Dr. Richards draws your attention to a recent publication that provides a comprehensive overview of the opportunities, challenges, and practical considerations associated with the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in language teaching and learning.
Keith Cheng Lin and Jack C. Richards:
GenAI-assisted language teaching (GenAILT): Approach, design,
and procedure.
Treat lesson time as practice time, not “explanation time.”
As a novice, it’s tempting to prove you know your stuff by explaining grammar, vocabulary, and rules in detail. But students don’t learn much from hearing you talk; they learn from using the language themselves.
So when you plan:
If you consistently design lessons where students are the ones doing the thinking, speaking, and writing, your techniques, classroom management, and confidence will grow naturally—and their English will, too.
Several recurring patterns appear across many non‑English‑speaking contexts (though not everywhere or in the same way). A central issue is the tendency to import teaching methods without adapting them to local realities. Some common mistakes include the following:
1. Treating methodology as fashion rather than principle
Schools may claim to adopt CLT, TBLT, or other modern approaches by name, while:
As a result, teachers add occasional pair work or games and label them “communicative,” while the underlying system remains unchanged.
2. Ignoring exam washback
High‑stakes exams often reward grammatical accuracy, translation, and multiple‑choice reading comprehension.
At the same time, schools claim to follow communicative or task‑based approaches.
This mismatch pushes teachers to “teach to the test,” turning CLT into a superficial add‑on and frustrating both teachers and students.
3. Over‑reliance on L1—or banning it entirely
In some contexts, most explanation and practice take place in learners’ L1, with the target language limited to example sentences.
In reaction, other institutions enforce a strict “English only” policy, even when L1 could efficiently support comprehension or contrastive analysis.
Both extremes ignore research supporting the judicious use of L1 to support—not replace—L2 learning.
4. Misunderstanding “communicative” as unstructured free chatting
CLT is sometimes reduced to open conversation or games with little input, weak task design, and no focus on form.
Lower‑proficiency learners may flounder, produce very little language, or repeatedly fossilize errors.
Effective CLT includes structured input, clear outcomes, scaffolding, and targeted feedback.
5. Neglecting systematic grammar and vocabulary development
In reaction against grammar‑translation methods, some programs under‑teach form, assuming learners will “pick it up naturally.”
With limited exposure (e.g., two or three hours per week), accuracy often stagnates without planned recycling, noticing, and explanation where appropriate.
6. Implementing methods without adequate teacher training or support
New methodologies are often introduced through a single workshop or a textbook preface.
Teachers lack:
Faced with large classes and heavy curricula, many teachers revert to lecturing and translation because unfamiliar methods feel risky.
7. Copying so‑called “native speaker” models without contextual adaptation
Materials may assume Western, English‑speaking cultural norms and communicative styles (e.g., casual small talk, pub culture, or humor) without mediation.
Learners practice dialogues that do not reflect their realities and may feel the language is not meant for “people like them.”
Intercultural competence and local relevance are often insufficiently addressed.
8. Over‑scripted but under‑interactive lessons
Teachers follow textbooks page by page, and “communicative” activities become scripted role plays with memorized lines.
There is little room for genuine information gaps, negotiation of meaning, or learner choice.
The method appears modern on paper but remains teacher‑fronted in practice.
9. Assessment that contradicts the teaching method
Even when classroom practices are communicative, assessment often relies on:
This signals to learners that real communication is secondary, while manipulating forms for marks is what truly matters.
10. Underestimating local constraints
Imported methodologies often assume:
In reality, classes may have 40–60 students, fixed desks, and limited access to technology.
Applying methods “by the book” without adaptation can lead to superficial activities, classroom management issues, and eventual disillusionment.
11. Ignoring learner beliefs and expectations
Many learners and parents equate “serious teaching” with:
Sudden shifts to pair work and tasks, without explanation, may be perceived as play or wasted time, leading to resistance or disengagement.
12. Technology use without methodological purpose
Digital tools, apps, or AI are sometimes introduced as novelties:
Without strategy training or integration into pedagogy, technology becomes an end in itself rather than a means to support learning.
