Revisiting the Concepts ‘Approach’,

‘Design’ and ‘Procedure’ according to the

Richards and Rodgers (2001) framework

Brett CUMMING

Abstract
The three concepts Approach, Design and Procedure as proposed in
Rodger’s Framework are considered particularly effective as a framework
in second language teaching with the specific aim of developing com-
munication as well as for better understanding methodology in the use of
communicative language use.

This paper will identify and examine the three elements proposed by
Richards and Rodger’s Framework (hereafter referred to as R&R): ‘Ap-
proach’, ‘Design’ and ‘Procedure’, also viewed as “interrelated elements of
organisation upon which language-teaching practices are founded” (Richards,
1985, p. 17, Richards and Rogers, 1982, p. 154, Long & Richards, 1987,
p. 146). The correlation and interconnectedness that exists between these
elements and the teaching of a Second Language (L2) will also be critically
examined, with a specific example focussing on the teaching methodology
of communicative language teaching. Furthermore, methods (of which come
different goals, role of L1, focuses and selection of material) in addition

― 299 ―
to their use in L2 teaching will be looked at, and by drawing on various
research, this essay will analyse the effectiveness and value of the above
framework proposed by R&R in understanding L2 methodology. Finally,
examples of communicative language use in the ‘procedure’ component will
be provided as will the methodology of communicative language teaching
based on the specific aim of communication, in connection with the role
the framework plays.
To begin with, ‘approach’ encompasses both language learning and
language, and the theories that inherently define them. This relationship
between approach, design and procedure is one of clarity because of the
provision of psycholinguistic and linguistic rationale relevant when choos-
ing L2 teaching related techniques and tasks. Underlying approaches are
principles that relate theoretically to methods, and in looking at theory,
Richards’s goal was to examine linguistic competence and fundamental
characteristics of linguistic organisation (Richards, 1985).
As a definition, Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 19) state approach as
“the level at which assumptions and beliefs about language and language
learning are specified”. Additionally, Richards (1985, p. 17) proposed an
additional element to approach as “theories about the nature of language
and the nature of language learning that operate as axiomatic constructs
or reference points and provide a theoretical foundation for what language
teachers ultimately do with learners in the classroom.” Thus, in this sense,
approach is how theories of language acquisition and teaching tie in with
sources of principles of language teaching (Richards and Rodger, 2001),
showing the importance that approach plays in the role of elucidating the
need for teachers to incorporate beliefs into their teaching.
Before delving further into approach, it is important to make a distinc-
tion between the often overlapping terms of methodology, methods and

― 300 ―
approaches, to avoid confusion. It is within methodology in fact that a
distinction should be made in that methods are often seen as teaching
systems with fixed practices or techniques while approaches are more rec-
ognised as philosophies in the classroom applied in different ways (Nunan,
1991). Another reason cited behind the deliberate non-use of the term
‘method’ in R&R’s framework, was their preference it seems “to use it
as an umbrella term to refer to the broader relationship between theory
and practice in language teaching” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 86). This is
in fact seen as a shortcoming of the framework by some in the confusing
use of terminology applied.
Richards (1985, p. 16) too in his own words similarly states R&R’s
preference to use the term method “for the specification and interrelation of
theory and practice.” Finally, on this topic, to add an enriched interpretation
of the term ‘method’, Richards (1985, p. 32) summarises his use of it as
referring to “a language-teaching philosophy that contains a standardised set
of procedures or principles for teaching a language that are based upon a
given set of theoretical premises about the nature of language and language
learning”, with essentially two routes that lead to the development of such
methods, i.e. either syllabus-based or alternatively based on procedures and
processes of learning and instruction. Rodgers (2001) too offers a slightly
different take by distinguishing between methods and approaches in that
approaches are more philosophies in language teaching which can be ap-
plied in various ways whilst methods are more teaching systems that are
essentially fixed with techniques that are generally prescribed.
In looking at different language teaching methods and second language
teaching practices, there are naturally a number to choose from, and in a
similar vein to what Nunan proposed, these can be categorised into different
styles. On this point, Cook (2001, p. 199) defines style as reflecting “the

― 301 ―
element of fashion and changeability in teaching” and something which
is not used “as an academic term with a precise definition but as a loose
overall label that we can use freely to talk about teaching.” Ultimately
though, it is the aim to develop communication which is pivotal to this
argument and although numerous such styles exist including academic
teaching, audio-lingual, mainstream EFT as well as others that are more
than just language orientated (Cook, 2001), the focus here is on the com-
municative style with the specific aim of developing interaction both in
and out of the classroom.
According to Cook (2001), the communicative teaching style (CTS) is
a method that gained considerable popularity in the 1970’s and 80’s and
has since been incorporated in teaching practices to replace in a sense a
previous focus on linguistic competence. This style can also be further
categorised into three separate areas of i) social communicative, ii) informa-
tion communicative and iii) task-based learning, each emphasising slightly
different functions (Cook, 2001).
Actually, in spite of the fact much effort in language teaching has focussed
on different approaches and methods in pursuit of the best way, there has
been a “shift away from a focus on methods” as a result of the realisation
that “there never was and probably never will be a method for all” (Nunan,
1991, p. 228). Nunan (ibid.) also sees approaches able to be categorised
into three different traditions: i) psychological covering audio-lingualism
and cognitive code learning, ii) humanistic that include community language
learning, the silent way and suggestopedia and finally iii) second language
ones that comprise of the natural approach and the total physical response.
This communicative teaching style advocates a number of principles and
overshadowed Situational Language Teaching which encompassed methods
such as Community Language Learning, Total Physical Response, Suggesto-

