Chapter 33 - Current Approaches in English Language Teaching   

Nicolás Dantaz Rico

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47133/tegc_ch33  

ABSTRACT

In the history of English language teaching (ELT), the 20th century was prolific in the emergence of new teaching methodologies. This ELT era began with a communicative revolution, which, in turn, led to a crisis regarding the concept of method. This crisis opened the way to a post-method landscape, which generated several ELT approaches used in the 21st century. In this chapter, you will learn how this communicative revolution led to the development of Communicative Language Teaching and how this then continued as the main methodological paradigm in ELT. You will learn about three approaches within this paradigm: Task-Based Learning, Presentation-Practice-Production, and Integrated Skills Instruction. You will also learn how to apply these approaches in your classroom. 

Keywords: English language teaching approaches, communicative language teaching, presentation-practice-production, task-based learning, integrated skills instruction

How to cite this chapter: 

Dantaz Rico, N. (2023). Current Approaches in English Language Teaching. In V. Canese & S. Spezzini (Eds.), Teaching English in Global Contexts, Language, Learners and Learning (pp. 399-406). Editorial Facultad de Filosofía, UNA. https://doi.org/10.47133/tegc_ch33 

INTRODUCTION

One of your most challenging decisions as a teacher will be to select from among several teaching methodologies. This decision-making process is difficult for both inexperienced and experienced teachers because of the inherent challenge in trying to articulate your practice with a theoretical rationale. This chapter will guide you in meeting this challenge by describing latest approaches in English language teaching (ELT) and explaining when and how such approaches can best be used.  

BACKGROUND

The second half of the 20th century witnessed a paradigm shift in the teaching of foreign languages. This shift started when Chomsky’s (1965) theory of Linguistic Competence was challenged by Hymes’ (1971) focus on Communicative Competence. It continued with Wilkins’ (1976) Notional Syllabus, which launched the ELT field in a search for functional-oriented instruction. Informed by findings from the emerging field of sociolinguistics, this search led to new ideas about ELT methodology. Littlewood’s (1981) seminal Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) contributed to what later became known as the Post Method Era. Rooted in an interactionist theory of language and a socio-constructivist view of language learning, CLT focuses on teaching languages meaningfully, functionally, and authentically. The underlying premise of CLT is that language should be taught for real-life use.

MAJOR DIMENSIONS

Since its onset in the 1980s, CLT has undergone many adjustments. Originally, CLT was the most communicative approach for teaching a foreign language. It focused on reaching fluency in developing a new language similarly to how native speakers develop their first language. This perspective became known as the strong form of CLT. As postulated by Brumfit (1979), 

Fluency as a basis . . . may be closer to the apparent learner syllabus of the natural learner in total immersion situation, in that the naïve learner operates more on an oral basis of fluent and inaccurate language than a careful building up . . . of accurate items according to a descriptive model. (p. 188)

This strong form of CLT starts with communication, focuses on language use, and prioritizes fluency over accuracy. The weak form of CLT is “more or less standard practice . . . (and) stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program of language teaching” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). An early model of weak CLT originated with Littlewood (1981), who posited pre-communicative activities where the teacher “isolates specific elements of knowledge or skill which compose communicative ability and provides the learner with opportunities to practice them separately” (Nunan, 1987, p. 85). If a teacher “accepts a ‘weak’ interpretation of communicative language teaching, then one must accept the value of grammatical explanation, error correction, and drill. However, learners also need the opportunity to engage in communicative interaction” (p. 141). 

This shift from strong forms of CLT to weak forms of CLT addressed the need to prepare students in their new language at high levels of both fluency and accuracy. Strong forms of CLT brought new lesson activities that, while increasing natural language use in classrooms, also limited teachers’ ability to help students with accuracy. Weak forms of CLT enabled teachers to continue fostering fluency by teaching language functionally while still teaching different language structures. Because of having inspired several other approaches under this same paradigm, the weak forms of CLT have predominated in ELT classrooms worldwide during the early 21st century.

PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS

This section provides descriptions, examples, and applications of three CLT approaches.

Task-Based Learning

Task-Based Learning (TBL) “constitutes a strong version of CLT” (Ellis, 2003, p. 30). An even stronger manifestation of TBL is Task-Based Language Teaching, which started as The Communicational Teaching Project (Prabhu, 1987). Over time, TBL evolved until generally incorporating Willis’s (1996) three-part framework, which includes the following parts: 


TBL is highly communicative and focuses on tasks to help students learn. Each task must have three characteristics: 

In other words, a task is a communicative activity with an unpredictable outcome that is not linguistically oriented. This third aspect (linguistic) is questioned by Ellis (2003), who classified a task as either 


For example, when comparing two places, students at an intermediate level might use a comparative (or superlative) structure: Buenos Aires is bigger than Asunción. However, lower-level learners might convey the same meaning with a coordinating conjunction and negative verb: Buenos Aires is big, but Asunción isn’t.

