
organized in 1978, in those days “ functional syllabuses [on which early CLT courses were
based] seemed to offer an automatic solution to all the problems oflanguage teaching. ” As
a package of ideas and techniques, CLT was exported around the world with the support of
the full paraphernalia of the ELT industry (textbooks, advisors, training courses,

native-speaker teachers, and so on). Bax (2003, p. 280) writes of what he sees as the “ CLT
attitude" that accompanied this endeavour: “ assume and insist that CLT is the whole and
complete solution to language learning; assume that no other method could be any good;
ignore people ’s own views of who they are and what they want; neglect and ignore all
aspects of the local context as being iπelevant.”
After experiences such as those described in the previous section, in the words of Ho
and Wong (2004, p. xxxiv), “ there has been much criticism of an unquestioning acceptance
of CLT techniques in EL T in this [East Asian] region and of the varying practices of
CLT.” Hiep (2007, p. 196) too states, from the perspective of Vietnam, that ‘“ teachers in
many parts of the world may r멍ect the CLT techniques σansferred from the West. ”
However he goes on to say that “ it is doubtful that they reject the spirit of CLT.” In his
words, this spirit is that “ learning is likely to happen when classroom practices are made
real and meaningful to learners" and that the goal is to teach learners “ to be able to use the
language effectively for their communicative needs" (p. 196). If this is so, CLT may
continue to provide a conceptual framework centred on the need (a) to orient our teaching
towards learners' communicative goals and (b) to design meaningful experiences which
lead towards these goals. It is in this spirit that many teachers and teacher-educators now
put the emphasis not on adopting CLT but on adapting it to suit the context where English
is taught.
The need for adaptation (in this case of TBLT, seen as an “ offshoot” of CLT) is the
“ overarching conclusion” which Carless (2007) reaches after extensive interviews with 11
secondary school teachers and 10 teacher educators in Hong Kong. Carless (2007, p. 605)
argues that we need “ context-sensitive teaching methods" or what he describes as “ situated
task-based approaches, 띠 which culture, setting, and teachers' existing beliefs, values, and
practices interact with the principles of task-based teaching.” Specifically, he argues that
for the Hong Kong context we need to (a) explore more fully the options for teaching
grarnm따, (b) 띠tegrate task-based teaching better with the requirements of examinations,
and (c) find an appropriate bal뻐ce between oral tasks and other modes such as narrative
writing and extensive reading. Carless concludes his survey with the statement that “ there
is clearly more conceptual and empirical work required in the development of versions of
task-based approaches suitable for schooling” (p. 605).
In a similar vein, Jeon (2009, p. 147) concludes her S따vey of 305 teachers with the
words that “ different contexts require different methods. It is time for Korean policy
makers and practitioners to seek a Korean way to develop communicative competence in
English.” Jeon 뻐d Paek (2009) point out that this involves not only practising a
contextualized CLT that suits the Korean context but also formulating appropriate p이icies
to overcome specific obstacles to achieving the desired goals, such as the few opportunities
for learners to use English outside the classroom; insufficient class hours; lack of practice

even in English classes; disconnection among the curriculum, classroom practice, and
assessment; and teachers' inadequate English proficiency and σaining.
Several reports tell how teachers in different situations have carried out this process of
“ adaptation” or “ contextualization” in their practice. For example, Carless (2004) observed
that many Hong Kong teachers reinterpret the use of communicative tasks as
“ contextualised practice” rather than activities in which learners negotiate meaning
independently of the teacher. Mitchell and Lee (2003) found that a Korean teacher of
English (as well as a British teacher of French) re-interpreted CLT 띠 a similar way:
“ Teacher-led interaction, and the mastery of correct language models, took priority over the
creative language use and student centring which have been associated with more
fluency-oriented or ‘ progressivist’ interpretations of the communicative approach" (p. 56).
Zheng and Adamson (2003) analyze how a secondary school teacher of English
“ reconciles his pedagogy with the innovative methodology in a context consπained by
examination requirements and the pressure of time" (p. 323) by “ expanding his repeπoire
rather than rejecting previous approaches" (p. 335). He maintains many traditional
elements, such as his own role as a knowledge transmitter, the provision of grammatical
explanations, and the use of memorization techniques and pattern drills. However, he
integrates new ideas into his pedagogy by including more interaction and more creative
responses from the students in his classes, ‘ 'usually in the context provided by the textbook,
but sometimes in contexts derived from the students' personal experience" (p. 331 ).
까1e discussion so far has been framed around the notion that the core notions of a
“πaditional approach” and a “ CLT approach” are valid reflections ofreality. However, this
is not a necess따y assumption. Teachers may break free altogether from concepts such as
“σaditional” and “ CLT.” They may simply choose ideas and techniques from the universal,
σans national p。이 that has been built up over the ye앙S and evaluate them according to how
well, in their own specific context, they contribute to creating meaningful experiences
which lead towards communicative competence. From this perspective, the notion that
CLT is a distinct methodology disappears. Ideas and techniques from whatever
source-so-called σaditional, so-called CLT, or indeed any other source-constitute a
common pool on which teachers can draw in order to design classroom practices which are
real and meaningful to their learners and help learners towards fulfilling their
communicative needs. 까us aligns with the suggestion of Beaumont and Chang (2011, p.
291) that the CLT/traditional dichotomy may “ inhibit methodological development" and it
is better to define learning activities in terms of their learning outcomes and their “ potential
to make a contribution to the general goal of le따띠ng a language, i.e., successful
communication” (p. 298). It is also consistent with the views reported above that CLT now
functions mainly as an ‘'umbrella term" for learning sequences that lead towards
communication (Harmer, 2007, p. 70) and that what is now essential is not any specific set

