Penny Tcar

8/10/2019 Penny Tcar

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/penny-tcar 1/16

T h e

C o m

m u

n i c a t i v e

A p p r o a

c h R e v i

s i t e d

Penny Ur



Penny Ur was educated at the

universities of Oxford

(MA), Cambridge (PGCE)

and Reading (MA). She

emigrated to Israel in

1967, where she still lives

today. She is married with

four children and seven

grandchildren.

Penny Ur has thirty

years’ experience as

an English teacher inelementary, middle and

high schools in Israel.

She teaches M.A. courses

at Oranim Academic

College of Education and

Haifa University. Shehas presented papers at

TESOL, IATEFL and various

other English teachers’

conferences worldwide.

She has published anumber of articles, and was

for ten years the editor of

the Cambridge Handbooks

for Language Teachers

series. Her books include

Discussions that Work(1981), Five Minute Activities

(co authored with Andrew

Wright) (1992), A Course in

Language Teaching (1996),

and Grammar Practice

Activities (2nd Edition)(2009), all published by

Cambridge University Press.



One of our jobs as teachers

is to help our students make

the ‘leap’ from form-focused

accuracy work to fluent production

by providing a ‘bridge’.

Penny Ur





TheCommunicative

Approach Revisitedby Penny Ur

The communicative approach in language teaching seeslanguage as a means of communication rather than as a

set of words or structures. The goal of the language course,

therefore, is for the learner to achieve ‘communicative

competence’ (Hymes, 1972), rather than mastery of the correct

forms of the language. A communicative methodology should

include activities that get learners to use the language tocommunicate with one another, for ‘use’ rather than ‘usage’

(Widdowson, 1978).

This last recommendation has an interesting underlying

assumption: that language is best learnt by directly simulating

the target behaviour in the classroom. Previous methodologieshad included all sorts of teaching procedures (drills, grammar

exercises, comprehension questions etc.) that we do not do



outside the classroom, on the assumption that these lead

to useful learning that will later be incorporated into real-

life language use. The communicative approach, in contrast,

disapproves in principle of such ‘inauthentic’ activities, and

proposes that what learners do in the classroom should be a

recognisable imitation of real-life communication.

The communicative approach was introduced in the 1970s

and became increasingly accepted among the methodologists

and teachers during the 1980s. Its popularity was a result,

at least in part, of a reaction against the previously widely

used methodologies of grammar-translation and audio-

lingualism. In grammar-translation, much of the lesson was

actually conducted in the mother tongue: rules were given,

samples of the language were manipulated, translated

and explained. There was very little speaking in the targetlanguage. Students often learned to read and write well,

and had good mastery of the grammar and vocabulary,

but usually could not actually use the language for direct

communication. In audio-lingualism, which was essentially

based on behaviourist psychology, language was seen as a

set of habits which the learner acquired through imitation,memorisation, drilling. In contrast with grammar-translation,

it stressed the spoken rather than the written form of the

language.

The communicative approach changed all this. At the level

of objective: learners were now expected to be able tocommunicate rather than to produce correct sentences. The

language used was ‘real’ authentic samples of language,

whole discourse or contextualised chunks rather than

discrete items, used for some communicative purpose rather

than simply provided as a sample, ‘acceptable’ rather than

‘correct’. Learner output was free rather than teachercontrolled, personal rather than impersonal. Tasks involved

making and understanding meanings rather than receiving

or producing correct items. Mistakes were, on the whole,

not to be corrected as long as meaning was clear. Mother

tongue was not to be used (as, in fact, had already been

accepted in audio-lingualism). The teacher’s main role wasnow to facilitate, to provide opportunities for students to

communicate, rather than to instruct or drill. And success,

as measured in tests, was to be judged by success in

communication (although it has to be admitted that test

format lagged behind, and until very recently most exams in

fact tested accuracy rather than fluency or communication.)All this can be summed up in the following table.



