The communicative approach to language learning – Meeting stakeholder expectations
Randy Stolle
Vanderbilt University
Department of Teaching and Learning
Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Education
15 September 2008
Stolle 2
Abstract
An increasingly global economy and multicultural society are affecting our everyday lives, and it
is important that we adapt to the changes that accompany such growth. One of the most
prevalent and public challenges we deal with is the language, or perhaps languages, with which
we conduct our day-to-day affairs. This paper discusses the current status of foreign language
teaching in the United States and the need to improve what the education system is currently
offering. The author of this paper compares the Grammar-Translation Method to the
Communicative Method, arguing that the latter of the two better meets student expectations and
national standards created under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Both curricular
approaches are explained in detail, bringing to light the advantages and disadvantages of each.
The Communicative Method does not exclude learning grammar. In fact, a communicative
classroom may follow a grammatical syllabus. The advantage is the added focus on finding
meaning and use in the language. The author addresses how national standards are met and how
students can be effectively assessed according to the Communicative Method. Student attitude
and motivation are discussed in terms of being a positive influence in a communicative setting,
yet a negative influence in the Grammar-Translation classroom. The author provides
suggestions on how instructional methods and materials can change to provide a better
communicative learning experience both in and out of the classroom. Textbooks, computer
technology and communicative activities are each discussed. The author also makes a point of
addressing how the learning environment extends beyond the classroom and beyond secondary
education. At the same time, opportunities available in schools should be offered in earlier
years. The paper is clear in its purpose: successful foreign language classrooms put an emphasis
on communication in the target language.
Stolle 3
Every year in the United States we send millions of children to school to receive an education
that will prepare them for a successful future. Highly-qualified teachers create lessons from
rigorous curricula which have been developed to meet the needs of the individual and the global
society. On a daily basis, students attend classes and are presented with concepts and
information related to mathematics, science, history, technology, art, language and other subjects
which are constantly developing and included in school curriculum. All of this is done with the
expectation that we are providing the best education possible to prepare the future leaders of our
world.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) calls for “accountability for results, more
choices for parents, greater local control and flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works
based on scientific research” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). National standards have
been created to ensure that our students are academically competitive both nationally and
internationally. Since foreign language has been identified by NCLB as a core subject area it is
important to look at the approaches educators are taking to meet the prescribed benchmarks.
In the field of foreign language education there are two main approaches to teaching and
acquiring language. The first is the Grammar-Translation Method, which is based on the theory
that language learning and proficiency stem from knowledge of grammar. The second is the
Communicative Method, which “understands language to be inseparable from individual identity
and social behavior” (Savignon, 2002, p. 210). Although both of these approaches are referred
to as ‘methods’, it is important to note that there is not a specific activity from which each
approach spawns. There are, however, activities that lend themselves more to one approach than
the other.
Stolle 4
Since there are teachers, schools, and education systems which claim to use the Communicative
Method when, in fact, they are using the Grammar-Translation Method, it is important for this
paper that a common definition of communication be established. Dictionary.com, which
provides definitions from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, defines communication as
“the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs”
(Dictionary.com, 2008). As students learn to speak, listen, read and write in a foreign language
it is important that we also include observation as an essential component of communication, for
much of what we communicate is non-verbal in nature.
Despite resistance in the political arena, the era of English-only in social and business situations
is nearing its end for the majority of the population of the United States. Foreign language
education must meet the needs of an increasingly globalized society by preparing the youth of
this nation to communicate effectively with those of other languages and cultures. The challenge
we face in the classroom is teaching students how to use a language and not just teach them
about a language (Brown, 1987). The Communicative Method addresses these issues, meets
national foreign language standards, increases student motivation and stretches learning beyond
the boundaries of the classroom.
What is the Communicative Method?
The Communicative Method embraces the idea that linguistic proficiency is the ability to
communicate a message in the target language in real-life situations (Johnson, 1996; Ruiz-Funes,
2002). A key point of communicative teaching and learning is that students interact instead of
merely reacting to a stimulus (Littlewood, 1981). Certainly this approach to language learning
focuses more on oral interaction than other approaches, but it is not exclusively concerned with
Stolle 5
face-to-face communication. Reading, writing, listening and observation are also emphasized
components of communicative.