TBL is not about providing accuracy-driven instruction but rather about developing fluency. When students work on meaning rather than form, they are doing a task that is linguistically unfocused. For example, if they are discussing parental roles in raising children, they might compare, explain, exemplify, agree, disagree, and so on. Because numerous functions interplay when undertaking this task, the language is unpredictable and, therefore, linguistically unfocused. To better understand tasks, Willis (1996) provided the following classification:


Presentation-Practice-Production

The 1990s saw the resurgence of an ELT approach from the 1960s, but with a new name. Resurfacing as Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP), this approach is “based on the grammatical and functional view of language” (Baker & Westrup, 2002, p. 23) and, as such, is classified as a weak form of CLT. With its grammatical and functional roots, PPP is effective for teaching a language system (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) from a communicative view of language learning. Whereas proponents for the strong forms of CLT favor TBL, proponents for the weak forms of CLT understand that PPP teaches language more quickly and effectively while still providing opportunities for students to use language freely and communicatively. With TBL, students go through pre-task and whole task stages (planning, doing, reporting) before reaching the language focus stage. In PPP, students do a warm-up and are then introduced to the new language form. This straightforward PPP process introduces new forms to students while their attention is still high (i.e., before they get tired).

Defined as a weak form of CLT, PPP has three stages: presentation, practice, and production. In the first stage (presentation), the teacher teaches the new language (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation). Although such teaching can be overt or covert, new forms are inductively presented and, if possible, through self-discovery. After students understand the meaning, use, and form of the new language to be learned, they are ready for practice. 

The second stage (practice) can be divided into controlled practice and semi-controlled practice. Here, learners do classroom activities with linguistic goals and predictable outcomes. Because such activities do not entail free communication, they cannot be classified as tasks per the TBL definition. Controlled practice is when students are guided such as when completing a sentence by using the targeted tense of a verb in parentheses. Semi-controlled practice gives more freedom of production but still guides students regarding targeted language forms such as finishing an incomplete sentence. As a teacher, you can do controlled practice, semi-controlled practice, or both. This choice depends on the complexity of language forms and on time availability. Such practice is fundamental in providing scaffolded opportunities for students to use language and reach an understanding of the new language form. After completing this practice stage, students are ready for free production.

In the third stage (production), learners complete a communicative activity with an unpredictable outcome and with a specific linguistic goal. This usually corresponds to a focused task (Ellis, 2003). Here, students embark on free practice by using the language just studied and any other forms needed for authentic communication.

Although some educators have criticized this revitalized approach called PPP, its renewed popularity has led to reformulations such as Engage-Study-Activate (ESA; Harmer, 2015). The three ESA stages have different names than the three PPP stages but represent similar actions. In the Engage stage, the teacher presents new language. In the Study stage, students practice the new language through controlled or semi-controlled practice. In the Activate stage, students freely produce the new language. When using this ESA approach, teachers are encouraged to vary the ordering of these three stages to better meet context and learner needs (which, in turn, might resemble TBL). When faced with choosing either PPP or ESA, consider this perspective: “PPP can be extremely useful in a focus-on-forms lesson, especially at lower levels, but is significantly less relevant in a skills lesson, where focus-on-form may occur as a result of something the students hear or read” (Harmer, 2015, p. 68). 

Integrated Skills Instruction

The 20th century’s communicative revolution identified shortcomings with the teaching of isolated skills given that all skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) become integrated under natural communicative conditions. When you speak, someone listens. When you read, you might also write or perhaps speak and listen. When you write, you will also be reading your own work. With conscious planning, these skills can be combined into one lesson. Hence, gone are the days with language lessons focused on just a single isolated skill. When based on Integrated Skills Instruction, lessons integrate several skills, allowing students to practice language under more natural conditions. 

To effectively teach skills through this integrated approach, teachers use strategies already proven for each skill. This chapter offers notions about which approaches might work well with which skills. For example, when helping students with speaking, consider a TBL approach. When helping students with writing, take a product approach by providing a sample or take a process approach by providing a task with five stages (brainstorming, planning, editing, revising, publishing). When helping students with receptive skills (reading, listening), follow a traditional before/while/after reading sequenced approach (see below). These notions can guide you with implementing Integrated Skills Instruction. 

