Applying selected principles of effective teaching and learning

Applying selected principles of effective teaching and learning to each of the four macroskills of listening and speaking, reading and writing.

Several authors have tried to extract some fundamental principles of language teaching and learning, intended as fundamental factors that have a positive impact on the effectiveness of teaching and learning languages, supported by research and observation in second language teaching and acquisition. This essay will examine two of these principles  - meaningful learning and motivation - and how they apply to each of the language learning macro-skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing.

Brown (2000) proposed twelve learning principles divided in three categories (cognitive, affective and linguistic); Savignon (2002) and Brandl (2007) each extracted eight principles from research in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); Ellis (2008) - also based on CLT research - extended the number of general principles to ten. Aside from the specific linguistics domain, identifying generally applicable principles of learning and teaching has also been an important concern in general education. The OECD, for example, extracted five general teaching principles from a number of case studies on education systems across several countries (2008), while various departments of education at national, state and local level identify and use very similar core principles in their published pedagogical frameworks (Education Queensland, 2011; Education Victoria, 2004).

Even though the above research has been developed in different areas, there seem to be some significant similarities across the principles listed by different authors and organisations, and sometimes the same principles are identified under different labels in different publications. For example, Brandl’s principle of recognising affective factors has a strong connection (although more general in scope) with Brown’s principle of intrinsic motivation.

There also appears to be a significant amount of interdependency between various principles, so that their effects on the learning process cannot be examined entirely in isolation from one another. For example, experience suggests that using rich and realistic material for learning (the principle of authenticity) makes it easier to design and carry out meaningful learning activities (the principle of meaningful input), building students’ comfort and familiarity with real-life situations in the second language (the principle of self-confidence), engaging the students’ interest and providing students with a positive stimulus for effective learning (the principle of purpose or motivation).

There are two important aspects that should be differentiated with regards to meaningful learning. The first aspect is the intrinsic meaning of the exchanged information (whether it is comprehensible or not). The second is the internalised meaning of such information (whether participants can personally and situationally relate to it or not), and evidence suggests that it is this second aspect that has a stronger, positive impact on language learning.

According to Brown (2000), communication acquires meaning when the participants find an association between the information being exchanged and their internal representation of the world as manipulated by activities that are commonly carried out. In other words, there should be a connection between the elements of communication and familiar situations. From a pedagogical perspective based on theoretical principles, it follows that meaningful learning can be addressed by designing and carrying out content-based activities that are purposeful, functional, and relevant to the learning objectives (Raimes, in Richards & Renandya, 2002).

Modern constructionist and communicative approaches place substantial emphasis on constructing and exchanging meaning (Canale & Swain, 1980; Krashen, 1982; Savignon, 2002; Richards, 2006; Ellis, 2008), so even though different authors may use different words and labels, they still refer to the same core ideas: that language teaching and learning should be focused on real goals (Brown, 2000), immediately recognisable references (Savignon, 2002), active construction of meaning, relevant content (Ellis, 2008), purposeful exchanges on information, and engaging activities with content that is relevant to the learners’ experiences (Richards, 2006).

With regards to motivation, both research and experience support the concept that motivation stems from the anticipation of rewards, which act as a constructive drive in the learning process. Achievement-based (extrinsic) rewards provide positive feedback for correct behavior and answers, but the most powerful rewards are those generated from within the learner (intrinsic) according to his or her needs and desires (Brown, 2000; Ghuman, 2013).

There is evidence of a positive relationship between motivation and effective language learning (Brown, 2000; Richards & Renandya, 2002). However, it is difficult to see how intrinsic motivation could be taught, because it is by definition an internal state of mind. Nevertheless, research suggests that it is possible to facilitate the emergence and growth of intrinsic motivation by means of various tasks and activities that empower the learner, build up learner autonomy and responsibility for his or her own learning journey (OECD, 2008; Richards & Renandya, 2002), fostering individual accountability (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), providing sufficient opportunities to interact (Ellis, 2008), and engaging learners’ interest (Savignon, 2002).