In summary, effective methodology requires adaptation to local exams, class sizes, cultures, and resources; alignment between teaching and assessment; sustained teacher development; and transparent communication with learners about why classroom practices are changing.
Three key factors make language learning meaningful and long‑lasting at the curriculum level:
1. Clear, lived purposes for using the language
Curriculum outcomes should be defined in terms of what learners can do communicatively, rather than only what they “know” (such as grammar lists or vocabulary sets).
Learning content should connect to learners’ real lives, goals, and identities—for example, study abroad, professional needs, hobbies, community participation, or academic fields.
Tasks should mirror real‑world language use, such as emailing a professor, solving problems collaboratively, participating in online forums, or understanding media that learners genuinely care about.
2. Rich input and frequent output, organized over time
Learners need repeated exposure to language in varied, meaningful contexts—stories, videos, conversations, and projects—rather than isolated or decontextualized drills.
The curriculum should be spiral in nature, with key grammar and vocabulary recycled across units at increasing levels of complexity instead of being taught once and forgotten.
Planned opportunities for speaking and writing are essential, as they require learners to retrieve and recombine language, which strengthens long‑term retention.
3. Support for autonomy, reflection, and learner identity
Learners should be given choices within the curriculum framework (topics, texts, or projects), fostering ownership and motivation.
Reflection should be built into the curriculum through learning journals, “can‑do” self‑assessments, goal‑setting, progress check‑ins, and noticing strategies (e.g., “How did you understand that?”).
The curriculum should affirm learners’ first language(s) and cultures, presenting the new language as an addition to their identity rather than a replacement.
Additional curriculum design elements that enhance impact include:
In summary, a meaningful and lasting language curriculum is grounded in real communication and personal relevance, recycles language systematically over time, and supports learners in becoming reflective, autonomous users of the language rather than merely successful test‑takers.
Teachers can balance communicative language teaching and grammar instruction by treating grammar as a tool for communication rather than as a separate subject. In practice, this means the following:
1. Start from meaning, not from rules
Teachers should design tasks in which a specific grammar point is naturally needed (e.g., the past tense to tell stories, conditionals to give advice).
Students should first attempt to complete the task using their existing linguistic resources.
Only afterwards should the teacher highlight the target structure, showing how it allows students to express meaning more clearly, accurately, or precisely.
This aligns with a focus on form approach:
For example:
These are short, targeted interventions rather than long rule explanations.
2. Integrate grammar into communicative tasks
After a brief grammar focus, the structure should be used immediately in meaningful communication, for example:
3. Revisit grammar cyclically through richer communication
Teachers should accept that one exposure is rarely sufficient.
Key grammar points should be recycled in later lessons through new contexts, topics, and skills.
Each encounter keeps the focus communicative while gradually increasing accuracy.
4. Differentiate the level of explicitness according to learners’ needs
Since some learners prefer clear rules while others benefit more from implicit learning, a combination of approaches is most effective.
5. Use correction strategically
During fluency activities, teachers should correct only errors that impede communication or relate to the target structure.
More detailed accuracy work can be reserved for post‑task stages, writing feedback, or short “grammar clinics.”
This maintains students’ willingness to communicate while still supporting linguistic development.
6. Encourage noticing and reflection
Teachers can use short noticing activities with authentic texts, such as underlining verb forms, reordering sentences, or inferring rules from examples.
Asking questions like “Why do they say it this way here?” encourages learners to reflect before receiving explicit explanations.
Students can then articulate simple grammar rules in their own words.
In summary, communicative tasks should form the backbone of lessons, with brief, purposeful grammar instruction woven in through a focus on form that emerges from—and feeds back into—real communication.
The greatest challenge is keeping the teacher’s human role central while so much of language learning becomes automated.
More concretely, this challenge breaks down into several interrelated issues:
1. Redefining what “teaching” means when AI can explain and drill almost anything
Apps and chatbots can provide instant grammar explanations, translations, examples, and drills.
As a result, teachers must shift from being the primary source of language input to becoming:
Many teachers were never trained for this shift.
2. Helping students use AI well, not just often
Students may overuse translators and GPT-like tools and bypass real cognitive processing.
