What Is Communicative Method

Short answer

• The communicative method, also called communicative language teaching (CLT) or communicative teaching, is an approach to language teaching whose goal is communicative competence: the ability to use a language effectively and appropriately in real situations, not only to produce grammatically correct sentences. Learners work mainly in the target language, in pairs or groups, on tasks that require real exchange of information, such as solving a problem, reaching an agreement, or completing a role play based on a realistic situation. Its central principles are that interaction is both the means and the goal of learning, that classroom tasks should reflect real communication as closely as practical, that authentic materials such as menus, timetables, news items, and everyday recordings have a place beside textbooks, and that errors are a normal part of learning rather than a failure to be punished. Grammar still matters in most communicative classrooms, but it is usually taught as a support for communication, not as the main content of the lesson. The teacher in a communicative classroom acts mainly as facilitator, organizer, and guide: setting up tasks, monitoring pair and group work, giving feedback, and helping learners notice useful language. Learners take a more active role than in teacher centered methods: they negotiate meaning, ask for clarification, paraphrase when they lack a word, and learn from each other as well as from the teacher. CLT differs from grammar translation, which centers on reading, translating, and studying grammar rules, usually in the learners' first language, and from the audiolingual method, which centers on repetition, drills, and habit formation through spoken pattern practice. CLT keeps some elements of both, such as attention to form and structured practice, but it organizes them around communication rather than around translation or drilling alone.

Introduction

A student can pass grammar tests for years and still freeze when a real conversation starts. The sentences are correct on paper, but the student has never had to ask for directions under time pressure, negotiate a change of plan, or explain a problem to someone who does not share the same first language. The communicative method was developed for exactly that gap. It treats language first as a tool for getting things done with other people, and only second as a set of rules to be memorized.

You may also meet this approach under other names. “Communicative language teaching,” usually shortened to CLT, is the most common label in teacher training and textbooks. “Communicative approach” is another. “Communicative teaching” is the plain language version of the same idea. The names vary, but the core claim stays the same: learners build usable language skill by using language to communicate, not only by studying its forms.

This guide explains what the communicative method is, where it came from, what its principles are, what a lesson looks like in practice, what teachers and learners do differently, and where the approach has been criticized. It also compares CLT with grammar translation and the audiolingual method. It makes no promise that any method guarantees fluency, because no honest method can. Outcomes depend on time, practice, the learner, the teacher, and the setting, not on a method label alone.

What the Name Means: Method, Approach, or Teaching?

Strictly speaking, writers on language teaching often call CLT an approach rather than a method. The distinction is useful. A method usually implies a fairly fixed set of classroom procedures. An approach is broader: a set of beliefs about language and learning that can be realized through many different procedures. Richards and Rodgers, in their widely used survey of language teaching approaches and methods, present CLT in exactly this way, as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, about how learners learn, about the kinds of classroom activities that best support learning, and about the roles of teachers and learners.

That is why two classrooms can both be described as communicative and still look quite different. One teacher may run a task based lesson in which learners plan a trip on a budget. Another may use role plays and short discussions inside a more traditional lesson shape. Both can be communicative if communication drives the work. The label alone does not guarantee quality. What matters is whether learners get sustained chances to use the language for real purposes, with feedback that helps them improve.

For everyday use, the three phrases in this article mean the same family of ideas. “Communicative method” is the phrase learners search for. “Communicative language teaching” is the term used in most teacher training. “Communicative teaching” is a shorter, plainer label for the same approach. This article uses CLT after the first mention for brevity.

Where the Communicative Method Came From

CLT grew out of changes in British language teaching in the late 1960s and 1970s. The older, structure based syllabuses of the time organized courses around grammar points: first the present simple, then the past simple, then a new structure, and so on. Teachers and syllabus designers began to ask whether that order matched what learners actually needed to do with a language. A learner who could form a correct sentence might still be unable to apologize politely, make a request without sounding rude, or follow a set of spoken instructions.