Researchers seem to agree that both the listening process and the reading process are carried out along two related but very different tracks: bottom-up and top-down processing (Richards & Renandya, 2006). During bottom-up processing, the listener/reader first decodes the language input starting from its basic building blocks (e.g. spoken sounds or written words), using contextual information, inference and prior knowledge to construct meaning. During top-down processing, the listener independently constructs meaning in his or her mind based on prior knowledge and expectations, using and interpreting the language input to track and actively adjust the meaning. Bottom-up and top-down processing are both believed to happen recursively.

In any case, if we embrace the view that language is an expression of thought and society (Fromkin et al., 2011), then the listener’s ability to construct meaning is greatly influenced by the degree in which the language input matches the listener’s internal representation of the world, which is what makes communication meaningful. Research suggests that the use of schemata and scripts is therefore of great importance in the construction of meaning (Richards & Renandya, 2006).

Applying the principle of meaningful learning to listening involves designing and carrying out activities in which learners can relate prior knowledge to information processing in the form of language input, not only by recalling and activating existing schemata and scripts, but also by facilitating the construction and refinement of new ones (Nunan, in Richards & Renandya, 2006). In order to provide a meaningful listening activity, teachers should also focus on the development of listening strategies like predicting the continuation of sentences ahead of the speaker, or raising awareness of suprasegmental features like stress, tone or word junctures (Van Duzer, 1997).

With regards to motivation, activities can be designed around songs or games for younger learners at a basic level, for example using a command-action model (Asher, 1977), whereas more mature learners at intermediate level might be more successfully engaged in activities that relate to their day-to-day activities, like a dialog at the family doctor’s office, or the local news.

Listening skills are of paramount importance in the development of speaking skills (Richards & Renandya, 2006), and there seem to be various similarities in the development of speaking skills between first language acquisition and second language learning. In theories of first language acquisition, children learn to speak only after spending sufficient time listening. Through listening, children learn to recognise language patterns and real world associations, which they will try to reproduce through speech at a later stage using various strategies like babbling and imitation (Fromkin & al., 2011). Second language learners also tend to develop listening skills first, going through a silent period before they start to develop their speaking skills (Krashen, 1982).

Brown and Nation (1997) recommend carrying out three types of speaking activities: form-focused (centred on pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary), meaning-focused (centred on communication), and fluency-focused. In particular, they suggest using form-focused activities with learners at basic level, moving on to meaning-focused activities as the learners’ language proficiency increases.

The principle of meaningful learning can be applied to teaching speaking skills by carrying out activities that are authentic and purposeful (Shumin, in Richards & Renandya, 2006), while also addressing the development of more specific linguistic competences: grammar, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic (Canale & Swain, 1980; Savignon, 2002).

In order to foster motivation, speaking activities can be modelled around the students’ real interests. For example, young learners might enjoy singing or telling simple mime stories, in which the students try to recite a story according to actions mimed by the teacher, whereas more mature learners might be more interested in role playing activities.

In the context of listening and speaking, meaningful communication is constructed by all participants using an interactive exchange of information by using various discourse strategies. In the context of reading and writing, meaningful communication is instead built into the text by the writer, and is extracted by the reader in completely independently, so that the text becomes a communication proxy or filter between the reader and the writer.

Grabe (2004) points out that functional discourse structures in a text are interpreted by the reader according to conventions and patterns, and familiarity with those helps the construction of meaning. This might be driven - for example - by similarities between the culture of the writer and that of the reader, or by the reader’s prior knowledge of the subject. In cases where the reader has little or no familiarity with the text, pre-reading activities can be carried out in order to build up awareness in and basic knowledge of the cultural, sociolinguistic, historical, and technical/factual aspects of the text. Pre-reading activities are also useful to build up relevant schemata and scripts that are so beneficial for top-down and bottom-up processing (Van Duzer, 1997).