Teachers must teach:
This requires strong digital literacy, redesigned assessment, and ongoing monitoring.
3. Maintaining authenticity and real communication
If AI can speak “perfect” English, students may wonder why they should practice with classmates.
Teachers therefore need to design classroom activities in which:
4. Assessment and academic integrity
Writing and homework tasks can now be easily generated by AI, reducing the validity of traditional assignments.
Teachers need new task types (e.g., in‑class, spoken, process‑focused, and reflective tasks) and clear ways to detect, integrate, and discuss AI use openly and ethically.
5. Keeping up with technology without losing pedagogical grounding
Digital tools evolve faster than curricula, textbooks, and teacher training.
Teachers must constantly decide:
Conclusion
Ultimately, the core challenge is redefining and protecting the uniquely human, pedagogical role of the language teacher: designing meaningful learning experiences and guiding students in the critical and ethical use of AI, while traditional roles such as explainer, drill provider, and corrector are increasingly automated.
Dr Richards reports that he has come across an article of his that he had long forgotten about but he believes would still be of interest to teachers.
Submitted by Pinar Yilmaz, Bilkent University, Turkey
Dear Dr. Richards,
What procedures do you recommend in evaluating textbooks?
Please see the chapter on textbooks in my book Key Issues in Language Teaching.
Submitted by Ahmad Alruhban, Marmara University, Turkey
What is the difference between assessment and evaluation in language teaching?
Assessment is a general term referring to procedures that can be used to measure students progress in a course. Tests are one form of assessment but many forms of assessment are not tests, such as observations, interviews, or questionnaires.
Evaluation refers to procedures used to determine the overall effectiveness of a language course, and may involve many different procedures such as interviews with teachers and students as well as classroom observation. Students’ performance on texts may also be used as one component of evaluation.
Submitted by Abbas Masoumi, PH.D student ELT, Iran
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using discipline specific materials versus general academic materials in an advanced ESL class?
Discipline specific materials offer the advantage of preparing students for the discipline specific genres, text-types and vocabulary of their disciplines, and also connect more closely with the learners’ interests and needs.
Submitted by Hasan Ul Haque Banna, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh
What’s the process of material development?
Materials development is discussed in detail in my book Key Issues in Language Teaching.
Submitted by Andualem Gelaw Tigabu, Limu Genet High school, Ethiopia
What is the difference between content-based and task-based language teaching?
Please see the article in my publications – Communicative Language Teaching Today – which discusses both of these methods.
Submitted by Amin
Is it appropriate for an English teacher to translate new words into the students’ mother tongue? If so, how much and how many words?
Translating new words into the mother tongue is sometimes an obvious and useful strategy when students encounter unknown words in a text. However, before deciding to use translation the teacher should ask:
How important is this word in the text?
Is it a word that the students will need for active use or simply for recognition?
Is it a low frequency word that the students are unlikely to need and that they may not encounter often again?
If the teacher decides that the word is useful and important, he or she should also ask:
Can the meaning of the word be inferred from the context or because it is similar to a word in the students’ mother tongue?
Can the students make an intelligent guess about the meaning of the word?
Can they check the meaning of the word in their dictionary?
If after reviewing the options the teacher decides that translation is a quick and effective way of introducing a new and useful word, the students can write the translation of the word on the margin of the text or in their workbook.
If it is a low frequency and not very useful word, quickly provide the translation and move on.
Submitted by 孙赫, Luoyang Normal University, China
Grammar translation:
Teacher’s role: to provide translation of new grammatical items, to answer students’ questions about the meaning of items, to monitor students’ work for grammatical accuracy, to develop translation activities:
Students’ role: to learn and practice grammar rules, to try out new grammar items in spone and written texts
Common classroom activities: translation of sentences from one language to another: writing sentences using the new grammar
Direct method:
Teacher’s role: to present new items through the use of questions and demonstration, to monitor students’ production for accuracy, to avoid use of the mother tongue
Students’ role: to listen and repeat, to ask and answer questions
Common classroom activities: drills and repetition activities: question and answer activities
Submitted by Italo, The University of Queensland, Australia
How you know what vocabulary should be taught when designing your textbooks. How do you decide which words are appropriate for some levels and which aren’t?
