1.

Get it right from the beginning

It is a proposal that characterizes more second and foreign language instruction than any other
kind. The original purpose of this approach was to help students read literature rather than to develop
fluency in the spoken language. It was also thought that this approach provided students with good mental
exercise to help develop their intellectual and academic abilities.
This proposal states that ERRORS are bad. Errors, it is said, could become habits. So it is better to
prevent these bad habits before they happen.
Supporters of communicative language teaching have argued that language is not learned by the
gradual accumulation of one item after another. They suggest that errors are a natural and valuable part of
the language learning process. Furthermore, they believe that the motivation of learners is often stifled by
an insistence on correctness in the earliest stages of second language learning. These opponents of “Get it
right from the beginning” proposal argue that it is better to encourage learners to develop FLUENCY
BEFORE ACCURACY.
But, proponents of this approach argue that allowing too much freedom without correction and
explicit instruction will lead to early fossilization of errors.
Interpreting the research showed that learners receiving audio-lingual or grammar-translation instruction
are often unable to communicate their messages and intentions effectively in a second language.

2. Just listen …. and read

This proposal is based on the hypothesis that language acquisition takes place when learners are
exposed to comprehensible input through listening and/or reading. An essential requirement for second
language acquisition is the availability of comprehensible input.
(The example can be mentioned)
“Just listen and read” is a controversial proposal for second language teaching. It not only says
that second language learners need not drill and practice language in order to learn it, but also that they do
not need to speak at all, except to get other people to provide input by speaking to them.
Research on comprehension-based approaches to second language acquisition shows that learners
can make considerable progress it they have sustained exposure to the language they UNDERSTAND.
The evidence also suggests, however, that comprehension-based learning may best be seen as an excellent
way to begin learning and as a valuable supplement to other kinds of learning for more advanced learners.

3. Let’s talk ( If you just communicate, you will learn the language)

Advocates (proponents) of this approach emphasize the importance of access to both

comprehensible input and conversational interaction with teachers and other students. They argue that
when learners are given the opportunity to engage in interaction, they are compelled to negotiate for
meaning, that is, to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, beliefs etc., in a way that it
permits them to arrive at a mutual understanding. This is especially true when the learners are working
together to accomplish a particular goal, for example in TASK-BASED INSTRUCTION. (Example 4 on
page 150 can be mentioned)
Research based on the interaction hypothesis has investigated factors that contribute to the quality
and quantity of interactions between second language learners. It has provided some useful ways for
teaching ( how to organize group and pair work more effectively in the classroom)
 4. Two for one (content-based instruction)

Learners acquire a second language as they study subject matter taught in that language. (e.g.
Sociology class taught in English). It is implemented in a great variety of instructional settings including
bilingual education and immersion programmes and the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) programs in Europe.
The expectation of this approach is that students can get ‘two for one’, learning the subject matter
and the language at the same time.
Content-based instructions has many advantages. In general, it increases the amount of time for
learners to be exposed to the new language. It creates a genuine need to communicate, motivating students
to acquire language in order to understand the content.
There are also some problems with content-based instructions. Students may need several years
before their ability to use the language for cognitively challenging academic material has reached an
appropriate level.

5. Teach what is teachable – reaction to CAH (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis)

Proponents of this approach to second language teaching have tried to explain why it often seems
that some things can be taught successfully whereas other things, even after extensive or intensive
teaching, seem to remain unacquired. Some linguistic structures, for example, basic word order in a
sentence, develop along a predictable developmental path. These were labeled developmental features.
This means, regardless of what a teacher teaches, there are certain developmental stages.
Researchers supporting this view will also claim that certain other aspects of language, for
example, individual vocabulary items, can be taught at any time. Learners’ acquisition of these
“variational features” appears to depend on factors such as the learners’ sense of identity, language
aptitude, and the quality of instruction.
The “Teach what is teachable” view suggests that while some other features of language can be
taught successfully at various points in the learners’ development, other features develop according to the
learners’ internal schedule.
This approach is important primarily for teachers to understand why students don’t always learn
what they are taught – at least not immediately.

6. Get it right in the end

Proponents of the “Get it right in the end” recognize an important role for form-focused
instruction. Thus, while they view comprehension-based, content-based, task-based as crucial for
language learning, they hypothesize that learners will do better if they also have access to form-focused
instruction. What they also argue is that what learners focus on can eventually lead to changes in their
interlanguage systems. They simply claim that the learner need to notice how their language use differs
from that of a more proficient speaker.
Advocates of this proposal argue that it is sometimes necessary to draw learners’ attention to their
errors and to focus on certain linguistic points. HOWEVER, it is different from “Get it right from the
beginning” in acknowledging that it is appropriate for learners to engage in meaningful language use from
the very beginning of their exposure to second language. They assume that much of language acquisition
will develop naturally, without formal instruction that focuses on the language itself.