Communicative Language Teaching
The principles, activities, and design decisions behind the most influential approach in modern ELT — and what teachers get wrong about it.
Teaching Language as Communication
Communicative Language Teaching emerged in the 1970s as a rejection of audio-lingual drilling and structural syllabuses. Its central claim: language is not a set of rules to be memorised, but a social tool for making meaning. Fifty years on, it remains the dominant paradigm in ELT worldwide.
Before CLT, language teaching focused on what language looks like: verb conjugations, sentence patterns, grammatical rules. Learners could pass grammar tests and fail to say anything useful in real life.
CLT shifted the focus to what language does: expressing opinions, requesting, refusing, apologising, persuading, narrating. The question became not “can the learner produce correct sentences?” but “can the learner communicate successfully in real contexts?”
This doesn’t mean grammar is ignored. It means grammar is taught in the service of communication, not as an end in itself.
Grammatical
Knowledge of the language system: grammar, vocabulary, phonology, spelling. The accuracy dimension — necessary but not sufficient.
Sociolinguistic
Knowing what to say, how, and when — appropriate to the social context, relationship, and purpose. The appropriacy dimension.
Discourse
Ability to produce coherent stretches of language: how sentences connect, how conversations are structured, how texts are organised. The cohesion dimension.
Strategic
Communication strategies used to compensate for gaps: paraphrasing, circumlocution, asking for clarification, using gesture. The resourcefulness dimension.
Before and After CLT
| Pre-CLT (Audio-Lingual) | Communicative Language Teaching |
|---|---|
| Repeat the pattern until it’s automatic | Use the language to achieve a real communicative goal |
| Errors are bad habits to be eliminated immediately | Errors are part of learning; fluency phases allow risk-taking |
| Teacher controls all interaction | Students interact with each other; teacher facilitates |
| Language is a system to be mastered | Language is a social tool to be used |
| Grammar syllabus organises progression | Functional/notional syllabus or task-based progression |
| The text is the authority | The learner’s meaning-making is the centre of the lesson |
| Accuracy before fluency | Fluency and accuracy developed together, in distinct phases |
Historical Background — Where CLT Came From
Hymes (1972) — coined communicative competence in response to Chomsky’s linguistic competence. Hymes argued that native speakers don’t just know the grammar of their language — they know when, how, with whom, and for what purposes to use it. This sociolinguistic insight became the theoretical bedrock of CLT.
Wilkins (1976) — developed the notional-functional syllabus, organising language teaching around functions (complaining, requesting, agreeing) and notions (time, quantity, location) rather than grammar structures. This was the first major syllabus implementation of CLT principles.
Canale & Swain (1980) — provided the theoretical model of communicative competence that most teacher training still uses, expanding Hymes’s concept into four components and making it directly applicable to classroom instruction.
Brumfit & Johnson (1979) — edited the foundational CLT reader that brought these ideas into ELT practice. Their collection made CLT a teachable and transferable framework for teachers, not just a theoretical position.
Core Principles
The foundational commitments that define CLT as an approach — what every CLT lesson should reflect, regardless of level, age group, or context.
Communication is the goal, not the vehicle. Language is not just the medium through which grammar is practised — it is the objective. Activities should have a genuine communicative purpose that would be undermined if everyone already knew the answer.
Meaning must be primary. Learners must be engaged with real meaning — what they are trying to communicate — not just the correct production of a form. Grammar should emerge in the service of meaning, not the other way around.
All four skills are integrated. In real communication, listening, speaking, reading, and writing are intertwined. CLT resists artificial isolation of skills in favour of activities that mirror how they co-occur in real life.
Learners must interact. The most valuable language in a CLT lesson is learner-to-learner language, not teacher-to-learner. Teachers who talk more than 30% of the lesson time are probably violating the spirit of CLT.
Authenticity matters. Both the language used and the tasks given should approximate, as closely as possible, real-world language and real-world tasks. Artificial drills with no communicative purpose are inconsistent with CLT principles.