Grammartranslation

Audio-lingualism Communicativeapproach

Objective correctlanguage

(mainlywritten)

correctlanguage

(mainly spoken)

understandingand

communicating

Language discrete items discrete items whole discourseitems in context,

correct,prescriptive

correct,prescriptiveacceptable,descriptive

made-up made-up authentic

samples ofcorrect usage

samples ofcorrect usage

samples ofmeaningful use

Learner output controlled controlled less controlled,personal

Tasks languagemanipulation

languagemanipulation

communication

Errors corrected corrected ifnecessary

often notcorrected

Mother tongue used not used not used

Tests measure accuracy accuracy fluency?

Teacher mainly as instructor,tester

driller facilitator

The coming of the communicative approach represented

for those of us involved in teaching at the time a healthy

revolution, promising a remedy to previous ills: objectives

seemed more rational, classroom activity became more

interesting and obviously relevant to learner needs. However,already in the 1980s, people were having reservations about

the ‘strong’ form of the communicative approach. The

more confident and knowledgeable of the methodologists

expressed these reservations openly (Swan, 1985). Teachers

on the whole did not feel they could openly criticise the new

orthodoxy, but in fact many continued with ‘old-fashioned’techniques such as grammar drills, feeling, perhaps, a little

guilty about it.

This feeling of guilt was partly because ‘communicativity’

was becoming axiomatic rather than a means to an end,

synonymous with ‘good language teaching’. Even todaythere is a hidden message in much of the professional

literature and teacher-training courses: if you do not teach

communicatively you are a ‘bad’ teacher. Now this is, in my

opinion, nonsense: you are a good teacher if, as a result of

your teaching, students learn the language well and can

function in it fluently and accurately. What methodologyyou use is up to you: communicative methodology is good



insofar as it contributes to good teaching and learning. It is

not a value in itself.

So today it is, perhaps, time to take a good hard look at

the communicative approach: as a means to achieving good

language learning, to discarding, or at least mitigating some

of its possible negative aspects; and to think again about

some of the valuable babies we may have thrown out with

the bath water of previous methodologies.

1. Accuracy. It is important for learners to express themselves

accurately: it is not just enough to understand and make

yourself understood. Accuracy is important because it makes

language more clearly comprehensible; because students feel

they want to use language correctly; and because research

shows that foreign language learners who have a solid basicknowledge of grammar eventually progress further in the

foreign language than those who acquire the language

intuitively through immersion.

2. Language manipulation. Some useful learning can take

place through non-communicative language manipulation:drills, transformation and slot-filling exercises all have a place

in helping students master aspects and items of language.

3. Rules. The giving and application of rules can also help

students understand and produce the target language

successfully. Very often learners are aware of this, andactually ask for them.

A summary of research on this and allied points can be found

in Ellis, 1994.

4. Mother tongue. The use of mother tongue in theclassroom should not be taboo. Mother tongue is extremely

useful for clarification and instruction, for quick translation

as an alternative to lengthy and difficult explanation, for

contrastive analysis to raise language awareness and help

students avoid mother-tongue interference. It also has a

place in testing: if students can give you a rough translationof a foreign language item or text, that is pretty reliable

evidence that they have understood it.

5. Non-authentic language. Authentic language is often

difficult and very culture-bound. ‘Artificial’ language can

be adapted to the students’ needs and provide them with auseful, relevant and appropriate basis for learning. Authentic

language is, obviously, useful, particularly for advanced



classes but it is not necessarily the ‘best’ language model for

many learners.

So we can, perhaps, suggest a compromise methodology

that would aim for both accuracy and fluency, that would

use all sorts of different kinds of language material, both

authentic and artificial, both discrete-item and holistic,

whose tasks would involve both language manipulation

and communication …and so on. See the table below for

a summary of what I would suggests as a desirable modern

methodology.

Objective communicating in correct English

Language both discrete items and language in context,

depending on objective, as used by educated,

competent users of the language both artificial

and correct, depending on objective and level

stressing both form and meaning, depending on

objective

Learner output sometimes controlled, sometimes free, depending

on objective

Tasks producing and understanding correct and

meaningful language

Errors usually corrected

Mother

tongue used when cost effective and to raise language

awareness

Tests measure both fluency and accuracy

Teacher as teacher

This, however, is arguably not a methodology at all: it is far

too permissive and gives no clear methodological direction.

