M. V. Shevchenko


The article deals with the communicative approach to teaching English at technical universities. The constituents of the communicative competence are presented. Differentiation between two ways (strong and weak versions) of development of students’ communicative abilities can also be found in the proposed paper. The distinction lies in variance of ways of the English language acquisition by students, including those of technical specialities. The work contains lists of peculiarities of explicit/implicit learning and teaching with the help of communicative language teaching (CLT). Their positive sides and weaknesses are considered. Three central areas of explicit-implicit teaching – focus on form and form-focused instruction, fluency and automation, formulaic language – are also reviewed. The main attention of the article is paid to the aim, key characteristics and principles of the approach in question, as well as to advantages and disadvantages of the communicative approach use at the English language lessons. Among quality assessment criteria of the communicative teaching are efficiency of the English language acquisition, novelty of materials, and also effectiveness of educators’ and students’ work. Recommendations for teachers, concerning the proper CLT implementation at the lessons of English for Specific Purposes, and features of recommended classroom activities to do so are provided at the end of the article.


communicative approach; CLT; the English language; technical universities; principles; explicit and implicit learning; communicative competence

Full Text:



Agbatogun, A. O. (2014). Developing Learners’ Second Language Communicative Competence through Active Learning: Clickers or Communicative Approach? Educational Technology & Society, 17 (2), 257-269.

Brandl, K. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 464.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1). 1-47.

Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Communicative Language Teaching in the Twenty-First Century: The ‘Principled Communicative Approach’. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful Action: Earl Stevick’s Influence on Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161-171.

Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hattum, T. V. (2006). The Communicative Approach Rethought. Retrieved from: Last accessed 14th March 2015.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prasad, B. B. N. (2013). Communicative Language Teaching in 21st Century ESL Classroom. English for Specific Purposes World. 14 (40). Retrieved from: Last accessed 14th March 2015.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tsinghong, M. (2009). On Communicative Language Teaching – Theoretical Foundations and Principles. Asian Social Science. 5 (4). 40-45.

Copyright (c) 2015 Advanced Education

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)