CONSTRUCTIVISM

Definition
Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our
experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our
own ―rules‖ and ―mental models,‖ which we use to make sense of our experiences. Learning,
therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences.
In the Constructivist theory the emphasis is placed on the learner or the student rather than
the teacher or the instructor. It is the learner who interacts with objects and events and thereby gains
an understanding of the features held by such objects or events. The learner, therefore, constructs
his/her own conceptualizations and solutions to problems. Learner autonomy and initiative is accepted
and encouraged.
Constructivists view learning as the result of mental construction. Students learn by fitting
new information together with what they already know. People learn best when they actively
construct their own understanding.
In constructivist thinking learning is also affected by the context and the beliefs and attitudes
of the learner. Learners are encouraged to invent their own solutions and to try out ideas and
hypotheses. They are given the opportunity to build on prior knowledge.
There are many different schools of thought within this theory, all of which fall within the
same basic assumption about learning. The main two are social constructivism and cognitive
constructivism.
Today constructivist teaching is based on recent research about the human brain and what is
known about how learning occurs.

Principles
1. Learning is a search for meaning. Therefore, learning must start with the issues around which
students are actively trying to construct meaning.
2. Meaning requires understanding wholes as well as parts. And parts must be understood in the
context of wholes. Therefore, the learning process focuses on primary concepts, not isolated
facts.
3. In order to teach well, we must understand the mental models that students use to perceive
the world and the assumptions they make to support those models.
4. The purpose of learning is for an individual to construct his or her own meaning, not just
memorize the ―right‖ answers and regurgitate someone else‘s meaning. Since education is
inherently interdisciplinary, the only valuable way to measure learning is to make the
assessment part of the learning process, ensuring it provides students with information on the
quality of their learning.
To summarise:

10
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

Constructivism ...
 emphasises learning and not teaching
 encourages and accepts learner autonomy and initiative
 sees learners as creatures of will and purpose
 thinks of learning as a process
 encourages learner inquiry
 acknowledges the critical role of experience in learning
 nurtures learners natural curiosity
 takes the learner's mental model into account
 emphasises performance and understanding when assessing learning
 bases itself on the principles of the cognitive theory
 makes extensive use of cognitive terminology such as predict, create and analyze
 considers how the student learns
 encourages learners to engage in dialogue with other students and the teacher
 supports co-operative learning
 involves learners in real world situations
 emphasises the context in which learning takes place
 considers the beliefs and attitudes of the learner
 provides learners the opportunity to construct new knowledge and understanding from
authentic experience

How Constructivism Impacts Learning

Curriculum–Constructivism calls for the elimination of a standardized curriculum. Instead, it
promotes using curricula customized to the students‘ prior knowledge. Also, it emphasizes hands-on
problem solving.
Instruction–Under the theory of constructivism, educators focus on making connections
between facts and fostering new understanding in students. Instructors tailor their teaching strategies
to student responses and encourage students to analyze, interpret, and predict information. Teachers
also rely heavily on open-ended questions and promote extensive dialogue among students.
Assessment–Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized testing.
Instead, assessment becomes part of the learning process so that students play a larger role in
judging their own progress.

11
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

AFFECTIVE FACTORS
The affective factor: learners as emotional beings
People think, but they also have feelings. It is one of the paradoxes of human nature that,
although we are all aware of our feelings and their effects on our actions, we invariably seek answers
to our problems in rational terms. It is as if we believed that human beings always act in a logical and
sensible manner. This attitude affects the way we see learners - more like machines to be
programmed ('I've taught them the past tense. They must know it.') than people with likes and
dislikes, fears, weaknesses and prejudices. But learners are people. Even ESL learners are people.
They may be learning about machines and systems, but they still learn as human beings, learning,
particularly the learning of a language, is an emotional experience, and the feelings that the learning
process evokes will have a crucial bearing on the success or failure of the learning (see e.g. Stevick,
1976).
The importance of the emotional factor is easily seen if we consider the relationship between
the cognitive and affective aspects of the learner. The cognitive theory tells us that learners will learn
when they actively think about what they are learning. But this cognitive factor presupposes the
affective factor of motivation. Before learners can actively think about something, they must want to
think about it. The emotional reaction to the learning experience is the essential foundation for the
initiation of the cognitive process. How the learning is perceived by the learner will affect what
learning, if any, will take place.
We can represent the cognitive/affective interplay in the form of a learning cycle. This can either be a
negative or a positive cycle. A good and appropriate course will engender the kind of positive learning
cycle represented here:

Entry
Point

12
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

The relationship between the cognitive and emotional aspects of learning is, therefore, one of
vital importance to the success or otherwise of a language learning experience. This brings us to a
matter which has been one of the most important elements in the development of ESP - motivation.
The most influential study of motivation in language learning has been Gardner and Lambert's
(197Z) study of bilingualism in French speaking Canada. They identified two forms of motivation:
instrumental and integrative.
a) Instrumental motivation is the reflection of an external need. The learners are not
learning a language because they want to (although this does not imply that they do not want to), but
rather because they need to. The need may derive from varying sources: the need to sell things to
speakers of the language; the need to pass an examination in the language; the need to read texts in
the language for work or study. The need may vary, but the important factor is that the motivation is
an external one.
b) Integrative motivation, on the other hand, derives from a desire on the part of the
learners to be members of the speech community that uses a particular language. It is an internally
generated want rather than an externally imposed need.
Gardner and Lambert's conclusion was that both forms of motivation are probably present in
all learners but each exercises a varying influence, depending on age, experience and changing
occupational or social needs. Motivation, it appears, is a complex and highly individual matter. There
can be no simple answers to the question: 'What motivates my students?' Unfortunately the ESP
world, while recognising the need to ask this question, has apparently assumed that there is a simple
answer: relevance to target needs. In practice this has been interpreted as meaning Medical texts for
the student of Medicine, Engineering English for the Engineer and so on. But, as we shall see when
we deal with needs analysis, there is more to motivation than simple relevance to perceived needs.
For the present, suffice it to say that, if your students are not fired with burning enthusiasm by the
obvious relevance of their ESP materials, remember that they are people not machines. The medicine
of relevance may still need to be sweetened with the sugar of enjoyment, fun, creativity and a sense
of achievement. ESP, as much as any good teaching, needs to be intrinsically motivating. It should
satisfy their needs as learners as well as their needs as potential target users of the language. In
other words, they should get satisfaction from the actual experience of learning, not just from the
prospect of eventually using what they have learnt.
One issue that has preoccupied educators in many disciplines is the students' response to
their learning experiences and how this makes them feel about themselves. The psychologist Abraham
Maslow, for example, suggested that self-esteem was a necessary 'deficiency need' which had to be
met before cognitive or aesthetic needs could be engaged with (Maslow 1987). This idea, that the
learner's state of mind, his or her personal response to the activity of learning, is central to success or
failure in language learning has greatly influenced teaching methods and materials writing. This area
of theorising has been called the humanist approach, and it has given rise to a specific set of teaching
methods.