Since non-verbal elements can make up as much as two thirds of a verbal conversation (Hogan & Stubbs, 2003), one of the biggest challenges in teaching and learning writing skills lies in developing the writer’s ability to produce text that is meaningful to the reader (Byrne, 1988), especially considering the practical impossibility for the reader to interactively and recursively negotiate meaning with the writer to clarify or disambiguate the language being used, which would be a natural discourse strategy in the spoken language.

One way to help writers in producing meaningful text is to try to develop the ability to visualise an audience and to identify a clear central idea that writers will then wish to convey to that audience (Seow, in Richards & Renandya, 2006). With an audience in mind, the process of writing can also be enriched by the writer taking the role of the reader in order to extend and refine the produced text, iteratively switching between the two roles until the text is complete.

Reppen (in Richards & Renandya, 2006) proposes creating opportunities for free expression as well as carrying out realistic situational writing activities in order to define the potential audience and engage the students’ interest, for example writing letters to relatives in junior classes, or writing cover letters to potential employers in more mature classes. In all cases, focusing on the text instead of its constituent parts (sentences or paragraphs) makes the learning process more meaningful and motivating (Byrne, 1988).

Seow (in Richards & Renandya, 2006) recommends building motivation by encouraging students to evaluate their own and each other’s texts, and potentially presenting their final work to others in the form of interactive post-writing activities like presentations, enactments, or reading aloud and discussing, thereby complementing writing activities with reading acitivities. Ferris (in Richards & Renandya, 2006) points out that the process of editing a text is often neglected when teaching writing skills, and this can lead to poor results. Therefore, building up students’ motivation to engage in the editing process can be beneficial, and Ferris suggests to do so by raising the students’ awareness of the positive effects that editing has on the final writing product, for example by marking the students’ unedited work and compare it against the mark that the students could have received for the edited work.

Marco Scata

References

Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: the complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Brandl, K. (2007). Communicative language teaching in action: putting principles to work. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (second edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, R. S., & Nation, P. (1997). Teaching speaking: suggestions for the classroom. The language teacher online, January 1997. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/97/jan/speaking.html

Byrne, D. (1988). General principles for teaching writing. Teaching writing skills (pp. 25-29). London: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Education Queensland (2011). Pedagogical framework. State of Queensland department of education. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/pdfs/pedagogical-framework.pdf

Education Victoria (2004). Effective pedagogy: principles of learning and teaching P–12. State of Victoria department of education. Retrieved from https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/student/poltleadchangepedagogy.pdf

Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language Acquisition. CAL Digests. Retireved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/instructed2ndlang.html

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An Introduction to Language (ninth edition). Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 44-69. USA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000030

Hogan, K., & Stubbs, R. (2003). Can’t get through 8 barriers to communication. Grenta, LA: Pelican Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://www.kevinhogan.com/downloads/8Mistakesp.pdf

Krashen, S., (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition (pp. 9–32). Oxford: Pergamon.

LIN8002 Methodology in teaching a second language: Study Book. (2013). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland.

Mahmood, T., Ahmed, M., Shoaib, H., & Ghuman, M. (2013). Motivation as pedagogical technique for teachers: a cross comparison between public and private sector. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 4 (2), 563-570. Rome: Sapienza University.

OECD (2008). Assessment for learning. Formative assessment. In OECD/CERI International Conference “Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy”. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. Interpreting communicative language teaching contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–27). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Van Duzer, C. (1997). Improving ESL learners’ listening skills: at the workplace and beyond. ESL Resources: Centre for Adult English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/LISTENQA.html

Key approaches and methods in second language teaching

Discuss a range of key approaches/methods in second language teaching that have been identified and gained traction in the literature as best practice. Illustrate how two (2) of those methods can be applied in a contemporary classroom including examples of interactions and written communication among second language learners and with their teacher.

