Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research

ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014

Available at: www.express-journal.com

Competency-Based Language Teaching

Khaleel Bader Bataineh

&
Mahshad Tasnimi

Abstract: Competency-based language teaching (CBLT) is an application of the

principles of competency-based education. It concerns accountability, management and

quantification. CBLT focuses on the competencies and outputs. If teaching competencies

becomes an end in itself, stakeholders become the object rather than the subjects of the

educational process. On the other hand, if competencies are seen as tools to enable

learners to act for change in their lives, critical thinking will be promoted. After a brief

history, this article introduces competency-based language teaching. Then it will be

followed by how it will be evaluated. Finally the pros and cons of this kind of instruction

are elaborated in details.

Introduction:

Instruction takes different forms depending on its goals and objectives. Some

emphasize input, while others focus on output. Some take objectives as behaviors

whereas others take them as performance. This paper focuses on competency-based

language teaching. After a brief history, competency-based language teaching is

introduced. Then it will be followed by how it will be evaluated. Finally the pros and

cons of this kind of instruction is elaborated in details.

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com

Background:

Competency-based education can be traced back to the philosophy of

experimentalism and to the work of John Dewey in the early 1900’s. Its antecedents

include vocational education and progressive education (Flowers 1990; Stoffle & Pryor

1980).

Nunan (2007) reviews ESL instruction over the last twenty years and states that

standard-based approaches to instructional design developed within a behavioral

paradigm. These approaches include the objective movement, competency-based

education and the standards movement. In the objectives movement, objectives were

defined in terms of performance by which output were emphasized rather than input.

Behavioral or performance objectives describe what the learner rather than the teacher is

to do. They also specify observable learner behavior. According to Nunan (1988)

performance objectives include three elements. First, there is a performance component

which states what the learner is to be able to do. Second, a condition component specifies

the circumstances and conditions under which learners are to perform the task. The third

element is a standards component which indicates how well the task is to be performed.

In the 1970s objectives-driven curricula were criticized. Critics assert that the

important outcomes of education were under-emphasized. Furthermore, they believe

specification of objectives a priori prevents teachers from taking advantages of

opportunities occurring unexpectedly in the classroom. In addition, it was argued that

outcomes rather than behavior change are important in education. Another problem was

that there were hundreds of details to be taken into account in curriculum development.
Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
These pitfalls gave rise to the competency-based movement during 1980s as an

alternation to the use of objectives in program planning.

Competency-based Language Teaching:

Before considering competency-based language teaching, it is necessary to clarify

what is meant by competency. Mrowicki (1986, as cited in Weddle, 2006) defines

competencies as follows:

Competencies consist of a description of the essential skills, knowledge, attitudes,

and behaviors required for effective performance of a real-world task or activity.

These activities may be related to any domain of life, though have typically been

linked to the field of work and to social survival in a new environment. (p. 2)

Richards and Rodgers (2001) cite Docking (1994) who defines competency as

An element of competency can be defined as any attribute of an individual that

contributes to the successful performance of a task, job, function, or activity in an

academic setting and/or a work setting. This includes specific knowledge,

thinking processes, attitudes, and perceptual and physical skills. (p. 145)

Therefore, competency might be a task, a role, a function which changes over time, and

will vary from context to context. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001),

competency-based language teaching (CBLT) focuses on outcomes of learning. CBLT

addresses what the learners are expected to do rather than what they are expected to learn

about. This approach originates from competency-base education (CBE), an educational

movement emerging in the United States in the 1970s. CBLT advocates defining

educational goals in terms of precise measurable descriptions of knowledge, skills, and

behaviors students should possess at the end of a course of study. Nunan (2007) adds that
Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
standards are important to CBLT. Competency-based language teaching lies within

behavioral tradition and competencies have a strong resemblance to performance

objectives in that it focuses on what learners should be able to do. However, one

difference between competencies and performance objectives is the level of generality.

That is, objectives are more specific than competencies. The following are some required

competencies for the area of retaining a job provided by Mrowicki (1986 as cited in

Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

 Follow instructions to carry out a task.

 Respond appropriately to supervisor’s comments.

 Request supervisor to check work.

 Report completion of task to supervisor.

 Request supplies.

 State problem and ask for help if necessary.

According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), the most recent manifestation of

competency perspectives is the standards movement. It is the current trend in

performance-based curriculum development which has dominated educational

discussions since the 1990s. The term standard refers to “what students should know and

be able to do” (Nunan, 2007, p. 428). Other terms may be used for standards such as

benchmarks, bandscales or profiles (McKay, 2007). Nunan (2007) asserts that again the

major difference between competencies and standards is the level of generality. McKay

(2007) states that standards are divided into substandards such as content standards and

performance standards. Content standards specify curriculum goals, whereas performance

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
standards specify what ought to be learned at one level or another. In addition, a standard

is divided into different components. The following example is from the ESL standards

for grade pre-K-3.

