PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMUNICATIVE

APPROACH:
1. Language learning is learning to communicate using the target language.
2. The language used to communicate must be appropriate to the situation, the roles of
the speakers, the setting and the register. The learner needs to differentiate between a
formal and an informal style.
3. Communicative activities are essential. Activities should be presented in a situation
or context and have a communicative purpose. Typical activities of this approach are:
games, problem-solving tasks, and role-play. There should be information gap, choice
and feedback involved in the activities.
4. Learners must have constant interaction with and exposure to the target language.
5. Development of the four macroskills — speaking, listening, reading and writing — is
integrated from the beginning, since communication integrates the different skills.
6. The topics are selected and graded regarding age, needs, level, and students’ interest.
7. Motivation is central. Teachers should raise students’ interest from the beginning of
the lesson.
8. The role of the teacher is that of a guide, a facilitator or an instructor.
9. Trial and error is considered part of the learning process.
10. Evaluation concerns not only the learners’ accuracy but also their fluency.
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
Main Features and Techniques:
1. Meaning is paramount.
2. Dialogues, if used, enter around communicative functions and are not normally
memorized.
3. Contextualization is a basic premise. (Meaning cannot be understood out of context.
Teachers using this approach will present a grammar topic in a meaningful context.
Example: If the new topic to teach is Present Continuous, the teacher will not mime the
action of ‘walking’ and ask: What am I doing? I am walking. Instead, the teacher will
show, say, pictures of her last trip and tell the students something like: I have pictures of
my vacation. Look, in this picture I am with my friends. We are having lunch at a very
expensive restaurant. In this other picture, we are swimming at the beach.
4. Language learning is learning to communicate and effective communication is sought.
(When learners are involved in real communication, their natural strategies for language
acquisition will be used, and this will allow them to learn to use the language.)
5. Drilling may occur, but peripherally.
 6. Comprehensible pronunciation is sought.
7. Translation may be used where students need or benefit from it.
8. Reading and writing can start from the first day.
9. Communicative competence is the desired goal (i.e., the ability to use the linguistic
system effectively and appropriately).
10. Teachers help learners in any way that motivates them to work with the
language.
11. Students are expected to interact with other people, either in the flesh, through
pair and group work, or in their writings.

Is there a specific
methodology for ESP?
Nalan Eren K.

In the literature, it’s claimed that ESP is based on vocabulary or

reading comprehension rather than learning a language structure or
field. Many searches and discussions have been made about ESP.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) stated that ESP is not an approach it’s
a product but this is debatable. Its syllabus, content and how to
present are definitely different from general English learning. In the
ESP classroom, learners are more likely required to be at intermediate
level to be able to achieve their target. Therefore, learners are guided,
observed and differentiated in ESP classrooms rather than teaching
the target language word by word.

Language learning is not only acquiring grammatical structure but

also its function. It is important for engineering students to be able to
present their ideas or exchange their opinions or follow the
technological development all over the world. Most universities all
over the world have been offering ESP courses besides the general
English lessons to boost their confidence in this field.

When we talk about specific methodology, we mean all language

aspects from reading complex articles to making a presentation.
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) claimed that there is no specific
methodology for ESP. The same principles apply with ELT
methodology in general. It can be arguable whether there is a specific
methodology for ESP; my experience is that knowing General English
methodology does not make a teacher successful in techniques that
the teacher implements in the classroom. For example; if the teacher
is not familiar with such specific subject matter as the blast furnace or
power station, he won’t be able to want to prepare his own material
for this matter. It is not always possible to find what material you
want to use during the course in the coursebook. In ESP courses, the
teacher has to put more effort than General English courses.

Dudley Evans and St John (1998) claimed that a strength of

methodology is the way in which language learning and subject
learning approaches can be integrated. They proposed two
approaches: case studies and project work. They have stated that case
studies integrate knowledge, skills, theory and any experience,
especially in law, medicine, engineering and business. The only issue
with case studies is the knowledge of the ESP teacher in the subject
that he/she teaches. ESP teacher should work with the subject teacher
if he/she doesn’t have a subject background.
In project work, unlike case studies, students find and stimulate the
information. Motivation is higher. Dudley-Evans and St John points
out that project work starts in the classroom and moves outside the
classroom.

When I was asked to organise an ESP course for engineers I visited

them in their workplace and found out what they did in their daily
routine. That gave me an idea what to teach, but company asked me to
teach some certain function of the target language according to the
company’s needs. In my homogeneous group, I used content-based
approach (CBA) as they were all from different department and
different branches of engineering such as civil engineer, mechanical
engineer, electronics engineer, and electrical engineer. In most CBA
courses, the syllabus is derived from the content area and these
obviously vary widely in detail and format. Richards and Rodgers
(1996) say that it is typically only CBA following the theme-based
model in which content and instructional sequence is chosen
according to language learning goals. In CBA there are many
activities. Stoller (1997) lists the activities as follows:

• Language skills improvement

• Vocabulary building

• Discourse organisation

• Communicative interaction

• Study skills

• Synthesis of content materials grammar

‘It is the teaching of content with little or no direct effort to teach the
language separately from the content being taught’ (Krahnke
1987:65). Claims made for the advantages of courses based on
content-based syllabus include that:

• They facilitate comprehension

• Content makes linguistic form more meaningful

• Content serves on the best basis for teaching the skill areas

• They address learners’ needs

• They allow for integration of the four skills

• They allow for use of authentic materials

(Brinton, Snow and Wesche

1989; Mohan 1986)

During the course the learners were encouraged to prepare a

presentation about their daily routine or the production they made in
the company. What method is chosen it depends on learners need and
institution’s or company’s needs. There is no specific method but
there will be a method you can chose the best for your own learners.
Not only does it depend on needs but also expectations.

In the ESP classroom, information is usually transferred by reading a

text or preparing a presentation which involves at least two or four
skills. Therefore, it is appropriate to use an integrated skill approach
(Dudley-Evans and St John, 1998).
There is no best method as Prabhu said in 1990. In ESP any method
can be chosen to be used in the classroom according to the context,
learners, and needs analysis, teaching standard and learning abilities.
There is no difference between EFL and ESP in teaching method.
However, ESP teachers need to integrate the content and the
language.

References

Dudley Evans, T and M. J. St John. 1998. Developments in English

for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1987. English for Specific Purposes:

A learning-centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Prabhu, N. S. 1990 There is no best method. Why? TESOL

Quarterly. Volume 24, No 2, pp 161-176

Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A. and Wesche, M. B. 1989. Content-

based Second Language Instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.

Mohan, B. A. 1986. Language and Content. Addison, Wesley

Krahnke, K. 1987 Approaches to syllabus design for foreign

language teaching.Washington, D.C., Center for Applied
Linguistics/Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Stoller, F. L. 1997. Project work: A means to promote language
content. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), 2.

You can read the whole article

http://www.academia.edu/33114408/IS_THERE_A_SPECIFIC_MET
HOD_FOR_TEACHING_ESP

www.whichmethods.com