Comparing the Integrated-Skills and Discrete Approaches to Language Instruction

Integrated-Skills Approach

The integrated-skills approach is what it sounds like; it integrates the four domains of language in one language class, typically in conjunction with content instruction or while students complete an interdisciplinary task. 

The primary argument in favor of an integrated-skills approach to teaching language is that it provides a more realistic experience which will foster global language development and allow students to develop effective communication skills. As Oxford (2001) put it, “The integrated-skill approach…exposes English language learners to authentic language and challenges them to interact naturally in the language.” Speaking, reading, writing, and listening are equally important in developing a new language; “to be a competent language user, the learners should develop receptive and productive skills in both spoken and written discourse” (Pardede, 2017). Because of this reality, the integrated-skills approach is the most efficient and effective way for students to develop their language skills through the practice of all four domains.

In contrast, Kehe (2020) argues that the integrated-skills approach does learners a disservice by making it impossible (or a the very least, highly improbable) for them to have their learning needs met across the four domains, because their language development is unlikely to be uniform across the domains. 

To be perfectly honest, I found this argument quite frustrating. Balancing the needs of learners across the spectrum of proficiency levels in a variety of skills is the baseline expectation for elementary classroom teachers. To suggest that an integrated approach is potentially detrimental to students who don’t fit neatly within a particular language acquisition level, to me, speaks more to the ineffectiveness of a teacher’s differentiation than it does to the weakness of the model. Perhaps Kehe was speaking explicitly to adult education, but as a classroom teacher I have certainly never been offered the option of only teaching students at a certain level, without also being expected to adjust my materials and teaching methods to support students at a lower level in particular skills as well as to extend the learning of students who have already achieved proficiency.

Discrete Approach

The discrete approach, in contrast to the integrated-skills approach, focuses on one skill at a time. A lesson or a course may focus exclusively on speaking, or reading, and so on. This approach can be very useful when a teacher observes that their students could benefit from reinforcement or review with a particular skill. Additionally it may be more realistic to design a task that focuses on a specific skill so that the teacher can focus their observation for the purpose of formative or summative assessment. Finally, as I discussed above, classrooms often have learners at different levels of proficiency in different skills. Just as the integrated-skills approach provides a more realistic learning experience, the discrete approach can be helpful at times to facilitate appropriate differentiation to learners with diverse stages of language acquisition.

I have, of course, implied the challenges of discrete learning as I discussed the benefits of integrated-skills learning. Some teachers (perhaps wrongly) understand “discrete” to be synonymous with “in isolation,” and seek to avoid any skill that is not the focus of a lesson or course altogether (Aponte-de-Hanna, 2015). As Oxford (2001) puts it, “This is contrary to the integrated way people use language skills in normal communication, and it clashes with the direction in which language teaching experts have been moving in recent years.” Discrete teaching should be done in moderation and with specific goals in mind.