Textbooks writers usually consult any of a number of word lists that group words according to level and frequency. (Paul Nation’s vocabulary level’s test is a useful reference here). Increasingly reference is also made to corpus studies of word frequency.
In discussing knowledge of words, an important distinction is usually made between a person’s active, or productive, vocabulary and their passive, or receptive, vocabulary, since our passive vocabulary is generally much larger than our active vocabulary. In spoken English, for example, native speakers may use a relatively small number of words in daily conversation – as few as 1,500 different words – though they recognize far more words than they use. For passive vocabulary knowledge, researchers suggest that knowing a minimum vocabulary of 3,000 word families (which equals some 5,000 words) is required to enable a person to understand a high percentage of words on an average page of a text, and that 5,000 word families (some 8,000 words) is required to be able to read for pleasure. Twice as many words may be needed to read first-year university materials. It is also important to distinguish between knowledge of content words (those that carry the main meaning of sentences, such as nouns, main verbs, adverbs, adjectives and question words, e.g. why, when, what), demonstratives (this, that, these, those) and function words (those that express grammatical relationships, such as articles, prepositions, auxiliaries, pronouns, conjunctions and relative pronouns). There is a small, finite list of function words in English, but a very large set of content words. When people expand their vocabulary knowledge, they add to their knowledge of content words.
O’Keeffe et al. (2007: 37–47) suggest that based on their research on the frequency of items in spoken English, a basic or core spoken English vocabulary for second language learners contains several different categories of words:
For further information see the chapter on vocabulary in my book Key Issues In Language Teaching (Cambridge University Press 2015) and also:
Submitted by Mehran Darabi, Azad University, Iran
Applied linguistics refers to the study of language in relation to real-world issues. Language teaching is one branch of applied linguistics, but applied linguistics also sometimes includes such things as language and the law, language planning, and language in the media. Applied linguistics differs from other fields of language study that may have a descriptive or explanatory purposes but do not seek to resolve issues in education or society.
Corpus linguistics and CALL have been a part of applied linguistics for many years. More recent issues in applied linguistics include World Englishes, the use of technology and the internet in language learning and teaching, translanguage language use as well as identity in language learning.
Submitted by Hien, Hanoi National University of Education, Vietnam
What are the differences between Communicative Language Teaching and Situational Language Teaching?
Please consult the chapters in Richards and Rodgers (3rd edition), where there in extensive discussion of both approaches.
Tina, Ridgeway Campus UNZA, Zambia
What are the principles of the eclectic approach?
The term “eclectic approach” refers to a teaching approach that is not based on a single method (e.g. task-based teaching, or CLIL) but that draws on several different method principles that are made use of in practice. It is a problem-based approach to teaching that is based on the following principles:
Submitted by Ali Abdulhussain, University of Maissan
What is the importance of studying linguistics for a language teacher?
Linguistics is a very broad discipline and includes many different approaches to the study of language. Not all of them are relevant to language teaching. If by “linguistics” you mean a course that introduces information on the nature of language, how grammar and other levels of organization in a language work, as well as information of the core linguistic features of English – particularly those that are important in teaching, then this would be useful. Teachers need to know as much as they can about the subject they teach, and linguistics can be one source of this knowledge base. But how useful it is will depend on what kind of linguistics one is talking about and how it is taught. The framework developed by Halliday in his work on functional linguistics is often used in courses for language teachers. Unfortunately many people who may have a Ph.D in linguistics may have studied linguistic theories that have little relevance to language teaching.
Submitted by Gafur Khamroev, Uzbekistan
What is the difference between mother tongue teaching and foreign language teaching?
In many countries when students come to school their mother tongue has already been established and teaching in this case may involve learning to read and write a language which the children can already speak. The children have already benefited from thousands of hours of contact with their mother tongue. In the case of a foreign language however, the starting point may be zero, and a limited amount of time may be available in school for foreign language instruction. In this case a careful structured and gradual introduction to the foreign language is normally used, based on a corpus of the most frequent words, phrases and structures.