Gülhanım BALCIOĞLU 07271020 SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM SIX PROPOSALS FOR CLASSROOM TEACHING There are some theories about the learning a second language in the classroom and some methods and materials have been developed to apply these theories in the classroom. First of all, the only way to promote language learning in the classrooms requires a knowledge of the relationship between teaching and learning. At this point, six theoretical proposals for second and foreign language teaching are presented to illustrate which one holds the greatest promise for improving the language learning in the classroom. These proposals are: 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 1. Get it right from the beginning Get it right from the beginning proposal gives emphasizes the importance of accuracy in second language learning. So, the structure-based or form-based approaches are used and this proposal takes its roots from the behaviorist view. Grammar translation and audio-lingual approaches as the most common traditional ones to second language teaching are based on this proposal. Grammar translation approach: This approach can be characterized by the use of explicit grammar rules, vocabulary lists with translation equivalents in L1. The aim is to read literature rather than to develop fluency in spoken language. It usually ignores the communicative aspect of language. Audio-lingual approach is based on the behaviorist view and contrastive analysis. The emphasis is on the oral language accompanied by reinforcement of correct response because students don’t be allowed to speak freely. It is thought that this would lead them to make errors. So, it is important to prevent bad habits to occur. Research findings Research findings show that the grammar translation approach is useful in terms of intensive study of grammar vocabulary and understanding of cultural texts. In the some way audio-lingual approach can be useful for special training programmes. However, these two approaches are too limited to be used in ordinary school programmes because the se cannot meet the needs of students who have different levels of motivation and aptitude to the classroom. So, supporters of communicative language teaching criticize the traditional approaches. It sees the errors as a natural process. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of fluency rather than accuracy. That is; supporters of communicative language teaching don’t approve the ‘get it right from the beginning’ proposals. They support that students need to develop communicative abilities right from the beginning. CLT is also criticized in terms of giving learners too much ‘freedom’. It is likely to lead to early fossilization of errors. However, there is little research which shows that form-based instruction in the early stage of L2 learning will lead to higher levels of linguistic performance and know ledge than meaning-based instruction in the early stages. Study 12 – Audio-lingual pattern drill This study was carried by Patsy Lightbown in the late 1970s. The research included descriptive studies of the inter language development of second language learners in audiolingual programmes. In this study, the learners’ acquisition of certain English grammatical morphemes was compared in the natural learning environment and in the isolated pattern practice drills. The results showed that practice of particular patterns focusing on accuracy and form isn’t useful for using the forms correctly outside the classroom drill setting. Further more, the accuracy of a specific pattern goes on until the new pattern is thought. Shortly, this study showed that repetition and drill of decontextualized sentences didn’t develop the learners’ comprehension, fluency and communicative abilities outside the classroom. Study 13- Grammar plus communicative practice It is one of the studies of Sandra Savignon on the linguistic and communicative skills of 18 college students enrolled in French language courses at on American University. In the research, there are three different audio-lingual groups; group one receives audio-lingual instruction and communicative tasks. Group two receives audio-lingual instruction and culture through films, music and art. Group three receives audio-lingual instruction with controlled grammar and pronunciation drills. At the end of the research, it is clear that on the linguistic competence measures, there is no significant difference between groups. On the communicative competence measures, group one; communicative group- has significantly higher scores than the other two groups. These show that L2 programmes focusing only on accuracy and form don’t develop learners’ communication abilities in L2. My opinion on the ‘Get it right from the beginning’ When I look at ‘get it right from the beginning proposal, I can clearly see that this proposal focuses on the accuracy and form in the second language. So, the meaning and the fluency in the language aren’t important in this proposal. However, when I am a teacher, I will take the communicative aspects of language into consideration. Learners’ communicative abilities or usage of language effectively in communication will be important for me. So; this proposal can’t be guide for me to teach the language. It is really unsatisfactory because language teaching doesn’t mean only teaching form. Additionally, it shouldn’t be forgotten that accuracy and extensive focus on form leads learners to feel inhibited and reluctant to use the language communicatively. Although I support meaning based instruction or CLT in second language teaching I don’t completely ignore the ‘get it right from the beginning proposal. I will use the communicative language teaching in my lessons but this doesn’t mean that I never turn to this proposal. I think some critical topics or points in language teaching needs to use ‘get it right from the beginning’ proposal. For example; some mistakes in pronunciation, teaching some problematic words, or mistakes based on the L1 should be corrected benefitting from this proposal to avoid fossilization. Shortly, in my opinion, this proposal can’t be implemented completely from the beginning to the end of the lesson. I can benefit from it time to time. We should make the balance correctly. 