Second Language Learning in the Classroom 1

8/11/2019 Second Language Learning in the Classroom 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/second-language-learning-in-the-classroom-1 1/14

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM

SIX PROPOSALS FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHING

Many theories have been put forward for the best way to learn a second language in

the classroom. Also, many teaching methods and materials have been developed to implementthese theories. However, there is an important question: “What is the best way to promote

language learning in the classroom!. "he main way to answer this question requires

#nowledge of relationship between teaching and learning. "here are si$ proposals for

language teaching.

1. %et it right from the beginning

2. &ust listen'and read

3. (et)s tal#

4. "wo for one

5. "each what is teachable

6. %et it right in the end

"he fact that which theoretical propose holds the greatest promise for improving

language learning in the classroom is the main duty of the teachers.

1- ) GET IT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING

"his proposal gives importance to accuracy in language teaching and the use of

structure*based or form*based approaches. +t includes grammar translation method and audio*

lingual approaches. "he aim is to prevent bad habits before happening. "here are two

e$amples about it. irst e$ample includes a group of fifteen*year*old students involved in an

e$ercise based on the simple present of -nglish verbs. "he aim is the correct use of the simple

present verb. econd e$ample includes a group of twelve*year*old learners of -nglish as a

foreign language. /ure repetition is seen in that case. "he students have no ideas about what

they are saying.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

"he supporters of 0(" argue that language is not learned by the gradual accumulation

of one item after another. -rrors are natural indicators of developmental processes. luency

comes before accuracy to develop communicative abilities right from the beginning.

However, the supporters of this proposal claim that allowing learners too much freedom

without correction and e$plicit instruction will lead to early fossili1ation.

S*'+ 12, A*'%-%&(* /e!& '!%

2



/atsy (ightbown carried out a series of longitudinal and cross*sectional investigations

into the effect of audio*lingual instruction on interlanguage development in the late 2345s.

"he investigations focused on rench*spea#ing learners aged 22*26 in 7uebec, 0anada.

tudents in these programs typically are e$posed to rote repetition and pattern practice drill.

"he learners) acquisition of certain -nglish grammatical morphemes was compared with the

natural order of acquisition seen in the interlanguage of uninstructed second language

learners. "he results showed that differences between the natural order accuracy with which

these classroom learners produced them. According to the findings, the evidence is that

e$clusive focus on accuracy and practice of particular grammatical forms is not important8

because, the learners will not be able to use the forms correctly outside the classroom.

S*'+ 13, G!00! /*s "00*&%"%e /!"%"e

andra avignon studied the linguistic and communicative s#ill of 9 college students

enrolled in rench language courses at an American university. "he students were divided into

three groups. "he first group ;communicative group< had communicative tas#s with audio*

lingual instructions. "he second group ;culture group< had activities to promote awareness of

the rench language and culture with audio*lingual instructions. And the third group ;control

group< had grammar and pronunciation drills with audio*lingual instructions. At the end of the

period of the instruction, there were no significant differences between groups on the

linguistic competence measures. However, on the communicative competence measures, the

first group scored considerably higher than the other two groups. As a conclusion, we can say

that (= programs which focus on only accuracy and form do not give students sufficient

opportunity to develop communication abilities in (=.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

"his proposal has important limitations. (earners receiving audio*lingual or grammar*

based instruction may not convey their messages and intentions to communicate effectively.

%rammar*based approaches to teaching do not show that learners develop high levels of

accuracy and linguistic #nowledge. "he emphasis on accuracy usually results in learners who

are inhibited and will not ta#e part in using their #nowledge for communication. (earners

benefit more from opportunities for communicative practice in meaningful conte$ts8 that is,

the focus is on understanding and e$pressing meaning. +t is important that meaning*based

instruction is advantageous but it does not the same with form*focused instruction. Actually,

(= learners need to develop both accuracy and fluency to use language effectively.

M+ /%&%&s

=



+ will prepare my lessons according to 0(" when + am a teacher. + do not want to use

this proposal for my teaching process at that time. As + mentioned before, this proposal says

that accuracy and form are more important than meaning and fluency8 however, in

communicative classrooms, the essential element is communication and interaction.

