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 implement
these theories. However, there is an important question: “What is the best way to promote
language learning in the classroom?”. The main way to answer this question requires
knowledge of relationship between teaching and learning. There are six proposals for
language teaching.
1. Get it right from the beginning
2. Just listen…and read
3. Let’s talk
4. Two for one
5. Teach what is teachable
6. Get it right in the end
The 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
This proposal gives importance to accuracy in language teaching and the use of
structure-based or form-based approaches. It includes grammar translation method and audiolingual approaches. The aim is to prevent bad habits before happening. There are two
examples about it. First example includes a group of fifteen-year-old students involved in an
exercise based on the simple present of English verbs. The aim is the correct use of the simple
present verb. Second example includes a group of twelve-year-old learners of English as a
foreign language. Pure repetition is seen in that case. The students have no ideas about what
they are saying.
Research findings
The supporters of CLT argue that language is not learned by the gradual accumulation
of one item after another. Errors are natural indicators of developmental processes. Fluency
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 explicit instruction will lead to early fossilization.
Study 12: Audio-lingual pattern drill
1
Patsy Lightbown carried out a series of longitudinal and cross-sectional investigations
into the effect of audio-lingual instruction on interlanguage development in the late 1970s.
The investigations focused on French-speaking learners aged 11-16 in Quebec, Canada.
Students in these programs typically are exposed to rote repetition and pattern practice drill.
The learners’ acquisition of certain English grammatical morphemes was compared with the
natural order of acquisition seen in the interlanguage of uninstructed second language learners.
The results showed that differences between the natural order accuracy with which these
classroom learners produced them. According to the findings, the evidence is that exclusive
focus on accuracy and practice of particular grammatical forms is not important; because, the
learners will not be able to use the forms correctly outside the classroom.
Study 13: Grammar plus communicative practice
Sandra Savignon studied the linguistic and communicative skill of 48 college students
enrolled in French language courses at an American university. The students were divided
into three groups. The first group (communicative group) had communicative tasks with
audio-lingual instructions. The second group (culture group) had activities to promote
awareness of the French 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 L2 programs which focus on only accuracy and form do not give
students sufficient opportunity to develop communication abilities in L2.
Interpreting the research
This proposal has important limitations. Learners receiving audio-lingual or grammarbased instruction may not convey their messages and intentions to communicate effectively.
Grammar-based approaches to teaching do not show that learners develop high levels of
accuracy and linguistic knowledge. The emphasis on accuracy usually results in learners who
are inhibited and will not take part in using their knowledge for communication. Learners
benefit more from opportunities for communicative practice in meaningful contexts; that is,
the focus is on understanding and expressing meaning. It is important that meaning-based
instruction is advantageous but it does not the same with form-focused instruction. Actually,
L2 learners need to develop both accuracy and fluency to use language effectively.
My opinions
2
I will prepare my lessons according to CLT when I am a teacher. I do not want to use
this proposal for my teaching process at that time. As I mentioned before, this proposal says
that accuracy and form are more important than meaning and fluency; however, in
communicative classrooms, the essential element is communication and interaction.
According to this proposal, the language is not learned with meaningful contexts. Instead, it is
learned by the gradual accumulation of one item after another. The supporters say that too
much freedom without correction causes early fossilization for the learners. In some aspects,
it can affect learners negatively. Teachers should make a good balance between them.
2- ) JUST LISTEN…AND READ
This proposal underlines providing learners with comprehensible input with the help
of listening and/or reading activities; because, it is believed that hearing and understanding
the target language is necessary for L2 learning. Comprehension of meaningful language is
the foundation of language acquisition. Third example is for English class at a primary school
in a French-speaking community in New Brunswick, Canada. Classroom environment is
prepared to provide learners with listening and reading comprehension activities without
speaking or interacting with the teacher or other learners. It is based on the assumption that it
is not necessary to drill and memorize language forms to learn them. It is clearly related to
Krashen’s input hypothesis that one essential requirement for SLA is the availability of
comprehensible input.