Developing a Context-sensitive Pedagogy for Communication-oriented L삐망iage Teaching 11
of ideas and techniques but “ the spirit of CLT” (Hiep, 2007, p. 196).
As we have seen, the term “ CLT” is not only ambiguous but also often carries the
misleading message that there is some real and proven version of CLT to which a teacher
should try to conform, even if his or her intuitions say otherwise. In an earlier paper
(Littlewood, 2004, p. 325), I proposed “ communication-oriented language teaching"
(COLT) as an alternative term which is uncontroversial about the goals of teaching
(successful communication) but implies more flexibility regarding the means (which will
vary with context). That is the term that I will use in the remaining p없 of this paper.
6. APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING A CONTEXT-SENSITIVE

COMMUNICATION-ORIENTED PEDAGOGY
η1e many decades of exploration in the field of language teaching methodology

(surveyed for example in Littlewood, 2008; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) have left teachers
with an immense r없1ge of learning activities to choose 삼om. Identifiable “ methods” such
as the audio-lingual approach and situational language teaching offer teachers p띠ciples
for selecting from this range and sequencing activities. But few people now believe that
there is a single “ best method,” because every teacher, teaching context, and group of
learners is different. We have entered what some writers call a “ postmethod” era (e.g.,
Allwright & H없lks, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2003, 2006, and elsewhere; Littlewood, 2011)
in which the aim is not to find a single best way of teac비ng but to clarify principles by
which each teacher can develop an approach which is sensitive to his or her own specific
context. There have been several ways of approaching this search.
6.1. Principles of Instructed Language Learning and Teaching
One approach is to start from principles of second language learning and use these as a
basis for proposing optimal ways of facilitating this learning. Ellis (2005a, 2005b) and
Erlam (2008) worked in this way. Based on research into second language acquisition, they
propose 10 “ principles of effective instructed language learning”:
• Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repeπoire of

formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence;
• Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on me뻐ing;
• Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form;
• Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge
of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge;

• Insσuction needs to take into account the learner ’s “ built-in syllabus”;

• Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input;
• Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output;
• The opportunity to interact in the L2 is cenσal to developing L2 proficiency;
• Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners; and
• In assessing learners' L2 proficiency, it is 따1portant to examine free as well as
controlled production.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987, pp. 128-130) adopt a simil하 approach in formulating
methodological principles. They propose eight “ basic p디nciples of language le따띠ng”:
• Language learning is a developmental process;

• It is an active process;
• It is a decision-making process;
• It is not just a matter of linguistic knowledge;
• It is not the learners' first experience with language;
• It is an emotional experience;
• It is to a l따ge extent incidental; and
• It is not systematic.
In a similar spirit, Kumaradivelu ( 1994, 2003) suggests 10 “ macro-strategies” which can

form a basis for teachers to develop their pedagogy (here paraphrased):
• Provide the maximum possible number of learning opportunities;

• Facilitate classroom interaction with a communicative purpose;
• Minimize perceptual misunderstandings;
• Activate students’ intuitive capacity for independent discovery;
• Foster conscious awareness of aspects of language;
• Contextualize the linguistic input;
• Integrate the language skills;
• Promote learner autonomy;
• Raise students’ cultural consciousness; and
• Ensure social relevance.
까1ese lists are of course only proposals and other teachers will perceive different
priorities. For example, the lists do not give much emphasis to the importance of
motivation, learning strategies, and ways of facilitating memorization.