13
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

Theorists who are concerned with humanism say that the learner's feelings are as important
as their mental or cognitive abilities. If students feel hostile towards the subject of study, the
materials, or the teaching methods, they will be unlikely to achieve much success. The American
writer Earl Stevick calls these states 'alienations' and suggests that to counter these states, humanist
approaches are called for (Stevick 1996). Stephen Krashen would probably agree. His claim for the
beneficial value of comprehensible input depends upon the students being relaxed, feeling positive,
and unthreatened. If they are not, then their affective filter is raised and blocks the input from being
absorbed and processed. But if, on the other hand, the affective filter is lowered - because students
are relaxed - then the comprehensible input the students are exposed to will contribute far more
effectively to their acquisition of new language.
How then can teachers ensure that their students feel positive about learning -that the
affective filter is lowered? The psychologist Carl Rogers, whose impact upon this line of thinking has
been profound, suggested that learners needed to feel that what they were learning was personally
relevant to them, that they had to experience learning (rather than just being 'taught') and that their
self-image needed to be enhanced as part of the process (Rogers 1994). Education should speak to
the 'whole person', in other words, not just to a small language-learning facility. In a humanist
classroom, students are emotionally involved in the learning; they are encouraged to reflect on how
learning happens, and their creativity is fostered. The teacher can achieve this by keeping criticism to
a minimum and by encouraging them, in plain terms, to feel good about themselves. In a humanist
classroom, learning a language is as much an issue of personal identity, self-knowledge, feelings and
emotions as it is about language.
However, not everyone is happy with this view of the language learning experience. Some
humanist activities encourage students to speak from their 'inner' selves, saying, for example, how
they feel about their lives, their closeness to different members of their families. John Morgan and
Mario Rinvolucri describe such activities as allowing students to 'exteriorise their own internal text'
(1986:9). But critics question whether it is the teacher's job to ask students to reveal things of a
private nature, and sometimes even to monitor and nurture the students' inner selves. There is some
criticism, too, that there is a strong cultural bias to this view of teaching and learning which would be
inappropriate in certain situations. Furthermore, a concentration on the inner self may limit the range
of language that students can experience, with more emphasis being placed on interpersonal and
informal language at the expense of other kinds. Lastly, some doubters suggest, paying too much
attention to affective issues in learning may mean that teachers neglect their students' cognitive and
intellectual development.
It is certainly true that we want to create an unthreatening environment for our students (just as we
will want to foster their cognitive development). We should also be concerned not to do anything
which damages their self-esteem. But how far we should act as moral guides and quasi-therapists as
well as being teachers of language is a more difficult question, and one which is intimately bound up
with our understanding of the role of teachers.

14
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

LEARNING AND ACQUISITION

Much debate has recently centered around the distinction made by Stephen Krashen between
learning and acquisition. Learning is seen as a conscious process, while acquisition proceeds
unconsciously. In his view, we acquire as we are exposed to samples of the second language which
we understand. This happens in much the same way that children pick up their first language --- with
no conscious attention to language forms. We learn, on the other hand, via a conscious process of
study and attention to form and rule learning.
For Krashen, acquisition is by far the more important process. He asserts that only acquired
language is readily available for natural, fluent communication. Further, he asserts that learning can
not turn into acquisition. He cites as evidence for this that many speakers are quite fluent without
ever having learned rules, while other speakers may ‗know‘ rules but fail to apply them. When they
are focusing on what they want to say more than how they are saying it.

THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

Krashen asserts that one acquires language in only one way – by exposure to comprehensible input. If
the input contains forms and structures just beyond the learner‘s current level of competence in the
language (what Krashen calls ‗i+ I ‗), then both comprehension and acquisition will occur.

CARETAKER TALK
Many researchers from the interactionist perspective have studied the speech directed to
children. This distinctive speech is known as ‗motherese‘ or care- taker talk. We are all familiar with
the way adults typically modify the way they speak when addressing little children. In English,
caretaker talk involves a slower rate of speech, higher pitch, more varied intonation, shorter, simpler
sentence patterns, frequent repetition, and paraphrase. Furthermore, topic of conversation are often
limited to the child‘s immediate environment, the ‗here and now‘. Adults often repeat the content of a
child‘s utterance, but they do so with a grammatically correct sentence.
One condition which appears to be common to learners of all ages – though perhaps not in
equal qualities – is access to modified input. This adjusted speech styles, which is called child-directed
speech for first language, is sometimes called foreigner talk or teacher talk for second languages.
Many people who interact regularly with language learners seem to have an intuitive sense of what
adjustments are needed to help learners understand. Of course, some people are better at this than
others. We have all witnessed those painful conversations in which insensitive people seem to think
that they can make learners understand better if they simply talk louder! Some Canadian friends
recently told us of an experience they had in China. They were visiting some historic temples and
wanted to get more information about them than they could glean from their guide book. They asked
their guide some questions about the monuments. Unfortunately, their limited Chinese and his non
existence English made it difficult for them to exchange information. The guide kept speaking louder

15
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

and louder, but our friends understood very little. Finally, in frustration, the guide concluded that it
would help if these hopeless foreigners could see the information - so he took a stick and began
writing in the sand – in Chinese characters!

