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 !. "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!& '!%..

/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*&%" )%1e /! ")%"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$ts. +nstead, it is learned by the gradual accumulation of one item after another. "he supporters say that too much freedom without correction causes early fossili1ation for the learners. +n some aspects, it can affect learners negatively. "eachers should ma#e a good balance between them. 2- ) 2UST LISTEN3AND READ "his proposal underlines providing learners with comprehensible input with the help of listening and>or reading activities8 because, it is believed that hearing and understanding the target language is necessary for (= learning. 0omprehension of meaningful language is the foundation of language acquisition. "hird e$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 Arashen)s input hypothesis that one essential requirement for .(A is the availability of comprehensible input. Rese !"# $%&'%&(s S)*'+ 14, C-0/!e#e&s%-&-4 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 '%&( $-! 5-!'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 6'e1e.-/e' 4+ 2 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 Arashen)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

classrooms differ in terms of conversational interaction Ho 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 &' /!-$%"%e&"+ .e1e. %eorge Iule and Horis Macdonald investigated whether the role that different*level learners play in two*way communication tas# led to differences in their interactive behaviors. "hey set up a tas# that required two learners to communicate information about the location of different buildings on a map and the route to get there. As a result, the lower level receivers were almost forced to play a very passive role and said very little to complete the tas#. When lower level learners were in the sender role, much more negotiation of meaning and a great variety of interactions between the two spea#ers too# place. @ased on this research, Iule and Macdonald suggest that teachers should sometimes place more advanced students in less dominant roles in paired activities with lower level learners. S)*'+ 22, T#e '+& 0%"s -$ / %! 5-!= +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/H<. S)*'+ 23, I&)e! ")%-& &' se"-&' . &(* (e 'e1e.-/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 Aim McHonough 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$ts e.g. conditional clauses. McHonough also analy1es opinions about the benefits of pair wor# and small group activities. .he found that the students did not perceive pair and group activities a useful for learning -nglish. I&)e!/!e)%&( )#e !ese !"# Eesearch based on interaction hypothesis e$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 MacHonald, and .torch contribute to a better understanding of how to organi1e group and pair wor# effectively in the classroom. "he Mac#ey and McHonough studies are two e$amples of research measuring second language development in different views of conversational interaction. +n the Mac#ey study, the measure of second language learning was the learners) immediate production following these interactions. "he McHonough study is a classroom study and the effects of interactional features on second language learning were measured over time. M+ -/%&%-&s As + mentioned before, in this proposal, comprehensible input and conversational interactions with teachers and the other students are very important. "he students negotiate with each other in a meaningful way and they can e$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, L )e %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. Aeith &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&)-4 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 Arashen)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" s)s 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<, De1e.-/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$posed to. As seen from the results, it can be said that it is very important how instruction affects language features in different ways. S)*'+ 32, F-"*s%&( -& )#e "-&'%)%-& . %& F!e&"# %00e!s%-& -laine Hay and .tan .hapson e$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$amined in his study. Huring average twelve hours over a five*wee# period, students in the e$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%&( -& 1e!4 $-!0 %& "-&)e&)-4 se' s"%e&"e ". ss!--0s 0atherine Houghty and -li1abeth Garela conducted a study with a group of -.( learners who received second language instruction in content*based teaching. Dne class of middle school students which were 22*29 years old and from a variety of first language bac#grounds received corrective feedbac# on past tense and conditional verb forms in -nglish both e$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" s)s &' /!-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 )#!-*(# "-.. 4-! )%1e '% .-(*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 -& $-!0 %& ) s=-4 se' %&s)!*")%-& Girginia .amuda investigated ways of guiding adult -.( learners) attention to form* meaning relationships by focusing on e$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. SUMMARA %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