What separates the Communicative Method from other traditional methods is that language itself
is not seen as the sole subject matter. “Language considered as communication no longer
appears as a separate subject but as an aspect of other subjects” (Allen & Widdowson, 1979,
p.125). It is considered a device for communication and a tool used to study various other
subjects. For example, a French class reading Les Miserable will be more concerned with
themes found in the story than the grammar used in each sentence of the story. The ability to
organize one’s thoughts, explain and justify personal beliefs and appropriately participate in
conversation conducted in the target language are common objectives of a communicative
curriculum (Harley, Allen, Cummins, & Swain, 1990; Ruiz-Funes).
Much like the Grammar-Translation Method, the Communicative Method teaches correct
sentence structure. The Communicative Method, however, boasts the addition of being able to
use correct sentence structure in context with the various forms and topics of conversation.
Foreign language is taught in a manner that makes it accessible to everyone and useful outside of
academia. Savignon found in her research of communicative language teaching and learning that
students who practiced communication instead of pattern drills performed with equal accuracy
on assessments of grammatical structure and that their communicative competence markedly
surpassed those who did not study contextualized language (Savignon). In other words, the
whole-task practice provided by the communicative approach is more efficient than the discretepoint practice focused on by the Grammar-Translation Method.
Stolle 6
The Communicative Method also meets national standards as set forth by NCLB. Standards,
much like the communicative approach, focus on what students are able to do with the language.
Each objective is met by the student’s ability to speak, listen, observe, read or write in the target
language. A student’s overall communicative proficiency is a measurement of how well he or
she has mastered the standards.
Language learners in a communicative environment will find that the activities they participate
in improve motivation (Littlewood). This, as well as foreign language standards, will be
discussed more in depth later in this paper, but suffice it to say that communicative language
learning gives deeper, connected meaning to words and phrases because they are contextualized.
Vocabulary and points of grammar are used not because a pattern drill requires it, but because
they are actually needed by the student.
As with any approach to teaching and learning, a communicative approach to language
acquisition poses certain difficulties. Perhaps the greatest obstacle is the lack of teacher
familiarity with and understanding of communicative language teaching. Most current foreign
language teachers were probably enrolled in both secondary and higher education classes that
subscribed to the Grammar-Translation Method. To successfully make a change to a
communicative approach, schools may need to invest time and money in professional
development for their teachers.
Another potential difficulty with the communicative approach is finding authentic situations for
communication in the target language, especially in areas of the United States that are not
linguistically diverse. Real-life communication is vital to the success of communicative
language learning and must be made available to students. This dilemma can be addressed on a
Stolle 7
daily basis by teachers using the target language as a means of instruction (Ruiz-Funes). Modern
technology can also provide students with daily opportunities to use the target language via the
Internet and its many applications.
Students may have a difficult time with communicative language teaching because it often offers
independent, paired or group practice as opposed to teacher-led instruction. In these situations
the students will not always be directly supervised, which may cause problems if students are
thrown into this type of situation too fast. They need sufficient practice and a shared vision of
the learning goals and objectives before they can be turned loose. Teachers must slowly wean
students from their dependence on the teacher (Littlewood).
What is the Grammar-Translation Method?
The Grammar-Translation Method, also referred to as the Traditional or Classical Method, is an
approach to teaching foreign language which has been used to teach students to read and write
language for a thousand years (Kercel, Brown-VanHoozer, & VanHoozer, 2002). The driving
theory behind the Grammar-Translation Method is that learning a new language is effectively
done through study of the grammatical structure of the language. The expectation is that once
students have learned the proper structure of a language they can use it to communicate. To
attain the goal of language learning, the method employs activities such as memorizing
vocabulary lists, conjugating lists of verbs and translating text from one’s native language to the
target language, or vice versa.
There are some obvious advantages to a grammatical approach to language learning. First, in the
United States foreign language education is traditionally a part of secondary education. This
means that by the time a student is able to study a foreign language, he or she has received
Stolle 8
almost a decade of instruction about English grammar. In many instances students may transfer
their base of English grammar to the study of another language.
A second advantage to language acquisition through grammar is that many resources exist which
adhere to this approach. Most foreign language textbooks follow a grammatical syllabus which
can easily be applied to the classroom. Also, when textbooks are purchased they come with
activities, ideas for lessons and some include chapter tests which can be used by the teacher to
easily assess student comprehension. Thus, the Grammar-Translation Method requires relatively
low skill on the part of the teacher (Brown). In an era of teacher shortages and paraprofessionals
who have not been trained in pedagogy, this may be beneficial.
We live and work in a time of educational standardization. Students must reach benchmarks
which show they are prepared to move on to the next level of learning or application. The ease
with which this approach can be standardized is advantageous in that lessons and tests are
generally simple to create and score. By standardizing language, however, we may find
ourselves limiting linguistic production and suffocating creativity.