Methods of language teaching have evolved rapidly between the late eighteenth century and modern days. Advancements in transportation and technology have been driving people’s mobility to higher levels across geopolitical boundaries, favoring the rise of wider international economies and labor dynamics. This process has also made it easier for people to move across linguistic boundaries, and the resulting pursuit of multilingualism has been a powerful driving factor for approaching language teaching methodologies in pragmatic and systematic ways. This essay will discuss a range of language teaching methods and the approaches they follow, providing examples of how two of them in particular (Communicative Language Teaching and Total Physical Response) can be applied in a contemporary classroom. The distinction between “approach” and “method” in this essay will follow the terminology formulated by Anthony (1963), according to whom an approach is the establishment of a set of assumptions used in the processes of teaching and learning, and a method is the way an approach is used to teach (and learn) a language in a systematic way. Also, this essay will use the terms “target language” and “first language” to indicate, respectively, the language being learnt in the classroom and the language usually spoken outside of the classroom.

The Grammar-Translation method was historically used to learn classical languages like ancient Greek and Latin, and is based on structural linguistic theories. In a Grammar-Translation classroom the teacher is usually in full control of the classroom activities, which are focused predominantly on the target language literature in a highly structure fashion, but taught exclusively in the students’ first language. The primary skills used are therefore reading and writing, with speaking and listening being underdeveloped or even disregarded altogether. Students learn how to translate literary texts of varying complexity, memorising grammar rules, constructs, and vocabulary. Just as in a Latin class students would learn to read and translate classical authors like Cicero and Caesar very early, students in a German class would learn to read and translate Goethe and Schiller. The emphasis is on producing the correct form of the target language through translation, therefore errors are not tolerated and are corrected by the teacher right away. This teaching method is driven by the belief that the most important aspect - the essence - of a language is its structure, and in order to learn and appreciate the language one needs to learn and appreciate its structure above all. Since grammar represents by definition the building blocks of linguistic structure, it is only natural to drive all intellectual efforts towards the understanding and the mastery of grammar and metalinguistic aspects of the language. One of the main criticisms of the Grammar-Translation method falls on the belief that building an encyclopaedic knowledge of linguistic rules and structures is synonymous with mastering a language. François Gouin’s first-hand experience with learning German at the end of the nineteenth century is an evident case to show the exact contrary, in which he was able to translate literary works but was completely unable to understand the spoken language - “not a single word” (1892, p.31).

Given the inability of the Grammar-Translation method to develop the communicative abilities of language students, new teaching methods started to appear. Building on his prior failures in the study of the German language, Gouin devised what came to be known as the Series Method: a way of building up linguistic knowledge through practical examples, transforming “perception into a conception” (1892, p.39). A Series Method class is therefore conducted entirely in the target language, using simple sentences at first in order to introduce an action or a situation. Sentences are then progressively enriched with more linguistic features towards higher and higher levels of complexity. For example, the teacher might start a basic class by walking to the desk and performing a series of simple actions while describing them to the students:

I walk to the desk.

I grab the chair.

I pull the chair.

I sit on the chair.

I grab a book.

I put the book on the desk.

As sentences are connected, and as complexity increases only in relatively small increments between sentences, meaning is inferred from sensory context and grammar is learnt by induction. The principles of small incremental comprehensible input and learning language through language use were further developed by Krashen in a more comprehensive theory of second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). The Series Method then evolved into what is known as the Direct Method, based on Gouin’s principle that second language learning should not be much different from first language learning. The fundamental cognitive approach of the Series Method is retained, but the classroom becomes an interactive partnership between teachers and students instead of being entirely teacher-driven. The main belief behind the Direct Method is that students must be able to directly associate language and meaning, focusing primarily on developing speaking and listening skills. Students are therefore encouraged to initiate interaction and to correct themselves and each other when possible. One of the main criticisms of the Series Method and the Direct Method was the lack of solid theoretical foundations (Brown, 2000). Also, it presented a number of practical challenges because teachers needed to develop a new set of skills in order to direct the learning away from structured static study focused on grammar towards interactive dynamic activities focused on meaning.