6.2. Teachers' “Sense of Plausibility”
Another way of addressing the question is to start from the “ sense of plausibility”
(Prabhu, 1990) of experienced teachers and develop a “ teacher-generated theory of
classroom practice” (Senior 2006, p. 270). Breen, Hird, Hilton, Oliver, and Thwaite (2001)
followed this approach when they worked from 18 teachers' accounts of their own
practices and their reasons for adopting them. They found reasonable consensus on about a
dozen principles, such as 없암ng account of individual differences and making it easier for
students to remember what is taught.
This approach can be extended to include experienced learners as well as teachers, since
learners too have intensive first-hand experience of the learning-and-teaching process.
Thus the present author presented a postgraduate class of 39 Chinese learners and teachers
of English with (a) an overview of the options made available by the different “ set
methods" of the past (as surveyed in Littlewood, 2008; Richards & Rodgers, 2001) and (b)
the proposals of Ellis (2005) and Kumaradivelu (1994, 2003), as listed above. Starting
from this foundation, groups of five or six participants were asked each to discuss and
propose its own list of up to l 0 basic language teaching principles. The resulting list of 67
principles was then classified into seven “ macro-principles” as follows (other
classifications would have been possible; interested readers may request the full list by
email):
• Create a suitable learning environment;

• Cater for learners' needs;
• Pay attention to learners' interests and motivation;
• Orient learning towards active use of language;
• Adopta V따iety of learning activities;
• Give appropriate feedback and assessment; and
• Pay attention to the cultural dimension of language learning.
Principles such as these may then be implemented by teachers throu맹 classroom

strategies and techniques which are “ context-sensitive” in their own teaching situation.
6.3. Accumulated Professional Experience Illuminated by Language

Teaching Theory
A third approach is that taken by Littlewood (2004, 2011). πiis approach aims to build
on accumulated classroom experience as well as current language teaching theory. More
specifically, it attempts to combine the broader view of communicative competence that

formed am갱or impetus to the development of CLT with the continuum from “때al앤c
learning” (where the focus is mainly on separate aspects of language use) to “ experiential
learning” (where the focus is mainly on the holistic use of language for communication)
(see for example Stem, 1992, and for a detailed analysis Kumaradivelu, 2006). 까ie
resulting “ communicative continuum" (see Figure 1) consists of five categories which
locate activities in relation to each other and the goal of communicative competence:
FIGURE 1
The “ Communicative Continuum" as a Basis for COLT
뻐
·-
뼈-‘빠
외
σ-F
- - Experiential Strategies
N ---
Communicative Structured
communicative communicative Authentic communication
language practice communication
le앙ning language practice
Focusing on the Practising language Practising pre-taught Using language to Using language to
structures of with some attention to language but in a communicate in communicate in situations
language, how they meaning but not context where it situations which where the meanings are
are formed and what communicating new communicates new elicit pre-learnt unpredictable, e.g.,
they mean, e.g., messages to others, nformation, e.g., l뻐guage but with creative role-play, more
substitution e.g., describing visuals information gap some degree of complex problem-solving
exercises, inductive or situational language activities or unpredictabilη, e.g., and discussion
“ discovery” and practice (“ questions “ personalised” sσuctured role-play
awareness- and answers”) questions and simple problem-

raising activities solving
Focus on fonns and
meanings ·- -•
Focus on meanings and
messages
Brandl (2008), Littlewood (2000), and Ma (2008) give examples of activities from
different p따ts of the continuum, which has proved an accessible basis for teacher
education as well as for analyzing the classroom practice of teachers seeking to establish a
more communicative classroom (e.g., Deng & Carless, 2009). For teachers accustomed to
a tradition dominated by controlled, form-oriented activities, the framework provides
dimensions for innovation and expansion. πiey can maintain their base in activities
represented in the first and second catego디es, but gradually expand their repertoire into the
other three. In this way, they can grow but retain a sense of security and value in what they
have done before, two important conditions for the postmethod pedagogy which COLT has
now become.
A second dimension in this framework is the learners ’ motivation and personal
involvement with the learning task, whatever its precise nature may be. It is a basic

