Structure based approach: a whole lesson or segment of a lesson is organized around a specific feature of the language and error correction is frequent.
Communucation based: the lesson focuses on primiarly on meaning and the communication of messages. Error correction may be provided but it is usually brief and in the midst of an ongoing activity.
Task based: instruction in which classroom activities are tasks similar to those which learners might engage in outside the second or foreign language classroom. Tasks may be complex for example creating a school newspaper, or more limited for example making a phone call to reserve a train ticket.
Form focused instruction: instruction that draws attention to the forms and structures of the language within the context of communicative interaction. This may be done by giving metalinguistic, simply highligthing the form in question or by providing corrective feedback
Content based: instruction: second language programs in which lessons are organized around topics, themes, and or subject matter rather than language points. For example french immersion programs
Immersion programs: an educational program in which a second language is taught via content based instruction. That is, students study subjects such as mathematics and social studies in their second language.
Comprehension based instructions: a general term to describe a variety of second language programs in which the focus on instruction is on comprehension rather that production for example total physical response.
Get it right from the beginning
It includes the traditional approaches; grammar translation and audiolingual approaches.
Communicative language teaching is the opponent of these approaches because of the frequent error correction. The hypothesis for this approach is that allowing learners too much freedom without correction and explicit instruction will lead to early fossilization of errors
Fossilization of errors refers to errors that occur, somewhat unexpectedly, in the second language performance of proficient speakers when they are tired or under pressure
Study 1: audiolingual pattern drill Patsy lightbown
Two investigations of series were carried ut by patsy lightbown;
Longitudinal investigations; a study in which the same learners are studied over a period of time
Cross-sectional study: a research method in which subjects at different ages and stages of development are studied.
Francophone: speaking french as the main language.
Pattern practice drill: an audioligual teaching technique in which learners are asked to practise sentences chosen to represent particular linguistic forms.
Rote learning, repetition: the process of learning something by repeating it until you remember it rather than by understanding the meaning of it.
It was observed that while learners were able to produce a particular form after focused on it and repeated enough, the same form as produced with considerably less accuracy when it was no longer being practised in class and another form was being drilled instead. The simple translation of this sentence is that when the students memorize a form, they will not be able produce as well as they have done at the first time when they memorize a new form later.
Study 2: grammar plus communicative practice, Sandra savignon
The study was perfrormed with students divided into three groups; communicative group, cultural group, control group, all of the groups will take lesson in audiolingual instruction.
They also took additional lessons in different instructions;
Communicative group; had an additional hour per week devoted to communicative tasks in an effort to encourage practice in using french.
The cultural group had an additional hour devoted to activities that were designed to foster an awarness of the french language and culture.
The control group had also additional hour in the language laboratory doing grammar and pronunciation drills.
Linguistic competence includes a variety of grammar tests, teachers’ evaluations of speaking skills and course grades.
Communicative competence includes measures of fluency and of the ability to understand and transmit information in a variety of tasks which include discussion and interviewing with native speakers, reporting of facts about oneself and a description of ongoing activities.
The results:
No significant differences on the linguistic competence measures.
The communicative group scored higher than the other two groups in communicative tests.
The mother result
The second language programs (grammar translation and audiolingual) that focus only on accuracy and form do not develop communication abilities in a second language.
Study 3: Grammar plus communicative practice by Carol Montgomery and Miriam Eisenstein
The similar process was followed in this study; the adult learners received an additional communicative component to their regular grammar-based instruction.
This group was compared to one that received only the grammar course.
The result that is obvious;
The first group taking additional communicative activites made greater, unbelievable, incredible improvements in accent, vocabulary, grammar and comprehension than the second group, pity because we are always taught in the second group created to fail.
THE FATHER RESULTS OF THESE THREE STUDIES
1. The instructions based on the “get it right from the beginning” proposal have important limitations.
2. Learners receiving audiolingual and grammar based instruction are often unable to communicate in a second language.
3. Further more, leave alone speaking, they are not even guaranteed that they will develop high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge.
4. These studies offer support for the hypothesis that meaning based instruction (communicative instruction) is adventageous.
5. The form based (grammar and audiolingual) is not.
2 SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY
Based on interactionist hypothesis, it emphasizes the necessity for learners to have access to meaningful and comprehensible input through conversational interactions with teachers and other students.
When learners engage in meaningful activities, they are compelled to ‘negotiate for meaning, that is, to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc. in a way which permits them to arrive at a mutual understanding. ( this is really true, I think. Do you remember your first year in the speaking lessons. The teachers always forced us to speak and we eventually spoke a few utterence, though they forced me not to speak because if I cant find the word of “barking” I would tell then “hav hav” easy way to convey meaning”)
Negotiation of meaning: interaction between speakers who make adjustments to their speech and use other techniques in order to facilitate communication.
This is true especially in task-based instruction (instruction in which classroom activities are tasks similar to those which learners might engage in outside, (booking tables, buying ticket) and where there is a goal to achive together.
As we can see in the examples in book, negotiation for meaning is an interaction between teacher-student or student-student continuing until they are agree on a point or reach an answer.
T: How often do you walk your dog? S: Joe, and me we don’t have the same as her
S: Never T: that’s fine. Yeah, because therell be different answers
T: Why S:why, we do that with a partner?
S: Because I don’t have a dog T: simply so you can consult
In two examples, the negotiation or interaction ends when they reach a point. The important thing here is to interact meaningfully.
Study 4: Group work and learner language
The study measures the interaction patterns in second language settings.
The investigation was performed to see differences in quality and quantity between group-work and teacher-centered activities.
The result: not suprisingly
1.The students in group-work produced greater quantity and variety of speech than in teacher-centered activities. (I really wonder why all the time teacher-centered approaches fail and why it is generally used in almost all of the classes around the world, though it is unsuccessful? May be because it is easy to perform.)
2. The students in group-work did more activities filled with questions and responses and many more occasions where learners took the initiative to speak spontaneously than in the teacher-centered activities where they primarily responded to the teacher’s questions.
3. This study is one of the first studies to suggest how opportunities for more group-work interaction may be benefical for second language learning
Study 5: learners talking to learners
Study performed with adult learners in pairs.
There were three learner types; intermediate, advanced and native speaker of English.
Each of them participated in separate discussions with a speaker of each three levels.
The result:
Learners talked more with other learners than they did with native speakers.
They produced more talk with advanced level than intermediate-level partners.
The error frequency of learners was the same with all three levels.
This calls into question (to doubt) the argument that learners need to be exposed to a native-speaking model at all times if we are to ensure that they produce fewer errors.
Over all results:
Porter concluded that although learners cannot always provide each other with the accurate grammatical input, leaners could offer each other genuine communicative practice with negotiation of meaning.
What is essential for language acquisitaion is preciesly negotiation of meaning.
Study 6: Learner language and proficiency level George Yule (our study of language book writer) Doris Mcdonald
The study was performed to see whether the role that different-level learners play in a two-way communication tasks led to differences in their interactive behaviour. The translation of this complex silly sentence is that they wanted to see whether there would be any differences in their interaction. In one group, the reciever role is for low-level proficiency and the sender is high-level proficiency learner. The other is vice versa.
The result:
When low-proficiency learners were in the sender role, the interaction was longer than high-proficiency learners were the sender. This is because high proficiency learners acted as if lower level learners had very little contribution to complete the task.
Interaction ands second language development:
The study carried out to examine effects of different types of interaction behaviours.
www.iolpgalerisi.com by Mustafa
Baran