Research findings
Study 14: Comprehension-based instruction for children
Learners received comprehensible input like native speaker speech from tapes and
books but actually no interaction with the teacher or other learners. There was no oral practice
or interaction in English at all. The result showed that learners in the comprehension-based
program learned English as well as learners in the regular program from grade 3 through
grade 5. This was true both for their comprehension and speaking skills. However, the later
study in grade 8 showed that students who continued in the only comprehension program
were not doing as well as students in the program including speaking and reading components,
teacher feedback, and classroom interaction.
Study 15: Reading for words
Marlise Horst used simplified readers in a study of vocabulary development among
adult immigrants who were enrolled in an ESL program in a community centre in Mantred,
Canada. The twenty-one participants represented several language backgrounds and
proficiency levels. Students chose simplified readers in a class library and read for pleasure in
3
addition to the activities of their regular ESL class. Over a six week period, she found that
there was vocabulary growth thanks to reading. Also, she drew a conclusion that substantial
vocabulary growth through reading is possible.
Study 16: Total physical response (developed by James Usher)
In TPR class, learners join in activities that they hear a series of commands in the
target language. They simply listen and show their comprehension by their actions but are not
forced to say anything. The vocabulary and structures are carefully organized so that learners
cope with materials which gradually increase in complexity and each new lesson is built on
the ones before. This is different from Krashen’s input hypothesis. Research showed that
students can develop their levels of comprehension in the target language without engaging in
oral practice. This approach gives learners a good start. It provides them building up a
considerable knowledge of the language without feeling the nervousness.
Study 17: Input flood
Martha Trahey and Lydia White carried out young French speaking learners 10-12
years old in intensive ESL classes in Quebec. The goal of this research was to determine how
effective high-frequency exposure to a particular form. It was given to the learners in the
instructional input (adverb placement). They read a series of texts containing the use of this
form, but there was no teaching of it nor was any error correction given. The results showed
that exposure 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 L1. That is to say, it failed to provide learners with information
about what is not possible or not grammatical.
Study 18: Enhanced input
Joanna White examined the acquisition of possessive determiners by French-speaking
learners in intensive ESL classes aged 11-12 in a study involving enhanced input. The reading
passages designed to draw their attention to the form which was embedded in the text were
given to the learners. This was done with enhancement e.g. the form appeared in bold type,
underlined, italicized or written in capital letters. Comparison of the performance of learners
who had read enhanced passages with that of learners who had not showed little difference in
their knowledge and use of these forms. Perhaps the enhancement was not explicit enough to
draw the learners’ attention to this form.
Study 19: Processing instruction
Bill Van Pattern and his colleagues put the learners in situations where they cannot
comprehend a sentence by depending only on context, background knowledge, or other clues.
4
Learners received explanations about object pronouns and comprehension-based “processing
instruction” like through focused listening and reading activities, learners needed to pay
attention to how the target forms were used to convey meaning. The results showed that
learners who had received the comprehension-based processing instruction succeeded in
arriving higher levels of performance on both the comprehension tasks and the production
tasks than learners who engaged in production practice, doing exercises to practice the form.
Interpreting the research
According to comprehension-based approaches to second language acquisition,
learners can make considerable progress if they have sustained exposure to language they
understand. The 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
L2 learning. Comprehension of meaningful language is the foundation of language acquisition.
Active listening, TPR, and reading for meaning are essential components of classroom
teachers’ pedagogical practices.
My opinions
I think I can use this proposal in the beginner classrooms when I am a teacher; because,
the TPR results show great benefits for learners in the early stages of their L2 development. It
prepares learners go out into the target language community to get more comprehensible input.
However, I can have difficulty in applying this proposal in the classrooms of the advanced
learners. In other words, it may not be sufficient to get learners to continue developing their
L2 abilities to advanced levels. Additionally, enhanced input can be valuable component of
my pedagogical practices. I think I can organize my teaching process with enhanced elements.
