A Summary of Communicative Language

Teaching Today (chapter 1 to 3)

Many language teachers claim to have make use of communicative methodology in their
classroom. Nonetheless, when they are questioned what this communicative really is, the
answers are very much varied. So, what is CLT for real?

CLT can be understood as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners
learn a language, kinds of classroom activities which best fascilitate learning, and the roles of
teacher and learners in the classroom.

What is the goal of language teaching?

LT aims to teach communicative competence of  which this includes several aspects, such as :

 Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions
 Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants
(e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language
appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication)
  Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives,
reports, interviews, conversations)
 Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language
knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication strategies)

How learners learn a language?

In recent years, language learning has been viewed from a very different perspective. It is seen as
resulting from processes such as:
  Interaction between the learner and users of the language
 Collaborative creation of meaning
  Creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language
 Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at understanding
 Learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use the language
 Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying to incorporate new
forms into one’s developing communicative competence
 Trying out and experimenting with different ways of saying things

What activities best fascilitate learning?

Accuracy vs fluency activities; mechanical, meaningful, and communicative practice;

information-gap activities; jigsaw activities; emphasis on pair and grop work, authenticity
practice.

The Roles of Teachers and Learners in the Classroom

CLT implied new roles in the classroom for teachers and learners. Learners now have to
participate in classroom activities that are based on a cooperative rather than individualistic
approach to learning. Students had to become comfortable with listening to their peers in group
work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model. They need to take on a
greater degree of responsibility for their own learning. And teachers now have to assume the role
of facilitator and monitor, rather than being a model. They have develop a different view of
learners’ errors and of her/his own role in facilitating language learning either.

Background of CLT

There are three phases in LT in the last 50 years, they are :

 Phase 1 Traditional Approach (upto the late 1960s)

It gave priority on grammatical competence as the basis of language proficiency. The approach
used was that of deductive one of which students were presented with grammar rules and then
given opportunities to practice using them

 Phase 2 Classic CLT (1970s – 1990s)

Since 1970s it had been realized that communicative competence was needed in order to use the
language communicatively. In planning a language courses within a communicative approach,
grammar was no longer use as the starting point. It was argued that a syllabus should identify the
following aspects of language use in order to be able to develop the learner’s communicative
competence:

 As detailed a consideration as possible of the purposes for which the learner wishes to
acquire the target language; for example, using English for business purposes, in the hotel
industry, or for travel10 Communicative Language Teaching Today
   The socially defined role the learners will assume in the target language, as well as the
role of their interlocutors; for example, as a traveler, as a salesperson talking to clients, or
as a student in a school
 Some idea of the setting in which they will want to use the target language; for example,
in an office, on an airplane, or in a store
 The communicative events in which the learners will participate: everyday situations,
vocational or professional situations, academic situations, and so on; for example, making
telephone calls, engaging in casual conversation, or taking part in a meeting
 The language functions involved in those events, or what the learner will be able to do
with or through the language; for example, making introductions, giving explanations, or
describing plans
 The notions or concepts involved, or what the learner will need to be able to talk about;
for example, leisure, finance, history, religion
 The skills involved in the “knitting together” of discourse: discourse and rhetorical
skills; for example, storytelling, giving an effective business presentation
  The variety or varieties of the target language that will be needed, such as American,
Australian, or British English, and the levels in the spoken and written language which
the learners will need to reach
 The grammatical content that will be needed
 The lexical content, or vocabulary, that will be needed

(van Ek and Alexander 1980)

 This led to two important new directions in the 1970s and 1980s – proposals for a
communicative syllabus, and the ESP movement.

 Phase 3 Current CLT (1990s – now)

Since the 1990s, the communicative approach has been widely implemented. Current
communicative language teaching theory and practice thus draws on a number of different
educational paradigms and traditions. communicative language teaching today refers to a set of
generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in different ways, depending on the teaching
context, the age of the learners, their level, their learning goals, and so on.

( retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/24906420/Jack-C-Richards-Communicative-

Language-Teaching-Today and http://www.google.co.id/imgres?
q=Communicative+Language+Teaching+today )
Professor Jack C. Richards

What is CBLT?

Question:
Submitted by Luc Danon from Cote D’ivoire
What is CBLT? What are its didactic implications?

Dr Richards responds:
Competency-based instruction is an approach to the planning and delivery of courses that has been in
widespread use since the 1970s. What characterizes a competency-based approach is the focus on the
outcomes of learning, as the driving force of teaching and the curriculum. The application of its
principles to language teaching is called competency-based language teaching. Because this approach
seeks to teach the skills needed to perform real-world tasks, it became widely used, from the 1980s,
as the basis for many English language programmes for immigrants and refugees, as well as for
work-related courses of many different kinds. It is an approach that has been the foundation for the
design of work-related and survival-oriented language teaching programmes for adults. It seeks to
teach students the basic skills they need in order to prepare them for situations they commonly
encounter in everyday life. Recently, competency-based frameworks have become adopted in many
countries, particularly for vocational and technical education. They are also increasingly being
adopted in national language curriculums.
CBLT is often used in programmes that focus on learners with very specific language needs. In such
cases, rather than seeking to teach general English, the specific language skills needed to function in
a specific context is the focus. This is similar, then, to an ESP approach. There, too, the starting point
in course planning is an identification of the tasks the learner will need to carry out within a specific
setting and the language demands of those tasks. (The Common European Framework of Reference
also describes learning outcomes in terms of competencies). The competencies needed for successful
task performance are then identified, and used as the basis for course planning. Teaching methods
used may vary, but typically are skill-based, since the focus is on developing the ability to use
language to carry out real-world activities.
r Name Password Sign In

Download article

Vol. 38 No. 2, 2014

Special issue: Competency-Based Education in Mexico
Published: August, 2014
ISSN: 2395-9908

Introduction to Competency-Based Language Teaching*

W. I. Griffith1, Hye-Yeon Lim2
1 
University of Texas at Austin, Retired, 2 Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center*
Contact:   
* * The views expressed are my own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Department of Defense, or the U.S.
Government.
Abstract: This paper provides a brief introduction to competency-based education. In
competency-based language teaching (CBLT), students must demonstrate that they are able to
use language to complete a real-world task. The shift in focus from knowing about to doing with
the language requires important changes from traditional classrooms if CBLT is to be successful.
Students must become active learners as teachers step into their new role as facilitators.
Materials must be authentic and task-related. Assessments must focus more on providing
information about a student’s progress than on providing a grade for an assignment. In the end,
what matters is that each student is able to master a competency before being able to move on
to the next.
Keywords: competency-based education

Competency-Based Education

Competency-based education (CBE) is surging in popularity as schools around the world

scramble to implement their own versions of competency-based curricula (cf. Ash, 2012;
Mulder, Eppin, & Akkermans, 2011; Nederstigt & Mulder, n.d.; Wong, 2008). What is behind
this newfound popularity and what does it really mean for foreign language teachers,
classrooms, and students?

Competency-based education has its roots firmly in the Behaviorist tradition popularized in the
United States during the 1950s by educators such as Benjamin Bloom. CBE became popular in
the U.S. during the 1970s where it was used in vocational training programs. The approach
spread to Europe in the 1980sand by the 1990s, it was being used in Australia to measure
professional-skills. Throughout its evolution, CBE has been known by a variety of names
including performance-based learning, criterion-referenced learning, and capabilities-driven
instruction (Bowden, 2004).

Because there is no conclusive evidence showing a link between knowledge about a subject and
the ability to use that information in context, CBE expressly focuses on what learners can do
rather than on what they know (Smith & Patterson, 1998). The basic idea is to focus on
objective and observable outcomes which can be easily measured. CBE requires that students
demonstrate value-added skills which are assessed by looking at outcomes rather than process
(Bowden, 2004; Guskey, 2005).

