1. Communication- oriented language teaching
Integrating the new with the familiar
Bill Littlewood

2. ‘Communicative’ language teaching – what does it mean?
CLT ‘has always meant a multitude of different things to different people’.
(Harmer, 2003)
‘Everyday classroom practices can appear to be quite different when CLT principles are applied in differing social and educational contexts.’
(Hall, 2011)

3. CLT: Some common interpretations
‘not teaching grammar’
‘teaching only speaking’
‘using pair or group work’
‘a lot of hard work for the teacher’
(Thompson, 1996)
‘giving learners the opportunity in class to practise the language skills taught’
‘providing the teachers with communicative activities in their repertoire of teaching skills’
(Ho & Wong, 2004)

4. CLT: ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ versions
Confusion comes partly from two versions of CLT:
A ‘weak version’ of CLT: we can teach people to ‘do things with words’ through analytic as well as experiential strategies
A ‘strong version’ of CLT: students should communicate all the time and learn through experiencing communication (including reading and listening).

5. Experiential Dimension
Two dimensions of learning
Analytic Dimension ←→
Experiential Dimension
Instruction (main focus: form + meaning)
Communication (main focus: meaning + message) ↓
Conscious learning and practice
← →
Subconscious learning and integration
Increasing automaticity of correct language
Increasing correctness of spontaneous language
Communicative
Competence

6. ‘Weak’ and ‘strong’ CLT: some implications for teaching
The ‘weak’ version of CLT provides a more familiar framework for teaching: it allows for controlled, analytic learning, e.g. grammar practice and exercises.
But both versions emphasize the teacher’s role of organizing communicative activities for experiential learning.
This role has created the most challenges.

7. CLT: Some practical challenges
Many teachers have faced challenges such as:
new organizational skills e.g. for group activities
unfamiliar roles in the classroom e.g. ‘facilitator’ not only ‘knowledge transmitter’
classroom management esp. with large classes
students resorting to the mother tongue in tasks
students performing tasks with minimal use of language
excessive demands on language competence
conflict with educational traditions and conceptions of learning
incompatibility with public examinations
(Butler, 2011, Jeon, 2009, Littlewood, 2007, Wang, 2007)

8. ‘The spirit of CLT’
Even when teachers do not accept CLT as a package of techniques, they usually accept the spirit of CLT, in particular:
We need to focus on learners and learning.
We need to help learners to use the language effectively for their own communicative needs.
This is most likely to happen when classroom activities are real and meaningful to learners.
(Hiep, 2007)

9. How can we implement the ‘spirit of CLT’ in specific contexts?
We may decide to:
Integrate new ‘communicative’ ideas and techniques into a traditional approach
Develop a new framework of principles for developing a ‘context-sensitive’ approach to communication-oriented language teaching (COLT)

10. Integrate CLT ideas into a traditional approach (1)
In Beijing, an observed teacher maintains a traditional role as a knowledge transmitter by, e.g.:
Providing grammatical explanations
Using pattern drills and memorization techniques
However, he integrates new ideas from CLT by, e.g.:
Organizing more interaction in his classes
Eliciting more creative responses from students
Relating the language not only to contexts provided by the textbook but also to students’ personal experience’
Zheng & Adamson (2003)

11. Integrate CLT ideas into a traditional approach (2)
In Hong Kong, many teachers replace communicative activities (‘tasks’), in which students use language creatively, with more controlled ‘contextualized practice’
They want an approach in which e.g.:
There is a clearer role for teaching grammar
There are stronger links with local exam requirements
There is better balance between oral and other types of task
(Carless 2004, 2007)

12. Does the CLT/traditional distinction make sense?
Does the distinction between ‘CLT’ and ‘traditional’ stop us from thinking creatively about our teaching methods?
Why not view ideas and techniques from all sources – ‘traditional’, ‘CLT’ and others – as constituting one common ‘pool’ that we can draw on, to support successful communication-oriented language learning?

13. A conceptual framework for integrating the new with the familiar
We need a broader conceptual framework which will orient us in creating experiences that:
help learners fulfil their communicative needs, and
are real and meaningful to them.
Teachers can then develop their own strategies and techniques to suit their teaching context.

