CONSTITUENTS OF LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS

CONSTITUENTS OF LANGUAGE TEACHING

METHODS

A variety of labels such as approach, design, methods, practices, principles,

procedures, strategies, tactics, techniques, and so on are used to describe var-

ious elements constituting language teaching. A plethora of terms and labels

can hardly facilitate a meaningful and informed discussion in any area of

professional activity. In this section, I attempt to tease out some of the termi-

nological and conceptual ambiguities surrounding some of the terms and

concepts used in the field of second- and foreign-language teaching.

Method and Methodology

Method is central to any language teaching enterprise. Many of us in the lan-

guage teaching profession use the term, method, so much and so often that

we seldom recognize its problematic nature. For instance, we are hardly

Constituents and Categories of Methods

aware of the fact that we use the same term, method, to refer to two differ-

ent elements of language teaching: method as proposed by theorists, and

method as practiced by teachers. What the teachers actually do in the class-

room is different from what is advocated by the theorists. In fact, classroom-

oriented research conducted by Kumaravadivelu (1993a), Nunan (1987),

Thornbury (1996), and others clearly shows that even teachers who claim

to follow a particular method do not actually adhere to the basic principles

associated with it.

One way of clearing the confusion created by the indiscriminate use of

the term,method, is tomake a distinction betweenmethod and methodology.

For the purpose of this book, I consistently use method to refer to estab-

lished methods conceptualized and constructed by experts in the field (see

text to come). I use the term, methodology, to refer to what practicing

teachers actually do in the classroom in order to achieve their stated or un-

stated teaching objectives. This distinction is nothing new; it is implicit in

some of the literature on language teaching. Such a distinction is, in fact,

the basis by which Mackey (1965) differentiated what he called method anal-

ysis from teaching analysis. He rightly asserted:

any meaning of method must first distinguish between what a teacher teaches

and what a book teaches. It must not confuse the text used with the teacher

using it, or the method with the teaching of it. Method analysis is one thing,

therefore, teaching analysis, quite another. Method analysis determines how

teaching is done by the book; teaching analysis shows how much is done by

the teacher. (p. 138)

In other words, a teaching analysis can be done only by analyzing and inter-

preting authentic classroom data that include the methodological practices

of the teacher as revealed through classroom input and interaction, and

teacher intention and learner interpretation (see Kumaravadivelu, 2003a,

chap. 13). A method analysis, on the other hand, can be carried out by

merely analyzing and interpreting different constituent features of a

method presented in standard textbooks on language teaching methods,

using any appropriate analytical framework.

4.1.2. Approach, Method, and Technique

Antony (1963) was perhaps the first in modern times to articulate a frame-

work for understanding the constituents of method. His purpose, a laud-

able one, was to provide much-needed coherence to the conception and

representation of elements that constitute language teaching. He proposed

a three-way distinction: approach, method, and technique. He defined ap-

proach as “a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of lan-

guage and the nature of language teaching and learning. It describes the

nature of the subject matter to be taught. It states a point of view, a philoso-

phy, an article of faith . . .” (Antony, 1963, pp. 63–64). Thus, an approach

embodies the theoretical principles governing language learning and lan-

guage teaching. A method, however, is “an overall plan for the orderly pre-

sentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of

which is based upon, the selected approach. An approach is axiomatic,

a method is procedural” (p. 65). As such, within one approach there can

be many methods. Methods are implemented in the classroom through

what are called techniques. A technique is defined as “a particular trick,

strategem, or contrivance used to accomplish an immediate objective” (p.

66). The tripartite framework is hierarchical in the sense that approach

informs method, and method informs techniques.

When it was introduced, the Antony framework was welcomed as a help-

ful tool formaking sense of different parts of language teaching operations,

and it was in use for a long time. However, a lack of precise formulation of

the framework resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with it. Antony him-

self felt that modifications and refinements of his framework are “possible”

and even “desirable” primarily because the distinction between approach

and method on one hand, and method and technique on the other hand,

was not clearly delineated. The way approach and method are used inter-

changeably in some of the literature on L2 teaching testifies to the blurred

boundaries between the two. Secondly, the inclusion of specific items

within a constituent is sometimes based on subjective judgments. For in-

stance, Antony considered pattern practice a method, and imitation a tech-

nique when, in fact, both of them can be classified as classroom techniques

because they both refer to a sequence of classroom activities performed in

the classroom environment, prompted by the teacher and practiced by the

learner.