According to this proposal, the language is not learned with meaningful conte$ts. +nstead, it is

learned by the gradual accumulation of one item after another. "he supporters say that too

much freedom without correction causes early fossili1ation for the learners. +n some aspects,

it can affect learners negatively. "eachers should ma#e a good balance between them.

2- ) UST LISTENAND READ

"his proposal underlines providing learners with comprehensible input with the help

of listening and>or reading activities8 because, it is believed that hearing and understanding

the target language is necessary for (= learning. 0omprehension of meaningful language is

the foundation of language acquisition. "hird e$ample is for -nglish class at a primary school

in a rench*spea#ing community in ?ew @runswic#, 0anada. 0lassroom environment is

prepared to provide learners with listening and reading comprehension activities without

spea#ing or interacting with the teacher or other learners. +t is based on the assumption that it

is not necessary to drill and memori1e language forms to learn them. +t is clearly related to

rashen)s input hypothesis that one essential requirement for (A is the availability of

comprehensible input.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

S*'+ 14, C0/!e#e&s%&-se' %&s!*"%& $! "#%'!e&

(earners received comprehensible input li#e native spea#er speech from tapes and

boo#s but actually no interaction with the teacher or other learners. "here was no oral practice

or interaction in -nglish at all. "he result showed that learners in the comprehension*based

program learned -nglish as well as learners in the regular program from grade B through

grade C. "his was true both for their comprehension and spea#ing s#ills. However, the later

study in grade showed that students who continued in the only comprehension program

were not doing as well as students in the program including spea#ing and reading

components, teacher feedbac#, and classroom interaction.

S*'+ 15, Re'%&( $! !'s

Marlise Horst used simplified readers in a study of vocabulary development among

adult immigrants who were enrolled in an -( program in a community centre in Mantred,

0anada. "he twenty*one participants represented several language bac#grounds and

proficiency levels. tudents chose simplified readers in a class library and read for pleasure in

B



addition to the activities of their regular -( class. Dver a si$ wee# period, she found that

there was vocabulary growth than#s to reading. Also, she drew a conclusion that substantial

vocabulary growth through reading is possible.

S*'+ 16, T /#+s%" !es/&se 'ee/e' + 0es Us#e!)

+n "/E class, learners Foin in activities that they hear a series of commands in the

target language. "hey simply listen and show their comprehension by their actions but are not

forced to say anything. "he vocabulary and structures are carefully organi1ed so that learners

cope with materials which gradually increase in comple$ity and each new lesson is built on

the ones before. "his is different from rashen)s input hypothesis. Eesearch showed that

students can develop their levels of comprehension in the target language without engaging in

oral practice. "his approach gives learners a good start. +t provides them building up a

considerable #nowledge of the language without feeling the nervousness.

S*'+ 17, I&/* $'

Martha "rahey and (ydia White carried out young rench spea#ing learners 25*2=

years old in intensive -( classes in 7uebec. "he goal of this research was to determine how

effective high*frequency e$posure to a particular form. +t was given to the learners in the

instructional input ;adverb placement<. "hey read a series of te$ts containing the use of this

form, but there was no teaching of it nor was any error correction given. "he results showed

that e$posure to many samples of correct models in the instructional input could give

opportunity for learners to add something new to their interlanguage, but they could not get

rid of errors based on their (2. "hat is to say, it failed to provide learners with information

about what is not possible or not grammatical.

S*'+ 18, E&#&"e' %&/*

&oanna White e$amined the acquisition of possessive determiners by rench*spea#ing

learners in intensive -( classes aged 22*2= in a study involving enhanced input. "he reading

passages designed to draw their attention to the form which was embedded in the te$t were

given to the learners. "his was done with enhancement e.g. the form appeared in bold type,

underlined, italici1ed or written in capital letters. 0omparison of the performance of learners

who had read enhanced passages with that of learners who had not showed little difference in

their #nowledge and use of these forms. /erhaps the enhancement was not e$plicit enough to

draw the learners) attention to this form.

S*'+ 19, P!"ess%&( %&s!*"%&

@ill Gan /attern and his colleagues put the learners in situations where they cannot

comprehend a sentence by depending only on conte$t, bac#ground #nowledge, or other clues.