THE ROLE OF INPUT AND INTERACTION IN L2 ACQUISITION

One question that can be asked is whether the discourse in which learners participate is in
anyway different from the discourse the native speakers engage in. If learner discourse can be shown
to have special properties it is possible that these contribute to acquisition in some way.
It does in deed have special properties. Just as caretakers modify the way they speak to
children learning their L1, so do native speakers modify their speech when communicating with
learners. These modifications are evident in both input and interaction. Input modifications have been
investigated through the study of foreigner talk, the language that native speakers use when
addressing non- native speakers. Two types of foreigner talk can be identified – ungrammatical and
grammatical. Examples of these are provided in Table 5.1
Ungrammatical foreigner talk is socially marked. It often implies a lack of respect on the part
of the native speaker and can be resented by learners. Ungrammatical foreigner talk is characterized
by the deletion of certain grammatical features such as copula be, modal verbs (for example, can and
must) and articles, the use of the base form of the verb in place of the past tense form, and the use
of special constructions such as ‗no+ verb‘. It should be immediately apparent that these features are
the same as those commonly found in learner‘s inter-languages. This raises the intriguing possibility
that, contrary to the view presented earlier, inter-language forms are, in fact, learned from the input.
However, this is unlikely, as learners who experience grammatical foreigner talk still manifest the
same inter-language errors as those that experience ungrammatical foreigner talk. There is no
convincing evidence that learners‘ errors derive from the language they are exposed to. Grammatical
foreigner talk is the norm. Various types of modification of base line talk (i.e. the kind of talk native
speakers address to other native speakers) can be identified. First, grammatical foreigner talk is
delivered at a slower pace. Second, the input is simplified. Examples of simplifications in the
grammatical foreigner talk shown in Table 5.1 are the use of shorter sentences, avoidance of
subordinate clauses, and the omission of complex grammatical forms like question tags. Third,
grammatical foreigner talk is sometimes regularized. This involves the use of forms that are in some
sense ‗regular‘ or ‗basic‘. An example in Table 5.1 is the use of a full rather than a contracted form
(‗will nor forget‘ instead of ‗won‘t forget‘) fourth, foreigner talk sometimes consists of elaborated
language use. This involves the lengthening of phases and sentences in order to make the meaning
clear. An example of elaboration in table 5.1 is the use of ‗when you are coming home‘ as a
paraphrase of ‗on your way home‘

16
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

Type of talk Example

Base line talk You won‘t forget to buy the ice - cream
On your way home, will you?
Ungrammatical foreigner talk No forget buying ice- cream, eh?

Grammatical foreigner talk The ice- cream --- you will not forget to
buy it on your way home --- Get it when
you are coming home. All right?

TABLE 5.1 Examples of baseline talk and foreigner talk

Input modifications of these kinds originate in the person addressing a learner. We seem to
know intuitively how to modify the way we talk to learners to make it easier for them to understand.
However, there are times when learners still fail to understand. When this happens they have a
choice. They can pretend they have understood. Research shows that learners sometimes do this.
Alternatively, learners can signal that they have not understood. This results in interactional
modifications as the participants in the discourse engage in the negotiation of meaning. The extract
below is an example of an exchange between two learners. Izumi uses a confirmation check (‗in him
knee‘) to make sure she has understood Hiroko when he said ‗in his knee‘. In so doing she introduces
an error of her own which leads Hiroko to correct it at the same time as he corrects his own original
error‘ on his knee‘. As a result of this negotiation both learners end up correcting their own errors.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that modified interaction of this kind is common in learner
discourse.