Just as there are advantages to the Grammar-Translation Method, there are equal, if not greater,
disadvantages. First and foremost is that it does virtually nothing to enhance a student’s
communicative ability in the language. Students are asked to drill grammar until it is learned
and then use it in communication. There is little to no context during the skill-building phase
because language and language use are kept separate (Brown; Ruiz-Funes). Just as we do not
expect that students in a graphic arts course will become skilled artists by simply learning about
the various mediums and tools of design, we should not expect our language learners to become
conversationally competent individuals by learning about language structure. Mastery of
Stolle 9
selected content vocabulary and grammar is useless unless accompanied by some meaningful
situation or context.
In our effort to streamline the learning of a foreign language by basing it on our knowledge of
our own language we may create an overdependence on comparing the target language to
English. Students who slip into the error of thinking that languages may be successfully
translated word for word will commonly ask their teachers, “Why is it like that in Spanish? We
don’t do that in English.” The resultant discussion is a potentially lengthy comparison of two
languages that does little to advance one’s ability to use the target language. The current
President of the American Council on the teaching of Foreign Languages wrote on the
organization’s website that “accurate translation requires not just translating “words” but the
ideas behind those words—and this requires capturing the context in which the words are being
used” (Clifford, 2008). If we focus too heavily on the grammar then we may miss the nuances of
the language. We surrender creativity to sentence structure, forgetting that our first language is
filled with colorful expressions which render deep meaning in context even though they may not
always make grammatical sense. Idioms, for example, are expressions which often do not
translate well because they are often of a cultural nature. The cultural origin is what gives life to
the words and phrases. NCLB asks that we teach these cultural terms in an effort to create
understanding of other cultures and to form a deeper connection with the target language.
Meeting the Standards
“Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience. The United States must
educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a
pluralistic American society and abroad” (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Stolle 10
Languages, n.d.). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
created standards and objectives which have been adopted nationally under NCLB. Their goal,
as Leonard Newmark explained, is not to get students to say something or understand something,
but “to say something with understanding” (1979, p.162).
In order to meet this goal, standards and objectives have been divided into five categories:
Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities. Phrases such as
“engage in conversations”, “exchange opinions”, and “use the language” define what students
should be able to do with the language. These behavioral objectives demonstrate that learning a
foreign language is not an end in and of itself, but is a means to an end. This means-to-an-end
approach can be carried out best by communicative teaching and learning since the point of the
communicative approach is to use language in real-world context. In fact, only one national
standard could be argued to lend itself more to the Grammar-Translation Method than the
Communicative Method. Standard 4.1 states: “Students demonstrate understanding of the nature
of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own” ( ACTFL).
Assessing student progress towards the goal of mastery of the prescribed standards is often put in
terms of proficiency. Proficiency concerns itself with both qualitative than quantitative ability
and growth. A communicative assessment does not test the ability to restate a rule, but to apply a
rule in various contexts. It is not the memorization of vocabulary, but the use of vocabulary that
qualifies one as being proficient.
Testing the ability to manipulate language according to one’s situation and role within that
situation is a communicative assessment that tests higher order thinking. The assessments that
test this type of production are often difficult to execute with a large number of students, but if
Stolle 11
our goal is communication then we cannot settle for a paper-and-pen multiple-choice test that
does not check one’s ability to produce anything. Oral proficiency interviews are beneficial
because they find the performance comfort level of the students and the ceiling at which
individuals can perform. Student progress can also be tracked as they are classified after each
interview as either novice (low, mid or high), intermediate (low, mid or high), advanced (low,
mid or high) or superior (ACTFL).
Educators should not test one aspect of communication only. A true assessment of
communicative ability should include sections on speaking and listening, reading and writing.
These tests may not be able to be administered at the same time, so teachers should stagger what
they assess throughout the school year. Effective use of backwards design, as presented by
Wiggins and McTighe in Understanding by Design, will align summative assessments with
national standards. Formative assessments will give the teacher insight into how to pace the
class and what aspects of the language and language production to focus on before any
summative testing is done.
Attitude and Motivation
As a new Spanish teacher this year, I asked my students on the first day of school to answer two
questions. The first was, “Why are you taking this class?” As a whole, my students were very
open and honest in their responses. The majority of the students admitted that they enrolled in
my class to satisfy a school or parental requirement. The difference in attitude between a student
being forced into taking language course and a student with a personal desire to learn the
language is paramount when it comes to the scope and sequence of the course and daily lesson
planning. Those forced into a course are less likely to take risks in using the language. Students
Stolle 12
who are not willingly taking a course are not likely to take risks, which often leads to early
fossilization (Brown, Littlewood). Since communicative teaching and learning relies heavily on
relationships within the learning environment, teachers should take time to build the trust of the
class and promote a risk-taking atmosphere before delving deep into communicative activities.