The Antony framework is flawed in yet another way. It attempted to por-

tray the entire language teaching operations as a simple, hierarchical rela-

tionship between approach, method, and technique, without in any way

considering the complex connections between intervening factors such as

societal demands, institutional resources and constraints, instructional ef-

fectiveness, and learner needs. After taking these drawbacks into consider-

ation, Clarke (1983) summarized the inadequacy of the Antony framework

thus:

Approach, by limiting our perspective of language learning and teaching,

serves as a blinder which hampers rather than encourages, professional

growth. Method is so vague that it means just about anything that anyone

wants it to mean, with the result that, in fact, it means nothing. And tech-

nique, by giving the impression that teaching activities can be understood as

abstractions separate from the context in which they occur, obscures the fact

that classroompractice is a dynamic interaction of diverse systems. (p. 111)

In short, the Antony framework did not effectively serve the purpose for

which it was designed.

4.1.3. Approach, Design, and Procedure

To rectify some of the limitations of the Antony framework, Richards and

Rodgers (1982) attempted to revise and refine it. They proposed a system

that is broader in its scope and wider in its implications. Like Antony, they

too made a three-part distinction—approach, design, and procedure—but

introduced new terms to capture the refinements:

The first level, approach, defines those assumptions, beliefs, and theories

about the nature of language and the nature of language learning which op-

erate as axiomatic constructs or reference points and provide a theoretical

foundation for what language teachers ultimately do with learners in class-

rooms. The second level in the system, design, specifies the relationship of the-

ories of language and learning to both the form and function of instructional

materials and activities in instructional settings. The third level, procedure,

comprises the classroom techniques and practices which are consequences of

particular approaches and designs. (Richards & Rodgers, 1982, p. 154)

Notice that the term, method, does not figure in this hierarchy. That is be-

cause Richards and Rodgers preferred to use it as an umbrella term to re-

fer to the broader relationship between theory and practice in language

teaching.

As is evident, Richards and Rodgers retained the term, approach, to

mean what it means in the Antony framework, that is, to refer primarily to

the theoretical axioms governing language, language learning, and lan-

guage teaching. They introduced a new term, design, to denote what An-

tony denoted by the term, method. Design, however, is broader than An-

tony’s method as it includes specifications of (a) the content of instruction,

that is, the syllabus, (b) learner roles, (c) teacher roles, and (d) instruc-

tional materials and their types and functions. Procedure, like technique in

the Antony framework, refers to the actual moment-to-moment classroom

activity. It includes a specification of context of use and a description of pre-

cisely what is expected in terms of execution and outcome for each exercise

type. Procedure, then, is concerned with issues such as the following: the

types of teaching and learning techniques, the types of exercises and prac-

tice activities, and the resources—time, space, equipment—required to im-

plement recommended activities.

The three-tier system proposed by Richards and Rodgers (1982) is surely

broader and more detailed than the Antony framework. However, a careful

analysis indicates that their system is equally redundant and overlapping.

For instance, while defining approach, the authors state that “theories at

the level of approach relate directly to the level of design since they provide

the basis for determining the goals and content of language syllabus” (p.

155). While defining design, they state that design considerations “deal

with assumptions about the content and the context for teaching and learn-

ing . . .” (p. 158). The boundary between approach and design is blurred

here because the operational definitions of both relate to theoretical as-

sumptions that actually belong to the realm of approach.

Furthermore, the Richards and Rodgers framework suffers from an ele-

ment of artificiality in its conception and an element of subjectivity in its op-

eration. As the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning

(2000) pointed out,

at least some information on the three areas of analysis—approach, design,

procedure—has to be inferred, because the proponents of each method do

not always provide comprehensive outlines for the underlying theory and for

all areas of practice. Therefore, determining some aspects may be a matter of

interpretation of statements or materials and consequently carries the risk of

misinterpretation. (p. 619)

This observation echoes a similar argument made much earlier by Penny-

cook (1989) who was “struck by a feeling of strain at attempts to fit disparate

concepts into their framework. In many instances, their attempts to demon-

strate conceptual unity for methods do not seem justifiable” (p. 602).

