Discussing how to really teach a communicative class
AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña in September 2025
Introductory Note to the Reader
As I have mentioned in other publications on this blog, I am not a supervisor, though I worked in this
area more than fifteen years ago. After earning my TESOL certification from Arizona State University, I
became increasingly aware that newer generations of teachers—much like my own cohort—need
scaffolding to design truly communicative lessons and activities.
This is entirely doable, but it requires systematic, accountable training. The Kirkpatrick Model, when
applied thoughtfully, provides a framework that aligns teacher development with measurable classroom
impact. In this essay, I explore how it can be used to support language educators in planning
communicative lessons that move beyond theory into practice.
Evaluating Teacher Training: Applying the Kirkpatrick Model
to Communicative Lesson Design
Abstract Keywords: Communicative
This paper examines the application of the Kirkpatrick Language Teaching, Teacher
Four-Level Training Evaluation Model to language Training, Professional
teacher professional development, specifically in Development, Kirkpatrick
designing communicative lessons grounded in the Model, Lesson Design,
principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Reflective Practice, Task-Based
Despite widespread endorsement, CLT remains Learning
inconsistently implemented, with many teachers
defaulting to traditional, form-focused instruction. By
integrating the Kirkpatrick Model, training can be
systematically structured to address teacher reaction,
learning, behavior, and results, ensuring a sustained
transformation from theoretical awareness to classroom
impact. Drawing on scholars such as Richards (2006),
Nunan (2004), Borg (2015), and Ur (2012), the discussion
highlights how professional development grounded in
accountability, reflection, and collaboration can bridge
the persistent gap between CLT principles and practice.
Resumen
Este artículo analiza la aplicación del Modelo de Evaluación de Cuatro Niveles de Kirkpatrick
al desarrollo profesional docente en la enseñanza de idiomas, con énfasis en la planificación
de lecciones comunicativas basadas en el enfoque comunicativo (CLT). Aunque este
enfoque ha sido ampliamente promovido, su implementación sigue siendo inconsistente. El
modelo de Kirkpatrick permite estructurar la formación docente de manera sistemática para
abordar la reacción, el aprendizaje, el comportamiento y los resultados, garantizando una
transformación sostenible de la teoría a la práctica en el aula. Con base en autores como
Richards (2006), Nunan (2004), Borg (2015) y Ur (2012), se subraya la importancia de la
reflexión, la rendición de cuentas y la colaboración para cerrar la brecha entre los principios
del CLT y su aplicación.
Resumo
Este artigo examina a aplicação do Modelo de Avaliação de Quatro Níveis de Kirkpatrick ao
desenvolvimento profissional de professores de línguas, especialmente na elaboração de
aulas comunicativas fundamentadas nos princípios do Ensino Comunicativo (CLT). Apesar
de amplamente defendido, o CLT ainda é implementado de forma inconsistente, muitas
vezes substituído por práticas tradicionais. O modelo de Kirkpatrick oferece uma estrutura
sistemática que aborda reação, aprendizagem, comportamento e resultados, promovendo
mudanças sustentáveis na prática docente. Com base em autores como Richards (2006),
Nunan (2004), Borg (2015) e Ur (2012), destaca-se a relevância da reflexão, da
responsabilidade e da colaboração para aproximar teoria e prática no ensino comunicativo.
In language education, one of the most widely discussed and endorsed yet
inconsistently practiced approaches is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
Since its genesis, advent, and use in the late twentieth century, CLT has been
promoted as a response to traditional language learning form-focused methods,
emphasizing meaningful “communicative” interaction and language learner
autonomy. However, as Dr. Jack C. Richards (2006) points out, while many
language instructors acknowledge the value of CLT, they often “struggle to
translate its principles into actual classroom practice” (p. 22); that is, classroom
exercises, activities, and tasks are not exactly communicative. In other words, this
gap between theory and practice remains a pressing challenge in language
teacher education and in-service training: language trainers may understand
communicative principles conceptually but default to grammar drills, vocabulary
memorization, or teacher-centered techniques when faced with real classroom
constraints.