Competency-Based Language Teaching

Competency-based language teaching (CBLT) is an application of the principles of CBE to a

language setting (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Its earliest applications were probably in adult
survival-language programs for immigrants. By the 1990s, the approach had become so widely
accepted in the U.S. that refugees wishing to receive federal assistance were required to attend
some kind of competency-based ESL program to learn the skills necessary to function in society
(Auerbach, 1986; Grognet & Crandall, 1982).

CBLT demands that language be connected to a social context rather than being taught in
isolation. CBLT requires learners to demonstrate that they can use the language to
communicate effectively (Paul, 2008;Richards & Rodgers, 2001;Wong, 2008). According to
Docking (1994), CBLT:

…is designed not around the notion of subject knowledge but around the notion of
competency. The focus moves from what students know about language to what they can
do with it. The focus on competencies or learning outcomes underpins the curriculum
framework and syllabus specification, teaching strategies, assessment and reporting.
Instead of norm-referencing assessment, criterion-based assessment procedures are used
in which learners are assessed according to how well they can perform on specific learning
tasks. (p.16)

Competencies

A competency refers to "critical work functions" or tasks in a defined setting (Learning

DesignsInc., 2011; Richards & Rogers, 2001).Successful completion of each specific task involves
a set of skills and knowledge which must be accurately applied. In CBLT, a competency can be
understood as the final task specified at the end of a learning module. For example, the
Ministry of Education in Mexico (i.e., Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP) identifies several
competencies including “write notes to describe the components of different human body
systems in a chart” , “understand and write instructions to face an environmental emergency”,
and “express oral complaints about a health service” (SEP, 2011). These are the final tasks that
each student is expected to do in order to have mastered the specified competencies.

In CBLT, students learn to use the language in authentic situations likely to be encountered
outside the classroom. For instance, a student might have to fill out an application form,
provide a personal medical history, or give directions on how to complete a specific task.
Although students must practice in order to become competent, competencies are not practice
activities. Competencies are not activities done for the sake of giving a student a grade,nor are
they done only to allow a student to become better at a task. Competencies are practical
applications of language in context.

Well-designed competencies include several components. First, they describe the specific
knowledge and skills that can be applied to novel and complexsituations. Theknowledge and
skills must have value beyond the classroom because if you teach the principles and how to
learn, that knowledge will be useful for a student’s whole lifetime. For example, the ability to
understand emergency instructions is important outside of the classroom and that knowledge
will be useful for years in the future. Next, each competency must have clear performance
criteria that allow students to know where they are and what they need to work on to improve.
Each task requires its own specific rubric identifying specific weaknessesand strengths. Finally,
the competency must be personalized (Sturgis, 2012). Poorly designed, non-explicit criteria and
tasks will likely lead to probable failure since it would be difficult or even impossible to specify
what needs to be done and to determine whether or not such competencies have been
achieved.

CBLT requires a new approach to teaching, although not one that is necessarily new to most of
the language educators(Online Learning Insights, 2012). Classes must be student-centered with
a focus on what students can do. The ability to recite grammar rules or to identify errors in a
written practice is not sufficient to measure competence. Students must demonstrate that they
can accomplish specific tasks that are likely to be encountered in the real-world using the
target-language.

Instead of being knowledge-focused, competency-based courses are built around the skills
necessary to carry out specified tasks. Suppose the specific competency is to “make a telephone
call to an office to complain about a service”.What skills would be needed to complete such a
task? Several come immediately to mind, including:

    the ability to read and understand telephone numbers;

    the ability to identify oneself when answering or calling;
    the ability to ask to speak to someone;
    the ability to respond to a request to holdthe line;
    the ability to give a message or respond to an offer to take a message;
    the ability to express opinions politely following the target language conventional
cultural norms;
    the ability to use past tenses; and
    the ability to provide relevant information.

In this example, daily lessons would be planned around information and activities that
addressed these individual subcomponents. At each step along the way, students would receive
information providing feedback about their individual progress toward mastering the
competency.