9



(earners received e$planations about obFect pronouns and comprehension*based “processing

instruction! li#e through focused listening and reading activities, learners needed to pay

attention to how the target forms were used to convey meaning. "he results showed that

learners who had received the comprehension*based processing instruction succeeded in

arriving higher levels of performance on both the comprehension tas#s and the production

tas#s than learners who engaged in production practice, doing e$ercises to practice the form.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

According to comprehension*based approaches to second language acquisition,

learners can ma#e considerable progress if they have sustained e$posure to language they

understand. "he research underlines the effectiveness of comprehensible input in terms of

learners) development of comprehension based programs seems to be beneficial in the

development of basic comprehension and communicative performance in the early stages of

(= learning. 0omprehension of meaningful language is the foundation of language

acquisition. Active listening, "/E, and reading for meaning are essential components of

classroom teachers) pedagogical practices.

M+ /%&%&s

+ thin# + can use this proposal in the beginner classrooms when + am a teacher8

because, the "/E results show great benefits for learners in the early stages of their (=

development. +t prepares learners go out into the target language community to get more

comprehensible input. However, + can have difficulty in applying this proposal in the

classrooms of the advanced learners. +n other words, it may not be sufficient to get learners to

continue developing their (= abilities to advanced levels. Additionally, enhanced input can be

valuable component of my pedagogical practices. + thin# + can organi1e my teaching process

with enhanced elements.

3- ) LET:S TAL;

+n this proposal, both comprehensible input and conversational interactions with

teachers and other students are given importance. (earners are given the opportunity to

negotiate for meaning. (earners wor# together to achieve a particular goal. As can be seen in

the e$amples, genuine e$changes of information must enhance students) motivation to

participate in language learning activities.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

"his proposal mainly focuses on such issues: How does negotiation in classrooms

differ from that observed in natural setting How do teacher*centered and student*centered

C



classrooms differ in terms of conversational interaction o tas# types contribute to the

different #inds of interactional modifications

S*'+ 2<, e!&e!s =%&( e!&e!s

Michael (ong and /atricia /orter e$amined the language produced by adult learners

performing a tas# in pairs. "here were eighteen participants8 twelve non*native spea#ers of

-nglish whose first language was panish, and si$ native -nglish spea#ers. "he non*native

spea#ers were intermediate or advanced learners of -nglish. -very individual participated in

separate discussions with a spea#er from each of the three levels. As a conclusion, they found

that learners tal#ed more with other learners than they did with native spea#ers. +n addition to

these, although learners cannot always provide each other with the accurate grammatical

input, they can offer each other genuine communicative practice including negotiation of

meaning.

S*'+ 21, e!&e! &(*(e &' /!$%"%e&"+ ee

%eorge Iule and oris Macdonald investigated whether the role that different*level

learners play in two*way communication tas# led to differences in their interactive behaviors.

"hey set up a tas# that required two learners to communicate information about the location

of different buildings on a map and the route to get there. As a result, the lower level receivers

were almost forced to play a very passive role and said very little to complete the tas#. When

lower level learners were in the sender role, much more negotiation of meaning and a great

variety of interactions between the two spea#ers too# place. @ased on this research, Iule and

Macdonald suggest that teachers should sometimes place more advanced students in less

dominant roles in paired activities with lower level learners.

S*'+ 22, T#e '+&0%"s $ /%! !=

+n a study with adult -( learners in Australia, ?aomi torch investigated the patterns

of pair interaction over time and if differences in the nature of the interactions led to

differences in second language learning. inally, she found that learners who participated in

the collaborative e$pert*novice pairs maintained more of their second language #nowledge

over time. (earners who participated in the dominant*dominant and dominant*passive pairs

maintained the least. he thought that it was based on Gygots#y)s theory of cognitive

development. "hat is, when pair wor# functions collaboratively and learners are in e$pert*

novice relationship, they can successfully engage in the co*construction of #nowledge ;J/<.

S*'+ 23, I&e!"%& &' se"&' &(*(e 'ee/0e&

Alison Mac#ey as#ed adult learners of -( to engage in different communicative

tas#s with native spea#ers of the target language. "he tas#s were designed to provide conte$ts

6



for learners to produce question forms. %roup 2 learners interacted with native spea#ers.

