This section reviews research into CLT, the dominant approach since the 1970s, and then analyses findings from more recent studies which explore teacher talk, culturally inappropriate texts, teacher’s self-efficacy and perception of role. Recent research challenging communicative language teaching is used in this literature review as a starting point for analysis of the influences of contemporary research on language education focused on the student experience. After its existence of more than forty years in language education, scholars today are researching aspects of communicative language teaching in areas of teacher and student perceptions and expectations (Adhikari 2017; Draeger 2017; Tran 2016), intercultural competence (Baden 2018), cultural relevance and appropriateness (Borjigin 2017; Nguyen 2016), scaffolding (Piskula 2017) and topic initiation (Van Booven 2017). These authors are challenging and repositioning CLT by acknowledging its importance, exploring its limitations and then proposing models for understanding in more detail what happens in modern language education from the student perspective.
Communicative language teaching emerged in the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s with an emphasis on communicative competence (Richards 2006). In Europe, communicative language teaching began with the Council of Europe and came out of the work by van Ek and Alexander (van Ek and Alexander 1977), whereby it was proposed a functional or communicative definition of language could serve as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching.
Communicative language teaching still has a strong-hold in modern English language classrooms (Richards 2006) and encourages learners and teachers to try to fully understand what preconceptions about teaching and learning they come to the classroom with. Nunan developed some of the earliest teaching instructions for CLT, insisting learners take on an active role in their learning in a wide range of communicative activities (Nunan 2004). Nunan began to develop teaching approaches to help build a balance of grammatical, communicative, strategic and sociolinguistic competencies in language learners (Nunan 1989). In this pedagogy, focus on accuracy moved to focus on fluency in the language learning classroom and included multiple foci on interaction, authentic texts, learning process, personal experiences and links in the classroom to real life use of language. Savignon added the importance of promoting opportunities for expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning for students (Savignon 2008), drawing on psycholinguistic and socio-cultural perspectives to encourage interaction between students to make sense of their world inside and outside of the classroom. Larsen-Freeman was one of several researchers who proposed principles in CLT that included the facilitative role of the teacher, the empowered role of the learner, the importance of implied grammar instruction, non-obstructive error correction and emphasis on group work (Larsen-Freeman 2000; Richards and Rodgers 2014a).
Communicative language teaching moves the students and teachers through a process of mechanical learning, to meaningful experiences and real communication. Richards separates communicative language teaching into two categories – process-based CLT and product-based CLT (Richards 2006). This delineation is of importance for adult instruction and relevant to this study based in a university context. The process-based methodologies are focused on the processes occurring in the classroom and include content-based instruction and task-based instruction. Product-based methodologies are focused on the outcome of the teaching and include text-based instruction and competency-based instruction. Common to all forms of communicative language teaching is consideration of multiple aspects of the learning environment. The purpose of the learning design needs to be considered and made explicit. Consideration to the setting of the target language, the roles of the students and teacher and the specific learning events is to be made. Language functions, notions (concepts), types of discourse and varieties in language are all included in the syllabus and curricula. This is in addition to the traditional focus of earlier methods on grammatical and lexical content. Richards (2006) cites work from Jacobs and Farrell on the changes that communicative language teaching has brought to the pedagogy including focus on learner autonomy and the social nature of learning. There is emphasis on curricula integration and diversity of learning opportunities for diverse learners, with teachers considered as co-learners. Syllabi include chances to develop and practice critical thinking skills with alternative forms of assessment to gauge a more holistic view of the students’ abilities in the second language (Farrell and Jacobs 2010). Process-based communicative language teaching includes course design around either content or task. English for Specific Purposes, a type of content based instruction, has developed a methodology used for teaching adults in all contexts and introduced the importance of using a needs analysis to teachers of CLT and an acknowledgement of the impact of the purpose for instruction on the student experience (Belcher, Johns, and Paltridge 2011; Brown 2016).
Product-based communicative language teaching includes text-based instruction and competency-based instruction with a focus on outcomes rather than process. This type of teaching is representative of many modern courses taught to international students in English language pathway programs at Australian Universities (Pheasant and Dutcher 2016). In more than one example, courses have been influenced in design by a genre-based approach to studying forms of text with a focus on outcomes (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014; Rose and Martin 2012). These courses are oriented on task and performance, modularised and include individual student-centred instruction with a combination of formative and summative assessment, key components of genre and competency based communicative language teaching.
Linguistic research and theory has also been central to the development of language education. In a university context, much focus is given to academic language proficiency, as opposed to basic interpersonal communication skills (Arkoudis et al. 2012). Cummins explored the difference between the two, highlighting the concept of minimum levels of proficiency required in order to be able to participate in university study and how this is contrasted to minimum levels of interpersonal communication skills. These terms are more recently referred to as conversational language and academic language (Cummins 2014; Cummins and Swain 1986). Bachman and Palmer (1996) described communicative language ability as inclusive of language competence and strategic competence. They explored language competence and expanded this to include organisational (grammatical and textual) and pragmatic (illocutionary and sociolinguistic). Murray explored language proficiency further, identifying a tripartite of competencies: English language proficiency, academic literacies and professional literacies (Murray 2010). Harper, Prentice & Wilson also provided a similar model, labelled tertiary literacies, which included academic, professional and everyday literacies (Harper, Prentice, and Wilson 2011). These models are underpinned by research and theories on academic literacies. Teaching approaches which focus on engaging the language learner are contextualised in an environment where emphasis is on proficiency.
