Penny UR - Communicative Approach Revisited

7/14/2019 Penny UR - Communicative Approach Revisited

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/penny-ur-communicative-approach-revisited 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 o Oxord

(MA), Cambridge (PGCE)

and Reading (MA). She

emigrated to Israel in

1967, where she still lives

today. She is married with

our 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 o Education and

Haia University. Shehas presented papers at

TESOL, IATEFL and various

other English teachers’

conerences worldwide.

She has published anumber o articles, and was

or ten years the editor o

the Cambridge Handbooks

or 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 o our jobs as teachers

is to help our students make

the ‘leap’ rom orm-ocused

accuracy work to uent production

by providing a ‘bridge’.

Penny Ur



TheCommunicative

Approach Revisitedby Penny Ur

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

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

thereore, is or the learner to achieve ‘communicative

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

orms o the language. A communicative methodology should

include activities that get learners to use the language tocommunicate with one another, or ‘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 o teaching procedures (drills, grammar

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



outside the classroom, on the assumption that these lead

to useul learning that will later be incorporated into real-

lie language use. The communicative approach, in contrast,

disapproves in principle o such ‘inauthentic’ activities, and

proposes that what learners do in the classroom should be a

recognisable imitation o real-lie 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, o a reaction against the previously widely

used methodologies o grammar-translation and audio-

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

actually conducted in the mother tongue: rules were given,

samples o the language were manipulated, translated

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

and had good mastery o the grammar and vocabulary,

but usually could not actually use the language or direct

communication. In audio-lingualism, which was essentially

based on behaviourist psychology, language was seen as a

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

it stressed the spoken rather than the written orm o the

language.

The communicative approach changed all this. At the level

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

language used was ‘real’ authentic samples o language,

whole discourse or contextualised chunks rather than

discrete items, used or some communicative purpose rather

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

‘correct’. Learner output was ree 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 act, had already been

accepted in audio-lingualism). The teacher’s main role wasnow to acilitate, to provide opportunities or 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

ormat lagged behind, and until very recently most exams in

act tested accuracy rather than uency or communication.)All this can be summed up in the ollowing 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 ocorrect usage

samples ocorrect usage

samples omeaningul use

Learner output controlled controlled less controlled,personal

Tasks languagemanipulation

languagemanipulation

communication

Errors corrected corrected inecessary

oten notcorrected

Mother tongue used not used not used

Tests measure accuracy accuracy uency?

Teacher mainly as instructor,tester

driller acilitator

The coming o the communicative approach represented

or those o 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’ orm o the communicative approach. The

more confdent and knowledgeable o the methodologists

expressed these reservations openly (Swan, 1985). Teachers

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

orthodoxy, but in act many continued with ‘old-ashioned’techniques such as grammar drills, eeling, perhaps, a little

guilty about it.

This eeling o 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 o the proessional

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

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

opinion, nonsense: you are a good teacher i, as a result o

your teaching, students learn the language well and can

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



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

not a value in itsel.

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

o its possible negative aspects; and to think again about

some o the valuable babies we may have thrown out with

the bath water o previous methodologies.

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

accurately: it is not just enough to understand and make

yoursel understood. Accuracy is important because it makes

language more clearly comprehensible; because students eel

they want to use language correctly; and because research

shows that oreign language learners who have a solid basicknowledge o grammar eventually progress urther in the

oreign language than those who acquire the language

intuitively through immersion.

2. Language manipulation. Some useul learning can take

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

in helping students master aspects and items o language.

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

students understand and produce the target language

successully. Very oten learners are aware o this, andactually ask or them.

A summary o research on this and allied points can be ound

in Ellis, 1994.

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

useul or clarifcation and instruction, or quick translation

as an alternative to lengthy and difcult explanation, or

contrastive analysis to raise language awareness and help

students avoid mother-tongue intererence. It also has a

place in testing: i students can give you a rough translationo a oreign language item or text, that is pretty reliable

evidence that they have understood it.

5. Non-authentic language. Authentic language is oten

difcult and very culture-bound. ‘Artifcial’ language can

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

language is, obviously, useul, particularly or advanced



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

many learners.

So we can, perhaps, suggest a compromise methodology

that would aim or both accuracy and uency, that would

use all sorts o dierent kinds o language material, both

authentic and artifcial, both discrete-item and holistic,

whose tasks would involve both language manipulation

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

a summary o 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 o the language both artifcial

and correct, depending on objective and level

stressing both orm and meaning, depending on

objective

Learner output sometimes controlled, sometimes ree, depending

on objective

Tasks producing and understanding correct and

meaningul language

Errors usually corrected

Mother

tongue used when cost eective and to raise language

awareness

Tests measure both uency and accuracy

Teacher as teacher

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

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 eective, but that probably no single method

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

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

best, most eective teaching.’ The dierence between a

language teaching methodology, and language teaching in

general, or pedagogy, is that methodology typically concerns

itsel with a specifc set o procedures, is very closely linked

to language theory and linguistic research, and concentrates

mainly on the nature o language learning: whereas

pedagogy is more concerned with universals o learning

and teaching, is inormed by educational research and the

teaching o other subjects, and sees teaching as a valuable

and interesting process in itsel, worthy o study and research.

This distinction is expressed in rather more detail below.

Methodology Pedagogy

consists o a specifc set o

procedures based on a theory

o the nature o language and

language learning

Uses procedures which produce

eective 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 inormed mainly by linguistic

and applied linguistic research

Is inormed by linguistic,

applied linguistic and

educational research

Is not concerned with the

pedagogy o other subjects

Is very interested in the

pedagogy o other subjects

Focusses on the nature o

language learning: language

teaching is derived rom and

dependent on this

Is inormed by research on

language learning, but sees

teaching itsel as an interesting

process in itsel, to be studied

and researched

The guidelines we need, then, are not the commandments

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

inevitably based on one’s own belies, educational objectives



and experience, enriched by reading and learning. My own

teaching goals might be expressed as ollows (each o you

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

most o the general principles):

• To get my students to learn the language both uently

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

classroom process;

• To get my students to enjoy their learning and eel

pleased about themselves as learners;

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

progress o my students as individuals;

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

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

contrary, we probably need to learn more methodology

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

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

rom whatever sources: examining each in the light o 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 or our students.



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

Oxord 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, Oxord: Oxord 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

ater giving a lesson whether it was

a good one or not, and why.

Penny Ur



One o our jobs as teachers

is to help our students make

the ‘leap’ rom orm-ocused

accuracy work to uent 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

Penny UR - Communicative Approach Revisited

Documents

Transcript of Penny UR - Communicative Approach Revisited