Bridging this gap between communicative principles and actual teaching
practice in the classroom requires more than methodological input; it calls for
professional development that needs to be systematic, reflective, and oriented
toward long-term behavioral change among teaching practitioners. The Kirkpatrick
Four-Level Training Evaluation Model offers a structured framework for such an
academic and PD endeavor. Originally designed for corporate training, it has since
been adapted to fit and suit educational contexts where both teacher learning and
student outcomes are critical for language speaking mastery and communication
goals achievement. By applying Kirkpatrick’s model to language teacher training,
professional development can move beyond theoretical awareness, ensuring that
language teachers can acquire, apply, and sustain communicative strategies that
lead to measurable improvements in student competence and language mastery.
Understanding the Kirkpatrick Model in the Context of Language Teacher
Training
The Kirkpatrick Model consists of four levels, each building on the previous
one. When applied to language teacher training, it provides a roadmap for both
instructional, pedagogical design and performance evaluation. Its structure aligns
well with what Penny Ur (2012) emphasizes as the cyclical process of teacher
learning: input, practice, reflection, and adaptation.
Level 1: Reaction: The first level examines how language teachers
perceive the training in terms of relevance, engagement, and usefulness for their
teaching practice in F2F or virtual teaching settings. This dimension is crucial
because, as Fullan (2007) argues, “deep change is only possible when teachers
find personal meaning in new practices” (p. 36). In a communicative training
program, workshops must not only present concepts but also model
communicative techniques such as sketchpads (role plays) or information-gap
tasks, allowing language instructors to experience firsthand the types of activities
their learners might perform in their classrooms. Teachers’ reactions can be
documented through post-session surveys, reflective journals, or facilitated
discussions, which reveal whether participants see the training as practical and
inspiring, or whether the training must be “tuned up” to kindle instructors’ interest
in a different way.
Level 1: Reaction
What it is: This first level (Reaction) measures how participants feel about
the training, its relevance, engagement, and usefulness in the
continuum of classroom teaching.
Application ● Teachers should feel that the training is practical, inspiring,
for teacher and directly applicable to their classroom needs and
training: student’s language objectives.
● Workshops should include engaging activities that model
communicative techniques (e.g., role plays, information
gap tasks) that instructors can replicate in their
classrooms.
● Feedback tools such as surveys and reflection prompts
help gauge teacher satisfaction and motivation.
Goal: Ensure language educators find the training relevant,
engaging, and applicable to their immediate needs and
institutional goals for teacher performance.
Activities: ● Interactive workshops with real classroom scenarios.
● Icebreakers using communicative techniques (e.g., role
plays, information gaps).
● Use of authentic materials to model communicative tasks.
Evaluation: ● Post-session surveys (Likert scale + open-ended).
● Quick feedback forms on usefulness and engagement.
Level 2: Learning: At the second level, the focus shifts to the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes teachers acquire during training. In the case of CLT, David
Nunan (2004) highlights that communicative lesson planning requires sequencing
tasks in ways that mirror real-life communication, moving learners from controlled
to freer use of language (p. 31). Teacher training at this level therefore emphasizes
principles of CLT, task-based learning, and student-centered instruction. As a
consequence, language instructors might analyze traditional versus
communicative lesson plans, design their own sequences of activities and tasks
for a communicative class, and engage in microteaching sessions that provide
opportunities for experimentation and peer feedback. Learning at this stage is
typically assessed through rubrics, pre- and post-assessments, and structured
reflective journaling, ensuring that participants leave with a clearer understanding
of how to plan lessons that promote authentic interaction.
Level 2: Learning
What it is: This level (Learning) assesses the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes acquired during training by teachers. In terms of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers are asked to move their
knowledge to the third level: Application.
Application ● Teachers learn the principles of communicative lesson
for teacher planning, including task-based learning, authentic
training: interaction, and student-centered instruction.
● Activities include analyzing sample lesson plans, designing
their own communicative lessons, and participating in
microteaching sessions.
● Trainers can use quizzes, peer reviews, and lesson plan
rubrics to evaluate learning outcomes.
Goal: Teachers acquire knowledge and skills to design
communicative lessons.
Content ● Principles of CLT (e.g., fluency over accuracy, real-life
Focus: communication).
● Task-based learning and lesson planning.