The learner’s experience is a resource. CLT treats learners as people with lives, opinions, experiences, and communicative needs — not empty vessels. Tasks that draw on who learners are produce richer, more motivated language than decontextualised exercises.
Fluency and accuracy are both necessary. CLT does not mean “anything goes.” Accuracy matters — but it is developed alongside fluency, in dedicated phases, rather than treated as a prerequisite for communication.
The Fluency–Accuracy Balance
Fluency activities
The primary goal is communication without interruption. Errors are not corrected during the activity. The teacher monitors and takes notes but does not intervene unless communication breaks down completely.
Examples: information gap tasks, discussions, role plays, storytelling, debates, simulation activities.
Error correction happens after — in a feedback stage — not during the fluency activity itself.
Accuracy activities
The focus shifts to correct production of target forms. Errors are corrected. The communicative element is still present, but the teacher intervenes more actively to draw attention to form.
Examples: guided practice with a focus on a target structure, controlled dialogue with feedback, written production of a specific form in context.
Accuracy activities work best after — not before — fluency activities where the gap has become visible.
What If…
This is common — especially with learners from educational backgrounds that prioritised grammar instruction. The answer is not to abandon CLT but to make the connection explicit: explain why communication activities develop the language faster than drilling rules, and use focused feedback stages that satisfy the learner’s need to understand what they got wrong.
Larger classes require tighter task structures: clear roles, time limits, written output requirements, and a visible signal to transition. Jigsaw activities and market-place activities work particularly well because movement and noise are built into the design.
Information Gap Activities
The most fundamental CLT activity type — and the most frequently misdesigned. An information gap creates a genuine reason to communicate. Without the gap, there is no communication — only performance.
An information gap activity requires that one learner has information the other genuinely needs — and that neither has access to the other’s information until they communicate. This is what makes it communicative: there is a real reason to speak, a real reason to listen, and a real consequence to the exchange.
If both learners can see each other’s information, or if the task can be completed without speaking, there is no gap — and therefore no communication, regardless of how much talking happens.
The Three Conditions for a Real Information Gap
Information asymmetry
One person knows something the other doesn’t. This cannot be visible, guessable from context, or irrelevant to the task. The asymmetry must be real and the information must matter.
A goal
Both participants want to achieve something — find something out, complete a puzzle, reach a decision, make a plan. Without a goal, the task has no communicative drive.
No visual access
Neither participant can see the other’s information. If they can, they’ll read it rather than ask for it — and the gap collapses. Back-to-back seating, folder screens, or separate cards enforce this.
Information Gap Activity Types
Spot the Difference
Each partner has a nearly identical picture with small differences. They must find all the differences by describing their image — without showing it.
Targets: present simple/continuous descriptions, prepositions of place, adjectives.Map / Grid Completion
Each partner has a map or grid with some information missing. They must fill in the gaps by asking questions — neither can show their version.
Targets: directions, location language, question forms, numbers and dates.Schedule / Diary Task
Partner A and B have different diary entries. They must arrange a time to meet by negotiating around their existing commitments — without showing each other.
Targets: future tenses, time expressions, polite refusals and suggestions.Jigsaw Reading
Each learner reads a different section of a longer text. They then share what they’ve read to construct the full picture — nobody reads both sections.
Targets: summarising, paraphrasing, past tense narrative, any topic content.Describe and Draw
One partner describes a complex image or diagram in detail; the other draws it. They compare the drawing to the original at the end.
Targets: spatial language, shapes, prepositions, instructional language.Find Someone Who
Each learner has a grid of statements/questions. They must mingle and find classmates who fit each description — creating genuine social interaction.
Targets: question forms, past simple, present perfect, any functional area.What Makes an Information Gap Fail
Both students can see each other’s information
This destroys the gap immediately. Learners will look rather than listen. Use physical barriers, back-to-back seating, or separate printed sheets — never a shared worksheet.