condition for all learning that learners should be involved in it (how else can they le따n?)
and this dimension is not specific to language le따ning. Accordingly, we can draw on a
large body of general educational and psychological wisdom as well as specific studies of
language le따ning motivation in seeking ways to stimulate it in the classroom context.
In p띠ciple the two dimensions are independent. For example, learners may feel a high
degree of involvement in a form-focused language exercise but feel only minimal
involvement in an uninteresting discussion or role-play, or vice versa. In general, however,
increased attention to meaning is believed to lead to increased involvement.
7. THE FUTURE OF COLT
This section will outline five areas that need special attention as move into the future
with communication-oriented language teaching.
7.1. Establishing Closer Links Between Practice, Theory, and Research
It is clear from the previous section that top-down approaches, in which policy-makers
and other “ experts” legislate on how language is best taught, have lost their validity. Every
teacher is the best expert in his or her own situation but can draw insights from other
people (theorists as well as teachers) and test them in this situation. This means that in the
search for sound principles on which to base a pedagogy, it is important that theory,
research, and practice work together on a basis of equality.
Akbari (2008) emphasizes the importance of bridging the gap between the “commun따
of practice” of language teachers and the “ academic discourse community” of theorists and
res짧chers. A m갱or aim of Erlam ’ s (2008) project, mentioned above, was to make the
research relevant and accessible, as the resulting material was used for input and discussion
in seminars around the country. In this way, both researchers and teachers could engage
with it, benefit from each other’ s expeπise, and develop a shared discourse.
The 피lal determinant of successful language teaching is of course not the conceptual
frameworks with which theorists and researchers work but the frameworks of theories,
beliefs, and assumptions with which teachers work in their specific classrooms. An
important means for renewal in a postmethod pedagogy is, therefore collaborative research
in which teachers and theorists/researchers work together, from the outset (e.g., through
procedures such as those described 띠 Burns, 2010) to identify and explore issues and
problems that require attention.
With or without the collaboration of research specialists, teaching is itself a process of
exploration: for each class, a teacher predicts the outcomes of his or her interventions and

”
observes the results. What we typica y call “ research” means simply that a person explains
and justifies the predictions more explicitly, describes the interventions more
systematically, and measures the results more precisely. Every teacher is in a position to
take these steps and engage in “ exploratory pra따ice” (Alhνright & H때ks, 2009). Hayes
and Chang (2012) survey various other forms of continuous professional development in
which teachers can p따ticipate with the aim of matching their activity with the unique
context of their own school.
7.2. Exploring Optimal Combinations of Analytic and Experiential

Strategies
Some of the most significant sσategic decisions that classroom teachers have to make
concern the complementary functions of analytic 때d experiential sσategies. This issue is
at the heart of the distinction between the “ weak” and “ strong” versions of CLT discussed
above (the latter affirming that analytic learning is not necessary) and is also central to
considering the respective roles of accuracy-based and fluency-based activities (Brurnfit,
1984). More recently, much research has addressed the role that form-focused instruction
plays in facilitating language learning and the kinds of form-focussed instruction that are of
most benefit in particul따 circumstances. For Norris (2009, p. 580), a major contribution of
task-based language teaching is that it consolidates analytic ideas from a “ focus on forms
methodology” and experiential ideas from a “ focus on me없피1g methodology” into “ an
integrated approach. ” In a similar way, the “ communicative continuum" mentioned above
proposes a methodological franlework for moving between analytic (non-communicative
and pre-communicative) activities to experiential activities (structured and authentic
communication).
The optimal balance between different kinds of activity from the analytic -experiential
continuum remains very much an area for individual intuition. This balance will always be
determined by the teacher in his or her specific context but it is also 뻐 area 띠 which
research can seek to propose new possibilities and investigate their likely effects on
le따ning.
7.3. Exploring Ways of Structuring Classroom Interaction More Effectively
A major hindrance to many teachers' in their implementation of communication

activities (or “ tasks”) in the classroom, especially with monolingual classes at primary or
secondary level, is that when students are not closely monitored, many of them revert to
the mother tongue and do not challenge themselves linguistically. More effective ways
need to be found of scaffolding group work (e.g., through task design features) so that

these give better direction and support to independent interaction, even in the absence of
direct teacher intervention. Techniques in cooperative learning (e.g., Littlewood, 2009) are
an avenue for exploration.
7.4. Exploring Ways to Deepen and Personalize the Content of L2