● Differentiating between mechanical, meaningful, and
communicative practice.
Activities: ● Microteaching sessions with a tutor or supervisor.
● Lesson planning labs with peer review or with scaffolded
exercises.
● Analysis of sample lesson plans (traditional vs.
communicative).
Evaluation: ● Pre/post knowledge assessments.
● Rubrics for lesson plan quality.
● Peer and trainer feedback on microteaching.
Level 3: Behavior: The third level evaluates whether the knowledge gained
by the instructors translates into classroom practice and more student learning.
Borg (2015) observes that teacher cognition strongly influences classroom
behavior, which means that training alone is insufficient without mechanisms for
sustained support. That is, PD training without an accountable follow-up is not
meant to make changes in classroom delivery and student performance and
learning. With proper follow-up, in this stage, teachers begin to implement
communicative strategies in their own classrooms, guided by mentoring cycles,
coaching sessions, and reflective teaching journals. Supervisors can conduct
structured classroom observations using communicative-focused checklists, while
teachers themselves engage in self-assessment and collaborative peer feedback.
Over time, these practices encourage a shift from traditional teacher-led instruction
toward classrooms that foster greater learner autonomy and interaction.
Level 3: Behavior
What it is: This level (Behavior) evaluates whether participants of a PD
program apply what they learned in their actual work
environment.
Application ● Language instructors begin implementing communicative
for teacher strategies in their classrooms that foster greater student
training: interaction and move away from guided practices in
coursebooks.
● Support mechanisms such as teacher coaching, “focused”
classroom observations, and reflective journals help
reinforce behavior change prompting teachers to evaluate
their progress and classroom routines.
● Supervisors can use observation checklists and feedback
sessions to monitor progress and provide guidance when
instructors need to move from their current zone of
teaching.
Goal: Teachers apply a set of communicative principles in the
creation of speaking activities carried out in their actual
classrooms.
Support ● Coaching or mentoring cycles on a one-to-one basis or in
Strategies: collective sessions with several teachers.
● Classroom observations using a rubric with a subsequent
feedback session with the teacher for the supervisor to
share his/her observation highlights and ways to improve
classroom performance.
● Reflective teaching journals that instructors need to be
filling in every now and then.
Evaluation: ● Observation checklists focused on communicative
strategies previously introduced to the cohort of teachers
and now need to be present in classroom
speaking/communicative practices.
● Self-assessment tools also based on previously introduced
communicative strategies during PD sessions.
● Student feedback on classroom activities for teachers to
monitor impact of their changes in classroom delivery.
Level 4: Results: The final stage (Results) examines the broader impact of
teacher development on student outcomes and performance. Littlewood (2004)
argues that the success of communicative approaches lies in students gaining the
competence and confidence to use the language in authentic contexts (p. 324). To
evaluate this, institutions can compare student participation and performance in
speaking and listening tasks before and after teacher training, analyze classroom
discourse patterns, and collect learner feedback. Positive outcomes may be
observed in increased student engagement, greater willingness to use the target
language spontaneously, and improvements in communicative competence and
language mastery. Such evidence can fully demonstrate that teacher development
has moved beyond theory into tangible learning results whose impact may also be
measured in exit exams such as TOEIC speaking or any other type of test the
institution uses.
Level 4: Results
What it is: This level (Results) measures the final impact of the training,
typically in terms of teacher classroom performance outcomes
and student language mastery in communicative tasks
emulating what happens in real life.
Application ● The focus shifts to student outcomes: Are learners more
for teacher engaged? Are they using the target language more
training: effectively? Are their oral tests’ performance and scores
better than before?
● Evidence includes student performance in speaking and
listening tasks, classroom participation, and feedback from
learners.
● Comparing pre- and post-training data helps assess the
broader impact of the teacher’s transformation and its
impact of student learning and language mastery.
Goal: Improved student communicative competence and
engagement to potentially impact their performance on oral and
written exit tests such as TOEIC.
Indicators: ● Increased student participation in target language.
● Improved performance in speaking/listening tasks.
● Positive changes in classroom dynamics.
Evaluation: ● Student performance data (formative assessments).
● Surveys/interviews with students.