2- Just Listen…and read This proposal emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input through listening and/or reading. ‘Just listen…and read’ proposal is particularly associated with Krashen’s Input hypothesis. In fact, this proposal is a debatable one for second language teaching. The reason is that it proposes that learners don’t need to drill and practice the language and also they don’t need to speak at all in their learning process. According to this proposal if the learners hear and understand the forget language, it is enough. Example 3 This study is the implementational side of this theory in the classroom. There is on English class at a primary school in a French-speaking community in New Bruns wick, Canada. In this class students (aged 8-10) receive different kinds of books with their audiocassette. So, students enter the classroom, select the material they won’t and insert the audiocassette of the materials. Then, they stars to hear and read English materials. Meanwhile, the teacher doesn’t interact with the students she/he only check what they are doing. Research findings Researches about ‘just listen and read’ are based on the studies of comprehensionbased teaching and extensive reading. Study 14- Comprehension-based instruction for children It is the investigation of Patsy Lightbown and her colleagues. Students’ learning in the comprehension based programme and in the regular program which is mainly audio-lingual approach are compared. The result shows that the learners in the comprehension-based programme know as much English as learners in the regular program in terms of not only their comprehension skills but also their speaking skills. The some study is carried out again when the children are in grade 8. This time the results show that students in the comprehension-only programme aren’t doing not only audio-lingual instruction but also speaking and writing components, teacher feedback and classroom interaction. Study 15- Reading for words Study 16- Total physical response TPR developed by James Asher is one of the variations of the ‘Just listen…and read’ proposal. In TPR, learners simply listen and show their comprehension by their actions. Asher’s research shows that learners can develop comprehension in the language without using oral practice. This approach has some limitations but it gives beginners a good start. It is stated that learners will be less nervous because this approach doesn’t lead them to speak instead it present inputs and learners receive and comprehend the input firstly. Additionally there are some other research that is based on the ‘just listen…and read’ proposal. These include ‘input flood’, ‘enhanced input’, and ‘processing instruction’ studies. Study 17- Input flood This is the study of Martha Prahey and Lydia White. It is implemented in intensive second language classes in Quebec on young French-speaking learners. The aim of the study is to show whether there is a relation between the high-frequency exposure to a particular form in the instructional input and a better knowledge and use of that form by the students. During the research, students read a series of texts including a specific form. While they are reading, there is no teaching of this form and any error correction. The results of this study show that although learners can add something new to their inter language by the help of the exposure to many instances of correct models in the based on their L1. Shortly; ‘input flood’ approach isn’t enough to support the learners with information about what is not possible or not grammatical. Study 18- Enhanced input Enhanced input refers to a variety of things that might draw learners’ attention to features in the second language. So, this increases the students’ attention to the specific features in language and they learn them by conscious learning. There is a study of Joanna White on enhanced input. In this study, French-speaking learners are given the reading passages designed to draw their attention to a particular form-the possessive determiners; his/her-. These forms are embedded in the text by using typographical enhancement such as in bold type, underlined, italicized or written in capital letters. At the end of the research, the performance of learners who read the typographically enhanced passages and the learners who read the passages without enhancement are compared. Results show that there is little difference between them. At this point, it can be said that the enhancement may not be explicit enough to draw the learners’ attention to that form. Study 19- Processing Instruction Processing instruction is another approach to comprehension-based learning. In this approach, learners not only comprehend a sentence by depending only on context, prior knowledge or other clues, but also focus on the language itself. On this approach, there is a research of VanPatten. In this study, learners receiving processing instruction and the ones receiving more traditional approach are compared. The first group receives explicit information and then comprehension-based processing instruction through listening and reading activities and paying attention to how the target forms are used to convey meaning. According to the results, it is clear that learners who receive the comprehension-based processing instruction have higher levels of performance on both the comprehension tasks and the production tasks than the other group. My Opinion on ‘Just listen…and read’ proposal In this proposal, generally it is seen that two skills-reading and listening- are the most important ones. Providing comprehensible input to learners creates opportunities to make considerable progress in the language. I think, the reason is that language acquisition is facilitated by meaningful language. It