3- ) LET’S TALK
In this proposal, both comprehensible input and conversational interactions with
teachers and other students are given importance. Learners are given the opportunity to
negotiate for meaning. Learners work together to achieve a particular goal. As can be seen in
the examples, genuine exchanges of information must enhance students’ motivation to
participate in language learning activities.
Research findings
This 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
classrooms differ in terms of conversational interaction? Do task types contribute to the
different kinds of interactional modifications?
5
Study 20: learners talking to learners
Michael Long and Patricia Porter examined the language produced by adult learners
performing a task in pairs. There were eighteen participants; twelve non-native speakers of
English whose first language was Spanish, and six native English speakers. The non-native
speakers were intermediate or advanced learners of English. Every individual participated in
separate discussions with a speaker from each of the three levels. As a conclusion, they found
that learners talked more with other learners than they did with native speakers. In 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.
Study 21: learner language and proficiency level
George Yule and Doris Macdonald investigated whether the role that different-level
learners play in two-way communication task led to differences in their interactive behaviors.
They set up a task 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 task. When
lower level learners were in the sender role, much more negotiation of meaning and a great
variety of interactions between the two speakers took place. Based on this research, Yule and
Macdonald suggest that teachers should sometimes place more advanced students in less
dominant roles in paired activities with lower level learners.
Study 22: The dynamics of pair work
In a study with adult ESL learners in Australia, Naomi Storch investigated the patterns
of pair interaction over time and if differences in the nature of the interactions led to
differences in second language learning. Finally, she found that learners who participated in
the collaborative expert-novice pairs maintained more of their second language knowledge
over time. Learners who participated in the dominant-dominant and dominant-passive pairs
maintained the least. She thought that it was based on Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive
development. That is, when pair work functions collaboratively and learners are in expertnovice relationship, they can successfully engage in the co-construction of knowledge (ZPD).
Study 23: Interaction and second language development
Alison Mackey asked adult learners of ESL to engage in different communicative
tasks with native speakers of the target language. The tasks were designed to provide contexts
for learners to produce question forms. Group 1 learners interacted with native speakers.
Learners in Group 2 observed the interactions between the learners and native speakers in
Group 1 instead of engaging in conversational interactions. Group 3 consisted of learners and
6
native speakers who participated in the same communicative tasks as Group 1. as a result of
this test, learners who had engaged in conversational interactions-Group 1- produced more
advanced question forms than the other groups.
Study 24: learner-learner interaction in Thai classroom
Kim McDonough investigated the use of pair and small group activities in English as a
foreign language classes in Thailand. Students engaged in interactional activities they
discussed environmental problems in their country. The recorded conversations were
examined to see the extent to which students used interactional features. Learners who had
used more negative feedback and modified output improved in the accuracy of their contexts
e.g. conditional clauses. McDonough also analyzes opinions about the benefits of pair work
and small group activities. She found that the students did not perceive pair and group
activities a useful for learning English.
Interpreting the research
Research based on interaction hypothesis examined factors that contribute to the
quality and quantity of interactions between second language learners. It has provided some
useful information for teaching. The studies by Porter, Yule and MacDonald, and Storch
contribute to a better understanding of how to organize group and pair work effectively in the
classroom. The Mackey and McDonough studies are two examples of research measuring
second language development in different views of conversational interaction. In the Mackey
study, the measure of second language learning was the learners’ immediate production
following these interactions. The McDonough study is a classroom study and the effects of
interactional features on second language learning were measured over time.
My opinions
As I mentioned before, in this proposal, comprehensible input and conversational
interactions with teachers and the other students are very important. The students negotiate
with each other in a meaningful way and they can express 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. For these reasons, I will use this proposal in almost every
lesson. Also, this proposal can be used and developed in a good way in communicative
classrooms. Group or pair work can be improved by using this proposal.