17
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

Hiroko: A man is uh, drinking coffee or tea with uh the sauce of the uh uh coffee set is uh in his uh
knee
Izumi: in him knee.
Hiroko: uh on his knee.
Izumi: yeah
Hiroko: on his knee.
Izumi: so sorry, on his knee.
(from S. Gass and E.Varonis. 1994. ‗Input, interaction and second – language production‘ Studies in
second Language Acquisition 16: 283 -302)
How do such input and interactional modifications contribute to L2 acquisition? There is still
only limited empirical evidence that these modifications do assist interlanguage development.
Arguments have been proposed, however, that suggest they do.
According to Stephen Krashen‘s input hypothesis, L2 acquisition takes place when a learner
understands input that contains grammatical forms that are ‗ i+I ‘(i.e. are a little more advanced than
the current state of the learner‘s interlanguage) Krashen suggests that the right level of input is
attained automatically when interlocutors succeed in making themselves understood in
communication. Success is achieved by using the situational context to make messages clear and
through the kinds of input modifications found in foreigner talk. According to Krashen, then, L2
acquisition depends on comprehensible input.
Michael Long‘s interaction hypothesis also emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input
but claims that it is most effective when it is modified through the negotiation of meaning. It is not
difficult to see why. As the interaction between Hiroko and Izumi illustrates, learners often receive
negative evidence. That is, their interlocutors indicate when they have not understood and, in the
course of doing so, may model the correct target – language forms. Thus, learners receive input
relevant to aspects of grammar that they have not yet fully mastered. There is another way in which
interaction may assist learners. When learners have the chance to clarify something that has been
said they are giving themselves more time to process the input, which may help them not just to
comprehend but also to acquire new L2 forms. However, sometimes interaction can overload learners
with input, as when a speaker provides lengthy paraphrases or long definition of unknown words. In
such cases, acquisition may be impeded rather than facilitated. The relationship between modified
interaction and L2 acquisition is clearly a complex one.

LANGUAGE LEARNING WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF

A major issue in language learning theory has been whether traditional techniques normally
associated with language teaching - drills, repetition, controlled practice of specific language items,
etc. - actually have any beneficial effect. Indeed, in educational theory generally, there has been some
argument about whether teaching 'works' at all.
In his book, Deschooling Society, the educational theorist Ivan Illich questioned the whole
purpose of formal education. As the title of his book indicates he had a very bleak view of what
happens in classrooms. We may think, he suggested, that the more input we are exposed to, the

18
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

more we learn. We may even go so far as to assume that we can measure knowledge with tests and
grades. But all this is a delusion.
In fact, learning is the human activity which least needs manipulation by others. Most learning is
not the result of instruction. It is rather the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting.

From IIllich (1972: 56)

First language learning provides a perfect example of what he is talking about. All children
succeed at it to a greater or lesser extent. Although parents and other close adults may help to 'teach'
the language in an informal way (for example, through repetition, 'play', or made-up dialogues -
where, in the early stages the parent will often take the baby's part when the baby cannot actually
speak the words), still the process of learning is unconscious. What the young child does get, of
course, is considerable exposure to language which he or she more or less understands the meaning
of. And at the end of this process, the language, miraculously, is there as a result of exposure, a clear
motivation to communicate - for both physical and emotional reasons - and an opportunity to use
what is being acquired.
Perhaps, then, all that anybody needs to learn a new language are those three elements:
exposure, motivation, and opportunities for use. This was certainly the view of Dick Allwright and his
colleagues who had the task of improving the English language skills of students from overseas who
were soon to study on postgraduate courses at the University of Essex in England in the 1970s. The
students already had some English knowledge.
The teachers at Essex reasoned that the ways they had been teaching - such as studying
grammar, explaining vocabulary, or teaching paragraph organisation -did not seem to have much
effect and anyway, they did not 'feel right'. How would it be, they wondered, if they abandoned all
that and instead devoted all their efforts to exposing students to English and getting them to use it,
particularly given that they were highly motivated to learn. This would satisfy the three criteria we
have just detailed. The hypothesis they were working on was, in Allwright's words, that:
... if the language teacher's management activities are directed exclusively at involving the learners
in solving communication problems in the target language, then language learning will take care of itself...

From R Allwright (1979:170)

In the course which followed, students were given tasks to do outside the classroom (such as
interviewing people and searching for library books) which involved them in speaking and reading:
real tasks for which the teachers gave no language training, advice or, crucially, correction. Students
also took part in communication games where the only objective was to complete the task using all
and/or any language at their disposal. A student had to draw the same picture as their partner without
looking at the partner's picture, for example, or they had to arrange objects in the same order as their
partner without looking at their partner's objects - both tasks relying on verbal communication alone.
The results, although not scientifically assessed, were apparently favourable. Everyone enjoyed the
process far more (especially the teachers) and the students' progress appeared to have been more
impressive than in previous years.