Role of the Teacher

The role of the teacher changes from one of being an information-giver to that of a facilitator
(Organization of American States, 2006; Sturgis & Patrick, 2010). This does not mean that
teachers no longer give information, but that they give different types of information and
deliver it in different ways. Teachers provide the materials, the activities, and the practice
opportunities to their students (Paul, 2008). The quality and authenticity of these materials are
central to the success of class.

Planning becomes a central part of the teaching process. First, each competency must be
identified. Each competency must be subdivided into the relevant skills. Modules must then be
developed which allow students the opportunity to learn and practice those skills. Teachers
must determine exactly what and how well students must perform in order to master the
competency. Specific rubrics assessing each competency must be developed and made public
to the students from the beginning of the lesson (Auerbach, 1986; Richards & Rogers, 2001).

Teachers will have to devote large amounts of time to creating activities related to the specific
skills necessary to fulfill the competency requirements. Significant time will also be required to
assess students and provide specific, directed, and personalized feedback (Richards & Rogers,
2001).

Role of the Student

The role of the student must also change. Students will no longer be able to rely only on the
teacher and the classroom to be the primary sources of information. Instead, students become
apprentices. Their role will be to integrate, produce, and extend knowledge (Jones et al., 1994).
Students take an active part in their own learning and work toward being autonomous learners.
They learn to think critically and to adapt and transfer knowledge across a variety of settings.
Because expectations and standards are clear and precise, students have to be committed to
continuing to work on each competency, mastering it, and then progressing to
another(Richards & Rogers, 2001; Sturgis, 2012).

Students may be resistant to this approach in the beginning, especially if they do not see any
real need for learning the language. Successful classroom interaction depends on student
participation. Students need to find ways to motivate themselves and find ways to apply
information to their own lives and to integrate it into the classroom. Students must be willing to
challenge, to question, and to initiate in the CBLT classroom (Marcellino, 2005).

Activities, Materials, and Syllabus

Although teachers are free to develop the strategies and tactics most likely to work in a given
educational setting, the design of a CBLT syllabus is different from those of more traditional
classes. Rather than being organized around specific language topics, CBLT courses are
developed around competencies and the skills necessary for mastery. Each day and each unit
focus on the skills necessary to move students along the path toward mastery. Syllabi must
include performance activities that allow the student to practice the requisite skills (Griffith &
Lim, 2010; Richards & Rogers, 2001; Wong, 2008).

This may require a shift in both thinking and organization. In many traditional classes, lessons
are likely to be organized by topics such as present tense, past tense, irregular past tense,
future tense with be going to, and so on. While these topics will still be taught, they will not
drive the lesson nor will they be the focus. Instead, if a specific competency requires a student
to use the past tense, then teachers will introduce that form and the vocabulary necessary for
the specific task. The tense would be taught as an integral part of the lesson, along with
relevant vocabulary, register, pronunciation, and so on. This suggests that, rather than being
taught as a unit, the past tense may be introduced in multiple units depending on need. This
allows modules to build on each other and students to practice skills learned earlier.

Class materials must be oriented to doing rather than knowing. There should be few exercises
that require students to fill in the blank, circle the right answer, or specifically test only
grammar. Rather, each task should be developed around a real-world situation requiring the
use of some or all of the components of the specified competency. For example, if the
competency is “giving personal information”, then tasks must require students to use
knowledge about self to produce such information. Students mightpractice by creating a family
tree, talking about favorite pastimes, or describing what they did over the weekend. Notice that
the student is required to do something with the language (Richard & Rogers, 2001). Each of
these activities requires the student to present knowledge about self.

The activities in the CBLT classroom must be oriented toward the ability to successfully
complete a real-world task. The most effective materials will be authentic sample texts related
to a specific competency (e.g., completed job applications; recordings of a complaint about a
service). The materials help provide students with the essential skills, knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors required to meet the competency standards.