(earners in %roup = observed the interactions between the learners and native spea#ers in

%roup 2 instead of engaging in conversational interactions. %roup B consisted of learners and

native spea#ers who participated in the same communicative tas#s as %roup 2. as a result of

this test, learners who had engaged in conversational interactions*%roup 2* produced more

advanced question forms than the other groups.

S*'+ 24, e!&e!-e!&e! %&e!"%& %& T#% "ss!0

im Mconough investigated the use of pair and small group activities in -nglish as a

foreign language classes in "hailand. tudents engaged in interactional activities they

discussed environmental problems in their country. "he recorded conversations were

e$amined to see the e$tent to which students used interactional features. (earners who had

used more negative feedbac# and modified output improved in the accuracy of their conte$ts

e.g. conditional clauses. Mconough also analy1es opinions about the benefits of pair wor#

and small group activities. he found that the students did not perceive pair and group

activities a useful for learning -nglish.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

Eesearch based on interaction hypothesis e$amined factors that contribute to the

quality and quantity of interactions between second language learners. +t has provided some

useful information for teaching. "he studies by /orter, Iule and Maconald, and torch

contribute to a better understanding of how to organi1e group and pair wor# effectively in the

classroom. "he Mac#ey and Mconough studies are two e$amples of research measuring

second language development in different views of conversational interaction. +n the Mac#ey

study, the measure of second language learning was the learners) immediate production

following these interactions. "he Mconough study is a classroom study and the effects of

interactional features on second language learning were measured over time.

M+ /%&%&s

As + mentioned before, in this proposal, comprehensible input and conversational

interactions with teachers and the other students are very important. "he students negotiate

with each other in a meaningful way and they can e$press their thoughts, opinions and

feelings in a free classroom environment in which they can interact with each other and they

can also use the target language. or these reasons, + will use this proposal in almost every

lesson. Also, this proposal can be used and developed in a good way in communicative

classrooms. %roup or pair wor# can be improved by using this proposal.

4- ) T>O FOR ONE

4



"his proposal is referred to as “content based instruction!. "he students can get “two

for one! while learning the subFect matter content and the language at the same time. +n

bilingual education, immersion programs, content and language are integrated in lessons.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

"han#s to this proposal, it is claimed that the learners develop both their academic

s#ills and their second language learning.

S*'+ 25, F!e&"# %00e!s%& /!(!0s %& C&'

"housand of -nglish*spea#ing 0anadian families have chosen this option both in areas

where rench is spo#en in the wider community and where rench is rarely heard outside the

classroom. A lot of studies have shown that rench immersion students develop fluency, high

levels of listening comprehension, and confidence in using their second language. However,

over the years, failure to achieve high levels of performance in some aspects of rench

grammar is seen in these programs. Many possible e$planations have been put forward for

this. ome researchers argued that rench immersion shows that comprehensible input is not

enough and learners engaged in too little language production due to the fact that the classes

were teacher*centered. "he other possible reason for students) lac# of progress on certain

language features is their rarity in content based instruction.

S*'+ 26, Le %00e!s%& *&'e! s!ess %& H&( ;&(

"hese late -nglish immersion programs were popular with 0hinese parents who

wanted their children to succeed professionally and academically in the international

community. eith &ohnson raised concerns about the ability of the educational system to meet

the demands for such programs. He e$plained that students lac#ed the -nglish proficiency

required to follow the secondary level curriculum successfully. Also, he noticed teachers)

difficulties in effectively delivering the content because of limitations in their own -nglish

proficiency.

S*'+ 27, I&*% "#%'!e& %& "&e&-se' /!(!0s

+n an aboriginal community in 7uebec, 0anada, ?ina pada and /atsy (ightbown

observed the teaching and learning of school subFects and language with +nuit children. "he

children are educated in their first language, +nu#titut, from #indergarten to grade = ;age C*4<.