can be seen from the research on just listen…and read proposal that active listening, TPR and reading for meaning are important components. All the approaches to comprehension-based learning have clear advantages as it is seen in the studies. However; I think, this proposal may have some limitation when it is implemented in the classroom. I mean that; if the teacher always aims to focus on meaning, second language learners may not realize or discover what is wrong or ungrammatical in their own inter language. TPR may again create some limitation in the classroom. In TPR learners have a chance to receive comprehensible input focusing on listening accompanied by action. I think I can use it in beginner classrooms effectively. However it may not be so effective for the advanced learners. Shortly, I can generally say that comprehension-based programs related with the ‘just listen…and read’ proposal are beneficial in terms of the development of basic comprehension and communicative performance or skills in the early stages of L2 learning. However, these approaches may not be sufficient for advanced level learners’ abilities in L2 and focusing on meaning too much make it difficult for learners to discover and eliminate patterns. Also, there may be outcome or production problems because of not focusing on speaking. There should be balance and teacher should organize the levels or the critical points he/she wants to focus on carefully. 3- Let’s Talk Let’s talk proposal focuses on the importance of both comprehensible input and conversational interaction between teacher and other students. According to this proposal, if there is an interactional situation, then learners feel it necessary to negotiate for meaning; therefore, they can express their intentions, thoughts, opinions etc… The learners have a chance to under stand each other. This occurs especially if the learners work together. So, task-based instruction is based on let’s talk proposal. Research Findings Early and updated research about the ‘Let’s talk’ proposal make some issues clear. In these studies the effects of interaction on second language production and development are examined. Generally the interaction hypothesis has an important role in these research because it is claimed that interaction facilitates learning and contributes the learners’ attitude to language. In addition, corrective feedback is seen as on crucial feature. It helps learners make connections between form and meaning. Study 20- Learners talking to learners Michael Long and Patricia Porter study on learner interaction. They compare the speech of native and non-native speakers in conversations and analyze the differences across proficiency levels in conversation pairs. This study shows that there are more productions when they talk with advanced-level learners because the conversations between advanced learners last longer than intermediate-level partners. The number of grammatical and vocabulary errors and false stars are also compared. It shows that there is no difference across contexts. According to these studies it can be concluded that learners can-not always provide each other with the accurate grammatical input, but they can share the some meaning with negotiation. This negotiation of meaning is the main point on which the supporters of the ‘Let’s talk’ proposal aim to focus. Study 21- Learner Language and Proficiency Level This is a study about the role of different-level learners in a two-way communication task on the differences in their interactive behavior. So, different types of learners are paired together to see whether there is a difference in the interaction according to the proficiency level. During the research, one learner from the high proficiency is in the role of sender and one learner from the lower-proficiency is in the receiver role. Another group has the lowproficiency senders’ paired with high-proficiency receivers. As a result, it is seen that lowerlevel receivers are in a very passive role. However, when the lower-level learners play in the ‘sender’ role, there are more negotiation of meaning and variety in the interaction. Talking this study into consideration it can be stated that teacher should sometimes give opportunities to lower-level learners to be in dominant roles. Study 22- The dynamics of pair work It is Naomi Starch study. She tries to investigate the patterns of pair interaction and wants to define whether different types of interactions lead to differences in second language learning. She uses four distinct patterns of interaction; 1- ‘Collaborative’ interaction 2- ‘dominant-dominant’ interaction 3- ‘dominant-passive’ interaction 4- ‘expert-novice’ interaction As a result, the study shows that learners in the collaborative and expert-novice pairs use their second language knowledge over time. However, learners in the dominant-dominant and dominant-passive pairs use their L2 knowledge less. These studies can be linked with Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development. Learners can engage in the co-construction of knowledge more successfully when they are working in an expert-novice relationship. Collaboration and sharing the knowledge mutually in pair works can affect the success in the second language. Study 23- Interaction and Second Language Development Alison Mackey makes a study on adult learners of ESL. Learners engage in different communicative tasks. The research is carried out on three groups; Group 1: learners interact with native speakers, who modified their language. Group 2: learners only observe the interactions between the learners and native speakers in Group 1. Group 3: learners and native speakers participate in the communicative tasks as Group 1 but their input is pre-modified. The result of the research shows that learner in Group 1 who engage in conversational interactions produce more advanced question forms than the two other experimental groups. Study 24: Learner-learner interaction in a that classroom McDonough makes a research on this subject. She investigates