― 302 ―
pedia and the Silent Way. Principles incorporated in CTS include learners’
objective to ultimately be able to communicate, with communication that is
authentic and meaningful highly important in the goal of fluency, something
that needs to incorporate different language skills (Rodgers, 2001). Rodgers
(2001) believes in fact CTS is better seen as an approach more so than a
method as a result of the prescription of practices to be used not gener-
ally employed, with examples of such approaches known in the language
teaching field as the Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning,
Content-Based Teaching and Task-Based Teaching, synoptically explained
in the following chart in terms of the method and respective roles of such
methods by both teacher and learner (Rodgers, 2001).

TEACHING METHODS AND TEACHER & LEARNER ROLES

Method Teacher Roles Learner Roles
Context Setter Imitator
Situational Language Teaching
Error Corrector Memorizer
Language Pattern Practiser
Audio-lingualism Modeller Accuracy
Drill Leader Enthusiast
Communicative Language Needs Analyst Improviser
Teaching Task Designer Negotiator
Commander Order Taker
Total Physical Response
Action Monitor Performer
Community Language Counsellor Collaborator
Learning Paraphraser Whole Person
Actor Guesser
The Natural Approach
Props User Immerser
Auto-hypnotist Relaxer
Suggestopedia
Authority Figure True-Believer

― 303 ―
 In looking at the second level of the framework, i.e. ‘design’, Richards
(1985, p. 17) states its characteristics as the “relationship of theories of
language and learning to both the form and function of instructional materials
and activities in instructional settings”. In other words, it is the connec-
tion of how learning and language come together in language teaching as
instructional design features and how they are viewed. Richards (1985, p.
197) also gives another definition further adding to the scope of design,
stating it “thus refers to the operationalization of information and theory into
a form from which objectives can be formulated and learning experiences
planned.” Whatever the case, design and components such as assessment of
learner needs, isolation of micro-skills, diagnostic testing and formulation
of objectives are all paramount prior to instructionally based activities
commencing (Richards, 1985).
On a different note, depending on what theory design is built upon
naturally determines the outcome of what linguistic matter is identified,
highlighting the importance of this second level. Richards (1985, p. 20
& 21) sees structurally based theory that is incorporated into design for
instance as resulting in identifying “lexis and grammar”, whilst one “built
on a functional theory of language” results in linguistic content thus being
organised in a conceptual manner. However, another example shows designs
being built on interactional theories using goals which are interactive as
key principles in the choice of content. Ultimately though, it is within
this second level of R&R’s framework that the objectives of a method are
concerned with, as well as the method’s criteria, sequencing, and form
the content that is used in a syllabus (Richards, 1985). In short, design
encapsulates elements of objectives, the organisation of its content as well
as the role of the teacher, students and materials.
As for the third level of the framework, ‘procedure’, it appears to be

― 304 ―
in a similar vein to technique, and according to Kumaravadivelu (2006,
p. 86), is “the actual moment-to-moment classroom activity” including
“a specification of context of use and a description of precisely what is
expected in terms of execution and outcome for each exercise type.” Hence,
it essentially refers to techniques and teaching practices that correlate to
both learning and teaching, the specific tasks and exercises undertaken
in class and resources used in order to facilitate such tasks, or in other
words the results of designs and approaches incorporated in the context
of actual teaching. Procedural elements thus refer to specific tasks and
exercises according to particular methods (Richards, 1985), e.g. tasks that are
interactive, use drills, contextualised so that certain dialogues are included
and so forth. Therefore, issues that relate to certain teaching and learning
techniques, in addition to resources used in order to implement them, fall
under the umbrella of this third level in the framework.
From a pedagogical point of view and what procedure needs to focus
on in terms of activities comes a number of interrelated factors that one
needs to consider in the development of a syllabus or simply prior to the
utilisation of such tasks. Examples are the validity of the content, the task’s
purposefulness, the objective being either to teach or test, as well as its
authenticity (Richards, 1985). Furthermore, from the pedagogical perspective
of design, approach and procedure coming together as a framework, this
model can be used as a tool for understanding L2 teaching methodology
in its ability to compare and evaluate different teaching methods in a
broad sense.
In looking at a specific methodology, the example to be examined is
communicative language teaching (CLT). With the surge in popularity in the
use of teaching which is more communicative and well as a more integrated
approach, CLT has characteristics of placing emphasis on contextualised