Communication in the Classroom
Much of the language use that occurs in the communication-oriented language

classroom does not, as a teacher interviewed by Gong and Holliday (2013) puts it, “ seem
to touch the hearts of the students.” Pennycook ( 1994, p. 311) goes so f따 as to write of the
“ empty babble of the communicative language class.” This is an overgeneralization, but it
alerts us to the superficial nature of much communication 띠 COLT classrooms, in which
students are often given a steady diet of activities like “ planning a p따ty” which will never
take place or “ giving directions to the station" on the map of a non-existent town. Gong
and Holliday (2이 3) report on how students in a remote village in rural China were asked
to talk about their weekend activities throu뱅 examples such as “ go to see a movie, go to
an 따t museum, or go to piano lessons in a coaching school." None of these opportunities
existed in their lives and, not S따prisingly, they had nothing to talk about.
Hanauer (2012, p. 106) advocates eloquently the need to put the “ living, thinking,
experiencing, and feeling person at the centre of the language le따ning process” and “ make
language learning a personally contextualized, meaningful activity for the learner.” The
exploration of more strategies for doing this is a key task for the future of COLT. Hanauer
himself proposes procedures for incorporating poe따f writing. Kim (2013) uses
literature-based insσuction to connect language learning with the real-life experiences of
the learners. Gong and Holliday (2013) emphasize the need to base tasks on content which
is relevant to learners' lives and interests, and which will help them become “ multicultural
citizens" who can communicate about their own and other cultures and express their own
views. Other proposals include linking language development to other subject content
(Wesche & Skehan, 2002), developing project work (Legutke & Thomas, 1991 ), and using
drama techniques (Maley & Duff, 1978). 까ie “ three generations of tasks" described by
Ribe and Vidal (1993) 빼er a possible framework for deepening task engagement: the first
“ generation” focuses only on communicative development, the second on communicative
and cognitive development, and the third adds the dimension of global personality
development. Engagement may also be encouraged through collaborative learning
techniques which increase learners' responsibility for contributing to group interaction
(Littlewood, 2009; McCafferty, Jacobs, & DaSilva Iddings, 2006). Zhang and Head (2010)
report on a project in which a teacher was able to increase students ’ sense of personal
engagement by including them in joint decision-making about the topics and activities in

their course. In the context of more controlled language use, there is a range of techniques
for personalizing practice by relating it to students' own identity (Griffiths & Keohane,
2000). All of these proposals provide a basis for further widening the options at teachers'
disposal.
7.5. Exploring the Role of the Mother Tongue in the Language Classroom
A practical issue that engages teachers ’ decision-making in the classroom almost

constantly is the role (if any) that they should accord to the students ’ mother tongue (see
for example Littl e까ood & Yu, 2011 and Hall & Cook, 2012 for recent discussion of the
issues). The “ monolingual principle”- that only the target language should be used - has
been enshrined in most of the methodological proposals that have influenced language
teac비ng over the last century, and in many countries (e.g., Hong Kong and the UK) it is
O퍼cial p이icy to use the mother tongue only as a last resort. In some other contexts,
including China and Korea, teaching through the mother tongue has long been accepted
practice. In Korea, of course, “ teaching English throu!ψ English” (TETE) has been a
controversial topic for debate since it became o댐cial p이icy over l 0 years ago. Jeon (2008)
and Kim (2008) survey the diverging views of teachers after five years of TETE. Park and
Manning (2012) report on their own empirical study of LI use in a primary school.
The monolingual principle is now questioned on a number of grounds. Few people
would disagree that, since the classroom is the only source of input for many students, the
overriding aim should be to establish the target language as the main medium of
communication. To achieve this aim, however, they also acknowledge that the mother
tongue can be a major resource, as it “ launches, as it were, the pupils ’ canoes into the
foreign-language current" (Butzkamm, 2003‘ p. 32). At the affective level, it can provide
psychological reassurance. In tenns of teaching strategies, it opens up a wide range of
options at all stages. At the presentation stage, for example, it can convey meaning
efficiently and enable students to progress more quickly to the stages of internalization and
active use. At the practice stage, it can provide effective stimuli for students to use and
expand their full foreign language competence. At the production stage, it can help to
create contexts where the forei원1 language has a meaningful role, e.g., as students
brainstorm ideas for a story in the security of their mother tongue and later write it in the
foreign language. In ways such a<; these, the mother tongue can serve as a natural bridge
bern’een the two languages, offer a sense of ownership over learning, and help satisfy the
need to personalize communication. There must be a clear policy for its use, however, to
ensure that it does not take on a dominant role.
This is only a small sample of areas where research is needed. Indeed within the broad
definition of COLT that has now emerged, one may say that there is no distinction between

