6+-+Pedagogy


 * Chapter 17**
 * COMMUNICATIVE, TASK-BASED, AND CONTENT- BASED INSTRUCTIONS**
 * by Marjorie Bingham Wesche, Peter Skenan**
 * Communicative language teaching** (CLT)

According to the authors, CLT is an approach to foreign language teaching, which has evolved over the past several decades due to need to focus on learners` communicative proficiency. CLT should be conducted in communicate classrooms which generally includes:
 * Activates that provides learners with an opportunity to interact with each other to solve problems. It can be cooperative activities such as group or pair work.
 * Use of authentic materials and communication activates linked to the real word situations
 * Learner-centered approaches, which allow students to be creative and have a role in instructional decision


 * Influences on the Development of Communicative Language Teaching**

//Methodological Preliminaries// The authors states, that CLT has evolved as a response and a replacement to the earlier teaching methods particularly grammar translation and audiolingual methods. Before it was assumed that learning of sentence–level grammar or learning through the practice of pattern would be effective and enough to use language outside the classroom. However, grammar- translation and audio-lingual methods failed to prepare learners to communicate in a real life situation. //Linguistic Influences// British linguists states, that language learners don’t need to learn the language in the sentence level. According to Hymes (1967), what language learners need is communicative competence, which means that learner should have not only grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, etc, but also knowledge about how to use utterances appropriately.The linguists, such as Halliday (1978), highlights the importance of developing the ability to put knowledge into use in communication. Widdowson (1978) coined the related terms //usage// and //use// in language teaching. Language usage refers to the rules of the language. Language use considers the communicative meaning of language. //Second Language Acquisition Influence// In early 1980s the field of second language acquisition was taking shape. Second language acquisition theorists focused particularly on the language input directed to learners. They stressed that language learning comes through using language communicatively, rather than through practicing language skills. Acquisition does not require extensive use of grammatical rules, but requires meaningful interaction. Such viewpoints provide support for teaching language through CLT.

According to Breen (1987) Task-based language learning is like “any structured language learning” which has its own “objectives”, and specific “working procedure” and “appropriate content”. In this view “task” is a planed activity to simplify the process of learning. Due to Skehan (1998) and Nunan (1989) task is an activity in which: TBI places the task in the center of its syllabus design( Long and Crookes 1992) so that the language used while doing the task, is a practice for language development ( Long;1989). In task –based research there are two issues which are in the center of attention: task features and task implementation estate.
 * Task-Based Instruction**
 * Meaning is the most important
 * There are some communicative problem solving
 * The assessment is done by concerning the outcome

**Research findings **

 Task-based research has two categories: effects of tasks and task implementation conditions.  According to the researchers, there are some characteristics of the tasks which influence the performance of the learners on different aspects of language:


 * type of information
 * structure of tasks
 * nature of outcomes

Researchers of the task conditions pay attention to the processes which take place before and after the task. According to Bygate and Lynch, completing a posttask gives the students opportunity to focus their attention on language and lead to a better performance.


 * Practical Developments**

All the above mentioned developments had to do with language on the supra-sentential level. Contextualized material was included in language teaching textbooks. However, there was no significant change in language teaching as far as there was too much concentration on teaching of patterns and structures. //Strategies// series of course books (Abbs and Freebairn, 1975) affected language teaching methodology promoting a functional approach to language teaching. The use of structural elements meant to achieve communicative goals became central. Yet, there was no clear distinction between learning about communication and learning through communication (Stern, 1981). Allen (1983) suggested a curriculum model which helped see the distinction between the two. He singled out three components; structural analytic, functional analytic and experiential. Little by little communicative approaches became more widespread not only in the EFL environment but in language teaching in general. There was also certain methodological progress. Instructors and materials writers spent time and effort to provide learners with a chance to use L2 in a meaningful context. Games and various activities such as information gap became popular in language classrooms. Though people seemed to be happy with CLT, they were not much sure what lay behind it. This approach was very demanding in terms of teachers’ professional abilities and materials. There was a diversity of opinions on the final goal of communicative language use, as well as on the meaning of //syllabus// in a communicative context. The result was that supplementary materials came to address the drawbacks of the main textbooks. These developments made the limitations of traditional approaches more visible and suggested an alternative. Different publications elucidated the goals of CLT (Widdowson, 1978, 1979). At this stage linguistics and language teaching cross-influenced. Particularly important is language testing specialists’ role in showing that communicative language ability can be measured through tests (Batchman, 1990, Canale and Swain, 1980). The question of the relationship between language form and use remains essential. Due to the author, contemporary textbooks still lay much emphasis on sentence structure especially in Britain and in EFL contexts (I cannot understand the last part though, as if //EFL contexts// were another country name). PPP approach is pr predominant in course materials. What makes a difference here is that the production stage covers more authentic and communicative activities.


