www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Received 30 October 2000; received in revised form 23 June 2001; accepted 28 August 2001
Abstract
This article reports the views of 30 Chinese university students on the appropriateness
and effectiveness of communicative and non-communicative activities in their English-as-a-
Foreign-Language (EFL) courses in China. Using multimethod, qualitative research proce-
dures, the researcher discovered that the perceptions of these students sometimes surprised
their teachers, and that the students’ perceived difficulties caused by Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching (CLT) had their source in the differences between the underlying educational
theories of China and those of Western countries. The results suggest that, to update English
teaching methods, EFL countries like China need to modernize, not westernize, English teach-
ing; that is, to combine the ‘‘new’’ with the ‘‘old’’ to align the communicative approach with
traditional teaching structures. It is apparent from the study that only by reconciling com-
municative activities with non-communicative activities in English classrooms can students in
non-English speaking countries benefit from CLT. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Chinese students; EFL learners; Perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activ-
ities; Learner behaviour; CLT; Difficulties in adopting CLT; Traditional teaching methods; Teaching
English in China; Education settings; Culture
0346-251X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(01)00050-1
86 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
1. Introduction
Recent attempts to introduce CLT into EFL teaching in China have provoked a
great deal of comment and debate. Whereas some accounts have emphasized the
value of adopting CLT in China (e.g. Li, 1984; Maley, 1984; Spenser, 1986), others
have noted the importance of Chinese traditional ways of teaching and learning (e.g.
Harvey, 1985; Ting, 1987; Sampson, 1990). However, the majority of accounts have
focused on the need to adapt CLT to the demands and conditions for language
learning and teaching in China (e.g. Scovel, 1983; Anderson, 1993; Rao, 1996).
Within this heated debate on English teaching methodology, the study of Chinese
students’ response to CLT deserves particular attention. Do they enjoy activities
involving communication and real use of language? Are they receptive to the teach-
ing techniques that may be new to them? Do they agree that real-language activities
emphasizing language content are more effective than non-communicative activit-
ies that stress formal correction? Do they believe that such activities are helpful to
them as language learners?
With these questions in mind, researchers and English teachers have conducted
extensive studies on Chinese students’ learning strategies. Most of these studies
revealed that Chinese students’ learning strategies consisted of many of the follow-
ing features: concentration on intensive reading as a basis for language study; a
preoccupation with the careful, often painstaking examination of grammatical
structure and a corresponding lack of attention to more communicative skills; the use
of memorization and rote learning as a basic acquisition technique; a strong emphasis
on the correction of mistakes, both written and oral; the use of translation as a learning
strategy (Maley, 1983; Scovel, 1983; Barlow and Lowe, 1985; Harvey, 1985). One
exception this researcher has found in literature is a recent study made by Littlewood
(2000), in which he discovered that ‘‘the stereotype of Asian students as ‘obedient lis-
teners’—whether or not it is a reflection of their actual behaviour in class—does not
reflect the role they would like to adopt in class’’ (Littlewood, 2000, p. 33).
All these research reports of Chinese students’ learning strategies in EFL learning,
except Littlewood’s, have generally been based on anecdotal evidence and the
intuitive sense of teachers and researchers. This sort of evidence can be valuable,
but it is surprising that almost nobody seems to have actually asked Chinese stu-
dents themselves to rate the extent to which they enjoy communicative and non-
communicative activities. Recent researches have shown that the perceptions of
teachers and their students do not always match (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Block,
1994). Block (1994, 1996), for example, has found that ‘‘teachers and learners oper-
ate according to quite different systems for describing and attributing purpose to
tasks’’ (1994, p. 473). Block’s findings are supported by Nunan’s study (1986),
in which he found clear mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ opinions about
which activities were important in the learning process.
In order to deepen our understanding of how students react to communicative and
non-communicative activities, Barkhuizen (1998, p. 86) has called for ‘‘teachers to
discover their learners’ feelings and beliefs about their language learning experiences
and consequently to review and possibly change their teaching process’’. For this
Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105 87
3. The study
The study reported here used a case study approach to investigate Chinese stu-
dents’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL
classroom.