But perhaps, as some writers now argue, we are not only

‘post-communicative’; we are actually ‘post methodology’(Prabhu, 1990, Kumaravadivelu, 1994). In other words, it is

not just that the communicative methodology is probably



not optimally effective, but that probably no single method

is. The basic criterion has to be not ‘The best – or most

fashionable, or politically correct – method’ but rather ‘The

best, most effective teaching.’ The difference between a

language teaching methodology, and language teaching in

general, or pedagogy, is that methodology typically concerns

itself with a specific set of procedures, is very closely linked

to language theory and linguistic research, and concentrates

mainly on the nature of language learning: whereas

pedagogy is more concerned with universals of learning

and teaching, is informed by educational research and the

teaching of other subjects, and sees teaching as a valuable

and interesting process in itself, worthy of study and research.

This distinction is expressed in rather more detail below.

Methodology Pedagogy

consists of a specific set of

procedures based on a theory

of the nature of language and

language learning

Uses procedures which produce

effective learning and accord

with the teacher’s educational

approach

Is not concerned with teaching

universals such as classroom

climate, student motivation,

classroom management

Is concerned also with teaching

universals

Is informed mainly by linguistic

and applied linguistic research

Is informed by linguistic,

applied linguistic and

educational research

Is not concerned with the

pedagogy of other subjects

Is very interested in the

pedagogy of other subjects

Focusses on the nature of

language learning: language

teaching is derived from and

dependent on this

Is informed by research on

language learning, but sees

teaching itself as an interesting

process in itself, to be studied

and researched

The guidelines we need, then, are not the commandments

handed to us by proponents of a ‘correct’ methodology, butrather principles of effective language teaching. These are

inevitably based on one’s own beliefs, educational objectives



and experience, enriched by reading and learning. My own

teaching goals might be expressed as follows (each of you

will have your own, but I suspect that we would agree on

most of the general principles):

• To get my students to learn the language both fluently

and accurately, as well as fast as they can, through orderly

classroom process;

• To get my students to enjoy their learning and feel

pleased about themselves as learners;

• To contribute as far as I can to the general educational

progress of my students as individuals;

• To maintain relationships of caring and mutual respectbetween members of the class (including the teacher)

All this does not let us off learning methodology. On the

contrary, we probably need to learn more methodology

than ever before. What I am suggesting is that we now

need not to learn one accepted methodological approach,but get hold of and learn about all the methods we can,

from whatever sources: examining each in the light of our

own pedagogical principles and teaching context in order to

choose that combination that seems most appropriate and

will bring about the best learning results for our students.





ReferencesEllis, R (1994) The Study of Language Acquisition, Oxford;

Oxford University Press

Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in Pride

J. B. and Holmes J.

Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth,

Penguin, 269-93

Kumaravadivelu, B (1994) ‘The post-method condition:

(e)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching’,TESOL Quarterly, 28/1, 27-48

Prabhu, N.S. (1990) ’There is no best method - why?‘ TESOL

Quarterly, 24/2: 161-76

Swan, M. (1985) ‘A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1)’, English Language Teaching Journal 39/1: 2-12

Swan, M. (1985) ‘ A critical look at the Communicative

Approach (2)’, English Language Teaching Journal 39/2: 76-

87

Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as

Communication, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Penny Ur’s latest book A Course in Language Teaching is

published by Cambridge University Press



It is important to stop and think

after giving a lesson whether it was

a good one or not, and why.

Penny Ur



One of our jobs as teachers

is to help our students make

the ‘leap’ from form-focused

accuracy work to fluent production

by providing a ‘bridge’.

Penny Ur



A Course in

Language Teaching

Discussions that Work

Five-Minute Activities Grammar Practice Activities

Newland street

Way to go!

Teaching Listening

Comprehension

Book by Penny Ur

www.cambridge.com.mx

Cambridge University Press Mexico 2010

Documents

Penny Tcar