the use of pair and small group activities in English as a foreign language classes in Thailand. They engage in interactional activities about environmental problems using the conditional clauses in their country. Audio record is used during the activities to see the extent to which students used interactional features such as negative feedback and modified output. Result show that learners who use more negative feedback and modified output significantly improve in the accuracy of their conditional clauses. On the other hand, those who use less of these features do not. The useful ness of pair work and small group activities is explored and it is found that students do not see pair and group activities as useful for learning English. My opinion on ‘Let’s talk’ proposal In this proposal, there is an intensive focus on interaction hypothesis and task based instruction. While teaching and making the learning effective, comprehensible input and conversational interactions with teachers and other students are very important and necessary. I think this proposal can provide a free classroom environment in which the students can negotiate with each other meaningfully and express their thoughts, beliefs and feelings. Let’s talk proposal and the research bout it can be regarded as good sources to define how to organize group and pair work more effectively in the classroom. I also want to use this proposal in my classroom because I believe that this proposal can be developed and used effectively in communicative language teaching classrooms. 4. Two for one This proposal refers to the content-based instruction on the idea here is to acquire a second or foreign language as the student study subject matter in that language. This proposal is implemented in the settings including bilingual education, immersion programmes and the ‘content and language-integrated learning’ programmes in Europe. The main aim of this approach is that students can get ‘two for one’, learning the subject matter content and the language at the same time. Research findings The assumption-students will develop both their academic skills and second language ability-has been investigated. Study 25: French immersion programmes in Canada Most immersion programmes are offered in primary and secondary schools and the studies sow that French immersion has a great success. In addition, French immersion students develop fluency, high levels of listening comprehension, and confidence in using their second language. Also, their successes in academic subjects are better then their peers whose education has been in English. However, there are also some problems in French immersion programmes in terms of some aspects of French grammar. The reasons are that comprehensible input is not enough and there is too much teacher centered learning. Furthermore, there is a problem in terms of students’ lack of progress on certain language features because of their rarity in content-based instruction. Study 26: Late immersion under stress in Hong Kong On this subject, Keith Johson raises concerns about the ability of the educational system to meet the demands for late English immersion programmes. He notes that students lack the English proficiency needed to follow the secondary level curriculum successfully. Furthermore, teachers’ difficulties of delivering the content because of limitations in their own English proficiency are observed. Teachers try to use a variety of strategies to overcome the difficulties. Although these strategies help students understand the content, they may not help them learn to use the syntactic and discourse structures in the second language to establish form-meaning relationships. Study 27: Inuit children in content-based programmes Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbown observe the teaching and learning of school subject and language with Inuit children. The general problem which is observed is that really all students have some difficulty coping with subject matter instruction in their second language for example, in a case study of one French secondary level class; the results show that students do not have the French language skills they need to cope with the demands of typical secondary level instruction. The teachers also have to work very hard to help students understand the subject. My opinion on ‘Two for one’ proposal This proposal can give an opportunity to learn both the subject matter and the language. However, I don’t think that it is se easy. This is a problematic proposal to language teaching in terms of some aspects. The subject matter instruction isn’t enough for the students to improve their language skills. It should be supported by instructions that focus on language form including pragmatic features of the language. The balance may not be well arranged in content-based instruction; as a result, the language teaching and learning may be underestimated. Moreover, this approach generally focuses on the teacher-centered learning. Shortly, I don’t see this proposal as an effective way to learn second language. 5. Teach what is teachable The purpose in this proposal is to choose appropriate language features to teach according to the learners’ second language developmental stages. Manfred Pienemann and his associates have tried to explain why it often seems that some things can be taught successfully whereas other things seem to remain unacquired. The research has shown that some linguistic structures develop along particular developmental stages. These structures are called ‘developmental features’. On the other hand, according to researchers supporting this proposal also claim that some language features can be taught at any time such as vocabulary items. These kinds of structures are called ‘variational features’. Learning these variational features depends on motivation, intelligence, language aptitude, the quality of instruction cultures and etc. Research Findings The research findings can be useful for teachers to inform them about which language features are developmental