 * Strong and Weak Forms of CLT**

Within the scope of CLT there can be identified weak and strong forms. These forms are similar in that they both aim to have the learner use the language for communicative goals. However, differences are also observed. Weaker forms view impromptu communication as an end product rather than as a means to achieve a certain goal. The formal domain of language is somewhat disregarded though it may come to a focus sometimes. Besides, the weaker forms pose strict distinction between methodology and syllabus. In stronger forms, by contrast this distinction is turned down. CLT is acknowledged as a general approach rather than a particular teaching method. Implementing CLT in a language classroom, the ethnocultural aspects cannot be disregarded. Poor teacher training, lack of materials and facilities and numerous other factors serve as obstacles on the way of implementing CLT in a given classroom. CLT poses high demands and the EFL situation does not always allow fulfilling them (Li, 1998).

**Strong and Weak forms of CBI** Content-based instruction is a “strong’’ form of communicative language teaching, but it has its own ‘weaker’ and ‘stronger’ forms. Weaker forms include language course that develops learner’s communicative proficiency in L2 through a curriculum. Thus, the syllabus can be theme-based or organized based on specific texts or the content of particular college or university. Moreover, successful CBI textbooks must take into consideration learners’ limited language proficiency. The mainstreaming of second language speakers in classes for native speakers with adaptation are examples of strong forms as well as foreign language immersion programs where the curriculum is taught by native speakers. Postsecondary study of a foreign language is another example. At this level, CBI contributes to advanced language learners who strive to learn the language together with the culture. Though CBI has often existed without instructional emphasis on language analysis, its contexts provide rich opportunity for an emphasis on accurate and culturally correct language. Hence, most forms of CBI for L2 speakers can provide neither contact with native speakers nor the exposure to outside classroom language use. Due to this, learners tend to develop classroom ‘dialects’ which slows their progress of target language performance.

**Research Findings** All in all, the research findings on CBI programs are consistent and show that subject matter learning, foreign/second language development can be achieved with willing learners via CBI approaches. However, stronger forms of CBI face difficulties such as lack of specific teacher preparation, inadequate curricular definition to integrate language and content objectives.

**Language and Content Interface** The most important pedagogical issue for CBI is the interface of language and content. Learners are motivated in CBI contexts especially when they want to be there. Thus, there is mismatch between course demands and learner’s language, lack of progress and loss of motivation. Besides, difficult readings and complex written texts cause difficulties with both content learning and language development.

**Conclusion** Content-based instruction seems to be working for two ‘clients’. The first one is young school learners who accept a native-speaker teacher. The next one is older learners who have had some previous language instruction. It is worth mentioning that while CBI is founded on sound principles, the outcomes depend on the details of its implementation. Communicative language teaching is the most interesting development in language teaching. However, there are two reasons that do not agree with it. The first reason is that CLT by its nature can’t solve the syllabus problem and how language should be taught. The next reason is that the role of formal instruction. Here there is lack of accuracy in production. Task-based instruction is a more thorough version of CLT and its distinguishing feature is how integrally it is connected with empirical research. Though we can predict the future of communicative language teaching, content-based instruction and task-based instruction each will proceed with becoming even more effective.