The second question I asked my students was, “What do you expect to be able to do with
Spanish at the end of this year?” The overwhelming majority of my students replied that they
wanted to use Spanish to speak with friends and family members. Nobody claimed a desire to
master Spanish grammar. Since most current foreign language curriculum designs focus more
on reading and writing in the target language than listening and speaking, and since “the
grammatical syllabus reduces motivation for those seeking practical use”, I had to make
adjustments to meet the expectations of my students (Wilkins, 1979, p. 82). Referring to the
Grammar-Translation Method, Osborn states that “perhaps the most damning indictment in this
era of the “student as customer” is that it is not fun” (Osborn, 2002). Can we honestly expect
students to enjoy themselves when they are enrolled in a class that does not meet their
expectations? They can see my effort at making class meaningful and they are responding with
honest, concerted effort.
In research done by Sandra J. Savignon, students were clear in stating their preference of
meaningful learning as opposed to an approach of learning formal features of a target language.
Her work and the work of other professional educators have shown that motivation is a key
factor for learning. Students in any field of study are shown to have an increase in motivation
when they are presented with information that addresses a personal need. Learning something
that is personally meaningful in a way that is meaningful encourages students to take intellectual
ownership of the content (Reagan, 2002; Brown; Ruiz-Funes).
Stolle 13
Littlewood writes, “The development of communicative skills can only take place if learners
have motivation and opportunity to express their own identity and to relate with the people
around them.” The key here is that motivation must be met by opportunity. Much of this
opportunity will be made available through a rethinking of the learning environment.
Changing Instructional Methods
Classrooms which follow the Grammar-Translation Method make use of traditional materials
and instructional methods that are common in most classrooms regardless of the subject.
Perhaps the most common and influential instructional tool throughout the entire education
system is the textbook. Schools spend thousands of dollars on content-specific books which
have been developed to enhance the reader’s ability to master key concepts pertaining to the
subject. Foreign language textbooks are generally created following a grammatical syllabus.
These books generally contain a plethora of writing drills and are often accompanied by audio
compact discs which allow students to hear native speakers. Neither of these practices, however,
allows students to interact with other speakers of the language. Motivation will suffer if the
foreign language classroom becomes “the locus of excessive rote activity – rote drills, pattern
practice without context, reciting rules, and other activities that are not in the context of
meaningful communication” (Brown, p.49). It is not my intention to devalue current textbooks;
rather I hope to persuade educators to make better use of them as an aid to learning.
Teachers must employ methods and procedures that address the standards they claim to be
meeting. To meet the objective of communicative proficiency teachers must consider the
situations in which language learners may find themselves that require use of the language.
Once the potential opportunities for language use have been identified, students should
Stolle 14
participate in and practice activities that require the same skills. A situational syllabus may be
combined with a grammatical syllabus by identifying common occasions when specific points of
grammar would be used. Principals of backwards design will strengthen this type of syllabus
just as it will strengthen the aforementioned assessments.
Whereas in years past it was considerably more difficult to connect foreign language learners
with native speakers of the language they are studying, great advances in technology make it
possible for students in the modern classroom to connect in real-time with native speakers all
over the world. The Internet has opened doors to global communication for educational
purposes via e-mail, Instant Messaging, blogging, web pages, video conferencing, shared white
boards, and Internet radio. A high school classroom in Tennessee could enter a chat room to
discuss current events or literature studied in their Spanish class with students from another class
in Argentina who have been studying the same topics.
Communicative competency will increase as students are able to apply what they have learned to
real-life situations. Language learners should be prepared to listen and understand natural
speech, which may include false starts, hesitations and other everyday occurrences. They should
also prepare to hear various tempos, clarity of articulation and regional accents. The rate of
transfer is sure to increase as students prepare under similar circumstances of authentic speech.