and which ones are variational. Additionally, learners can produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted pedagogical exercises. However, this doesn’t mean that instruction can change the natural developmental course. Study 28: Ready to learn Manfred Pienemann investigates whether instruction permits learners to skip a stage in the natural sequence of development. Pienemann works on two groups at stage 2 by basing on this research question. The first group receiving instruction stage 3 rules moves easily into this stage from 2. However, the second group receiving instruction on stage 4 rules either continues to use stage 2 rules or moves only into stage 3. This study clearly supports that learners cannot be taught what they are not developmentally ready to learn. Study 29: readies, unreadies and recast The research question is whether adult ESL learners who are at different stages in their acquisition of questions can advance in their immediate production of these forms if they receive implicit negative feedback in conversational interaction. The results show that the readies in the interaction plus recast make the learners improve more than the readies in the interaction without recasts. Unreadies who are exposed to recast do not show more rapid improvement than those who are not. Study 30: Developmental stage and first language influence The acquisition of question in relation to learners’ developmental readiness is investigated by Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbow. Some learners are exposed to more advanced question forms. Learners who are considered to be developmentally ready and the learners who are not yet developmentally ready are focused on. Learners’ performances on oral posttest measure indicate no advantage for developmentally ready learners. In fact, there is little progress for each group, but on a task that needs learners to judge the grammaticality of written questions. There is evidence that all students have some knowledge of more advanced question forms. These results indicate that developmental readiness may move learners into more advanced stages. However, their performance may still be affected by other factors. First language influence is regarded to be responsible for learners’ inability to generalize their knowledge of questions. My opinion on ‘Teach what is teachable’ proposal This proposal suggests that learners can learn something if they are ready for them. So, when students are developmentally ready, giving instructional or interactional input can be useful. First of all, I think the teachers should have the knowledge of this fact; that is, they should be aware of the developmental stages of the learners. This proposal is closely related with ‘the natural order hypothesis’ of Krashen. When I look at the research, I can say that readiness may not be the only predictor of success. The quality and the quantity of the input and instruction can be effective factors. ‘Teach what is teachable’ proposal can be seen as a guide to plan and organize the lesson according to the students’ level and stages. 6- Get it right in the end ‘Get it right in the end’ proposal advocates the importance of form- focused instruction and corrective feedback within communicative second language programs because it is said that this can improve learners’ use of particular grammatical features. This proposal regards the comprehension-based, content-based, task-based etc… as the instructions focusing on meaning too much. The proponents of this proposal hypothesize that in addition to meaning learners will do better if they also focus on some form-focus instruction. Proponents of this proposal also agree with advocators of the ‘Teach what is teachable’ proposal. However, ‘Get it right in the end’ proposal differs from ‘Teach what is teachable’ proposal because it states that some aspects of language must be taught and may need to be taught quite explicitly. Explicit instruction is particularly needed. So, learners can notice the target features in the input and interaction. This may prevent them making errors. Research Findings The studies are both descriptive and experimental Study 31: Form-focused experiments in ESL The investigation is about the effects f form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on the developing English of French speaking students participating in intensive ESL classes in Quebec. Descriptive studies indicate that teachers rarely focus on language form; there aren’t structural studies and language features are learned communicatively. There is a focus on meaning in activities. According to the results of these descriptive studies, learners develop listening comprehension, fluency, and communicative confidence in English. On the other hand, they have problems in linguistic accuracy and complexity. In experimental studies, the examination is about the effects of form-focused instruction and feedback on two linguistic features; adverb placement and question formation. According to some research, form-focused instructions are not always long-lasting. This can be explained in terms of the frequency of use of the particular structure in regular classroom input. Additionally, the way of giving instruction may affect language features in different ways. Study 32: Focusing on the conditional in French immersion There is a study by Elaine Day and Stan Shapson. It is about the effects of instruction on the ability of French immersion students to use the conditional mood of verbs in sentences. Students are divided into two groups; experimental one and control group. Experimental group receives several hours of focused instruction on the conditional. Control group continues their usual classroom routines. Additionally, experimental group are supported with special teaching materials such as group work, written or oral exercises, self-evaluation activities etc. results show that learners in the experimental group are better than those in the control group. Study 33: Focusing on sociolinguistic forms in French immersion