The information doesn’t actually need communicating
If learners can complete the task by looking at their own sheet, they will. Every piece of missing information must be genuinely required — and unavailable any other way.
One partner does all the talking
Asymmetric gaps — where one partner has all the information — produce monologue, not dialogue. True information gaps give each partner unique information the other needs.
No feedback stage
Without checking the output, the communicative activity produces no language harvest. Always plan a feedback stage, even a brief one.
Task Design
How to build communicative tasks that create genuine language need — the design decisions that separate a good CLT activity from one that just looks communicative on paper.
The Anatomy of a Communicative Task
A goal
What does the task produce? A decision, a plan, a ranking, a recommendation, a report? The goal must require language to achieve — not just trigger it.
Not: “Talk about holidays.” But: “Agree on the best destination for the group’s budget trip, given everyone’s different preferences and constraints.”
Input
What do learners work with? Text, audio, images, data, roleplay cards, personal experience? The input should create the need for language, not just provide content to discuss.
Activity / procedure
What do learners do with the input to reach the goal? The procedure should involve information exchange, opinion expression, problem-solving, or decision-making — not just turn-taking.
Outcome
What is produced at the end? A decision, a poster, a presentation, a written plan? Outcomes make the task real — learners work toward something, not just through something.
Task Types by Communicative Purpose
| Task Type | Communicative Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Information gap | Requesting and sharing information | Find the differences between two schedules by asking questions |
| Opinion gap | Expressing and defending views | Rank five candidates for a job; reach group consensus |
| Reasoning gap | Analysing information and drawing conclusions | Read witness testimonies and decide what really happened |
| Problem-solving | Collaboration, negotiation, compromise | Survivors on a deserted island: decide what to keep from a list of ten items |
| Decision-making | Evaluating options and reaching agreement | Plan a company event with a fixed budget and conflicting requirements |
| Creative | Storytelling, improvisation, imagination | Continue a story from a prompt; create a podcast episode outline |
| Role play | Pragmatic competence in social contexts | Complain about a hotel room; negotiate a salary; refuse an invitation politely |
| Simulation | Extended authentic interaction in a fictional frame | A town planning meeting where different residents have different interests |
The Pre-Task, Task, Post-Task Cycle
Pre-task (10–15 min): Activate relevant language and schema. Introduce the topic and task. Teach or elicit key vocabulary. This is the only phase where teacher-led presentation is appropriate — and it should be brief.
Task (20–30 min): Learners perform the communicative task in pairs or groups. Teacher circulates, monitors, and takes notes on language — but does not intervene unless communication breaks down. All four skills may be active simultaneously.
Report (5–10 min): Groups share their outcomes with the class. This creates a real audience for the task and requires learners to produce a public account of their discussion.
Language focus (10–15 min): Teacher draws attention to language from the task — errors noted during monitoring, chunks that would have helped, target forms that emerged. This is where accuracy work happens: it’s reactive, not pre-emptive.
Activity Types
A practical bank of tried-and-tested CLT activities — with design notes, level guidance, and teaching tips for each.
Groups are told they’ve been shipwrecked and can only keep five items from a list of fifteen. They must reach consensus — and every member must agree. The constraint forces real negotiation: justifying choices, responding to objections, compromising.
The activity produces natural use of: modal verbs (we should / we need to / we could), comparatives (more useful than), opinion expressions (I think / I don’t agree because), and conditionals (if we take X, we won’t need Y).
Each learner writes three statements about themselves: two true, one false. They share the statements; classmates ask follow-up questions and vote on which is the lie. The game creates a genuine need to listen carefully, formulate questions, and evaluate responses.
The activity produces: past simple, question forms, adverbs of frequency, hedging language (I think… / It might be…). Excellent for the first few lessons of a course — content is personal and memorable.
One learner takes a role card with a persona and situation (customer with a complaint, job applicant, unhappy tenant). Their partner(s) play the other role (customer service agent, interviewer, landlord). The role card gives enough context to create genuine communicative asymmetry.