● Comparative analysis of student outcomes before/after
training.
Self-Assessment and Supervisor Rubric
To facilitate not only reflection but also accountability, a combined self-
assessment and supervisor rubric can support teachers in monitoring their
progress across all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model. Teachers must provide
evidence such as workshop reflections, lesson plans along with communicative
activities, classroom observations of their peers, and student performance data,
while supervisors document growth through feedback and observation. This dual
perspective ensures that professional development remains both individualized
and systematically evaluated. Then, both teachers and supervisors are
accountable for the success in the implementation of CLT in each class.
The following rubric is designed to help teachers reflect on their progress
and allow supervisors to identify areas where support may be needed. It is just a
draft that needs to be expanded to include other areas where an institution wants
to focus while working on their instructors’ professional development. Each level
of the Kirkpatrick Model is represented with indicators and a scale of achievement.
Kirkpatrick Indicator Achievement Evidence / Notes
Level Scale
Level 1: I found the training ☐ Low Workshop feedback,
Reaction relevant, engaging, personal reflections
and applicable to my ☐ Medium
teaching context.
☐ High
Level 2: I understand the ☐ Low Lesson plans,
Learning principles of microteaching
communicative lesson ☐ Medium feedback, peer
planning and can apply reviews
☐ High
them.
Level 3: I consistently apply ☐ Low Observation reports,
Behavior communicative teaching journal,
strategies in my ☐ Medium mentor feedback
classroom.
☐ High
Level 4: My students show ☐ Low Student
Results improved performance data,
communicative ☐ Medium classroom
competence and interaction, learner
☐ High
engagement. feedback
Conclusion
Training language teachers to plan communicative lessons is best
understood as a sustained process of professional growth rather than a one-off
intervention. The Kirkpatrick Model offers a structured, evidence-based framework
that ensures teachers not only acquire new strategies but also apply them
effectively and achieve tangible improvements in student outcomes. By aligning
teacher development with each stage of the model, institutions can foster
professional growth that is impactful, sustainable, and directly linked to
communicative competence in the classroom.
Moreover, the model resonates with contemporary trends in English
language teacher development. Reflective practice, for instance, has been widely
recognized as a cornerstone of professional learning; Schön (1983) describes it as
the process by which teachers critically examine their actions to improve future
practice. Similarly, teacher learning communities (CoPs) have emerged as
collaborative spaces where educators share experiences, challenge assumptions,
and co-construct knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Embedding the Kirkpatrick
framework within these practices ensures that teacher training is not an isolated
event but part of an ongoing culture of reflection, collaboration, and renewal.
In this sense, the Kirkpatrick Model functions not only as an evaluative tool
but also as a catalyst for deeper engagement with the principles of communicative
teaching. When combined with reflective inquiry and peer collaboration, it can help
build a professional development ecosystem that empowers teachers to create
classrooms where authentic communication thrives.
References
Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4),
319–326.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
9 Discussion Questions for Teaching Coaches
1. How can the Reaction level of the Kirkpatrick Model be adapted to ensure
teachers perceive training as relevant and motivating for their classroom
realities?
2. What strategies can be used to help teachers move from conceptual
understanding of CLT to the actual design of communicative tasks?
3. In what ways might microteaching and peer feedback serve as effective
tools to strengthen the Learning stage?
4. How can teaching coaches ensure that the Behavior level—classroom
implementation—does not fade once the training sessions conclude?
5. What role can reflective journals and teacher cognition research (Borg,
2015) play in sustaining behavioral change in communicative teaching
practices?
6. How can the Results level be measured beyond standardized tests,
capturing authentic student communicative competence?
7. What institutional supports (e.g., mentoring cycles, CoPs, supervisor rubrics)
are necessary to make the Kirkpatrick framework sustainable in ELT
contexts?
8. How can the model be integrated with task-based learning principles
(Nunan, 2004) to provide both structure and flexibility in lesson planning?
9. To what extent does embedding the Kirkpatrick Model into professional
development foster a culture of accountability and collaboration among
teachers, supervisors, and institutions?
Reflective Online Teaching
by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano
Evaluating Teacher Training: Applying the Kirkpatrick Model to Communicative Lesson Design
[Link]