4.1.4. Principles and Procedures

An apparent and perhaps inherent drawback with a three-tier framework is

that it is difficult to keep the boundaries separate without redundancy and

overlapping. This is so particularly because we are dealing with different

levels of organization, all of which form an integral part of an interdepen-

dent system. Furthermore, a three-tier framework opens the door for an in-

terpretation that is unfortunate, and perhaps, unintended. That is, the

framework appears to treat approach as a theorist/researcher activity, de-

sign as a syllabus designer/materials producer activity, and procedure as a

classroom teacher/learner activity. As we saw in Part One, it is the theorist

who engages in the sort of activities described under approach, activities

such as providing a rationale and an account of psychosociolinguistic theo-

ries governing language learning and teaching. The activities described un-

der method/design, which include syllabus construction, materials produc-

tion, and the determination of learner/teacher roles are considered to be

the responsibilities of the syllabus/materials designer and not of the class-

room teacher. The teacher’s task in the classroom is what is described un-

der technique/procedure.

The division of labor among the three groups of people involved in lan-

guage learning and teaching operations, the division implicit in the three-

tier frameworks, is acceptable to some extent in a traditional educational sys-

tem in which a centrally planned educational agenda was handed down to

the teacher. It is inadequate in the current pedagogic environment in which

the teacher is increasingly playing, at the local level, multiple roles of

teacher, researcher, syllabus designer, and materials producer. Recent em-

phases on classroom decision making (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000), teacher

and learner autonomy (Benson, 2001), teacher cognition (Woods, 1996),

teacher inquiry ( Johnson & Golombek, 2002), and action research (Edge,

2001) attest to the shifting responsibilities of various participants involved in

the learning and teaching operations. It is certainly inadequate in the emerg-

ing postmethod era because, as we see in Part Three, one of the central ob-

jectives of postmethod pedagogy is to fundamentally restructure the reified

relationship between the theorist and the teacher (Kumaravadivelu, 2001).

Besides, we need to keep in mind what we use such a framework for. An-

tony (1963) and Richards and Rodgers (1982) did not propose their frame-

works with the same purpose in mind. Antony had a very limited aim of pre-

senting “a pedagogical filing system within which many ideas, opposing or

compatible, may be filed” (1963, p. 63). He merely hoped that his frame-

work “will serve to lessen a little the terminological confusion in the lan-

guage teaching field” (p. 67). In other words, his framework is meant to be

a descriptive tool. Richards and Rodgers, however, had a higher goal. Their

framework is an attempt to provide “insights into the internal adequacy of

particular methods, as well as into the similarities and differences which ex-

ist between alternative methods” (1982, p. 168). They hoped that their

framework “can be used to describe, evaluate, and comparemethods in lan-

guage teaching” (1982, p. 164). In other words, their framework ismeant to

be an evaluative tool as well.

In spite of the aforementioned claim, the Richards and Rodgers (1982)

framework can be used only to describe the components of various meth-

ods as conceptualized by theorists, and as presented on paper, although, as

we saw earlier, even such a limited description will be partly based on sub-

jective interpretations. However, the framework can hardly be used to eval-

uate the relative effectiveness or usefulness of methods “in language teach-

ing,” assuming it refers to what teachers do in the classroom. It does not, for

instance, take into consideration several variables that shape the success or

failure of classroom language learning/teaching—variables such as intake

factors and intake processes (cf. chap. 2, this volume) and input modifica-

tions and instructional activities (cf. chap. 3, this volume). In other words,

the relative merits of methods cannot be evaluated on the basis of a check-

list, however comprehensive it may be. Besides, as a major large-scale exper-

imental study called the Pennsylvania Project revealed (Smith, 1970), com-

parison of language-teaching methods with the view to evaluating their

classroom effectiveness is a notoriously treacherous task replete with exper-

imental pitfalls (because not all the variables governing classroom learning

and teaching can be effectively controlled in order to study the impact of a

particular method on learning outcomes) and explanatory flaws (because

any explanation of what is observed in the classroom has to be the result of

subjective interpretation rather than objective evaluation).

A three-tier distinction has thus proved to be inadequate to “lessen a lit-

tle the terminological confusion in the language-teaching field” (Antony,

1963, p. 65). The first of the triad—approach—refers to theoretical princi-

ples governing language learning and teaching. These principles are gener-

ally drawn from a number of disciplines: linguistics, psychology, sociology,

anthropology, information sciences, conversational analysis, discourse

analysis, and so forth. The second part of the triad—method or design—

can be part of the first component because we can, by all means, think of

principles of syllabus design, principles of materials production, principles

of evaluation, and so forth. The third component, of course, refers to actual

classroom-teaching strategies. In other words, two major components of

any systematic learning/teaching operation are the principles that shape

our concepts and convictions, and the procedures that help us translate

those principles into a workable plan in a specific classroom context.