The last decades bear witness that China’s modernization program needs thou-
sands of people with a working command of English. Realizing that the traditional
grammar-translation method and audiolingual method could not help much to
develop learners’ communicative competence, EFL teachers in China started intro-
ducing CLT into English teaching at both the secondary school level and tertiary
level in the early 1980s. In most schools, students are encouraged, from the very
beginning of English learning, to develop communicative competence through
meaningful drills and communicative activities.
Accompanying the introduction of CLT was the publication of a series of new
textbooks. Various kinds of English textbooks are now available to English teach-
ers, who are free to choose any set provided that the whole school adopts it. The
new textbooks incorporate a communicative perspective and more listening and
speaking materials and activities relative to the older ones.
Nevertheless, the outcome of teaching English exclusively using CLT did not
provide the expected results. On the one hand, students did not like to participate in
communicative-type activities and preferred more traditional classroom work; on
the other hand, teachers felt discouraged from continuing with CLT, both because
of students’ negative responses and because of their lack of training in using CLT
and low English proficiency. What is responsible for this phenomenon? Is CLT a
viable approach for EFL teaching in China? To answer these questions, I investi-
gated Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative
activities in the EFL classroom. Specifically, the study attempted to answer the fol-
lowing questions:
3.2. Subjects
Table 1
Background of interview subjects
Li Hui F 20 3 Fair
Gao Ming F 22 3 Good
Wang Dawei M 18 2 Good
Jing Tao F 19 2 Poor
Zhong Qing M 19 2 Fair
Liu Peng M 21 3 Good
Sheng Hao M 23 3 Poor
Wu Wei F 20 2 Fair
Liang Qian F 21 3 Good
Zhang Jiangse M 19 2 Poor
90 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
3.3. Instruments
3.3.1. Questionnaire
The questionnaire consists of three parts (Appendix). Part A concerns the sub-
jects’ personal details (that is, name, sex, age, grades, English proficiency) and their
general views on communicative and non-communicative activities in the EFL
classroom.
Part B consists of 19 questionnaire items, which were designed as a representative
mix of communicative and real-language practice on the one hand, and non-
communicative form-based techniques on the other. Items involving communicative
and real use of language included activities characterized by student-to-student
interaction with little or no monitoring of student output by the teacher (items 4, 8
and 11); oral situations characterized by student–teacher interaction with the teacher
monitoring and sometimes responding to student output (items 7, 14, and 15); con-
tent-based teacher responses to students’ journals (item 10); and the use of songs in
the classroom (items 2 and 17). Singing and listening to songs were included in the
communicative group because such activities tend to focus on the meaning rather
than the grammatical form of what is being sung or listened to, and because singing
and listening to songs are real use of language. Non-communicative items empha-
sizing formal correctness included workbook type drill and practice exercises (items
1 and 16); audiolingual style substitution drills (items 12 and 13); dictionary work on
a list of words before reading a selection containing the words (item 3); explicit
grammar instruction conducted entirely in English (item 5); explicit grammar
instruction conducted in Chinese with examples in English (item 6); teacher correc-
tion of errors in the students’ journals (item 9, deliberately in contrast to item 10);
and students’ obedience to the teacher (items 18 and 19).
Part C consists of some difficulties that Chinese EFL students may have in using
communicative activities in the EFL classroom. All the question items in the ques-
tionnaire were simply and concisely stated so as to avoid any misunderstanding. To
each item in Part B and C, only two responses were given. The subjects were
instructed to express their personal opinions on each item by choosing ‘‘Yes’’ or
‘‘No’’.
to express their ideas fully. All the interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verba-
tim. The transcripts of the interviews were later given to the subjects for verification.
4. Data analysis
Data analysis is not a simple description of the data collected but a process by
which the researcher can bring interpretation to the data (Powney and Watts, 1987).