As the mobility of people and resources increased dramatically during and after the Second World War, the need arose to find some ways to teach and learn foreign languages in the fastest possible way: from a military perspective, knowing the languages of enemies and allies was a distinct competitive advantage; from a socio-political perspective, masses of migrants fleeing conflict zones needed to be integrated in the host countries; and from a functional-practical perspective it was necessary to cross linguistic boundaries in order to efficiently drive socio-economic and industrial redevelopment, especially in Europe and in Northern America. As a result, the Audio-Lingual Method was developed on the foundations of behavioral psychology and adopted with relative success, focusing on learning specific linguistic structures within predefined practical linguistic domains. A common exercise in the classroom would be to present a situational dialog to the students and direct them to imitate and repeat each part of the dialog multiple times at specific intervals, aiming for accuracy in the language production. Over time, the presented dialogs would exhibit variations and drive the learning of different linguistic patterns. Imitation and repetition would then inevitably build up familiarity and confidence in the production of the target structures and the cultural context inferred by the presentation of those structures. One of the characteristics of the Audio-Lingual Method is overlearning: the process of getting so intimately familiar with a set of linguistic structures and patterns that their usage becomes automatic in circumstances and dialogs that bear similarities to those experienced during the learning process. With such a heavy focus on learning linguistic patterns, attention to grammar and metalinguistics is not a high priority and is often disregarded altogether, in favor of learning it inductively by analogy. Criticisms of the Audio-Lingual Method arose after Chomsky’s reservations on the relevance of behaviorist psychology in language learning (1959), and after all the main assumptions behind this teaching method were analytically dismantled by Rivers (1966).

Given the challenges and criticism found in the earlier mechanical forms of language learning, teaching methods were starting to shift away from heavily mechanical approaches, looking for techniques and strategies that would combine the focus on linguistic patterns with some form of meaningful context. Context is, of course, intended to be meaningful for students, and therefore teaching methodologies needed to be more mindful of the students’ personal characteristics and the ways in which they actually learn. In order to successfully assimilate language, learners need to use it in some practical context, and this context needs to be meaningful. Krashen later developed this and other concepts much further, noting that language acquisition is a subconscious process in which “language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring the language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language” (1982, p.10). Following both cognitive and affective approaches, the Total Physical Response method took shape. In the Total Physical Response method, teachers give commands to students, and students execute those commands by performing physical actions. Teachers may well join in, and commands are carefully modified and recombined in order to provide students with linguistic content that, even though it might be a bit beyond their comprehension (Krashen, 1982), is still understandable by inference or induction. Learners are not expected to engage in language production and they are free to do so whenever they feel ready. It is very important to recognise that, even without writing and speaking, “there is a huge amount of listening, understanding and internalising going on” (Scrivener 2011, p.324). This needs to be considered under the evidence that listening is a skill that children develop long before speaking, and following the approach that learning a target language is cognitively analogous to learning a first language, hence the focus on kinaesthetics and the manipulation of the environment (Asher, 1978).

It is worth looking at the Total Physical Response method in a little more detail and provide an example in a contemporary classroom. In a basic classroom for children the teacher might be leading in with the topic of “morning activities”. The teacher would introduce a sequence of sentences, one at a time:

Wake up

Stretch

Sit up

Stand up

Scratch your head

Scratch your belly

Walk to the bathroom

Look at the mirror

Make a funny face

Make a serious face

Brush your teeth

Dress up

Eat breakfast

Wash up

Pick up your school bag

Pick up your hat

Open the door

Go outside

Turn around

Close the door

Turn around

Go to school

The teacher would act each command and encourage all students to do the same. Using different commands that have a common syntactical structure (e.g. “make... ...face”, “pick up...”) helps students infer both lexicon and grammar, while the acting and participation help associating words and sentences with direct experiences that are much more likely to get assimilated into long-term memory than any purely mechanical linguistic exercise. The similarities with the Series Method and the Direct Method are evident, but the Total Physical Response goes much further, building a tight coupling between language, sensory information, and the manipulation of the learner’s environment through actions, in a dynamic interactive setting where students and teachers actually participate in building and reshaping the linguistic context being studied, becoming themselves part of the overall teaching and learning canvas.