"hen, their education is in one of 0anada)s official languages, rench or -nglish. +t is seen

that nearly all students had some difficulty in coping with subFect matter instruction in their

second language. +n a case study of one rench secondary level class, it was observed

instructional activities, was analy1ed instructional materials, and was assessed students)

ability to understand and to produce written rench. As a result of this study, it was seen that



students did not have the rench language s#ills they needed to deal with the demands of

typical secondary level instruction.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

0ontent*based instruction has many advantages. +t can increase the amount of time for

learners to be e$posed to the new language. Also, it can create the need to communicative,

motivating students to acquire language to understand the content. However, there are some

problems with content based instruction. According to the research, students may need several

years before their ability to use the language. Eecently, proponents of content*based

instruction emphasi1ed the need to recall that content*based language teaching is still

language teaching.

M+ /%&%&s

As + indicated before, the subFect matter instruction is not enough for the students to

improve their language s#ills and it needs to be complemented by instruction that focuses on

language form including functional use of the language. "he students have limited contact

with the target language outside the classroom. Additionally, the classes are generally teacher*

centered and learners are engaged in too little language production. or all these reasons, + do

not want to use this proposal as a candidate teacher

5- ) TEACH >HAT IS TEACHABLE

"his proposal is put forward by Manfred /ienemann. +t tells us that “something can be

taught only if the learners are ready for them!. "he research has shown that some linguistic

structures develop along a particular developmental path. "hese structures are called

“developmental features! such as question forms, negation, tense and relative clauses. Also,

researchers found that some language features can be taught at any time, li#e vocabulary,

which are called variational features. "he success of learning these variational features

depends on many factors such as motivation, intelligence, and the quality of instruction.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

"hese research studies can give information to teachers about which language features

are developmental and which are variational. +t is recommended to assess the learners)

developmental level and teach what would naturally come ne$t. "his is based on rashen)s

natural order hypothesis.

S*'+ 28, Re'+ e!&

Manfred investigated whether instruction permitted learners to s#ip a stage in the

natural sequence of development. "wo groups of Australian university students who were at

stage = in their acquisition of %erman word order were taught the rules associated with stage

3



B and stage 9 respectively. "he result is that for some linguistic structures learners cannot be

taught what they are not developmentally ready to learn. "hat is to say, instruction cannot

permit learners to s#ip a stage in the natural sequence of development.

S*'+ 29, Re'%es? *&!e'%es &' !e"ss

Alison Mac#ey and &enefer /hilp investigated whether adult -( learners who were at

different stages in their acquisition of questions could advance in their immediate production

of these forms if they received implicit negative feedbac# in conversational interaction. "he

results revealed that “readies! in the interaction plus recasts group improved more than the

“readies! in the interaction without recasts group.

S*'+ 3<, Dee/0e& s(e &' $%!s &(*(e %&$*e&"e

?ina pada and /atsy (ightbown have investigated the acquisition of questions in

relation to learners) developmental readiness. rench spea#ing students ;aged 22*2=< in

intensive -( classes received high*frequency e$posure to question forms that were one or

two stages beyond their developmental stage. (earners who were Fudged on oral pre*tests to

be at stage = or B were given high frequency e$posure to stage 9 and C questions in the

instructional input. According to the results, it is said that instruction which is timed to match

learners) developmental readiness may move them into more advanced stages but their

performances may still be affected by other factors li#e (2 influence.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

"he research only measured the short*term effects of instruction. "here is no way of

#nowing whether instruction had only permanent or long*term effects on learners) developing

interlanguage systems. -$plicit instruction may lead to more positive results, especially if the

instruction consists of contrastive information about (2 and (=. “"each what is teachable!

proposal has an important role for syllabus planners as well as teachers.

M+ /%&%&s

According to this proposal, the teachers should be aware of the developmental stages

of the learners and also they should notice why students do not always learn what they are

taught. "hey should be aware of the effect of the quality and quantity of the instruction given

by them. + will benefit from this proposal in each level and grade because if + #now the

developmental stages of my students, + can plan and organi1e my teaching process e.g. lessons

according to their own levels easily.