The themes and coding categories in this study emerged from an examination of the
data rather than being determined beforehand and imposed on the data (Bogdan
and Biklen, 1992). In the process of data analysis, I adopted analytic induction
(Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). By reading through the
completed questionnaire and the interview transcripts over and over again, I dis-
covered the students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activ-
ities and identified the recurrent themes and salient comments in regard to the
constraints that Chinese students had encountered in using communicative activ-
ities.
5. Results
5.1. Research question 1: What are the students’ perceptions of communicative and
non-communicative activities in the EFL classroom?
The reported favored activities in the EFL classroom, both communicative and
non-communicative, are shown in Table 2. Items in this table follow the order of the
descriptive listing above.
The survey results suggest that the students favored a variety of classroom activ-
ities, but that they liked non-communicative activities more than communicative
ones. Of the 10 non-communicative activities, six were favored by more than two
thirds of the subjects while in communicative activities four out of nine items were
claimed to be favored by most students. This reflected to a certain degree the current
English teaching situation in Chinese classrooms. Although CLT was gradually
introduced into the Chinese EFL classroom from the early 1980s, it still has not
become a dominant method in most EFL classrooms. Most students felt, on the
other hand, that such traditional classroom activities as audiolingual drill (items 12
and 13), workbook type drill and practice (items 1 and 16) were still effective ways to
facilitate their English learning. The following comment was typical.
Table 2
Reported favored activities in EFL classroom
Communicative items
Student–student interaction
4 29
8 28
11 9
Student–teacher interaction
7 28
14 30
15 8
Personal response to students’ exercises
10 17
Songs
2 14
17 7
Non-communicative items
Workbook type drill and practice
1 25
16 27
Audiolingual drill
12 30
13 30
Dictionary exercise
3 11
Grammar rule explanation by teacher
5 30
6 11
Error correction
9 16
Obedience to teacher’s instruction
18 12
19 27
a
The number of times the research subjects referred to an item in the questionnaire. The maximum
number of mentions possible for each item is 30.
Indeed, the students’ comments here reflected their current attitude towards
some of the outdated traditional classroom activities. For example, dictionary
exercise (item 3), which was quite welcome and popular before the 1990s, was
reported to be favored by only 11 of the 30 subjects. The same was true for error
correction (item 9).
What surprised the researcher even more from the study was the students’
response to the explanation of grammar rules by the teacher. All 30 students reported
that they would like the teacher to explain a grammatical rule that is printed in the
textbook in English (item 5). However, when asked if they would like the teacher to
explain a grammar rule in Chinese (item 6), only 11 of them said ‘‘Yes’’. This indi-
cated that most of the students had taken up the mother-tongue-avoidance strategy
in the classroom, which was one result from the introduction of CLT in China. Even
respondents whose English proficiency was poor insisted that teachers should use
English whenever they could.
Similarly, the students’ belief in obedience to the teacher in the classroom had
also undergone a certain change. While 27 reported that they would still rely on
the teacher to tell them how much they had learned (item 19), 12 reported that
they would like to depend on the teacher to explain everything to them (item 18).
This result supports Littlewood’s study, in which he concludes: ‘‘Asian students do
not, in fact, wish to be spoonfed with facts from an all-knowing ‘fount of knowl-
edge’. They want to explore knowledge themselves and find their own answers’’.
(Littlewood, 2000, p. 34).
There were also some striking features in the reported favored communicative
activities by the subjects. Almost all of the students stated that they liked group
work (item 4) and pair work (item 8), which involved a great deal of student–student
interaction. Nevertheless, when asked whether they would like to move around the
classroom (item 11), only 9 provided positive answers. Li Hui expressed her distress
when asked to perform such activities in class.