The activity targets pragmatic competence: how to complain without being rude, how to refuse politely, how to disagree professionally. These are the skills that coursebooks cover but rarely practise at sufficient depth.
Each member of a group reads a different short text on the same topic (four different perspectives on AI, four different causes of a problem, four different expert opinions). They then come together and share what they’ve read — each person is the only expert on their text. A discussion question requires all four perspectives to resolve.
Creates genuine information exchange, develops summarising and paraphrasing skills, and rewards active listening. Every learner has a unique and necessary contribution.
Half the class are “sellers” (each has unique information on a card — a product, an idea, a solution). Half are “buyers” (each has criteria for what they need). They mingle, negotiate, and the best matching pair wins. Creates dense, organic communication without a fixed script.
A simulation: a fictional town is facing a decision (build a new road through a park, introduce a curfew, close the local hospital). Each learner takes a role (mayor, local business owner, parent, environmental activist, elderly resident). They must advocate for their position and reach a democratic decision.
Produces: formal register, persuasion language, conceding and counter-arguing, procedural language (I’d like to propose… / Can we vote on…?). Highly motivating because the stakes feel real within the fiction.
The Teacher’s Role
In CLT, the teacher’s role shifts dramatically from the traditional “sage on the stage.” Understanding what the teacher should and shouldn’t do is as important as understanding the activities themselves.
Designer
The most important role — and the one that happens before class. Designing tasks that create genuine communicative need, with real information asymmetry, clear goals, and appropriate challenge.
A well-designed task runs itself. A poorly designed one requires constant teacher intervention to sustain it.
Monitor
During fluency activities, the teacher circulates without interrupting. Notes are taken on language — errors, gaps, good emergent language, missed opportunities. This material becomes the language focus stage.
The hardest part of monitoring: resisting the urge to jump in.
Facilitator
The teacher manages transitions, sets up tasks clearly, ensures participation is balanced, and intervenes only when communication breaks down — not when errors occur.
Facilitation is active: circulating, encouraging, redirecting — not sitting at the front.
Resource
When learners need a word, a form, or a cultural explanation — they ask the teacher. In CLT, the teacher is available but not central. Learners should feel able to initiate language enquiries.
Analyst
During and after activities, the teacher analyses learner language for patterns: what errors are systematic? What gaps keep appearing? What language emerged that should be taught? This informs the feedback stage and future lesson planning.
Performer (sparingly)
The teacher can and should demonstrate tasks, model language, and occasionally participate in activities — but not dominate them. A teacher who talks more than they listen is undermining CLT principles.
Teacher Talk Time — A Practical Guide
One of the most cited principles of CLT is maximising Student Talk Time (STT) and minimising Teacher Talk Time (TTT). But the goal is not silence — it’s purposeful speech on both sides.
High-value teacher talk
Clear, efficient task instructions. Modelling the target language. Feedback on learner language. Questions that open discussion. Reformulation of learner output.
This talk directly enables or enriches learner communication.Low-value teacher talk
Extended grammar explanation before learners have tried to use the form. Echoing every learner response. Answering questions learners could answer themselves. Filling silences unnecessarily.
This talk occupies time without producing learning.Common Myths About CLT
CLT is widely cited and widely misunderstood. These are the most persistent misconceptions — and why they’re wrong.
“CLT means no grammar teaching”
CLT does not reject grammar — it reframes it. Grammar is taught reactively and contextually rather than as a pre-set syllabus item.
Reality: Grammar is essential. The question is when and how — not whether.
“Errors don’t matter in CLT”
Errors are not corrected during fluency phases — but that is not the same as saying they don’t matter. Correction happens in the post-task feedback stage.
Reality: Accuracy matters. Timing of correction is strategic, not permissive.
“CLT activities are just games”
Communicative activities may feel informal or playful, but they are designed around precise linguistic and communicative objectives.
Reality: Principled task design is the hardest skill in CLT teaching.