In a Chilean study that studied the role of context in the improvement of second language interactional competence, evidence was provided that different learning contexts can help learners with varied opportunities for participating in second language interaction (Van Booven 2017). The study used conversation analysis and compared two contexts – the language learning classroom and a homestay experience. The researcher’s aim was to identify which methods were used to identify interactional practices, in this case specifically the initiation of new topic talk, and how this contributed to competence. Interactional competence as a research area emerged out of applied linguistics, language assessment and conversation analysis. Originally coined by Kramsch (Kramsch 2008), interactional competence has resurfaced in recent studies within conversation analysis and is defined in this study as the ability of the participant to demonstrate effective utilisation of knowledge of rhetorical scripts, register, taking turns, topical organisation and signalling boundaries and transitions in communication (Van Booven 2017) . The role of interactional competence as part of communicative language teaching in this context was reinforced when applied to the context of study abroad. This study concluded that focus should be made
in language education on process rather than product and outcomes, and that success of development of interactional competence within communicative language teaching be focused on “language as it is used during real time, fully contextualised interactional practices” (Van Booven 2017: 191).
In several recent studies in language education including cultural and inter-cultural competence, arguments were presented for expansion of communicative language teaching to include intercultural language teaching in teaching English in China (Draeger 2017), intercultural competence in teaching French in the United States (Baden 2018) and consideration of Hofstede’s cultural orientation framework (Hofstede and Minkov 2010) of teaching English in Vietnam (Tran 2016). These dissertations are similar insofar as they acknowledge the importance of communicative language teaching but make recommendations for language education more focused on the student’s experience. In the Chinese study, a multi-case study design was used to determine the perspectives of EFL teachers who were engaged to deploy a syllabus organised around communicative language teaching principles with inclusion of intercultural communication competence. The study concluded that a combination of pedagogies leads to greater development of intercultural competence but this is affected by multiple variables including teaching style, student motivation for study and their expectations, economic and political environments (Draeger 2017: 75).
An instrumental case study considering the factors affecting implementation of an English language program at a Vietnamese university analysed societal and institutional, teacher and learner factors. This revealed that despite organisational wide agreed syllabi and curricula designed using communicative language teaching theory, in practice teachers were adopting strategies to include cultural competence (Nguyen 2016). This study applied Hofstede’s cultural orientation framework (Hofstede and Minkov 2010) and collected data from a broad cross range of data sources in the institution. This study highlighted that communicative language teaching is effective when emphasis is given to context and culture. This study concluded that contextual factors, if not considered, hinder communicative language teaching. Teacher and teaching factors such as teacher talk, culturally inappropriate texts, teacher’s self- efficacy and perception of role, and minimal encouragement and praise prohibited effective application of communicative language teaching. Learner motivation and mindset also contributed to ineffective application of CLT (Nguyen 2016: 226).
These recent studies highlight the importance of acknowledging the importance of CLT and repositioning this methodology from the perspective of the student. The research mentioned here highlights there is an over focus on developing academic language proficiency and preparation for university entry, pushing the needs of the students into the background. By focusing on defining competence and reinforcing standardisation, this is limiting uniqueness and consideration of student identity. Exploration of tertiary literacies are focused on defining minimum academic skills, limiting individual learner strategies and development of global skills, critical thinking and interpersonal skills. However, the scholars highlighted here have identified that student experience is paramount, with elements such as the homestay experience influencing language learning positively. Intercultural competence is significant, with
importance being attributed to interactions between peers, teachers and others, inside and outside the classroom. Scholars and practitioners are building on the fundamental practices embedded in communicative language teaching and exploring language in action, the space between the language and identifying the complexity and systemic nature of language education. There is a focus on process rather than product and outcomes. Language is explored as it is used in real, contextualised, global practices. There is acknowledgment of the importance of culture, cultural contexts, inter-culture and classroom ecology. The impact of the culture of the teacher, the students, the dominant culture in the classroom, the perceptions (and misconceptions) of the target culture are challenged. There is also reaction in this research to the disparity between syllabus design and intention, and reality of the delivery of language education. There is consideration of the impact of the subconscious activity and behaviours of the teacher, such as teacher talk, choice of texts and teacher confidence. This contemporary research looks at how these behaviours blend with teacher praise and motivational strategies, impacting the learner.
Despite these criticisms, communicative language teaching remains a foundation in modern publications in learning English as a Second Language (Burns and Richards 2018). By repositioning communicative language teaching and broadening the scope for varied communication forms and applications for different cultural, political and educational landscapes, key principles in CLT can be used to interpret the student’s experience in dramatic engagement in process drama for language education.