In light of the just-mentioned argument, it appears to me to be useful to

simplify the descriptive framework and make a two-part distinction: princi-

ples and procedures. The term, principles, may be operationally defined as a

set of insights derived from theoretical and applied linguistics, cognitive

psychology, information sciences, and other allied disciplines that provide

theoretical bases for the study of language learning, language planning,

and language teaching. The term thus includes not only the theoretical as-

sumptions governing language learning and teaching but also those gov-

erning syllabus design, materials production, and evaluation measures.

Similarly, procedures may be operationally defined as a set of teaching

strategies adopted/adapted by the teacher in order to accomplish the

stated and unstated, short- and long-term goals of language learning and

teaching in the classroom. Thus, certain elements of Antony’s approach

and method, and Richards and Rodgers’ approach and design can be sub-

sumed under principles. Classroom events, activities, or techniques can be

covered under procedures. The terms principles and procedures are not

new; they are implicit in the literature and are being used widely though

not uniformly or consistently. In this book, I employ these two terms, keep-

ing in mind that they are useful only for description of methods, and not

for evaluation of classroom teaching.

CATEGORIES OF LANGUAGE TEACHING

METHODS

Yet another source of tiresome ambiguity that afflicts language teaching is

the absence of a principled way to categorize language teaching methods in

a conceptually coherent fashion. This need has become even more acute

because of what Stern (1985) called the “method boom” (p. 249) witnessed

in the 1970s. The exact number of methods currently in use is unclear. It is

easy to count nearly a dozen, ranging from Audiolingualism to Jazz chants.

(I haven’t found one beginning with a Z yet, unless we count the Zen

method!)

It is not as if the existing methods provide distinct or discrete paths to

language teaching. In fact, there is considerable overlap in their theoretical

as well as practical orientation to L2 learning and teaching. It is therefore

beneficial, for the purpose of analysis and understanding, to categorize es-

tablished methods into (a) language-centered methods, (b) learner-centered meth-

ods, and (c) learning-centered methods (Kumaravadivelu, 1993b). This catego-

rization, which seeks to provide conceptual coherence, is made based on

theoretical and pedagogic considerations that are presented in a nutshell

below. A detailed treatment of these three categories of method follows in

chapters 5, 6, and 7.

4.2.1. Language-Centered Methods

Language-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with

linguistic forms. These methods (such as Audiolingual Method) seek to

provide opportunities for learners to practice preselected, presequenced

linguistic structures through form-focused exercises in class, assuming that

a preoccupation with form will ultimately lead to the mastery of the target

language and that the learners can draw from this formal repertoire when-

ever they wish to communicate in the target language outside the class. Ac-

cording to this view, language development is more intentional than inci-

dental. That is, learners are expected to pay continual and conscious

attention to linguistic features through systematic planning and sustained

practice in order to learn and to use them.

Language-centered pedagogists treat language learning as a linear, addi-

tive process. In other words, they believe that language develops primarily

in terms of what Rutherford (1987) called “accumulated entities” (p. 4).

That is, a set of grammatical structures and vocabulary items are carefully

selected for their usability, and graded for their difficulty. The teacher’s

task is to introduce one discrete linguistic item at a time and help the learn-

ers practice it until they internalize it. Secondly, supporters of language-

centered methods advocate explicit introduction, analysis, and explanation

of linguistic systems. That is, they believe that the linguistic system is simple

enough and our explanatory power clear enough to provide explicit rules

of thumb, and explain them to the learners in such a way that they can un-

derstand and internalize them.

4.2.2. Learner-Centered Methods

Learner-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with

learner needs, wants, and situations. These methods (such as Communica-

tive Language Teaching) seek to provide opportunities for learners to prac-

tice preselected, presequenced linguistic structures and communicative

notions/functions through meaning-focused activities, assuming that a pre-

occupation with form and function will ultimately lead to target language

mastery and that the learners can make use of both formal and functional

repertoire to fulfill their communicative needs outside the class. In this

view, as in the previous case, language development is more intentional

than incidental.

Learner-centered pedagogists aim at making language learners gram-

matically accurate and communicatively fluent. They keep in mind the

learner’s real-life language use in social interaction or for academic study,

and present linguistic structures in communicative contexts. In spite of

strong arguments that emphasize the cyclical and analytical nature of com-

municative syllabuses (Munby, 1978; Wilkins, 1976; see chap. 3, this vol-

ume, for more details), learner-centered methods remain, basically, linear

and additive. Proponents of learner-centered methods, like those of lan-

guage-centered methods, believe in accumulated entities. The one major

difference is that in the case of language-centered methods, the accumu-

lated entities represent linguistic structures, and in the case of learner-

centered methods, they represent structures plus notions and functions.