4- ) TWO FOR ONE
This proposal is referred to as “content based instruction”. The students can get “two
for one” while learning the subject matter content and the language at the same time. In
bilingual education, immersion programs, content and language are integrated in lessons.
7
Research findings
Thanks to this proposal, it is claimed that the learners develop both their academic
skills and their second language learning.
Study 25: French immersion programs in Canada
Thousand of English-speaking Canadian families have chosen this option both in areas
where French is spoken in the wider community and where French is rarely heard outside the
classroom. A lot of studies have shown that French 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 French
grammar is seen in these programs. Many possible explanations have been put forward for
this. Some researchers argued that French 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. The other possible reason for students’ lack of progress on certain
language features is their rarity in content based instruction.
Study 26: Late immersion under stress in Hong Kong
These late English immersion programs were popular with Chinese parents who
wanted their children to succeed professionally and academically in the international
community. Keith Johnson raised concerns about the ability of the educational system to meet
the demands for such programs. He explained that students lacked the English 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 English
proficiency.
Study 27: Inuit children in content-based programs
In an aboriginal community in Quebec, Canada, Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbown
observed the teaching and learning of school subjects and language with Inuit children. The
children are educated in their first language, Inuktitut, from kindergarten to grade 2 (age 5-7).
Then, their education is in one of Canada’s official languages, French or English. It is seen
that nearly all students had some difficulty in coping with subject matter instruction in their
second language. In a case study of one French secondary level class, it was observed
instructional activities, was analyzed instructional materials, and was assessed students’
ability to understand and to produce written French. As a result of this study, it was seen that
students did not have the French language skills they needed to deal with the demands of
typical secondary level instruction.
Interpreting the research
8
Content-based instruction has many advantages. It can increase the amount of time for
learners to be exposed 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. Recently, proponents of content-based
instruction emphasized the need to recall that content-based language teaching is still
language teaching.
My opinions
As I indicated before, the subject matter instruction is not enough for the students to
improve their language skills and it needs to be complemented by instruction that focuses on
language form including functional use of the language. The students have limited contact
with the target language outside the classroom. Additionally, the classes are generally teachercentered and learners are engaged in too little language production. For all these reasons, I do
not want to use this proposal as a candidate teacher
5- ) TEACH WHAT IS TEACHABLE
This proposal is put forward by Manfred Pienemann. It tells us that “something can be
taught only if the learners are ready for them”. The research has shown that some linguistic
structures develop along a particular developmental path. These 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, like vocabulary,
which are called variational features. The success of learning these variational features
depends on many factors such as motivation, intelligence, and the quality of instruction.
Research findings
These research studies can give information to teachers about which language features
are developmental and which are variational. It is recommended to assess the learners’
developmental level and teach what would naturally come next. This is based on Krashen’s
natural order hypothesis.
Study 28: Ready to learn
Manfred investigated whether instruction permitted learners to skip a stage in the
natural sequence of development. Two groups of Australian university students who were at
stage 2 in their acquisition of German word order were taught the rules associated with stage
3 and stage 4 respectively. The result is that for some linguistic structures learners cannot be
taught what they are not developmentally ready to learn. That is to say, instruction cannot
permit learners to skip a stage in the natural sequence of development.
9
Study 29: Readies, unreadies and recasts
Alison Mackey and Jenefer Philp investigated whether adult ESL 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 feedback in conversational interaction. The
results revealed that “readies” in the interaction plus recasts group improved more than the
“readies” in the interaction without recasts group.
Study 30: Developmental stage and first language influence
Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbown have investigated the acquisition of questions in
relation to learners’ developmental readiness. French speaking students (aged 11-12) in
intensive ESL classes received high-frequency exposure to question forms that were one or
two stages beyond their developmental stage. Learners who were judged on oral pre-tests to
be at stage 2 or 3 were given high frequency exposure to stage 4 and 5 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 like L1 influence.