Assessments

Assessments can take one of two forms: formative or summative. Formative assessments are
used to determine how well a student is progressing along the path to competency. Formative
assessments must be frequent and specific. Because their goal is to assess progress and provide
information about strengths and weaknesses, they are rarely graded. In CBE, the majority of
assessments will be formative. Summative assessments, on the other hand, are designed to
determine whether or not the student has mastered the competency. Therefore, summative
assessments are typically administered at the end of each module as the final test. A student
failing a summative assessment cannot move on to the next competency(Online Learning
Insights, 2012; Richards & Rogers, 2001). Instead, the student must repeat the unit until
mastery is achieved. Summative assessments are performance-based and may include a variety
of measurement tools. Paper-and-pencil tests cannot be used to assess a competency except
perhaps unless one is assessing a writing competency. True-false, fill-in-the-blank, and multiple
choice tests are forever banished from the CBLT classroom as final competency assessments
(Richards & Rogers, 2001; Sturgis, 2012; Sturgis & Patrick, 2010).

Assessments, like activities, must be authentic. Wiggins (1990) suggests that to be truly
authentic, assessments must consider the task, the context, and the evaluation criteria.
Authentic tasks require the use of knowledge and skills to complete a task. Similarly, authentic
assessments require the measurement of real-world tasks. For instance, giving students a series
of mathematics problems to solve on a test is not a good real world activity. Measuring how
many correct answers a student got is not an authentic assessment. In the real world, who is
randomly given a sheet with a series of math problems to solve for no reason other than getting
a grade? On the other hand, asking students to figure out how much paint is required to paint a
house, would be a good example. An assessment that determined whether or not the student
had purchased the correct amount of paint for the job would be an authentic assessment that
in fact measured the ability to complete the job.

For a language class, having students draw a poster or chart describing the human body and
identifying the major systems (e.g., nervous system, digestive system) would not be a good
real-world assessment choice. Very few people in the world would be required to draw such a
chart simply for the purpose of drawing a chart. Having students describea medical problem
would be a better choice. People are often required in daily life to provide a description of pain,
where it hurts, what makes it hurt, and so on. It is clear that knowledge about the language
(e.g., the parts of the human body, present tense) is required to complete the specific
competency (i.e., explaining a medical problem to a doctor) but the assessment measures the
ability to use that knowledge in context.

The followingtable, based on the work of O’Connor (2002), summarizes the differences
between assessments and grades in traditional classes and those in competency-based classes.
Table 1: Traditional Versus Competency-Based Grading Style

Conclusion

In a competency-based curriculum, students are rewarded only for successful completion of

authentic tasks. Ideally, at the beginning of a course, each student is given an initial assessment
determining the level of proficiency. Students then proceed to learn the material, at their own
pace, getting lots of informational feedback from the teachers. Students know, at every level of
their work, where they are and what they need to do to meet the competency standards.

Some have criticized this approach saying it may be impossible or impractical to identify every
necessary competency for specific situations (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Tollefson, 1986).
Supporters, however, argue that if students have clearly specified tasks and useful feedback,
they are more likely to be able to learn to use the language in practical settings (Docking, 1994;
Rylatt & Lohan, 1997).

Whatever your view, it is clear that competency-based education is more popular than ever. If
it is to be successful, both students and teachers need to step out of their comfort zones and
adopt new roles. In the short term, this unfamiliarity may create uncertainty and discomfort but
as classes progress the benefits should become clear. If, however, students and teachers try to
adopt a competency-based approach without making the necessary changes in their own
behavior, the results are likely to be unsuccessful. On the other hand, if both embrace their
new roles, they are likely to find learning becomes more effective and useful.
References

Ash, K. (2012). Competency-based schools embrace digital learning. Education Week, 6(1), 36-
41. Retrieved 19 August 2014 from
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2012/10/17/01competency.h06.html

Auerbach, E. R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two steps back? TESOL
Quarterly, 20(3), 411–415.