Goal:

 To use English to communicate in social settings

Standard:

 Students will use English to participate in social interactions

Descriptors:

 Sharing and requesting information

 Expressing needs, feelings, and ides

 Using nonverbal communication in social interactions

 Getting personal needs met

 Engaging in conversations

 Conducting transactions

Sample Progress Indicators:

 Engage listener’s attention verbally non-verbally

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
 Volunteer information and respond to requests about self and family

 Elicit information and ask clarification questions

 Clarify and restate information as needed

 Describe feelings and emotions after watching a movie

 Indicate interests, opinions, or preferences related to class projects

 Give and ask for permission

 Offer and respond to greetings, compliments, invitations, introductions, and

farewells

 Negotiate solutions to problems, interpersonal misunderstandings, and disputes

 Read and write invitations and thank you letters

 Use the telephone (Short et al. 1997 as cited in Nunan, 2001)

The above example is taken from the ESL Standards for pre-K-12 Standards which

are specified by the Association of TESOL in the United Stated. These standards are

organized around three goals and nine standards. Furthermore, each standard is explained

by descriptors, sample progress indicators, and classroom vignettes with discussions.

Aurebach (1986) refers to eight key features as a framework for CBE programs in ESL.

The factors are as follows:

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
1. A focus on successful functioning in society: The goal is to enable students to

become autonomous individuals capable of coping with the demands of the

world.

2. A focus on life skills: Rather than teaching language in isolation, CBAE/ESL

teaches language as a function of communication about concrete tasks.

Students are taught just those language forms/skills required by the situations

in which they will function. These forms are determined by “empirical

assessment of language required” (Findley & Nathan, 1980, p. 224).

3. Task- or performance-centered orientation: What counts is what students can

do as a result of instruction. The emphasis is on overt behaviors rather than on

knowledge or the ability to talk about language and skills.

4. Modularized instruction: “Language learning is broken down into manageable

and immediately meaningful chunks” (Center for Applied Linguistics, 1983,

p. 2). Objectives are broken into narrowly focused subobjectives so that both

teachers and students can get a clear sense of progress.

5. Outcomes which are made explicit a priori: Outcomes are public knowledge,

known and agreed upon by both learner and teacher. They are specified in

terms of behavioral objectives so that students know exactly what behaviors

are expected of them.

6. Continuous and ongoing assessment: Students are pretested to determine what

skills they lack and posttested after instruction in that skill. If they do not

achieve the desired level of mastery, they continue to work on the objective
Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
and are retested. Program evaluation is based on test results and, as such, is

considered objectively quantifiable.

7. Demonstrated mastery of performance objectives: Rather than the traditional

paper-and-pencil tests, assessment is based on the ability to demonstrate

prespecified behaviors.

8. Individualized, student-centered instruction: In content, level, and pace,

objectives are defined in terms of individual needs; prior learning and

achievement are taken into account in developing curricula. Instruction is not

time based; students progress at their own rates and concentrate on just those

areas in which they lack competence. (Auerbach, 1986, pp. 414-415)

Evaluation:

As mentioned earlier CBLT focuses on outcomes or competencies. Stoffle and

Pryor (1980) assert that assessment of the students’ performance is best accomplished

under actual conditions. However, this approach is very expensive and usually not

feasible. Most learners are assessed using multiple-choice tests, simulations, games, etc.

Council on Education for Public Health (2006) adds that CBE often requires more

complex assessment including portfolios and role-playing. In CBLT programs,

assessment is criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced. In criterion-referenced

assessment, scores are interpreted with respect to a specific level or domain of ability,

while in norm-referenced assessment, scores are interpreted in relation to the

performance of a particular group of individuals (Backman, 1990). Criterion-referenced

testing is diagnostic. “Learners are able to obtain useful diagnostic feedback on their

progress and achievement since explicit criteria are provided against which they can
Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
compare their performances” (Nunan, 2007, p. 425). Criterion-based assessment

procedures measure how well learners can perform on specific learning tasks (Docking,

1994 as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 2001).

Pros and Cons:

There are several advantages of a CBLT. First of all, CBLT focuses “on language

as a tool for communication rather than on language knowledge as an end in itself”

(Nunan, 2007, p. 425). It promotes responsible and accountable teaching (Findley &

Nathan, 1980). Referring to benefits of CBE, Norton (1987, as cited in Sullivan, 1995)

states that in CBE learners’ confidence is enhanced because they can achieve

competencies required in the performance in real life. Another benefit is that, the

instructor in CBE is a facilitator and more training time is devoted to working with

learners individually or in small groups rather than presenting lectures. Richards and

Rodgers (2001) mentions four advantages of a competencies approach:

1. The competencies are specific and practical and can be seen to relate to the

learner’s needs and interests.

2. The learner can judge whether the competencies seem relevant and useful.

3. The competencies that will be taught and tested are specific and public —

hence the learner knows exactly what need to be learned.

4. Competencies can be mastered one at a time so the learner can see what has

been learned and what still remains to be learned. (pp. 146-147)

CBE establishes standards which must be defined and tested against reality. It also

increases productivity of educational instructions (Corcoran, 1976 as cited in Stoffle &

Pryor, 1980).
Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
Those who support standards believe that they can provide guidelines for practice.