“CLT doesn’t work for beginners”
Even at A1, learners can engage in genuine communication. The complexity of the task scales with the level — the communicative principle does not.
Reality: Every level can and should have communicative activity — appropriately scaffolded.
“The teacher should always stay silent”
CLT values learner talk — it does not require teacher silence. Clear instructions, well-timed feedback, and scaffolded participation are all teacher activities that enable better learner communication.
Reality: Quality of teacher talk matters more than quantity.
“CLT requires authentic materials only”
Authenticity is a principle, not a rigid rule. Any material can be used communicatively. Any material can be used uncommunicatively.
Reality: The test is whether the task created around it generates genuine communicative need.
What If…
Most modern coursebooks include communicative activities, but they vary widely in quality. The key is to treat the coursebook as a resource, not a script. Any grammar presentation can be followed by a communicative task. CLT is an orientation — you bring it to the materials, it doesn’t come pre-packaged.
Silence usually means one of three things: the task is too difficult (lower the scaffolding), the task goal is unclear (restate it more concretely), or learners don’t feel safe enough to produce imperfect language. The third requires investment in affective safety: respond positively to attempts, don’t laugh at errors, and model willingness to get things wrong yourself.
Theory & Research
The theoretical foundations of CLT and the empirical evidence for its effectiveness — including the honest debates about its limits.
Key Theorists
Dell Hymes (1972)
Sociolinguist who argued that native speakers don’t just know a language — they know how to use it appropriately in social contexts. His concept of communicative competence became the theoretical foundation for CLT, challenging Chomsky’s purely formal view of linguistic knowledge.
Canale & Swain (1980)
Developed the four-component model of communicative competence (grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic) that became the standard framework for CLT syllabus design and assessment.
David Wilkins (1976)
Designed the notional-functional syllabus — the first major CLT-informed syllabus design. Organised teaching around what language does (functions: requesting, complaining) and the concepts it expresses (notions: time, quantity, location) rather than grammatical structures.
Michael Long (1981)
Developed Interaction Hypothesis — communication works as an acquisition mechanism because negotiation of meaning draws attention to form in a way that drives learning. Provided the SLA rationale for information gap activities.
Evidence Base
| Study / Finding | Focus | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Long (1981, 1996) — Interaction Hypothesis | Negotiation of meaning in interaction | Communication breakdowns that get repaired are acquisition opportunities — learners notice form when meaning fails. |
| Swain (1993) — Output Hypothesis | Pushed output and gap noticing | Producing language forces learners to notice gaps. Communicative output is not just display; it is a learning mechanism. |
| Lyster & Ranta (1997) | Corrective feedback in immersion classrooms | Implicit feedback (recasts) was frequent but produced low uptake. Explicit elicitation produced more learner repair — supporting focus on form within communicative activity. |
| Norris & Ortega (2000) — Meta-analysis | Form-focused vs meaning-focused instruction | Combined approaches outperformed either alone. |
| Spada (1997) | CLT effectiveness across contexts | CLT is consistently more effective than audio-lingual methods for communicative outcomes. |
The Ongoing Debate — Is CLT Enough?
CLT’s dominance has not gone unchallenged. The most substantive critiques come from three directions:
The accuracy problem: Learners in CLT environments sometimes develop fluent but persistently inaccurate language — particularly in immersion settings (Swain’s Canadian French immersion research). This led to the development of focus on form (Long, 1991) as a way to embed accuracy work within CLT.
The context problem: CLT was developed in Western, learner-centred educational traditions. Its assumptions about learner autonomy and resistance to explicit grammar instruction do not always transfer to educational cultures with different values and expectations.
The implicit knowledge problem: Some forms — particularly those that are low-salience, infrequent, or functionally redundant (like third-person -s) — may never be acquired through communication alone. Explicit instruction remains necessary for forms that learners don’t notice through communication.
The current consensus (Spada & Lightbown, 2008; Ellis, 2005) is that communicative and form-focused approaches work best in combination.