4. There are 38 students in my class. It is all right for us to organize group dis-
cussion or pair work. But there is chaos when we are asked to interact with each
other by moving around the classroom, which is only spacious enough to hold all
of us. I feel quite frustrated when such an activity is going around. (Li Hui, 11
October 1999)
This suggests that, while most of the students did like to be involved in the com-
municative activities for language practice, this involvement should be confined to
the practical learning condition. The research result indicated that any attempt
to teach English in a communicative way without taking into account the actual
teaching circumstances would lead to a failure.
The same rule also applied to student–teacher interaction. In this section, 28 sub-
jects found it stimulating to report on a newspaper or magazine article in English
(item 7), and all 30 subjects considered it helpful for the teacher to lead a class dis-
cussion (item 14).
94 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
Surprisingly, even respondents who could speak English well thought their Eng-
lish was ‘‘too poor to communicate with native English speakers’’ (Liu Peng, 11
October 1999). It seems that it was not the students’ lack of English proficiency that
discouraged them from interviewing English speakers. Rather, it was lack of
opportunity for practice and lack of confidence. This problem was particularly seri-
ous for female students, who were ‘‘too shy to talk with a native English speaker’’
(Gao Ming, 17 October 1999). In other words, interviewing English speakers outside
of class may indeed be a good way for students to practice English. But it is not
realistic and practical in some non-English speaking countries, where the opportu-
nity to meet English speakers is quite rare.
The students’ attitudes toward content-based teacher responses to their journals
(item 10) were moderate, with 17 of them claiming to like it. What appeared to be
the unfavored activities for most of the students, among the communicative activ-
ities, were related with English songs (items 2 and 17). There were probably two
reasons: (1) lack of use of the English songs for English teaching in classroom by
teachers; and (2) the students’ traditional concept about education. In China, most
people take their learning seriously and associate songs and games in class with
entertainment exclusively. Therefore, they are skeptical of their use as learning tools
(Rao, 1996).
Several subjects with good English proficiency commented favorably on some
dynamic, creative activities, but noted that these activities were difficult to apply in
the Chinese context. ‘‘There is a cultural gap. Chinese don’t think in the way most
Westerners think’’. (Liang Qian, 11 October 1999).
5.2. Research question 2: What are the students’ perceived difficulties in an EFL
class exclusively conducted by a teacher using CLT?
All the 30 subjects showed interest in the methods their teacher used in the English
classroom. Twenty-two subjects reported that non-communicative activities suited
them better, and the other eight reported that they preferred communicative activ-
ities. To meet their current needs in English learning, all the subjects unanimously
agreed that a combination of communicative and non-communicative activities was
a best way. However, most of the subjects reported having encountered difficulties
Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105 95
caused by communicative activities (Table 3). Some of the subjects pointed out that
these difficulties made them unwilling or unable to participate in dynamic classroom
activities.
Another factor causing little motivation for the students to improve their com-
municative competence originated from their career orientation. Since the university
in which the present study was conducted was a teachers’ university, all the gradu-
ates were supposed to be English teachers in secondary schools.
Since grammar still plays a decisive role in all examinations in China, students
complained that ‘‘they did not learn anything if they did not learn new words and
grammar in a class’’ (Liu Peng, 11 October 1999). Such an attitude makes the stu-
dents pay meticulous attention to language details rather than to communicative
Table 3
Reported difficulties caused by communicative activities in EFL classroom
competence. As Li (1984, p. 13) observes: ‘‘The examination is the piper that calls
the tune. Perhaps the tide will turn only when language testing has changed its
focus.’’
9. I was taught to behave traditionally in classroom the first day I went to school.
Since then, I have started forming my own learning habits, which have brought
me more or less success so far. I feel it awkward to change my classroom beha-
viors at my age in the English class. (Wang Dawei, 13 October 1999)
11. Teachers in ESL situations are mostly native English speakers. They are not
only fluent in English, but also good at organizing their classes in a commu-
nicative way because they have had a lot of training in this aspect. However, our
English teachers are mostly Chinese, and most of them don’t have much experi-
ence in improving students’ communicative competence. In addition, students in
ESL situations can have access to many authentic materials whereas such resour-
ces are hardly available for us except textbooks. (Jing Tao, 15 October 1999)
12. There are five language laboratories in our department, each having 48 seats.
However, only 30 seats or so in each laboratory are in good condition. To make
things worse, there is even no two-way communication facility in the laboratory.