Just as students should use the target language as often as possible when studying, teachers
should use the target language as often as possible in their teaching. Speaking the foreign
language should not be done in addition to teaching, but rather as a means of teaching. Modeling
instructions while explaining them in the target language will help students figure out what they
need to know, and they will improve their observation skills. Students will struggle initially, but
Stolle 15
this is part of the learning process. All too often teachers will communicate with their class in
the target language for everything except the explanation of an assignment. Students are
inadvertently given the message that the target language is good to use unless the communication
is of some importance (Littlewood). The ability to follow directions in the foreign language is a
perfectly acceptable assessment tool, and the necessity to communicate will motivate students
beyond any early inhibitions concerning language use. Also, if a teacher must explain in English
the directions for a foreign language assignment it is likely that either our students will not be
able to complete the assignment well in the target language or the assignment does not
effectively assess their ability to use the language.
Extending the learning environment beyond the classroom
After graduating from high school, students will begin interacting with the world on a larger
scale. Many continue their studies through enrollment in higher education. Others seek
immediately to apply their education and join the work force. Some will enlist in a branch of the
military and serve their country. Regardless of one’s future plans, the ability to communicate in
a foreign language will be at least beneficial if not essential. I propose that language learners
begin early using foreign languages in situations that exist outside of the classroom. After all,
fluency or proficiency is rarely achieved by classroom study alone (Brown; Littlewood).
A communicative based curriculum may offer the chance to discuss matters of relevance that
exist beyond the classroom. It might provide opportunities for students to lend service to nearby
target language communities. A communicative approach may even give students the time and
the chance to simply socialize with friends in the target language without the fear of grades
looming. Defining and preparing students for situations, roles and topics that they are likely to
Stolle 16
deal with throughout their lives will have a greater impact on language acquisition and future use
than the number of authentic texts we ask our students to read.
Conclusion
Within the realm of foreign language education, communicative efficiency must hold a higher
priority than grammatical perfection. Just as learning to drive a car requires several distinct
functions to be performed as one complete task, learning a language requires that distinct aspects
of a language meld and work simultaneously. In no other way will our education system
produce competent individuals who can use a second language to benefit themselves and others.
As we continue to refine our education system, preparing ourselves intellectually to face any
challenges we may face as individuals or as a nation, let us not look at language acquisition as an
end goal but rather a means to an end.
Yesterday’s Grammar-Translation Method has served its purpose, but as the world changes so
must our approach to teaching language. Our economy will continue to expand outside the
boundaries of our nation and our society will continue to diversify from within both culturally
and linguistically. The strength of our relationships with each other relies on our ability
understand one another via clear, open communication. Communication is the essence of
foreign language education in the United States. The Communicative Method is an approach
that makes language learning applicable to all learners and it meets the standards to which
educators are held accountable.
In order to bring the Communicative Method to its fullest potential in the classroom there must
be an increase in research on various aspects of this approach: instructional methodology,
instructional materials and assessment. Professional development courses must also be designed
Stolle 17
that can prepare teachers to move towards a more communicative classroom atmosphere.
Educators must network and share their success. The need for speakers of a foreign language
will only increase, so we as educators must meet the demand.
Stolle 18
Works Cited
Allen, J. P., & Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Teaching the communicaive use of English. In C. J.
Brumfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The Communicative approach to language teaching (p.
125). London, England: Oxford University Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.). National standards for foreign
language education. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3392
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.). Testing for proficiency.
Retrieved August 10, 2008, from American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages Web site: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3348
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principals of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Clifford, R. (2008). About ACTFL: Message from the President. Retrieved September 13, 2008,
from American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Web site:
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4013
Communication. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 16, 2008, from
Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communication
Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1990). The development of second
language proficiency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching andsSkill learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Stolle 19
Kercel, S. W., Brown-VanHoozer, S. A., & VanHoozer, W. R. (2002). The Entangled future of
foreign language learning. In T. A. Osborn (Ed.), The Future of foreign language
education in the United States (p. 39). Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching - An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Newmark, L. (1979). How Not to Interfere with Language Learning. In C. J. Brumfit, & K.
Johnson (Eds.), The Communicative approach to language teaching (p. 162). London,
England: Oxford University Press.
Osborn, T. A. (Ed.). (2002). The Future of foreign language education in the United States.
Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
Reagan, T. (2002). "Knowing" and "learning" a foreign language: Epistemological reflections on
classroom practice. In The Future of foreign language education in the United States (pp.
45-61). Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Ruiz-Funes, M. T. (2002). On teaching foreign languages - Linking theory to practice. Westport:
Bergin & Garvey.
Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Answer - NCLB. Retrieved
May 21, 2008, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://answers.ed.gov/cgibin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4
Stolle 20
Wilkins, D. A. (1979). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses. In C. J. Brumfit, & K.
Johnson (Eds.), The Communicative approach to language teaching (p. 82). London,
England: Oxford University Press.