14. A framework for methodology: the ‘communicative continuum’ for COLT
Analytic strategies
 
Experiential strategies
Non- communicative learning
Pre- communicative language practice
Communicative language practice
Structured communication
Authentic communication
Focusing on the structures of language, how they are formed and what they mean, e.g. substitution exercises, “discovery” and awareness-raising activities
Practising language with some attention to meaning but not communicating new messages to others, e.g. “question-and- answer” practice
Practising pre- taught language in a context where it communicates new information, e.g. information gap activities or “personalised” questions
Using language to communicate in situations which elicit pre- learnt language but with some unpredictability, e.g. structured role-play and simple problem- solving
Using language to communicate in situations where the meanings are unpredictable, e.g. creative role-play, more complex problem-solving and discussion
Focus on forms and meanings
 
Focus on meanings and messages
‘Enabling tasks’
 
‘Communicative tasks’

15. Non-communicative learning
In the examples below, look carefully at the position of the adverbs always, often, sometimes, usually, and never. What are the rules?
We are usually hungry when we come home.
John is always late.
His parents were often tired in the evening.
I am never sure whether this word is correct.
I sometimes go to the cinema on Fridays.
We never eat much in the morning.
Jane often arrives at school early.
They always come home late at night.
They have never written to me again.
You can always come and visit me.
I will never know why he did it.
Pat has often seen him with two dogs.

16. Pre-communicative language practice
With your partner, practise asking and answering questions about what John and Rachel have to do and what they would like to do. (The cues could also be in the form of pictures.)
John
Rachel
Obligations
Clean floors
Wash windows
Empty the bins
Type letters
Answer the telephone
Do photocopying
Desires
Go to evening school
Get a better job
Marry Fiona
Earn more money
Take holiday abroad
Marry her boss
(adapted from Harmer, 1987)

17. Communicative language practice
Fill in this chart about your classmates’ preferences
Name
Favorite male singer
Favorite female singer
Favorite TV actor or actress
Favorite TV series
Favorite place to visit

18. Structured communication
The World Tomorrow
Students are asked to write down a list of changes they expect to see in the world by a date 50 years in the future. For example:
We will have a working day of four hours.
Every home will have a video telephone.
People will live to be 100 years old or more.
The ideas are then read out and discussed. Those that most of the class agree with may be written up on the board.
Later, students may choose predictions that appeal to them and use them as the topic for a short essay.
(adapted from Ur, 1988/2009)

19. Authentic communication
I love music!
How do you feel when you listen to music? Why do you like music? Discuss with your partner. Write down five reasons.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(adapted from Vidal, 1996)

20. Authentic communication
Designing an alternative world
1 Students and teachers brainstorm aspects of the environment they like and those they would like to see improved. These may include changes to the geographical setting, nature, animal-life, housing, society, family, leisure activities, politics, etc.
2 Students are put into groups according to common interests. The groups identify the language and information they need. The students carry out individual and group research on the selected topics. The students discuss aspects of this ‘Alternative reality’ and then report back. They decide on the different ways (stories, recordings, games, etc.) to link all the research and present the final product.
3 Students present the topic and evaluate the activity.
(adapted from Ribé & Vidal, 1993)

21. The extent of communication Box 1 Box 2 Box 3-Box 4 School A Betty
Overall communicativeness of four teachers’ teaching in a Guangdong Primary School (Year 4) (Deng & Carless 2009b)
The extent of
communication
Box 1
Non-communicative learning
Box 2
Pre-communicative language practice
Box 3-Box 4
Communicative language practice / structured communication
School A
Betty
67.4%
23.2%
9.4%
Rose
60.5%
34.2%
5.3%
School B
Jane
31.8%
36.4%
Paul
43.5%
31.9%
24.6%
From the table, we can see that most activities in School A are at the “focus on forms” side of Littlewood’s matrix, suggesting a low degree of communicativeness. Over 60% of these activities are in Box 1.
The activities in School B are ranged from Box 1 to Box 4. Most of them are in the middle two boxes. This suggests a medium degree of communicativeness. Guessing game is a typical Box 3 activity in School A, other Box 3 activities include memory challenge games, snowball games, finding differences about two similar pictures, etc.