Interpreting the research
The research only measured the short-term effects of instruction. There is no way of
knowing whether instruction had only permanent or long-term effects on learners’ developing
interlanguage systems. Explicit instruction may lead to more positive results, especially if the
instruction consists of contrastive information about L1 and L2. “Teach what is teachable”
proposal has an important role for syllabus planners as well as teachers.
My opinions
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. They should be aware of the effect of the quality and quantity of the instruction given
by them. I will benefit from this proposal in each level and grade because if I know the
developmental stages of my students, I can plan and organize my teaching process e.g. lessons
according to their own levels easily.
6- ) GET IT RIGHT IN THE END
In that proposal, if the learners have adequate exposure to the language and a
motivation to learn, they can acquire language from pronunciation to vocabulary and other
grammatical features. Proponents of this proposal argue that form-focused instruction and
corrective feedback within communicative second language programs can improve learners’
use of particular grammatical features. This proposal also underlines the idea that some
10
aspects of language must be taught quite explicitly. Explicit instruction is particularly required
when learners in a class share the same L1, because the errors resulting from L1 transfer are
not likely to lead to any kind of communication breakdown; thus, it will be difficult for
learners to discover the errors on their own. Proponents 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.
Research findings
Study 31: Form-focus experiments in ESL
It has been investigated the effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback
on developing English of French speaking students participating in intensive ESL classes in
Quebec. Students (aged 10-12) who were in either grade 5 or grade 6 spent most of every
school day learning English through a variety of communicative interactive activities. In
descriptive studies involving almost 1.000 students in thirty-three classes, it was found that
teachers rarely focused on language form. In these classes, learners developed good listening
comprehension, fluency and communicative confidence in English except for problems with
linguistic accuracy and complexity. The experimental studies involved a smaller number of
classes. It was examined the effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on
two linguistic features: adverb placement and question forms. The studies included immediate,
delayed, and long-term/follow-up post-tests. The 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 exposed to. As seen from the results, it can be said that it is very important how
instruction affects language features in different ways.
Study 32: Focusing on the conditional in French immersion
Elaine Day and Stan Shapson examined the effects of instruction on the ability of
French immersion students who were aged about 12 or 13 to use the conditional mood of
verbs in sentences. Students in experimental classes were given several hours of focused
instruction on the conditional over a period of five to seven weeks. The students in the control
group went on their usual classroom routines. Special teaching materials were prepared. They
included group work, written and oral exercises and self-evaluation activities. The result was
that learners in the experimental classes outperformed those in the control classes on the
immediate post-tests for the written tasks, but not on the oral tasks.
Study 33: Focusing on sociolinguistic forms in French immersion
Roy Lyster examined the effects of form-focused instruction on the knowledge and
use of sociolinguistic style variations in three classes of grade 8 French immersion students
11
who were about 13 years old. The distinction between the use of second person singular
pronouns was examined in his study. During average twelve hours over a five-week period,
students in the experimental classes were given explicit instruction and guided practice
activities. Students in the two comparison classes kept on their regular instruction. The result
was that learners in the experimental classes performed considerably better than learners in
the comparison classes.
Study 34: Focusing on gender in French immersion
Birgit Harley examined the effects of instruction with very young children in French
immersion programs. Six glasses of grade 2 children were given focused instruction on a
grammatical feature, grammatical gender. These children received many activities including
children’s games. Learners who received instruction were much better at recognizing and
producing accurate gender distinctions for familiar nouns than the other learners.
Study 35: Focusing on verb form in content-based science classrooms
Catherine Doughty and Elizabeth Varela conducted a study with a group of ESL
learners who received second language instruction in content-based teaching. One class of
middle school students which were 11-14 years old and from a variety of first language
backgrounds received corrective feedback on past tense and conditional verb forms in English
both explicitly and implicitly in their science class. The result was that students who received
the corrective feedback made more progress in using these forms than the comparison group
who did not receive the corrective feedback.
