Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

Table 7. Distinctive Features of Audio-lingual Method & Communicative 
Approach taken from Brown (2000). 
Audiolingual Method
Communicative Approach
Attends to structure and form 
more than meaning.
Meaning is paramount.
Language learning is learning 
structures, sounds, or words.
Language learning is learning to commu-
nicate.
Grammatical explanation is avoid-
ed
Any device which helps the learners is 
accepted – varying according to their age, 
interest, etc.
Communicative activities only 
come after a long process of rigid 
drills and exercises. 
Attempts to communicate may be en-
couraged from the very beginning.
Linguistic competence is the 
desired goal. 
Communicative competence is the 
desired goal (i.e., the ability to use the 
linguistic system effectively and appropri-
ately).
The teacher controls the learners 
and prevents them from doing 
anything that conflicts with the 
theory.
Teachers help learners in any way that 
motivates them to work with the lan-
guage.
“Language is habit” so error must 
be prevented at all costs.
Language is created by individuals often 
through trial and error.
Students are expected to interact 
with the language system, em-
bodied in machines or controlled 
materials.
Students are expected to interact with 
other people, either in the flesh, through 
pair and group work, or in their writings.
Intrinsic motivation will spring 
from an interest in the structure of 
language.
Intrinsic motivation will spring from an 
interest in what is being communicated 
by the language. 
ACTION
1. Choose 2-3 features of Communicative Language Teaching from the 
table above which you think better represents this approach. Explain your 
choice by providing examples from your learning or teaching experience. 
2. Bearing in mind Section 1.1. Communicative Competence Principles, 
define the difference between grammatical and communicative compe-
tence.

---

75
CHAPTER TWO: LANGUAGE TEACHING
Klapper (2003) points out that the lack of prescribed classroom tech-
niques makes CLT “fuzzy” in teacher’s understanding. This “fuzziness” gave 
CLT flexibility and space for teacher creativity and own interpretations. 
Some teachers consider it “a little more than an integration of grammatical 
and functional teaching” and others accept it as “procedures where learners 
work in pairs or groups employing available language resources in prob-
lem-solving tasks” (Richards and Rogers, 2001, p. 40). Larsen-Freeman and 
Anderson (2016) admit that “It is probably fair to say that there is no single 
agreed upon version of CLT” (p. 115). More than that, Richards and Rogers 
(2001) also note that there is no single text or authority on it, nor any single 
model that is universally accepted as authoritative.
ACTION
Here is a lesson plan (see below) that was created by Prof. Peter Shaw 
from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey for the 
CLT Paradigm. How is CLT conceptualized in this lesson plan?