6- ) GET IT RIGHT IN THE END

+n that proposal, if the learners have adequate e$posure to the language and a

motivation to learn, they can acquire language from pronunciation to vocabulary and other

25



grammatical features. /roponents of this proposal argue that form*focused instruction and

corrective feedbac# within communicative second language programs can improve learners)

use of particular grammatical features. "his proposal also underlines the idea that some

aspects of language must be taught quite e$plicitly. -$plicit instruction is particularly required

when learners in a class share the same (2, because the errors resulting from (2 transfer are

not li#ely to lead to any #ind of communication brea#down8 thus, it will be difficult for

learners to discover the errors on their own. /roponents of this proposal argue that what

learners focus on can lead to changes in their interlanguage systems. Also, they claim that it is

necessary to draw learners) attention to their errors and to focus on certain linguistic points.

Rese!"# $%&'%&(s

S*'+ 31, F!0-$"*s e@/e!%0e&s %& ESL

+t has been investigated the effects of form*focused instruction and corrective feedbac#

on developing -nglish of rench spea#ing students participating in intensive -( classes in

7uebec. tudents ;aged 25*2=< who were in either grade C or grade 6 spent most of every

school day learning -nglish through a variety of communicative interactive activities. +n

descriptive studies involving almost 2.555 students in thirty*three classes, it was found that

teachers rarely focused on language form. +n these classes, learners developed good listening

comprehension, fluency and communicative confidence in -nglish e$cept for problems with

linguistic accuracy and comple$ity. "he e$perimental studies involved a smaller number of

classes. +t was e$amined the effects of form*focused instruction and corrective feedbac# on

two linguistic features: adverb placement and question forms. "he studies included

immediate, delayed, and long*term>follow*up post*tests. "he difference in long*term effects of

the two studies may be due to a difference in the availability of the target forms in the

classroom input learners were e$posed to. As seen from the results, it can be said that it is

very important how instruction affects language features in different ways.

S*'+ 32, F"*s%&( & #e "&'%%& %& F!e&"# %00e!s%&

-laine ay and tan hapson e$amined the effects of instruction on the ability of

rench immersion students who were aged about 2= or 2B to use the conditional mood of

verbs in sentences. tudents in e$perimental classes were given several hours of focused

instruction on the conditional over a period of five to seven wee#s. "he students in the control

group went on their usual classroom routines. pecial teaching materials were prepared. "hey

included group wor#, written and oral e$ercises and self*evaluation activities. "he result was

that learners in the e$perimental classes outperformed those in the control classes on the

immediate post*tests for the written tas#s, but not on the oral tas#s.

22



S*'+ 33, F"*s%&( & s"%%&(*%s%" $!0s %& F!e&"# %00e!s%&

Eoy (yster e$amined the effects of form*focused instruction on the #nowledge and use

of sociolinguistic style variations in three classes of grade rench immersion students who

were about 2B years old. "he distinction between the use of second person singular pronouns

was e$amined in his study. uring average twelve hours over a five*wee# period, students in

the e$perimental classes were given e$plicit instruction and guided practice activities.

tudents in the two comparison classes #ept on their regular instruction. "he result was that

learners in the e$perimental classes performed considerably better than learners in the

comparison classes.

S*'+ 34, F"*s%&( & (e&'e! %& F!e&"# %00e!s%&

@irgit Harley e$amined the effects of instruction with very young children in rench

immersion programs. i$ glasses of grade = children were given focused instruction on a

grammatical feature, grammatical gender. "hese children received many activities including

children)s games. (earners who received instruction were much better at recogni1ing and

producing accurate gender distinctions for familiar nouns than the other learners.

S*'+ 35, F"*s%&( & e! $!0 %& "&e&-se' s"%e&"e "ss!0s

0atherine oughty and -li1abeth Garela conducted a study with a group of -(

learners who received second language instruction in content*based teaching. Dne class of

middle school students which were 22*29 years old and from a variety of first language

bac#grounds received corrective feedbac# on past tense and conditional verb forms in -nglish

both e$plicitly and implicitly in their science class. "he result was that students who received

the corrective feedbac# made more progress in using these forms than the comparison group

who did not receive the corrective feedbac#.