22. Personal questions (with information gap) （2 activities）
The communicativeness of Rose’s Lessons (Deng & Carless 2009a)
Box 1
Non-communicative learning
Box 2
Pre-communicative language practice
Box 3
Communicative language practice
49 activities （62.8 %)
25 activities (32.1%)
4 activities (5.1 %)
Explanation
Mechanical repetition
(19 activities, 24.4%)
Mechanical written exercises
(7 activities, 9 %）
Practice games
(14 activities, 17.9 %)
Read with actions, bomb game, read loudly or softly game.
Ask-and-answer practice
(10 activities, 12.9 %)
Ask-and-answer about a picture/situation, topic
Activities with actions
(15 activities, 19.2 %)
Chant with actions
Respond to teacher’s instructions by actions
Guessing game （1）
Personal questions (with information gap) （2 activities）
What’s Missing Game （1）
The observation data reveal that most activities (62.8 % Non-communicative and 32.1% Pre-communicative Practice) in Rose’s lessons were on the “focus on forms” side of the continuum, suggesting a low communicative degree in general (see table 2). In the first box most of the activities (44.9%) are related to grammar explanation or mechanical repetition, such as explaining text grammar/meaning, doing written exercises and checking/explaining answers, pronunciation teaching, spelling, reading the text chorally and repeating teacher’s words/structures one by one % of the activities are quite ‘non-traditional’, normally fun and with some physical involvement, for example repeating the words with actions and reading words/sentences in a soft/loud voice. Pre-communicative Language Practice activities include ask-and-answer practice (12.9 % out of 32.1%); and 19.2% are non-traditional activities, often involving student physical actions, such as action chants and responding to teacher’s instructions with actions. Although most activities are low communicative, 5.1% Communicative Practice activities (Box 3) are observed, including guessing games and personalized questions.

23. A second dimension: task engagement
High
B: form-oriented but
engaging
Form-
engagement
D: message-oriented and
Message-
oriented
A: form-oriented and
boring
Low
C: message-oriented but

24. Communication and engagement
A: an activity may be form-oriented and does not engage the learners, e.g. a boring drill
B: an activity may be form-oriented and engage the learners, e.g. a word puzzle
C: an activity may be message-oriented but does not engage the learners, e.g. a role- play which does not motivate them
D: an activity may be both message-oriented and engaging, e.g. a personalized role-play or a discussion about a relevant topic

25. Some key issues for teachers to explore in their own contexts
What balance should I make between analytic and experiential strategies?
How can I make the content of L2 communication deeper and more engaging?
How can I structure group interaction more effectively so that all learners participate?

26. Structuring interaction through collaborative learning techniques
In collaborative learning:
Tasks are structured so that they can be done better through cooperation than independently
Each member depends on every other member for some aspect of the task
Completing the task depends on the sharing of information and ideas

27. Think/Pair/Share
A topic for discussion (which may be simple or complex) is given to the class.
Each student has a short period of time to think about it and jot down notes.
Pairs of learners share ideas with each other for a further period.
Pairs share their ideas within a larger group or the whole class.
(The initial period of sharing may be carried out in groups of three or more. )

28. Three-step Interview
Students form groups of four, in which they choose or are assigned a controversial topic for discussion.
Each group of four divides immediately into two pairs (A+B, C+D).
A interviews B about the topic but does not express his or her own opinions. B then interviews A. At the same time, C and D follow the same procedure.
(Optional: A and C interview each other, also B and D)
The students re-form into a group of four, in which they share ideas and opinions, enter into free discussion, and attempt to reach an agreement on the issue.
Their conclusion may be reported to the class or form the basis of written report, etc.

29. Forward Snowball
Each student is given a set period of time (e.g. three minutes) in which to list four facts related to a theme.
Students form pairs and expand their ideas into a list of eight.
Pairs form groups of four, who produce a combined list, deleting ideas which are repeated but attempting to add more to produce sixteen.
The snowball may finish there or continue to groups of eight, who produce a further combined list.

30. Reverse Snowball
Each student is given three or four minutes to write down three or four ideas or characteristics on the topic.
Students in pairs then attempt to reduce their combined list by agreeing on the four (or five) most essential points.
Pairs form groups of four, who should again reduce their combined list to produce an agreed list of most essential points.
The snowball may proceed to groups of eight, or the whole class may be asked to agree on a list of essential points, or students may produce group or individual tasks (e.g. essays on the topic).

31. Jigsaw A task has interlocking subtasks A, B, C, (perhaps D), e.g.
reading different texts on the same topic area
reading the same texts to find different information
processing different kinds of input on a topic
The members of each ‘jigsaw group’ (Students A, B, C, perhaps D) work on the subtasks.
The students contribute their ideas and information as pieces of the ‘jigsaw’.
The task outcome is produced together, e.g. presentation, poster, report.