― 305 ―
meaning. R&R’s framework is particularly helpful in the sense of provid-
ing clarity to, for example, this methodology in categorising its theories,
instructional features and teaching practices.
In examining approach for instance, CLT aims to, as a key goal, develop
ability in communicative competence and distinguish meaning from language
through authentic materials, i.e. using the knowledge of the target language
appropriately to communicate from a sociolinguistic perspective as opposed
to the development of perfect pronunciation or grammar. Richards (2006,
p. 3) sees communicative competences as understanding “how to use lan-
guage for a range of different purposes and functions”, understanding how
to adjust language depending on the setting (socio-linguistics), “knowing
how to produce and understand different types of texts” such as interviews
and conversations for instance, as well as having the ability to continue
communication in spite of one’s limitations in the language through the
use of different strategies.
From the perspective of the ‘design’ aspect of the framework where
both general and specific objectives are also key elements, the use of
all macro-skills are incorporated and encouraged, regardless of level, and
translation into L1 not discouraged from the belief learners may in fact
benefit from doing so. With teachers’ roles to facilitate and guide, it is
important to accentuate the connection which exists between language and
the contexts it can be used, and in general terms, any instruction or guidance
that ultimately results in increased competence in communication seems
something which is accepted in this methodology. Activities may take the
shape of role plays in either groups or pairs that encourages practice of
certain functions or indeed grammar or pronunciation introduced by the
teacher, or more specifically gap fills, games, sharing opinions and discus-
sions, interviews and so on. The role here of the instructional materials and

― 306 ―
of course the correct selection of such materials is to provide ideas and
a context in which activities based on communication can be performed.
As CLT aims to develop fluency as opposed to concentrating on accuracy,
(i.e. “meaningful interaction” and being able to maintain a “comprehensible
and ongoing communication despite limitations” (Richards, 2006, p. 14)),
activities to facilitate this include negotiating meaning and naturally focus
on the most natural use of language in settings that are not always predict-
able, ideally adhering to the inextricable connection between language and
an authentic context.
As for procedure, CLT does not employ one single practice or technique
due predominately to the fact that it “draws upon a number of different
educational paradigms and traditions” and instead, the principles used are
more an effort to combine different methods that best suit and relate to the
age, context, goals and level of the students in question (Richards, 2006,
p. 22). To provide a number of specific interactive tasks undertaken in
class to facilitate this methodology are, as mentioned, authentic contextual
ones in the form of a role-play for instance with examples again given
by Richards (2006) as making lists, sorting, problem solving, comparing
and discussions on issues which may be either ethical or morally based.
To return to the framework itself, highlighting some criticism paints a
more rounded view of some deficiencies apparent in explanations pur-
ported. Some confusion exists in the slight overlap between approach and
design with respect to assumptions of pedagogical theory. Furthermore,
Kumaravadivelu (2006, p. 87) believes the “framework suffers from an
element of artificiality in its conception and an element of subjectivity in
its operation.” Moreover, another example is that of Pennycook (as cited
in Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 87) who stated that the attempts of R&R
in demonstrating “conceptual unity for methods do not seem justifiable.”

― 307 ―
Ultimately, it is a matter of individual interpretation of statements put forth,
allowing for some material to be misinterpreted.
To conclude, this essay has examined three interrelated elements of R&R’s
framework showing how they come together to comprise an interdependent
system, and their effectiveness as a tool for understanding the methodology
in second language teaching, by providing examples of communicative
language use and teaching styles that are fundamentally based on this aim of
communication, in particular CLT. It has been shown that their framework
also can be used to critically evaluate and compare different methods of
teaching and the function teachers play, where differences can be seen at
varying or a similar numbers of levels. Moreover, by conceptualising this
framework, it has been shown how R&R have been able to compartmentalise
different teaching proposals, also allowing a more objective differentiation
of claims put forward by others (Richards, 1985). Ultimately, the framework
encompasses both language learning and theories behind this, leading ef-
fectively to their goal of examining linguistic competence and characteristics
fundamental to linguistic organisation and allowing teachers to duly consider
the interaction between learners and teachers and the responsibility in the
choice of suitable resources and styles.

References
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). London,
UK: Arnold.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching from method to post
method. Philadelphia, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lindstromberg, S. (2003, March). Making sense of the approach, method and a few
neighboring terms, Humanising language teaching, Year 5 (2), Retrieved 25 August
2012, from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/lind.htm

― 308 ―
Long, M.H. & Richards, J.C. (1987). Methodology in TESOL, A Book of Readings,
New York, NY: Newbury House.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology, a textbook for teachers. Hert-
fordshire, UK: Prentice Hall.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (1982, June). Method: Approach, Design, and
Procedure, TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 153-168, Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL), Retrieved 5 September 2012, from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3586789
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language teaching methodology. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.

― 309 ―