S*'+ 36, Re"ss &' /!0/s %& F!e&"# %00e!s%& "ss!0s

(yster investigated the effects of form*focused instruction ;+< and feedbac# type on

second language learning for students who were 25*22 years old and in grade C. "here were

three e$perimental groups and one comparison group. (earners in the e$perimental groups

received e$plicit + on grammatical gender. "wo of the other groups received corrective

feedbac# in the form of either recasts or prompts, too. "he comparison group received neither

+ nor corrective feedbac# on grammatical gender. Dn the post*tests all three + groups

were considerably more accurate than the comparison group in understanding grammatical

gender. Also, the + plus prompts group were better at written measures than the + plus

recasts. @ut, there were no important differences among the e$perimental groups on the oral

tas#s.

2=



S*'+ 37, F"*s & $!0 #!*(# "!%e '%(*e

Merill wain and haron (ap#in observed the language development of two grade 4

rench immersion students as they wrote a story collaboratively. "he researchers drew a

conclusion that the multiple opportunities for learners to engage in collaborative tal# on

language features in question led them to a greater understanding of their correct use.

S*'+ 38, F"*s & $!0 %& s=-se' %&s!*"%&

Girginia amuda investigated ways of guiding adult -( learners) attention to form*

meaning relationships by focusing on e$pressing of possibility and probability. irstly,

learners were as#ed to wor# in groups to meditate on the identity of an un#nown person.

"hen, the students were as#ed to come together as a whole group to tell each other what they

had decided. inally, the students prepared and presented a poster based on their conclusions

about the identity of the un#nown person to the whole class. "he result was that when

e$amining differences between e$pressions of probability and possibility students used in the

first stage and comparing it with final stage, there was progress in using modal au$iliaries in

their speeches.

I&e!/!e%&( #e !ese!"#

"he overall results of the studies above support the hypothesis that form*focused

instruction and corrective feedbac# within communicative (= programs can improve learners)

use of particular grammatical features. However, the effects of form*focused instruction are

not always long*lasting which can be e$plained in terms of the frequency of use of the

particular structure in regular classroom input. o, opportunities for continued use may

contribute to continued improvement. orm*focused instruction may be successful with some

language features. +n other words, form*focused instruction and corrective feedbac# within

the communicative conte$ts are more beneficial in promoting (= learning. -$plicit, guided

form*focused instruction is needed when features in the target language differ in non*obvious

or une$pected ways from (2. "he challenge is to find the balance between meaning*focused

and form*focused activities. "he right balance deals with the characteristics of the learners

such as age, metalinguistic awareness, motivation, goals and the similarity of the target

language to the (2.

M+ /%&%&s

As noted earlier, this proposal focuses on the condition, gender, verb form,

recasts>prompts and collaborative dialogue. + thin# that this is the best position which is

closely associated with 0(". +t gives more responsibilities to the students in the classroom. +f

the students are given guidance and the supportive structure, they can help each other to

2B



reflect on language form. +t can mean that the teachers are not only individuals who provide

information about language form in the classroom. + will certainly use this proposal in my

lessons. + believe that if the teaching process has difficulty in ta#ing the students) attention

and their readiness, something cannot be taught.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF CLASSROOM RESEARCH FOR TEACHING

While e$amining the si$ proposals for my classroom teaching, + will concentrate on an

important question: “What is the best way to promote language learning in the classroom!.

"o answer this important question needs #nowledge of the relationship between learning and

teaching. + will pay attention to how these si$ proposals gain meaning into my classroom

practice to be effective in the classroom setting.

SUMMAR

“%et it right from the beginning! proposal may be applied in grammar translation and

audio*lingual classrooms8 because, its goal is to prevent habits before happening. “&ust

listen'and read! proposal is implemented in comprehension*based programs. +t provides

comprehensible input with the help of listening and>or reading activities. According to “(et)s

tal#! proposal, comprehensible input and conversational interactions with teachers and other

students are distinguished part of the teaching process. “"wo for one! proposal is applied in

bilingual education and immersion programs. tudents can get learning the subFect matter

content and the language at the same time. “"each what is teachable! proposal aims setting

realistic e$pectations. "hat is, development features develop along a particular development

path. According to “%et it right in the end! proposal, the teachers should find the balance

between meaning*based and form*based learning and teaching activities.

29

Documents

Second Language Learning in the Classroom 1