19
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

The American applied linguist, Stephen Krashen, writing a short time later, appeared to be
making similar suggestions about language learning too, though by dividing language 'learning' into
acquisition and learning he was being far more specific. Language which we acquire
subconsciously, he claimed, is language we can easily use in spontaneous conversation because it is
instantly available when we need it. Language that is learnt, on the other hand, taught and studied as
grammar and vocabulary, is not available for spontaneous use. Indeed, it may be that the only use for
learnt language is to help us to monitor (check) our spontaneous communication; but then the more
we monitor what we are saying, the less spontaneous we become!
Krashen saw the successful acquisition by students of a second language as being bound up
with the nature of the language input they received. It had to be comprehensible, even if it was
slightly above their productive level, and the students had to be exposed to it in a relaxed setting. This
roughly-tuned input is in stark contrast to the finely-tuned input of much language instruction,
where specific graded language has been chosen for conscious learning. Roughly-tuned input aids
acquisition, Krashen argued, whereas finely-tuned input combined with conscious learning does not.

A further attack on traditional forms of language teaching - especially the use of repetition
and controlled practice - has centred around studies which have demonstrated that it is impossible to
show a direct connection between drilling of any particular grammatical item, for example, and the
acquisition of that item. Dave Willis describes as a fallacy the idea that controlled practice leads to
mastery of grammar (Willis 1996: 48), and others have made the same point.
Despite all these claims, however, language teaching has not been quite so radicalised as
some commentators might have expected. This is partly due to the theories themselves, whose claims
are somewhat weakened when exposed to close scrutiny. Take Allright's students at the University of
Essex: they all had some knowledge of English, they were all highly motivated (because they would
shortly be taking postgraduate degrees at an English university) and, crucially, they were studying in
England where their opportunities for exposure to English were greatly increased. Allwright's solution
might have been exactly right for such students - the ones it was designed for - but it does not follow,
therefore, that the same kind of approach would be appropriate for students at different levels
studying in different situations in other parts of the world.'
Krashen's claims came under sustained attack partly because they were unverifiable. When
someone produces language, how can you tell if this language is 'learnt' or 'acquired'? The speaker
will almost certainly be unable to provide you with the answer, and there are no ways, so far, of
finding this out. Second, many commentators have questioned his suggestion that learnt language can
never pass to the acquired store. This seems observably false. Both roughly-tuned and finely-tuned
input (the latter related, of course, to learning) end up becoming acquired language at some point;
Rod Ellis suggested that communicative activities might be the switch that took language from the
learnt to the acquired store (Ellis 1982). However, no one has suggested that Krashen is wrong about
the beneficial qualities of comprehensible input in a relaxed setting.
And what of Willis' criticism of controlled practice, by which he appears to mean both
individual, and choral repetition? Controlled practice may not fulfill the role originally ascribed to it

20
General Issues in Language Learning and Language Teaching

(the mastery of grammar and vocabulary) but at certain levels it may well have other pay-offs in terms of
encouraging motor skills in the spoken production of new language, and in providing the illusion of
progress to aid the students' motivation.
Much of the problem in discussing acquisition and learning - in trying to discover whether
'language learning will take care of itself - occurs when the discussion is divorced from the age of the
students, the level they are at, their motivation, their educational culture, and the places in which the
learning is taking place. Thus we need to balance the fact that all children acquire language against some
of the special conditions in which this takes place. Children receive much greater exposure than the
average second language student. There is some 'covert teaching' going on as they acquire not only the
language itself but the social routines in which it is used. First language acquisition is also closely allied to
social growth and general cognitive development.
Most teachers of young learners avoid grammar teaching because experience has shown that it
has little effect. Children subconsciously acquire languages with considerable ease. Yet adults find things
more difficult, especially when they are learning in classrooms away from target-language communities;
for them focused language study is not only useful, it is almost certainly desirable, and most of them
want it anyway. Just involving students in communicative tasks may thus be unsatisfactory, provoking 'a
general over-emphasis on performance at the expense of progress' (Wicksteed 1998:3). However, there
may be special circumstances (such as those described by Allwright above) where such activities match
the motivational drive, level, and situation of the students concerned.
It seems, therefore, that some concentration on language study is helpful for most teenagers
and adults learning English whether in the form of finely-tuned input or in some other way, for there are
many different means of language study. However, many of the theoretical considerations discussed in
this section have influenced popular methodology, especially the Communicative approach and its
aftermath, and Task-based learning.