Bowden, J. A. (2004). Competency-based learning. In S. Stein & S. Farmer(Eds.), Connotative

Learning: The Trainer’s Guide to Learning Theories and Their Practical Application to Training
Design (pp. 91-100). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Docking, R. (1994). Competency-based curricula-The big picture. Prospect, 9(2), 8-17.

Griffith, W. I., & Lim, H.-Y. (2010). Making student-centered teaching work. MEXTESOL Journal,
34(1), 75-83.

Grognet, A. G., & Crandall, J. (1982). Competency-based curricula in adult ESL. ERIC/CLL New
Bulletin, 6, 3-4.

Guskey, T. (2005). Mapping the road to proficiency. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 32-38.

Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing Learning and
Technology for Educational Reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Learning DesignsInc.(2011). Competency-based Training. Retrieved 19 August 2014from

http://www.learningdesigns.com/Competency-based-training.shtml

Marcellino, M. (2005). Competency-based language instruction in speaking classes: Its theory

and implementation in Indonesian contexts.Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching,
1(1), 33-44.

Mulder, M., Eppink, H., & Akkermans, L. (2011). Competence-Based Education as an Innovation
in East-Africa. Retrieved 19 August 2014from http://www.mmulder.nl/PDF%20files/2011-08-
24%20Paper%20MM%20ECER%202011.pdf

Nederstigt, W., & Mulder, M. (n.d.). Competence Based Education in Indonesia: Evaluating the
Matrix of Competence-Based Education in Indonesian Higher Education.Retrieved 19 August
2014from http://edepot.wur.nl/193715

O’Connor, K.(2002). How to Grade for Learning: Linking Grades to Standards (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Online Learning Insights.(2012, June 12). The next big disruptor: Competency-based learning.
[Web log comment]. Retrieved 19 August
2014fromhttp://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-next-big-disruptor-
competency-based-learning/

Organization of American States.(2006). A coordinator’s guide to implementing competency-

based education (CBE) in schools. OAS HemisphericProject on School Management and
Educational Certification for Training and Accreditation of Labour and Key Competencies in
Secondary Education. Retrieved 19 August 2014from
http://www.moe.gov.tt/Docs/ICIU/CompetencyBasedEducation.pdf

Paul, G. (2008, December 16). Competency-Based Language Teaching Report. [Web log
comment]. Retrieved 19 August
2014fromhttp://glendapaul62.blogspot.com/2008/12/competency-based-language-
teaching.html

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Rylatt, A. & Lohan, K. (1997). Creating Training Miracles. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2011). National English Program in Basic Education: Syllabus
2011, Cycle 4, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Grades Secondary School (Preliminary Version). Mexico City:
Secretaría de Educación Pública.

Smith, J., &Patterson, F. (1998). PositivelyBilingual: Classroom Strategies to Promote the

Achievement of Bilingual Learners. Nottingham: Nottingham Education Authority.

Sturgis, C. (2012). The art and science of designing competencies.Competency Works Issue
Brief.Retrieved 19 August 2014from http://www.nmefoundation.org/getmedia/64ec132d-
7d12-482d-938f-ce9c4b26a93b/CompetencyWors-IssueBrief-DesignCompetencies-Aug-2012

Sturgis, C., & Patrick, S. (2010). When Success is the only Option: Designing Competency-Based
Pathways for Next Generation Learning. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Retrieved 19 August 2014from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/iNACOL_SuccessOnlyOptn.pdf

Tollefson, J. (1986). Functional competencies in the U.S. refugee program: Theoretical and
practical problems. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 649–664.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The Case for Authentic Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 2(2). Retrieved 19 August 2014from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2

Wong, R. M. H. (2008). Competency-based English teaching and learning: Investigating pre-

service teachers of Chinese’s learning experience. Porta Linguarum 9, 179-198. Retrieved 19
August 2014from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero9/13%20Ruth%20Ming.pdf
MEXTESOL Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Asociación Méxicana de Maestros de Inglés, MEXTESOL A.C.
Fax/Telephone: (55) 5566-8774, (55) 5566-8749