Study 36: Recasts and prompts in French immersion classrooms
Lyster investigated the effects of form-focused instruction (FFI) and feedback type on
second language learning for students who were 10-11 years old and in grade 5. There were
three experimental groups and one comparison group. Learners in the experimental groups
received explicit FFI on grammatical gender. Two of the other groups received corrective
feedback in the form of either recasts or prompts, too. The comparison group received neither
FFI nor corrective feedback on grammatical gender. On the post-tests all three FFI groups
were considerably more accurate than the comparison group in understanding grammatical
gender. Also, the FFI plus prompts group were better at written measures than the FFI plus
recasts. But, there were no important differences among the experimental groups on the oral
tasks.
Study 37: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue
Merill Swain and Sharon Lapkin observed the language development of two grade 7
French immersion students as they wrote a story collaboratively. The researchers drew a
12
conclusion that the multiple opportunities for learners to engage in collaborative talk on
language features in question led them to a greater understanding of their correct use.
Study 38: Focus on form in task-based instruction
Virginia Samuda investigated ways of guiding adult ESL learners’ attention to formmeaning relationships by focusing on expressing of possibility and probability. Firstly,
learners were asked to work in groups to meditate on the identity of an unknown person. Then,
the students were asked to come together as a whole group to tell each other what they had
decided. Finally, the students prepared and presented a poster based on their conclusions
about the identity of the unknown person to the whole class. The result was that when
examining differences between expressions of probability and possibility students used in the
first stage and comparing it with final stage, there was progress in using modal auxiliaries in
their speeches.
Interpreting the research
The overall results of the studies above support the hypothesis that form-focused
instruction and corrective feedback within communicative L2 programs can improve learners’
use of particular grammatical features. However, the effects of form-focused instruction are
not always long-lasting which can be explained in terms of the frequency of use of the
particular structure in regular classroom input. So, opportunities for continued use may
contribute to continued improvement. Form-focused instruction may be successful with some
language features. In other words, form-focused instruction and corrective feedback within
the communicative contexts are more beneficial in promoting L2 learning. Explicit, guided
form-focused instruction is needed when features in the target language differ in non-obvious
or unexpected ways from L1. The challenge is to find the balance between meaning-focused
and form-focused activities. The 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 L1.
My opinions
As noted earlier, this proposal focuses on the condition, gender, verb form,
recasts/prompts and collaborative dialogue. I think that this is the best position which is
closely associated with CLT. It gives more responsibilities to the students in the classroom. If
the students are given guidance and the supportive structure, they can help each other to
reflect on language form. It can mean that the teachers are not only individuals who provide
information about language form in the classroom. I will certainly use this proposal in my
13
lessons. I believe that if the teaching process has difficulty in taking the students’ attention
and their readiness, something cannot be taught.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF CLASSROOM RESEARCH FOR TEACHING
While examining the six proposals for my classroom teaching, I will concentrate on an
important question: “What is the best way to promote language learning in the classroom?”.
To answer this important question needs knowledge of the relationship between learning and
teaching. I will pay attention to how these six proposals gain meaning into my classroom
practice to be effective in the classroom setting.
SUMMARY
“Get it right from the beginning” proposal may be applied in grammar translation and
audio-lingual classrooms; because, its goal is to prevent habits before happening. “Just
listen…and read” proposal is implemented in comprehension-based programs. It provides
comprehensible input with the help of listening and/or reading activities. According to “Let’s
talk” proposal, comprehensible input and conversational interactions with teachers and other
students are distinguished part of the teaching process. “Two for one” proposal is applied in
bilingual education and immersion programs. Students can get learning the subject matter
content and the language at the same time. “Teach what is teachable” proposal aims setting
realistic expectations. That is, development features develop along a particular development
path. According to “Get it right in the end” proposal, the teachers should find the balance
between meaning-based and form-based learning and teaching activities.
14