research into COLT and all other research that sets out to further an engaging,
communication-oriented approach to language teaching.
8. CONCLUSION: COLT AS A TRANSNATIONAL IDEOSCAPE?
π1e “ CLT attitude” 띠 the fonn criticized by Bax (2003) conceptualized CLT as a
package of ideas and practices to be exported around the world. 까1is attitude corresponds
to early conceptions of globalization and modernization as unidirectional processes in
which ideas and fonns are σansmitted from centre to periphery and, in the words of the
social anthropologist Ulf H없merz ( 1992, p. 219), “ when the centre speaks, the periphery
listens, and mostly does not talk back." Gradually, supported by “ the world-wide
development of a new cultural self-confidence,” this unidirectional conception has been
overtaken by one in which “ inflowing cultural fonns and meanings [meet] existing local
fonns and meanings" and the res비t띠g “ creative mixture of ‘global ’ elements with local
meanings and cultural fonns" leads to innovation and divers따 (Schuerkens, 2004, p. 19 &
p. 23). Schuerkens characterizes this as “ cosmopolitan conversation of humankind” (p. 15)
in which all participants have a voice.
As we continue to move further into the era of globalization, perhaps the most valuable
contribution of COLT is to act not as a specific set of practices and ideas but as a
σansnational“ ideoscape” (Apparudai, 1996; Holton, 2005), that is, as an ideational
landscape which provides a location for deepening and extending the “ cosmopolitan
conversation" about second language pedagogy.
REFERENCES
Akb때, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
Allwri방1t, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing learner: An introduction to exploratory
practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernψ at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
B없, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal,
57(3), 278-287.
Beaumont, M., & Ch없ig, K. S. (2011). Challenging the σaditional/communicative
dichotomy. ELT Journal, 65(3), 291-299.

Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Hilton, M., Oliver, R., & π1waite, A. (2001 ). Making sense of
language teaching: Teachers' principles and classroom practices. Applied
Lingz따tics, 22(4), 470-5이 .
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of
fluency and accurac;ι Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bums, A. (2이 0). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Y. G (2이 1). The implementation of communicative and task-based language
tea뼈ng in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Lingz따tics, 31,

36-57 ’
Butler, Y. G, & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education:
까1e 2003 “ Action Plan.” Lan믿wge Policy, 4(1 ), 25-45.
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL
classrooms: Death ofa dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29-39.
Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral English (2°d ed.). London: Longman.
Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching 피 prim하y
schools. System, 31(4), 485-500.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in
primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.
Carless, D. (2007). 까1e suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools:
Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595-608.
Chow, A., & Mok-Cheung, A. (2004). English language teaching in Hong Kong SAR:
Tradition, transition, and transformation. In W. K. Ho & P. Y. L. Wong (Eds.),
English language teaching in East Asia today (pp. 150-177). Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Clark, J., Lo, Y. C., Hui, M ‘ F., Kam, M., Carless, D., & Wong, P. M. (1999). An
investigation into the development and implementation of the TOC Initiative with
special r야rence to pr야ssional competencies, professional development, and
resources: Final Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Deng, C., & Carless, D. (2009). 끼1e communicativeness of activities in a task-based
innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal ofEnglish Language Teaching, 19,
113-134.
Ellis, R. (2005a). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3),
1-16.
Ellis, R. (2005b). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Erlam, R. (2008). What do you researchers know about language teaching? Bridging the
gap between SLA research and language pedagogy. Innovation in Language
Teaching and Learning, 2(3), 253-267.

Gong, Y., & Holliday, A. (2013, in press). C비tures of change: Appropriate cultural content
in Chinese school textbooks. In K. Hyland & L. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and
change in English language e찌cation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Griffiths, G, & Keohane, K. (2000). Personalizing language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G. W. (2005). “ CLT is best for China” - An untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal,
59( 1), 65-68.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Hall G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own language use in language teaching and learning.
Language Teaching, 45(3), 271-308.
Hanauer, D. I. (2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poe따f in the language classroom.
Language Teaching, 45(1), 105-115.
H때nerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal 57(3), 288-294.
Harmer, J. (2007). 자e practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). London: Longman.
Hasanova, D., & Shadieva, T. (2008). Implementing communicative language teaching in
Uzbekistan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 138-143.
Hayes, D., & Chang, K. S. (2이 2). Theoretical perspectives on 때 international practice in
continuing professional development for English teachers. English Teaching, 6끼 1),
107-129.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT ‘Journal,
61(3), 193-201.
Ho, W. K., & Wong, R. Y. L. (Eds.). (2004). English language teaching in East As띠 toda;ι
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Ho, W. K. (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. In W. K. Ho
& P. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today (pp. 1-32).
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
H이ton, R. J. (2005). Making globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmill뻐.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hunter, D., & Smith, R. (2이 2). Unpackaging the past: “ CLT’ through ELTJ keywords.
ELT Journal, 66(4), 430-439.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for spec띠c purposes: A learning-centred
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jeon, I. J. (2008). Korean EFL teachers' beliefs of English-only instruction. English
Teaching, 63(3), 205-229.