The study is carried out by Roy Lyster on the effects of form-focused instruction on the knowledge and use of sociolinguistic style variations. Learners in the experimental group are given explicit instruction, guided practice activities with role plays and feedbacks from teachers and peers. The other two comparison classes receive their regular instruction without any focused instruction or guided practice in using sociolinguistically appropriate form. The study shows that the experimental classes are better than comparison classes in terms of written and oral production tasks and the multiple choice test. Study 34: Focusing on gender in French immersion It is a study carried out by Birgit Harley on the effects of instruction with very young children in French immersion programmes. Learners are given focused instruction on a grammatical feature which is problem for French immersion students. It is grammatical gender. There is a focus on gender distinctions to take children’ attention. Some learners receive instruction and these are much better at recognizing and producing accurate gender distinctions for familiar nouns than those who don’t receive instruction. However, learners don’t generalize their learning to new nouns. Study 35: Focusing on verb form in content- based science classrooms It is Catherine Douhty’s and Elizabeth Varela’s study on a ESL group who receive second language instruction in content-based teaching. Two groups are compared. One group with a variety of first language backgrounds receives corrective feedback; both implicitly and explicitly. The other group doing the same science doesn’t receive corrective feedback on the verb forms. So, the students who receive the corrective feedback make more progress in using the forms. Study 36: Recast and prompts in French immersion classrooms Lyster explores the effects of form-focused instruction and feedback type on second language learning for students in grade 5 French immersion classrooms. Students are divided into three experimental groups and one comparison group. The experimental groups receive explicit FFI. Then, they participate in instructional activities. Two of the experimental groups also receive corrective feedback in either recast pr prompts. As a result, Lyster finds that prompts can enhance control over already internalized forms. All three FFI groups are more accurate than the comparison group. Furthermore, the FFI + prompts group do better than the FFI+ recasts on the written measures. Study 37: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin observe the language development of two grade 7 French immersion students as they write a story collaboratively. In the study, there is a focus on finding out what students notice about differences between their original version and the reformulated one. Another point they are interested in is whether they make revision their original stories based on their collaborative talk about the reformulated version. These show that multiple opportunities for learners to engage in collaborative talk on the language features lead them to a greater understanding of their correct use. Study 38: Focus on form in task-based instruction Virginia Samuda investigates the importance of the teacher’s role in task-based instruction and explores ways of guiding adult ESL learners’ attentions to form- meaning relationship. First learners work in groups to speculate on the identity of an unknown person. Then they come together as a whole group to tell each other what they have decided. In the final stage of the task, they prepare and present a poster. Meanwhile, the teacher responds to the content and not the form of their work. The first stage of the task and the final stage are compared and some improvements are seen. My opinion on the ‘Get is right in the end’ proposal I support the idea that in language teaching there should be focus on both language form and meaning. So, ‘Get it right in the end’ proposal can be implemented in the classroom successfully. According to this proposal, if the learners are exposed to the language in terms of all the aspects of second language, then they can acquire or be adequate in all the features of language. Motivation and corrective feedback shouldn’t be underestimated. This proposal is really appropriate for communicative language teaching. It gives learners more opportunities to use the language. While benefitting from ‘Get it right in the end’ proposal, teachers have a wide range of responsibilities. Furthermore, we can see some features of other proposals to second language learning in this proposal. THE IMPLICATIONS OF CLASSROOM RESEARCH FOR TEACHING Many classroom researches have been carried out and different proposals are suggested for second language learning. These research show that there should be focus on neither only meaning nor on the form. Communicative and content-based instructions receive the most support from classroom research. In language teaching, grammar translation and audiolingual instructions are undobtly the most widely used methods; but the researches indicate that ‘Get it right from the beginning’ doesn’t correspond to the way the majority of successful second language learners. Their advantages are limited and they can be used special situations. On the other hand, there are also some programmes that give little or no importance to formfocused instruction such as ‘Just listen…. and read’, ‘Two for one’ proposals. Similarly, in ‘Let’s talk’ proposal learners have a chance to engage in conversational instructions which lead to increased fluency. However, the learners may make slow progress on acquiring more accurate language because of inadequate focus on form. It can be concluded from all the research about the proposals that the critical point is to find the balance between meaning-based and form-based activities. This will also be different according to the characteristics of the learners including learners’ age, metalinguistic sophistication, prior knowledge, experiences, motivation, goals, needs etc.