With Total Physical Response, Language learning started to be considered something more than a purely mechanical process leading to the formation of habits, and eventually functional linguistics started to develop. The focus was shifting towards teaching language as a means for communication and expression, under the belief that building communicative competence would then lead to – and ultimately include – linguistic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Increased importance was then given to the social and situational contexts in which linguistic interactions were taking place. According to Halliday (1973), language evolved as part of the process of performing specific functions in a social context; it logically follows then that language should be learnt and taught within defined social and functional contexts, rather than being extracted or abstracted from them as a totally independent domain. Communicative Language Teaching follows a functional/communicative approach, aiming at building up the linguistic tools that allow language users to convey meaning through communication. Errors in language production are part of the natural learning process and are therefore accepted, as long as they do not interfere with the exchange and negotiation of meaning. Students are encouraged to interact with each other and to give feedback to each other. The teacher provides the initial setup for classroom activities and loosely manages the classroom dynamics while students tackle the activities in small groups. Activities are usually centred around specific linguistic problems defined by information gaps that exist within a given social context, and students will have to decide how to best fill those gaps, choosing what to say and how to say it, establishing and maintaining the flow of information within their groups, engaging “with text and meaning through language use and discovery” (Savignon 2002, p.22). Linguistic forms are taught relative to the functions being targeted, but are neither emphasised nor strictly enforced, with the focus being on negotiation of meaning and discourse. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator, while students can focus on their own learning process and progress through authentic communication (Brown 2000, p. 43).

Communicative Language Teaching is considered to be the “generally accepted norm in the field” (Brown 2000, p.42), but there is no specific syllabus, as it is more of a generic term to indicate more a philosophy than a defined methodology, and is consequently open to interpretation. It is therefore worth providing an example of how Communicative Language Teaching principles may be applied to a contemporary classroom. Considering an intermediate-level classroom for adults, the teacher might decide to focus on the development of fluency and direct the class to perform some role-playing activities. For example, the teacher would lead in with a presentation of pictures that set the stage at a restaurant. Students would first describe and discuss the pictures in small groups in order to frame the social and linguistic contexts. Each student in a group would then be given a role to play, e.g. customer, waiter, chef, concierge, and a specific situation (or a number of situations) to be developed, like booking a table, suggestions for a meal, dealing with a difficult customer, making a mistake in the order, or handling an expired credit card. Students would improvise throughout the class and continuously provide feedback through discourse, thereby putting them in charge of their own and each other’s learning.

This essay has examined a number of key methods in second language teaching that have raised interest in linguistic circles and academia. Since the systematic study and analysis of language teaching methodologies started relatively recently in humanistic terms, there is still much to say as to how language teaching methodologies will evolve in the future. The very notion of a language classroom has changed so much over time, from a room with walls and desks to a distributed virtual space that only exists as a stream of digital information. Contemporary teaching methods for languages as well as other subjects seem to have some common aspects, like the encouragement of interaction, the use of varying instructional methods to meet diverse student needs, and the active involvement of students in the learning process (OECD 2008, p.6). As time goes by and societies evolve, new linguistic challenges will emerge and the language teaching profession will have to provide at least some of the means in the social transformation to work on those new challenges, creating valuable personal assets and competitive advantages.

Marco Scata

References

Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. English Language Teaching, 17(2), 63-67.

Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: the complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (fourth edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, pp. 1-47.

Chomsky, N., (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), pp. 26-58.

Gouin, F., (1892). The art of learning and studying foreign languages (second edition). London: G. Philip & Son.

Halliday, M. A. K., (1973). Explorations in the function of language. London: Edward Arnolds.

Krashen, S., (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition (pp. 9–32). Oxford: Pergamon.

LIN8002 Methodology in teaching a second language: Study Book. (2013). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland.

Richards, J. C., (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W., (1966). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher. The French review. 39(4), pp. 636-638.

Savignon, S. J., (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching. The essential guide to English language teaching (third edition). Oxford: MacMillan.