All the classrooms in our university are not equipped with projectors, let alone TV
sets and computers. (Liu Peng, 11 October 1999)
The respondents also complained that they had to share the costs involved in the
communicative classroom teaching in class.
13. In our extensive reading class last semester, our teacher always asked us to pay
for the photocopied materials for communicative activities in class because there
was no extra funding available from the university. Since there was so much
complaint from us, the teacher stopped providing us with any authentic reading
materials this semester. (Wang Dawei, 13 October 1999)
Faced with such a financial dilemma, some subjects doubted whether commu-
nicative activities would be feasible or effective for their English learning.
On the whole, much of what the Chinese students said about communicative and
non-communicative activities in their English classroom is encouraging for teachers
concerned with whether students are likely to accept real-language techniques. The
students in this study were not inclined to see all activities emphasizing formal lin-
guistic competence as more effective than those emphasizing the real use of lang-
uage. They also did not tend automatically to reject what was new to them in favor
of what was familiar.
However, the results of the study do show a tendency that most of the students
favor a combination of communicative and non-communicative activities in their
98 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
English classroom. All the subjects are aware of the fact that no single teaching
method, so far, can be expected to deal with everything that concerns the form, use
and content of the target language. The only way out is to reconcile communicative
activities and non-communicative activities in English learning.
Actually, there exist some encouraging examples in teaching English in China by
combining communicative and non-communicative activities (see White, 1989; For-
seth, 1991; Tool, 1992; for details). All these examples illustrate that Chinese stu-
dents’ English learning can be facilitated if teachers can develop their own ‘‘locally
appropriate version of the communicative approach’’ (Thompson, 1996, p. 36).
However, in the process of devising such teaching methods, teachers may encounter
resistance from their students, as mentioned above by the subjects in this study. The
conflict between what communicative activities demand and what the EFL situation
in China allows must be resolved before Chinese students can benefit from these
learning activities. To find possible solutions to these problems, attention should be
given to the following areas.
6.3. Creating authentic communicative scenarios for the real use of the language
The study shows that lack of materials prevents students in EFL situations from
getting exposed to the authentic English language. However, this does not mean that
there is nothing we can do about it. For example, teachers and students can cut out
and circulate individual articles. They can also clip articles from local English lang-
uage periodicals (e.g. China Daily, Beijing Review, China’s Reconstruction) and
international newspapers and magazines (e.g. The International Herald Tribune,
Newsweek International). The latter offer students more insight into other countries,
people and cultures (Kitao, 1995) as well as more international news than their local
or national periodicals provide. What is more, the Internet also offers a rich source
of authentic reading materials.
7. Conclusion
Teachers, curriculum planners, and others who want to be sensitive to the needs of
the students they serve cannot always rely on their unaided intuitions (Rudduck,
1991). By using the present instrument, in which the students expressed their personal
opinions about communicative and non-communicative activities, the researcher has
discovered whether the subjects see certain kinds of activities as more effective than
others and whether they are likely to be open to techniques and practices not pre-
viously experienced. Giving this type of survey to the students has also helped the
100 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
Appendix. Questionnaire
1. Name ___________________
2. Age _____________________
3. Sex ______________________
4. How do you rate your English proficiency as compared with the proficiency
of other students in your class?
YES NO
YES NO
8. Why do you or why don’t you like communicative activities in EFL class-
room?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105 101
YES NO
10. Why do you or why don’t you like non-communicative activities in EFL
classroom?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Part B: The following are 19 descriptions of things that might happen in an EFL
(English as a Foreign Language) class. Please give your personal opinions about
them by choosing one of the two answers.
1. Do you like to do a written exercise in which you are asked to fill in the
correct forms of verbs in sentences?