32. Expert Jigsaw
In the initial stage, students with the same subtask work together and help each other, e.g. to understand the same text or get information from the same video
That is: each group (‘expert group’) consists of only students with subtask A, only students with subtask B, etc.
The expert groups separate and go into the ‘jigsaw groups’ consisting of students who have the ‘expert knowledge’ gained from the first stage.

33. Jigsaw learning in a Shenzhen Middle School class (teacher Zou Yanping)
After an earthquake, a team of three rescue workers is faced with dealing with four types of injury: burns, neck injury, broken leg, unconsciousness.
They have already studied burns. Now each member researches one of the other three injuries on the internet.
They share results and together decide who needs help first and how s/he can be helped.
They present their decisions and reasons to the rest of the class.

34. Group Investigation
The class decides on (or is assigned) a topic and organizes itself into research groups to investigate separate subtopics.
Groups plan their investigations and divide up the work among group members.
Members of each group collect, organize and analyze the information on their subtopic.
Members come together in their groups to share and discuss their information. They plan their report and presentation.
Presentations are made to the entire class in a variety of forms.

35. Rotating Circles
A group of 4 (or 5, or 6) sits in a circle facing outwards.
A second group sits in a circle around them facing inwards towards them.
Each member of the inner circle has a different question card (asking for facts or opinions, etc.) or language practice card, or they are asked to make up their own questions.
For about three minutes, the inner and outer circle members discuss the question in pairs.
At a signal, the outer circle rotates one place, to discuss in new pairs.

36. Rotating Circles (variation)
If students are sitting in pairs (A + B) in fixed seats, each student A may move one seat back at each signal
The student at the back moves to the front.

37. Constructive Controversy
Students form groups of four and are assigned (or choose) a controversial topic for debate.
Each group divides into two pairs.
Each pair is asked to consider the arguments for just one side of the issue.
Groups of four are re-formed and a debate takes place, as each pair tries to convince the other pair of their own side of the issue.
After a time, they step out of the ‘formal’ debating structure and engage in free discussion.
The report their decision.

38. Numbered Heads
This is a way of organizing the reporting stage so that all students have a chance to report and all have to follow the discussion.
In each group of (e.g.) four, the students are asked to assign numbers from 1 to 4 to each member.
At the reporting stage, the teacher indicates a group and a number.
All students have an equal chance of being nominated and must be ready to speak on behalf of the group.

39. Conclusion
The days are now past when people believed that there is a ‘single best method’
We are in what is often described as a ‘post- method’ situation: each teacher seeks an approach which suits his or her context
However any approach needs to follow basic principles related to the nature of communication and the learners’ needs
The aim of this paper has been to suggest a framework for developing such principles

40. Thank you! wlittlewood9@gmail.com
… and if you want a list of the publications referred to in the presentation
… or will share with me your own experience conducting communication- oriented language teaching
… please

41. References
Butler, Y.G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31,
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, (4),
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35 (4),
Deng, C. & Carless, D. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19,
Deng, C. & Carless, D. (2010). Examination Preparation or Effective Teaching: Conflicting Priorities in the Implementation of a Pedagogic Innovation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7 (4),
Estaire, S. & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning classwork: A task-based approach. Oxford: MacMillan Heinemann.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and learning grammar. London: Longman.
Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods and context. ELT Journal 57 (3),
Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61, 3,
Ho, W. K. & Wong, R.Y.L. (Eds.). (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Jeon, J.H. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow up after 12 years of implementation. English Teaching, 64 (1),

42. References
Jeon, J.H. & Paek, J.Y. (2009). A study on policy assessment for English education. English Teaching, 64 (2),
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal 58/4,
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40/3,
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, Volume II. London: Routledge, 2011,
Littlewood, W. (2012). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching (access through Cambridge Journals first view).
Ribé, R. & Vidal, N. (1993). Project work: Step by step. Oxford, Heinemann.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50, 1, 9–15.
Ur, P. (1988/2009). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vidal, N. (1996). Teach your teacher music. Madrid: Alhambra Longman.
Wang, Q. (2007). The National Curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp ). Boston, MA : Springer Science & Business Media. Online access via SpringerLink.
Zheng, X. & Adamson, B. (2003). The pedagogy of a secondary school teacher of English in the People’s Republic of China: Challenging the stereotypes. RELC Journal, 34, 3, 323–337.