Isolated-skills lessons and integrated-skills lessons both follow sequenced activities but differ in activities needed to use specific skills. In isolated-skills lessons, all activities use one skill (e.g., reading). In integrated-skills lessons, an activity using one skill (e.g., reading) leads to the next activity, which uses another skill (e.g., listening). For example, in a lesson for beginning students about houses, you might have a text about houses in Paraguay and an audio about houses around the world. By using both, you can integrate two skills (reading, listening). When students read a text, this corresponds to the “while” of a reading sequence. When they reflect on what they read, this corresponds to the “after” of a reading sequence. Here, by responding to the teacher’s elicitation questions, students reflect on how Paraguayan houses might differ from houses worldwide and, also, predict whether such houses might have a garage and how it is used. In this after-reading activity, students use information from the text about Paraguayan houses, build their content and linguistic knowledge, predict about houses worldwide, and prepare for the next activity and skill. The reading and elicitation activity triggers students’ interest and their schemata for the next activity, which is listening to an audio about houses worldwide. Hence, the “after” of the first activity (reflecting after having read about Paraguayan houses) serves as the “before” for the next activity (listening to an audio about houses worldwide).

This example shows how both receptive skills (reading and listening) can be integrated in the same lesson. A similar procedure is followed when one skill is receptive (reading or listening) and the other skill is productive (speaking or writing). Like above, students start by reading. While doing so, they think about other aspects related to a house (furniture, rooms, garage) and perhaps brainstorm a list. However, instead of listening to an audio (as in the previous example), they talk with each other, compare ideas, and, if applicable, share their brainstormed lists. By talking with each other, students confirm and expand on what they had read in the text. Once again, this “after” of the first activity serves as the “before” for the next activity. Here, the next activity is the lesson’s main task, that of students individually designing the house of their dreams. With this task-based approach, an integrated-skills lesson can resemble TBL. After students finish designing their dream house, they share their projects with group members. This lesson ends with groups sharing dream houses with the whole class, and the teacher guiding students in identifying similarities and differences. 

In this chapter, you learned how the communicative revolution led to CLT. You learned about three ELT approaches (TBL, PPP, Integrated Skills Instruction) commonly used in the early 21st century. You also received suggestions for applying these approaches in your ELT classroom.

KEY CONCEPTS

Here are some key concepts about major ELT approaches used in the early 21st century:

DISCUSSING

Develop meaningful answers to these questions about ELT approaches:

TAKING ACTION

Practice what you have learned about ELT approaches:

EXPANDING FURTHER 

To expand your knowledge about major ELT approaches, watch the following videos:

SEE ALSO

Insights to teaching methods are also addressed by other chapters in this book: 

Chapter 3 The Diversity of English Classes by R. Díaz

Chapter 25 Preparing to Teach Through Effective Lesson Planning by H. Lalwani

Chapter 26 Counterbalancing Content and Language Integrated Instruction by A. Roca

Chapter 32 Major ELT Trends in the 20th Century by C. Onatra and S. Palencia

Chapter 34 Alternative Approaches to English Language Teaching by G. Díaz Maggioli

Chapter 36 Task-Based Approach With Adult Learners by I. Giménez and C. Rolón

Chapter 37 Engage-Study-Activate With Adult Learners by C. Rolón and I. Giménez

Chapter 43 Strategies to Teach Integrated Skills by L. Fuller 

REFERENCES

Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2000). The English language teacher’s handbook: How to teach large classes with few resources. Continuum; Bloomsbury Academic.

Brumfit, C. (1979). “Communicative” language teaching: An educational perspective. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.). The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 183-191). Oxford University Press. 

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1971) Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3-23). Academic Press.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 14(2), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.2.136 

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. R. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Pearson Education.

Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. Oxford University Press 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nicolás Dantaz Rico is a passionate and enthusiastic teacher and teacher trainer. Nicolás earned an undergraduate degree in English language teaching from the Instituto de Profesores Artigas (Uruguay) and a master’s degree in applied linguistics from the Universidad Europea del Atlántico (Spain). He pursued a doctorate in education, with a focus on teacher training, from the Universidad Internacional Iberoamericana (Mexico), and has conducted research on the role of communication in the language classroom. Nicolás works as a didactics professor at the Consejo de Formación Docente Uruguay and as a methods professor for the post-graduate diploma at the Universidad ORT del Uruguay. 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3055-2637 

Email for correspondence regarding this chapter: ndantaz@gmail.com

Cover Photo by Josh Applegate on Unsplash