YES NO
2. Do you like to be given the words to a current hit song in English, and then
listen to the recording, or watch the video?
YES NO
3. Do you like the teacher to give you a list of words that occur in a story or
article, and then ask you to look up the words in an English-English dic-
tionary for the purpose of copying the definitions?
YES NO
4. Do you like the teacher to divide you into small groups in which you and
your classmates talk about things you like and things you dislike?
YES NO
5. Do you like the teacher to explain a grammatical rule that is printed in the
textbook in English, and then give you examples in English as well?
YES NO
6. Do you like the teacher to speak Chinese when explaining a grammatical rule
that is printed in the textbook, and then give examples in English?
YES NO
102 Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105
YES NO
8. Do you like the teacher to divide you into pairs, in which you have to ask
your partner questions, and answer the questions your partner asks you?
YES NO
YES NO
10. Do you like the teacher to pay attention to the ideas and feelings in your
journals, and write short personal notes in response to what you say?
YES NO
11. Do you like to receive a sheet of paper with a number of sentences like:
12. Do you like the teacher to speak a series of sentences and ask the entire class
to respond orally to each sentence by changing it in some way? For example:
13. Do you like the teacher to call on all students in turn to change a sentence in
some way? For example:
14. Do you like the teacher to lead a class discussion of a topic such as popula-
tion problem, movies, or places to visit in China?
YES NO
15. Do you like to interview English speakers and report on the interviews in
English?
YES NO
16. Do you like to do an exercise in which you should find mistakes in grammar
and correct the mistakes?
YES NO
17. Do you like to be given the words in a song and sing the song, led by the
teacher or a record?
YES NO
18. Do you like to reply on the teacher to explain everything that you should
know?
YES NO
19. Do you like the teacher to evaluate how much you have learnt?
YES NO
Part C: The following are some difficulties that other students in EFL situations
had in adopting communicative activities. Did you come across these difficulties or
do you think they might be difficulties for you in using communicative activities in
China?
References
Allwright, R., 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics 5,
156–171.
Anderson, J., 1993. Is communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons.
System 21/4, 471–480.
Barlow, T.E., Lowe, D., 1985. Chinese Reflections: Americans Teaching in the People’s Republic. Prae-
ger, New York.
Barkhuizen, G.P., 1998. Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in
South African context. TESOL Quarterly 32/1, 85–108.
Block, D., 1994. A day in the life of a class: teacher/learner perception of task purpose in conflict. System
22, 473–486.
Block, D., 1996. A window on the classroom: classroom events viewed from different angles. In: Bailey,
K.M., Nunan, D. (Eds.), Voice from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Lan-
guage Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 168–194.
Bogdan, R., Biklen, S.K., 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and
Methods. Allyn and Bacon, London.
Canale, M., Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language learning
and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47.
Dane, F.C., 1990. Research Methods. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Deckert, G., 1987. The communicative approach: helping students adjust. English Teaching Forum 44,
25–37.
Denzin, N.K., 1989. Interpretive Biography. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Dubin, F., 1995. The craft of materials writing. In: Byrd, P. (Ed.), Material Writer’s Guide. Heinle and
Heinle, Boston, pp. 64–78.
Edge, J., 1996. Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL Quarterly 30, 9–30.
Forseth, R., 1991. Conversation class: how to keep your students talking (in English). ELIC Teaching 8,
35–44.
Goetz, J.P., LeCompte, M.D., 1984. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Education Research. Aca-
demic Press, New York.
Harvey, P., 1985. A lesson to be learned: Chinese approaches to language learning. ELT Journal 39, 7–9.
Holliday, A., 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Howatt, A., 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kitao, K., 1995. Teaching English through newspapers. In: Kitao, K., Kitao, S.K. (Eds.), English
Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice. Eichosha, Tokyo, pp. 297–320.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991. Language-learning tasks: teacher in intention and learner interpretation. ELT
Journal 45, 98–107.