Furthermore, just as language-centered pedagogists believe that the linguis-

tic structures of a language could be sequentially presented and explained,

the learner-centered pedagogists also believe that each notional/func-

tional category could be matched with one or more linguistic forms, and se-

quentially presented and explained to the learner.

4.2.3. Learning-Centered Methods

Learning-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with

cognitive processes of language learning (see chap. 2, this volume, for de-

tails). These methods (such as the Natural Approach) seek to provide op-

portunities for learners to participate in open-ended meaningful interac-

tion through problem-solving tasks in class, assuming that a preoccupation

with meaning-making will ultimately lead to target language mastery and

that the learners can deploy the still-developing interlanguage to achieve

linguistic as well as pragmatic knowledge/ability. In this case, unlike in the

other two, language development is more incidental than intentional. That

is, grammar construction can take place when the learners pay attention to

the process of meaning-making, even if they are not explicitly focused on

the formal properties of the language.

According to learning-centered pedagogists, language development is a

nonlinear process, and therefore, does not require preselected, prese-

quenced systematic language input but requires the creation of conditions

in which learners engage in meaningful activities in class. They believe that

a language is best learned when the focus is not on the language, that is,

when the learner’s attention is focused on understanding, saying, and do-

ing something with language, and not when their attention is focused ex-

plicitly on linguistic features. They also hold the view that linguistic systems

are too complex to be neatly analyzed, explicitly explained, and profitably

presented to the learner.

In seeking to redress what they consider to be fundamental flaws that

characterize previous methods, learning-centered pedagogists seek to fill,

what Long (1985) called a “psycholinguistic vacuum” (p. 79). That is, they

claim to derive insights from psycholinguistic research on language devel-

opment in an attempt to incorporate them in language teaching methods.

As a result, the changes they advocate relate not just to syllabus specifica-

tions—as it happened in the case of the shift from language-centered to

learner-centered methods—but to all aspects of learning/teaching opera-

tions: syllabus design, materials production, classroom teaching, outcomes

assessment, and teacher education.

The categories of language teaching methods just described are summa-

rized in Fig. 4.1. A word of caution about this figure is in order. The figure

represents method analysis, not teaching analysis. From a classroom meth-

odological point of view, the three categories do not represent distinct enti-

ties with clear-cut boundaries. They overlap considerably, particularly dur-

ing the transitional time when dissatisfaction with one method yields slowly

to the evolution of another.

4.3. DESIGNER NONMETHODS

Part of the method boom that Stern talked about has given us what are

called new methods. They include Community Language Learning, the Silent Way,

Suggestopedia, and Total Physical Response. All these new methods advocate a

humanistic approach to language learning and teaching. Community Lan-

guage Learning treats teachers as language counselors who are sensitive to

the language learners’ emotional struggle to cope with the challenges of lan-

guage learning. They are supposed to create a nonthreatening atmosphere

in the classroom, forming a community of learners who build trust among

themselves in order to help each other. The SilentWay believes that teachers

FIG. 4.1. Categories of language teaching methods.

should be silent in class and talk only when absolutely necessary. Using color

charts and color rods as props, teachers are expected to encourage learners

to express their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, and in the process, learn

the language. Suggestopedia, which now has even a fancier name, Desug-

gestopedia, aims at removing psychological barriers to learning through the

psychological notion of “suggestion.” Using fine arts such as music, art, and

drama, teachers are advised to create a comfortable environment in class in

order to eliminate any fear of failure on the part of the learners. Total Physi-

cal Response recommends that teachers activate their learners’ motor skills

through a command sequence in which learners perform an action, such as

standing up, sitting down, walking to the board, and so forth.

These newmethods have also been dubbed as designer methods. I prefer to

call them designer nonmethods because none of them, in my view, deserves

the status of a method. They are all no more than classroom procedures

that are consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of a learner-centered

pedagogy. From a classroom procedural point of view, they are highly inno-

vative and are certainly useful in certain cases. But, they are not full-fledged

methods. As I have argued elsewhere (Kumaravadivelu, 1995), amethod, to

be considered a method, must satisfy at least two major criteria. First, it

should be informed by a set of theoretical principles derived from feeder

disciplines and a set of classroom procedures directed at practicing teach-

ers. Both the underlying principles and the suggested procedures should

address the factors and processes governing learning and teaching (see

Part One, this volume) in a coherent fashion. Second, a method should be

able to guide and sustain various aspects of language learning and teaching

operations, particularly in terms of curricular content (e.g., grammar and

vocabulary), language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), and

proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced).