Two developments shaped the answer. First, the linguist Dell Hymes argued that knowing a language involves more than knowing its grammar: a speaker also needs to know what is appropriate to say, to whom, when, and in what way. He called this wider ability communicative competence, and it became the goal CLT took as its own. Second, work on language syllabuses, notably by D. A. Wilkins in Britain in the 1970s, proposed organizing courses around notions and functions rather than grammar structures alone. Notions are concepts such as time, quantity, and location. Functions are things people do with language, such as requesting, offering, apologizing, and describing. A syllabus built on functions and notions asks first what learners need to communicate, and only then what grammar and vocabulary will let them do it.

The Council of Europe’s work on language learning for adults in Europe in the same period pushed in the same direction. As travel, work, and study across borders grew, adult learners needed usable, everyday language more urgently than literary study. CLT matched that need: teach the language people need for real purposes, in situations that resemble real life, and judge success by whether communication works.

By the 1980s, CLT had become the dominant orientation in much of English language teaching and had spread to other languages as well. Textbooks, teacher training, and examinations began to reflect its priorities, which is one reason the approach still shapes so many classrooms today.

The Goal: Communicative Competence

Communicative competence is the heart of CLT, so it is worth defining carefully. It is not a single skill. Applied linguists Michael Canale and Merrill Swain developed the concept in influential work published in 1980 and refined by Canale in 1983. Their framework, as it is commonly described today, has four parts. Canale and Swain (1980) set out three components (grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic), and Canale (1983) added discourse competence, giving the four parts described today.

Grammatical competence is knowledge of the language code itself: vocabulary, word formation, sentence structure, sounds, and spelling.

Sociolinguistic competence is the ability to use language appropriately for the situation. It covers register and politeness, such as knowing when a formal request fits better than a casual one, and sensitivity to social norms, such as how directness is judged in different cultures.

Discourse competence is the ability to combine sentences into coherent, connected language: a story that holds together, an email that flows logically, a conversation in which each turn responds to the last.

Strategic competence is the ability to keep communication going when problems arise: paraphrasing a word you cannot recall, asking for repetition, checking that you understood, or using gesture and context to fill a gap.

The point of the four part model is that grammar alone is not enough, but neither is fluency without grammar. A learner who speaks quickly but cannot be understood, or who is grammatically perfect but cannot adjust tone to the listener, is not yet communicatively competent. Good CLT teaching therefore works on all four parts, even if one lesson emphasizes one of them.

The Core Principles

Teacher educator David Nunan summarized the communicative approach in five features that are still widely quoted: learning to communicate through interaction in the target language; authentic texts brought into the learning situation; chances to focus not only on language but also on the learning process; learners’ own personal experiences treated as a useful contribution; and classroom work linked with language use outside the classroom.

Richards and Rodgers add a learning theory claim that runs through CLT: activities that involve real communication promote learning. Learners do not only learn language in order to use it later. They also learn language by using it, because the effort to understand and be understood forces attention to meaning, form, and repair strategies.

From these ideas, several practical principles follow. Meaning comes first: tasks should require learners to understand and convey messages that matter to them, not only to produce correct forms. Fluency and accuracy are both valued, with fluency often given priority during the task itself and accuracy work following afterward. The teacher uses the target language as much as practical, so the classroom itself becomes a place where the language is used. Assessment, where possible, looks at whether learners can actually do things with the language, not only whether they can label its parts.

Strong and Weak Versions: An Important Distinction

Not all communicative teaching is the same, and the distinction drawn by applied linguist A. P. R. Howatt helps explain the differences. Howatt distinguished a strong version and a weak version of CLT.

In the weak version, learners first build up language knowledge and then get chances to use it for communicative purposes. The slogan is “learning to use” the language. This is the version most commonly found in mainstream classrooms and textbooks, where a lesson may present new language, practice it in controlled exercises, and then move to a freer communicative task.

In the strong version, language is acquired through communication itself. The slogan is “using English to learn it.” Learners are given communicative tasks from the start, and the language system is expected to develop as they work through those tasks, with the teacher providing support as needed. Task based language teaching is often presented as a later development in this stronger tradition.