Larsen-Freeman, D., 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Li, X., 1984. In defense of the communicative approach. ELT Journal 38, 2–13.
Lightbown, P., 1991. Input, instruction, and feedback in second language acquisition. Second Language
Research 7, 2–3.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Littlewood, W., 2000. Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54/1, 31–35.
Maley, A., 1983. XANADU—‘‘A miracle of rare device’’: the teaching of English in China. Language
Learning and Communication 2/1, 97–103.
Maley, A., 1984. On chalk and cheese, babies and bathwater and squared circles: can traditional and
communicative approaches be reconciled? In: Larson, P., Judd, E.L., Messerschmitt, D.S. (Eds.), On
TESOL ’84. TESOL, Washington DC, pp. 159–169.
Markee, N., 1997. Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maykut, P., Morehouse, R., 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research. The Falmer Press, London.
McGroarty, M., 1984. Some meanings of communicative competence for second language students.
TESOL Quarterly 18, 257–272.
Z. Rao / System 30 (2002) 85–105 105
Nunan, D., 1986. Communicative language teaching: the teacher’s view. Paper presented at RELC
regional seminar, Singapore.
Penner, J., 1995. Change and conflict: introduction of the communicative approach in China. TESL
Canada Journal 12/2, 1–17.
Powney, J., Watts, M., 1987. Interview in Education Research. Routledge, London.
Rao, Z., 1996. Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese
methods. Research in the Teaching of English 30/4, 458–469.
Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T., 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and
Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rudduck, J., 1991. Innovation and Change. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England.
Sampson, G.P., 1990. Teaching English literacy using Chinese strategies. TESL Talk 20/1, 126–138.
Savignon, S., 1991. Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly 25, 261–277.
Scovel, T., 1983. The impact of foreign experts, methodology and materials on English language study in
China. Language Learning and Communication 2/1, 83–91.
Spenser, L., 1986. An adjunct-model English-language program in Beijing. Monday Morning/Lundi
Matin 2/1, 7–9.
Ting, Y.R., 1987. Foreign language teaching in China: problems and perspectives. Canadian and Inter-
national Education 16/1, 48–61.
Tool, D., 1992. Teaching large conversation classes with media aids. English Teaching Forum 30/2, 32–33.
Thompson, G., 1996. Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal 44,
25–37.
Warschauer, M., 1995. E-mail for English teaching. TESOL, Alexandria, VA.
White, C.J., 1989. Negotiating communicative language learning in a traditional setting. ELT Journal 43/
3, 213–220.
Widdowson, H.G., 1996. Authenticity and autonomy in ELT. ELT Journal 50, 67–68.
System 32 (2004) 143–144
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Announcement
In our editorial in 31/4 2003 we announced that Elsevier had decided to award
prizes for the three System papers most downloaded during 2003. First prize, £200;
second prize £100; third prize £50, though the greater prize, I am sure, is the satis-
faction of seeing one’s work reach as wide an audience as possible.
The final figures are now to hand, and the lucky prizewinners are the following:
1st: Madeline E. Ehrman, Betty Lou Leaver and Rebecca L. Oxford, ‘A brief
overview of individual differences in second language learning’. 31/3 2003,
313–330.
2nd: Virginia LoCastro, ‘Individual differences in second language acquisition:
attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms’. 29/1 2001, 69–89.
3rd: Stephen Bax, ‘CALL—past, present and future’. 31/1 2003, 13–28.
Our congratulations to the above, as well! We must, however, point out that a
popularity list does not in itself say anything about the quality of those articles
which did not make the top ten. What it does perhaps indicate is those topics which
are attracting most widespread attention in our readership at the present time, here
individual differences, learning styles and strategies; the computer in language
education; communicative language teaching and cooperative learning; and the ever-
present question of the role of grammar or ‘form’. None of these come as a surprise.
Our publishers have offered to award similar prizes for downloads in 2004, so we
look forward to a new list in a year’s time. Do please let your editor know if you
have any comments on this new feature.