None of the designer methods satisfies the just-cited criteria. In spite of

their limitations, they have been wrongly treated as new methods, a treat-

ment that really requires a stretch of interpretation, as seen in the case of

Richards and Rodgers (1986) who attempted, rather laboriously, to fit the

new methods into their tripartite framework of approach, design, and pro-

cedure. In fact, a reputed Canadian scholar expressed surprise at “the toler-

ant and positive reception the new methods were given by sophisticated

methodologists and applied linguistics in North America. One could have

expected them to be slaughtered one by one under the searing light of the-

ory and research” (Stern, 1985, p. 249).

4.4. A SPECIAL TASK

Before concluding this section on categories of language teaching meth-

ods, a brief note on the status of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is

in order. As the novelty of communicative language teaching is gradually

wearing thin (see chap. 6, this volume, for details), TBLT is gaining

ground. The word, “communicative,” which was ubiquitously present in the

titles of scholarly books and student textbooks published during the 1980s

is being replaced by yet another word, “task.” Since the late 1980s, we have

been witnessing a steady stream of books on TBLT, in addition to numer-

ous journal articles. There are research-based scholarly books on the nature

and scope of pedagogic tasks (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Crookes &

Gass, 1993; Skehan, 1998). There are books about task-based language

learning and teaching in general (Ellis, 2003; Long, in press; Nunan, 2004;

Prabhu, 1987). There are also specifically targeted books that provide tasks

for language learning (Gardner & Miller, 1996; Willis, 1996), tasks for lan-

guage teaching ( Johnson, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Parrott, 1993), tasks for

teacher education (Tanner & Green, 1998), tasks for classroomobservation

(Wajnryb, 1992), and tasks for language awareness (Thornbury, 1997).

In spite of the vast quantity of the published materials on TBLT, there is

no consensus definition of what a task is. For instance, more than 15 years

ago, Breen (1987) defined task as “a range of workplans which have the over-

all purpose of facilitating language learning—from the simple and brief ex-

ercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-

solving or simulations and decision-making” (p. 23). In a recent work on

TBLT, Ellis (2003), after carefully considering various definitions available in

the literature, synthesized them to derive a composite, lengthy definition:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically

in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the

correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end,

it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of

their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose

them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use

that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the

real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or re-

ceptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes. (p. 16)

The definitions given not only bring out the complex nature of a task but

it also signifies a simple fact. That is, as I pointed out more than a decade

ago (Kumaravadivelu, 1993b), a language learning and teaching task is not

inextricably linked to any one particular language teaching method. Task is

not a methodological construct; it is a curricular content. In other words, in

relation to the three categories of method outlined in this section, there

can very well be language-centered tasks, learner-centered tasks, and learning-

centered tasks. To put it simply, language-centered tasks are those that draw

the learner’s attention primarily and explicitly to the formal properties of

the language. For instance, tasks presented in Fotos and Ellis (1991) and

also in Fotos (1993), which they appropriately call grammar tasks, come un-

der this category. Learner-centered tasks are those that direct the learner’s

attention to formal as well as functional properties of the language. Tasks

for the communicative classroom suggested by Nunan (1989) illustrate this

type. And, learning-centered tasks are those that engage the learner mainly

in the negotiation, interpretation, and expression of meaning, without any

explicit focus on form and/or function. Problem-solving tasks suggested by

Prabhu (1987) are learning centered.

In light of the present discussion, I do not, in this book, treat the de-

signer methods and TBLT as independent language teaching methods. I

do, however, refer to them for illustrative purposes as and when appropri-

ate.

4.5. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I examined the use of terms and concepts that constitute

language teaching operations in general. I argued that for the sake of sim-

plicity and practicality, it is beneficial to have a two-tier system consisting of

principles and procedures. I also presented a rationale for the classification

of language-teaching methods into language-, learner-, and learning-

centered methods. I shall henceforth be using these terms and categories

as operationally defined and described in this chapter. The next three

chapters in Part Two deal with the theoretical principles and classroompro-

cedures of language-, learner-, and learning-centered methods.