The distinction matters when you compare courses. A course that spends most of its time on drills followed by a brief role play is probably working in the weak tradition. A course that throws learners into problem solving tasks with minimal prior presentation of forms is closer to the strong tradition. Neither is automatically better. The strong version can frustrate beginners who lack the language to complete a task. The weak version can drift back into grammar teaching with a communicative label attached. Judge a course by its balance, not its label.

What a Communicative Lesson Looks Like

A communicative lesson usually moves through stages. A common pattern opens with a short warmer that connects the topic to learners’ lives. The teacher then sets up a task and makes sure learners understand what they have to achieve, not only what language to practice. Learners work in pairs or groups while the teacher monitors, notes useful language and recurring problems, and helps groups that are stuck. The lesson closes with feedback: reporting back, comparing solutions, and focused work on language that caused difficulty.

The activities themselves are the most recognizable feature of CLT. Information gap activities give each learner part of the information needed, so partners must communicate to complete the task. One learner may hold a timetable while the other holds a list of appointments, and together they must find a meeting time. Role plays ask learners to take on roles in a realistic situation, such as returning a faulty product or checking into a hotel. Interviews, surveys, and opinion exchanges get learners asking real questions and reacting to real answers. Problem solving tasks ask a group to reach a decision, rank options, or plan something with limited resources. Language games can serve the same purpose when winning the game requires real exchange of information, not only repetition.

Materials in a communicative classroom also look different. Textbooks designed on CLT principles typically mix functional and structural content and include pair and group activities. Task based materials take the form of cue cards, activity cards, and practice material for pair and group work. Realia, real objects and texts from everyday life, is the third type Richards and Rodgers identify: menus, timetables, maps, advertisements, and recorded announcements. Realia matters because it exposes learners to language as it is actually used, rather than only to simplified textbook sentences.

Teacher and Learner Roles

CLT changes what teachers and learners do, and the change can surprise people who expect a traditional classroom.

The teacher has several roles rather than one. As a facilitator, the teacher sets up communication, steps back during pair and group work, and intervenes mainly to keep tasks on track. As a monitor, the teacher listens for language that is working, language that is blocking communication, and errors worth addressing later, rather than interrupting every mistake. As a guide, the teacher helps learners notice forms, offers corrections after a task, and suggests strategies for next time. The teacher also chooses tasks that match learners’ goals and levels, adapting materials when a textbook task does not fit.

The learner’s role changes just as much. Learners are expected to participate actively, to negotiate meaning when they do not understand, to take risks with language they have not fully mastered, and to learn from each other, not only from the teacher’s explanations. They are also expected to take some responsibility for their own learning: noticing gaps, asking questions, and using strategies such as paraphrase. This active role suits learners willing to speak and collaborate, and it can feel uncomfortable for learners who prefer to listen quietly and study rules first.

How Grammar Is Treated: A Contested Question

Few topics in CLT cause more confusion than grammar, and honest accounts of the approach disagree about it. Some popular descriptions of CLT say that it pays little attention to grammar and focuses almost entirely on fluency. That description is too simple, and it has led to a common misunderstanding: that a communicative classroom never teaches grammar.

Richards and Rodgers present a more balanced position: CLT pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language. In practice, most communicative teaching does include grammar, but it treats grammar as a resource for communication. A lesson may start from a function, such as making polite requests, and then draw attention to the forms that realize that function, such as modal verbs and softening phrases. Or a task may come first, and grammar work may follow, based on the language learners actually needed and struggled with during the task. This is sometimes called a focus on form within a meaning focused lesson.

Other writers argue that explicit grammar teaching should have a larger, more planned place, because learners who only communicate may develop fluent but inaccurate language that stops improving. Critics from the opposite direction argue that too much grammar focus pulls a lesson back toward the old structure based model. The debate continues in teacher training and research. The practical point for a learner is to ask how a particular course handles grammar, rather than assuming that the word communicative answers the question.

CLT Compared with Grammar Translation and the Audiolingual Method

Comparing CLT with the two methods it most clearly reacted against makes its character sharper.

Grammar translation is the oldest of the three in modern language teaching. It grew out of the teaching of Latin and Greek and was later applied to modern languages. Lessons typically center on reading and translating texts, studying grammar rules, and memorizing vocabulary, usually with explanations in the learners’ first language. Speaking and listening have a small place, and accuracy in translation and written exercises is the main measure of success. Its strength is precision. Its weakness, from a communicative point of view, is that learners may know a great deal about a language without being able to use it in speech or unrehearsed interaction.