Jeon, J. H. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow
up after 12 years of implementation. English Teaching, 64(4), 123-150.
Jeon, J. H., & Paek, J. Y. (2009). A study on policy assessment for English education.
English Teaching, 64(2), 47-75.
Johnson, K., & Morrow, K. (Eds.). (1981). Communicatψn in the classroom: Applications
and methods for a communicative approach. London: Lon맹1an.
Kim, E. J. (2008). Status quo of CLT-based English curricular reform: A teacher’ s voice
from the classroom. English Teaching, 63(2), 43-69.
Kim ‘ H. R. (2013). Making connections from language learning to life experiences through
literature-based EFL instruction. Eη‘glish Y끼each in‘g, 68(1), 111- 140.
Kim, S. Y. (2008). Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from
teachers and prospects for learners. English Teaching, 63(1), 51-70.
“
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquis ion in the
classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for
second/foreign language teac비ng. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategiesfor language teaching. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to
postmethod. Mahw삶1, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Legutke, M., & H. πiomas (1991). Process and experience in the laηguage classroom.
London: Longman.
Li, D. (1998). “ It’s always more difficult than you plan 때d imagine”: Teachers' perceived
difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL
Quaηerly, 32(4), 677-703.
Littlewood, W. (1981 ). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge:

Littlewood, W. (2000). Task-based learning of grammar. Teaching 얘date, 1, 40-57.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT
Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian
classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249.
Littlewood, W. (2008). Foreign language teaching methods: From past prescriptions to
present principles. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools, 31(4), 1-13.
Littlewood, W. (2009). Chinese learners and interactive learning. In T. Coverdale-Jones &
P. Rastall (Eds.), Internationalising the university: The Chinese context (pp.
206-222). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Littlewood, W. (2011 ). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a

changing world. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language

teaching and learning, Vol. II (pp. 541-547). New York: Routledge.
Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011 ). First language and target language in the foreign language
classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64-77.
Ma, A. (Ed.) (2008). A praαical guide to a task-based α1rriculum: Planning, grammar
teaching, and assessment. Hong Kong: City U띠versity of Hong Kong Press.
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1978). Drama techniques in language learning. Cambridge:
McCafferty, S., Jacobs, G, & DaSilva Iddings, A. (2006). Cooperative learning and second
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R. (l 988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London: Centre for
Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Mitchell, R., & Lee, J. (2003). Sameness and difference in classroom learning cultures:
Interpretations of communicative pedagogy in the UK and Korea. Language
Teaching Researcι 7(1 ), 35-63.
Morrow, K., & Johnson, K. (1983). Introduction. In K. Johnson & K. Morrow (Eds.),
Functional materials and the classroom teacher: Some background issues (pp. 4-5).
Oxford: Modern English Publications.
Moskowitz, G (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Classroom-oriented p이icies versus classroom realities
in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133-138.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. J. Long & C. J. Dou맹.
(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578-594). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Nun뻐, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational p이icies and
practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 3 끼4), 589-613.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Orafi, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative
cur끼culurn reform. System, 37(2), 243-253.
Park, S. W., & Manning, S. J. (2012). LI vs. L2 use and classroom interaction in
team-taught elementary school classes in Korea. English Teaching, 67(2), I05-134.
Pennycook, A. ( 1994). The cultural politics of Engl.때 as an International Language.
London: Longm뻐,
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. ( 1990). There is no best method - Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Prapaisat de Segovia, L., & Hardison, D. (2009). Implementing education reform: EFL

teachers' perspectives. ELT Journal, 6(2), 154-162.

Rib• R. ’ & Vidal, N. ( 1993). Project work: Step by step. Oxford: Heinemann.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, τ S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(2"d ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Commum띠tive language teaching today. Singapore: RELC.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Practical
understandings. Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494-517.
Schuerkens, U. (2004). The soci이ogical and anthrop이ogical study of globalization 뻐d
localization. In U. Schuerkens (Ed.), Global forces and local life-worlds: Social
tranψrmations (pp. 14-26). London: Sage.
Seni아, R. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sewell, A. (2013). English as a lingua franca: Ontology and ideology. ELT Journal, 6π1 ),
3-10.
Shin, H. J. (2007). English language teaching in Korea: Towards Globalization or
Glocalization? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of
English language teaching (pp. 75-86). Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business
Media. Online access via SpringerLink.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching: Current status and future prospects.
In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 271-288). Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media. Online
access via SpringerLink.
Stem, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Thompson, G (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT
Journal, 5이 1), 9-15.
Wang, Q. (2007). The National Curriculum changes and their effects on English Ian망iage
teaching in the People ’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.),
International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87-105). Boston, MA:
Springer Science & Business Media. Online access via SpringerLink.
Wang, W., & Lam, A. (2009). 까ie English Language Curriculum for Senior Secondary
School in China: Its evolution from 1949. RELC Journal, 40(1), 65-82.
Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based
instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The O따rd handbook of applied linguistics (pp.
207-228). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, X., & Head, K. (2010). Dealing with learner reticence in the speaking class. ELT
Journal, 64(1), 1-9.
Zheng, X., & Adamson, B. (2003). The pedagogy ofa secondary school teacher of English