Furthermore, they can assist governments to monitor educational systems by assessment.

Supporters believe that standards can provide information about relative progress by

comparing individuals, schools and systems (McKay, 2007). Providing diagnostic

feedback on learners’ progress is another advantage of CBLT (Nunan, 2007).

Taking disadvantages of CBLT into account, Auerbach (1986) points that critics

of CBLT argue this approach carries hidden assumptions about reality and social order. It

is value governed in that it imposes its own norms. Therefore, it is determinist prescribing

social roles for students and reinforcing the power structure. In addition, teaching overt

behaviors seems mechanical, inhibiting critical thinking. CBLT is also considered within

reductinist approach by its critics. That is, the sum of the discrete objectives does not

equal the essence of the complexity of the whole language. CBLT advocates bottom-up

processing which make students not to see the forest for the trees. CBLT emphasizes

observable outcomes. However, much learning can not be observed. Only focusing on

results obscures the complexity and dynamism of language and teaching process,

therefore, creativity and innovation may be suppressed. The nature of language is

creative and unpredictable. It does not include successive acquisition of discrete forms.

Another critique is that although CBLT claims to be student-centered, it takes control of

learning out of students hands by extensive information gathering process prior to

instruction as well as prespecifying standardized competency lists. For CBLT to be

learner centered, needs have to be identified collaboratively as a result of trust and

experience rather than as a precondition for instruction. Corder (1967, as cited in

Aurebach, 1986) believes that only through classroom interaction a learner-based

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
syllabus can be determined. Taking cultural differences into account, CBLT begins with

only one presupposed culture. Sullivan (1995) adds that unless training and follow up

assistance is provided for the teachers, there is a tendency to slip back into the role of the

traditional teacher. Tollefson (1986) argues that there are no valid procedures to develop

competencies for most programs. On the other hand, many of the areas are impossible to

operationalized. Richards and Rodgers (2001) add that CBLT is seen as prescriptivist in

that it “focuses on behavior and performance rather than on the development of thinking

skills” (p. 148). They mention that CBLT reflects a banking model of education in which

the function of education is to transmit knowledge or skill according to the values of the

dominant socioeconomic group.

McKay (2007) state that critics of standards believe that they are both

administrative and political. Moreover, since standards underpin individualism and

competition, they are considered as intrusive by many teachers. Brindley (1998) suggests

that tensions between purposes of policy-makers, administrators, and practitioners impact

on the validity of standards.

To sum up, CBE in general is a movement that focuses on the competencies or

outputs. CBLT is an application of the principles of CBE to language teaching. It

concerns accountability, management and quantification. In this approach, if teaching

competencies “becomes an end in itself, students and teachers become the objects rather

than the subjects of the educational process” (Auerbach, 1986, p. 425). On the other

hand, if competencies are seen as tools to enable learners to act for change in their lives,

critical thinking will be promoted.

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com

REFERENCES

Aurebach, E. R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two steps back.

TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3). 411-430.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Brindley, G. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning

programs: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15 (1), 45-85.

Council on education for public health (2009). Competencies and learning objectives.

Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://www.ceph.org/files/public

/Competencies.pdf

Findley, C. A, & Nathan, L. A. (1980). Functional based ESL language objectives in a

competency curriculum. TESO Quarterly 14 (2), 221-231.

Flowers, J. (1990). Competency based education in North Carolina’s vocational

agricultural programs: Ten years after adoption. Retrieved February 15, 2013,

from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae/pdf/Vol31/31-02-62.pdf

McKay, P. (2007). The standards movement and ELT for school-aged learners: Cross-

national perspectives. In. J. Cummins & C. Davison. (Eds.), International

handbook of English language teaching (pp.439-456). New York: Springer.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (2001). Syllabus design. In M. Celce-Murcia (ED.), Teaching English as a

second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp.55-65). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Nunan, D. (2007). Standard-based approaches to the evaluation of ESL instruction. In. J.

Express, an International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research
ISSN: 2348 – 2052 , Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 2014
Available at: www.express-journal.com
Cummins & C. Davison. (Eds.), International handbook of English language

teaching (pp. 421-438). New York: Springer.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stoffle, C. J., & Pryor, J. M. (1980). Competency-based education and library

instruction. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/

bitstream/handle/2142/7121/librarytrendsv29i1f_opt.pdf?sequence=1

Sullivan, R. S. (1995). The competency-based approach to training. JHPIEGO Strategy

Papers, 1, 1-8.

Tollefson, J. (1986). Functional competencies in the U.S. refugee program: Theoretical

and practical problems. TESO Quarterly 20 (4), 649-664.

Weddel, K. S. (2006). Definitions components characteristics integrating competencies

and content standards: Mapping competencies resources. Retrieved March 15,

2013, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeadult/download

/pdf/CompetencyBasedEducation.pdf