The audiolingual method, influential in the mid twentieth century, reacted against grammar translation by putting speech first. Drawing on behaviorist ideas about habit formation, it used repetition, substitution drills, and dialogue memorization to build automatic control of sentence patterns. Errors were corrected immediately so bad habits would not form. Its strength is fluency in practiced patterns. Its weakness is transfer: learners may perform drills well yet struggle to use the patterns freely in a new situation, because drills do not require them to decide what to say, only to repeat what is given.

CLT keeps something from each predecessor and changes the organizing principle. From grammar translation it can keep attention to form and reading, but it subordinates them to communication. From the audiolingual method it can keep pattern practice and attention to pronunciation, but as preparation for communication rather than as the goal itself. The organizing question in CLT is not “Can the learner translate this sentence?” or “Can the learner repeat this pattern?” but “Can the learner get this message across, understand the reply, and adjust when communication breaks down?”

Feature	Grammar translation	Audiolingual method	Communicative method (CLT)
Main goal	Reading, translation, grammatical knowledge	Accurate spoken habits through drills	Communicative competence in real use
Typical activity	Translation, rule study, written exercises	Repetition and substitution drills, dialogue memorization	Information gap, role play, problem solving, discussion
Language of instruction	Largely the learners’ first language	Largely the target language	Largely the target language
Role of grammar	Central content, studied explicitly	Patterns drilled until automatic	Support for communication, taught in context
Error handling	Corrected for accuracy	Corrected immediately to prevent bad habits	Tolerated during fluency work, addressed in feedback
Learner role	Receiver and translator	Repeater and responder	Active communicator and negotiator of meaning
Main weakness	Weak spoken interaction	Weak transfer to new situations	Risk of fluent but inaccurate language if form is neglected

Strengths of the Communicative Method

The clearest strength of CLT is relevance. Learners practice the exchanges they will actually need: asking, explaining, negotiating, apologizing, and clarifying. That relevance tends to raise motivation, because progress is visible in a way a grammar score is not: a learner who could not order a meal last month and can do it this month has direct evidence of progress.

A second strength is balance across skills. CLT works on listening, speaking, reading, and writing together, because real communication mixes them: a task may require reading a notice, discussing it, and then writing a short reply.

A third strength is strategic skill. Because CLT creates situations where learners lack a word or misunderstand a message, it teaches repair strategies: paraphrasing, asking for clarification, and checking understanding. Those strategies help learners keep going in real conversations instead of giving up when a single word fails.

A fourth strength is attention to appropriateness. By working with functions, situations, and authentic materials, CLT draws attention to register, politeness, and cultural norms, not only to correctness.

Criticisms and Limitations

CLT has also attracted sustained criticism, and a fair account should present the main objections.

One criticism is that it can neglect accuracy. When fluency work dominates and correction is postponed or avoided, learners may become fluent in language that contains persistent errors. Teachers sometimes describe this as fossilization: errors that settle into a learner’s language because they never block communication enough to be corrected. Supporters of CLT reply that good communicative teaching includes planned accuracy work, but critics argue that in practice the balance often tips toward fluency.

A second criticism concerns beginners and low level learners. A learner with very little vocabulary cannot easily negotiate meaning, complete an information gap, or hold a role play. Without enough language to work with, tasks can collapse into silence, first language use, or frustration. Teachers usually respond by adapting tasks and providing language support in advance, but the problem is real, and it is one reason pure task based teaching is harder at the lowest levels.

A third criticism concerns assessment and accountability. Communicative ability is harder to test than grammar knowledge. A multiple choice test can check whether a learner knows a rule, but checking whether a learner can negotiate a solution in a group discussion requires observation, criteria, and time. Schools that need fast, comparable scores have sometimes found CLT harder to fit into their testing regimes.