in the People ’s Republic of China: Challenging the stereotypes. RELC Journal,

34(3), 323-337.
Applicable levels: All
William Littlewood
Honorary Professor
Language Cenσe
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong
Phone: +852-96227275
Email: wlittlewood9@gmail. rrl
Received in June 2013

Reviewed in July 2013
Revised version received in August 2013

률용 뻐3 프리미엄브핸드지수
주니어어획월 부톨 4년 연빼 1위
짝‘)!'.'!l~ ·급나비상수싱
• •
• • •
• 창의를열다
make your own story
• •
* £>
a <7 「〕
b
> ℃〉
。
디 S』볕뼈
\/
0
l뭔멸l 청담3.0흘 월어민 중심의 ESL 론탠츠와 스마트 기기 기반의 를랫륨이 유기적으로 결합된
l필괴l 스마트러닝으로 r자신만의 스토리와 역량률 가진 창의적 인재」양성을 목표로 합니다.
가올학기 청당톨월 02,516-9407 대치 02-561-0270 동작 02-835-9407 목동 02-2694-9407 부t떻해 051-555-9407

청당3,0 부산빼흩대 051-704-9407 분당 031-707-9407 서초 02-596-9407 송파 02-420-9407 월산 031-924-9407
개셜 브앤치 잠영 02-2202-9407 풍째 02-932-9408 엉혼 031-385‘ 9407
El!l뀐파:!:.'
청담어학원

Littlewood - Context-Sensitive Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Littlewood - Context-Sensitive Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Littlewood - Context-Sensitive Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

English Teaching, Vol. 68, No. 3, Autumn 2013

Developing a Context-sensitive Pedagogy

Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for

Key words: communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching,

1. INTRODUCTION: THE RISE OF CLT

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

2. THE INDEFINABILITY OF CLT

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

3. THE TWO VERSIONS OF CLT

• The communicative perspective on language is primarily about what we le따n. It

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

structures but language “ functions” (how to “ do things with words”). These

• The communicative perspective on learning focuses attention on how we le따n,

especially on our natural capacities to “ acquire” language simply through

In classroom practice, both perspectives lead to 뻐 emphasis on “ communication in the

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

4. THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING CLT

• Difficulties with classroom management, especially with large 이asses, and

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

• Common conceptions that formal learning must involve item-by-item progression

5. ADAPTING CLT TO LOCAL SITUATIONS

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

6. APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING A CONTEXT-SENSITIVE

η1e many decades of exploration in the field of language teaching methodology

6.1. Principles of Instructed Language Learning and Teaching

• Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repeπoire of

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

• Insσuction needs to take into account the learner ’s “ built-in syllabus”;

• Language learning is a developmental process;

In a similar spirit, Kumaradivelu ( 1994, 2003) suggests 10 “ macro-strategies” which can

• Provide the maximum possible number of learning opportunities;

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

6.2. Teachers' “Sense of Plausibility”

• Create a suitable learning environment;

Principles such as these may then be implemented by teachers throu맹 classroom

6.3. Accumulated Professional Experience Illuminated by Language

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

“ discovery” and practice (“ questions “ personalised” sσuctured role-play

awareness- and answers”) questions and simple problem-

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

7. THE FUTURE OF COLT

7.1. Establishing Closer Links Between Practice, Theory, and Research

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

7.2. Exploring Optimal Combinations of Analytic and Experiential

7.3. Exploring Ways of Structuring Classroom Interaction More Effectively

A major hindrance to many teachers' in their implementation of communication

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

7.4. Exploring Ways to Deepen and Personalize the Content of L2

Much of the language use that occurs in the communication-oriented language

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

A practical issue that engages teachers ’ decision-making in the classroom almost

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

8. CONCLUSION: COLT AS A TRANSNATIONAL IDEOSCAPE?

dichotomy. ELT Journal, 65(3), 291-299.

교보문고 KYOBO Book Centre

tea뼈ng in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Lingz따tics, 31,