A fourth criticism is cultural and contextual. CLT assumes a classroom where learners are comfortable speaking up, disagreeing, working in groups, and taking risks in front of peers. In educational cultures where the teacher is expected to lead, where silence signals respect, or where large classes make pair work hard to manage, communicative activities can feel unfamiliar or impractical. Teachers working in such settings have argued that CLT must be adapted rather than imported unchanged.

A fifth criticism is practical: time, class size, and materials. Communicative tasks take time to set up, run, and give feedback on, and monitoring pair work meaningfully in a class of fifty learners is difficult. None of this disproves CLT, but it explains why implementation varies so much. Finally, some critics argue that the term CLT has become so broad that it now means almost anything, which is a warning to look past the label and ask what learners actually do, for how long, and with what feedback.

Common Misconceptions

Several misconceptions about CLT recur, and clearing them up helps learners set realistic expectations.

The first is that communicative teaching means no grammar. Most communicative teaching includes grammar, but it places grammar inside communication rather than before it. A course that never addresses form is an extreme version, not the mainstream.

The second is that communicative teaching means the teacher does nothing. In fact, a good communicative teacher works hard before, during, and after a task: designing tasks at the right level, monitoring many pairs at once, noting language for feedback, and planning follow up work. Stepping back during pair work is a deliberate choice, not an absence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the communicative method the same as communicative language teaching?

Yes, for practical purposes. The communicative method, communicative language teaching (CLT), the communicative approach, and communicative teaching all refer to the same family of ideas: teaching that aims at communicative competence through interaction and real tasks. Teacher training literature most often uses “communicative language teaching” or “communicative approach,” while learners searching online often use “communicative method” or “communicative teaching.”

What is an example of a communicative activity?

An information gap is a clear example. Two learners each hold different information, such as two halves of a train timetable. They must ask questions, give answers, and check understanding to complete a shared task, such as agreeing on a travel plan. Neither learner can finish alone, so communication is genuinely necessary, not just practiced.

Does communicative teaching ignore grammar?

No, not in its mainstream form. Grammar is usually taught as a support for communication: before a task, when learners need a form to complete it, or after a task, based on the problems that arose. Some programs give grammar a larger planned role than others, but a complete absence of grammar work is an extreme position, not the standard.

What is the difference between the strong and weak versions of CLT?

In the weak version, learners build language knowledge first and then use it for communicative purposes: learning to use the language. In the strong version, language is acquired through communication itself: using the language to learn it. The weak version is more common in mainstream courses. The strong version is associated with task based approaches in which tasks come first.

Is CLT good for beginners?

It can be, with adaptation. Beginners need language support before freer tasks, or tasks designed so very limited language is enough, such as a simple information gap with pictures or numbers. A beginner course that throws learners into open discussion without support is likely to frustrate them. Teachers often find a combination of short communicative tasks and clear presentation of useful language more workable for beginners.

How does CLT differ from the audiolingual method?

The audiolingual method builds spoken habits through repetition and drills, with immediate correction. CLT builds communicative ability through tasks requiring real exchange of meaning, with feedback that often follows the task rather than interrupting it. Drills may still appear in a communicative classroom, but as preparation for communication, not the main activity.

How does CLT differ from grammar translation?

Grammar translation centers on reading, translating, and studying rules, usually in the learners’ first language, and measures success by accuracy in translation and written exercises. CLT centers on using the language to communicate, usually in the target language, and measures success by whether communication works appropriately and effectively.

Sources & references

• Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Survey of CLT principles, history, teacher and learner roles, materials, and the strong and weak versions of CLT.
• Hymes, Dell. Work on communicative competence, developing the idea that language ability includes appropriateness in social context as well as grammatical knowledge.
• Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1980, with refinement by Canale in 1983. Framework of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence.
• Wilkins, D. A. Work on notional syllabuses in the 1970s, organizing syllabuses around notions and functions rather than grammar structures alone.
• Nunan, David. Five features of the communicative approach, including learning through interaction, authentic texts, attention to the learning process, learners' personal experience, and linking classroom learning with language use outside the classroom.
• Howatt, A. P. R. Distinction between strong and weak versions of communicative language teaching.
• University of Texas at Austin, Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL). Foreign Language Teaching Methods materials on communicative competence and the Canale and Swain framework.