EX 1

SLA happens when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication within a framework of effective learning and communication strategies.
Charts and tables have been of great help, catching students’ attention and useful for example for warming up activities.
*basis for lively questions and discussions* within a strong communicative approach - though they are a weak tool in CLT
Depending on age and language level of students, charts may not be useful.

The chart belongs to a structural theory of language, where rules can be learned one by one (Nunan), in an additive fashion. Each item has to be mastered before incorporating a
new one.

Here learners would succeed in SLA by learning arbitrarily and not by doing, through direct experience.

The theory of learning is that of behaviourism, based on the premise of repetition (every day a different activity but with the same pattern of structure: SVC)

The activity is primarily teacher oriented, providing comprehensible input.

There is a timid attempt to constructivism, because students will respond to what they do every day and they may add something extra. At the end, it is just an IRF sequence
(initiation, response, feedback) together with a PPP cycle (presentation, practice, production)

In the chart accuracy prevails over fluency. (Accuracy: out of context, controlled language; Fluency: natural language use occurring when a speaker engages in meaningful
interaction)
This leads to the development of automatization.

Negotiation of meaning process: happens when the knowledge of SL is acquired through exposure to comprehensible input, which provides learners negative evidence about
their own output. (Swan) In the activity, there is no negotiation of meaning, because there is no real interaction. It limits natural conversation.

“Charts can also be used at more advanced levels”

In earlier approaches (silent way p 54, natural approach p 66) chats were key for providing input.

“The instructor has begun to create a chart”

Why the instructor? Learner autonomy p 75 also 4.10.2
Same for “so does the difficulty level of the instructor’s input”

Check role of instructor in CLT 4.10.1

EX 2

In a strong communicative approach, a higher level of cognitive demand is requested, what is more than just completing a chart. The higher the level of thinking involved, the
more likely the assimilation of the vehicular language.

The chart limits natural conversations (as in CLT).

These activities may show that learners know the linguistic rule which norms the use of the present tense (usage) but can’t show if they lack the ability to use them effectively
(use) in order to communicate. (Widowson)

The teacher is not a facilitator/guide/counselor and students do not direct their own learning. Roles are more related to behaviourism.

Nature of input. Krashen’s comprehensible input theory (knowledge + 1).

(For acquisition to occur, input should always be comprehensible and it should, in terms of its complexity, be slightly above the students’ language level, plus they must
understand this input language includes a structure that is part of a next stage.

This activity limits natural conversation due to its structured characteristics.

In the materials, a strong view of clt is developed in relation to the role of grammar - recheck 4.11 before developing this question

Task based learning is the strongest form of CLT

Prabhu believed that language is acquired through engagement with meaning. Learners should focus on the task, not on the language, and if there is focus on the language it is
to complete the task. No rules of grammar are offered.
The chart provided cannot be related to any of the task types defined by Prabhu since there is no gap at all for learners to fill in (p 94)

Strong view of CLT: using English to learn it

Stimulating the development of the language system itself

EX 3
The activity guarantees the minimum of communication, and therefore interaction. Even the weakest member of the class can participate and therefore, some production is
guaranteed.
The higher level of thinking involved in a task, the greater the probability of linguistic retention (Ball). The chart is highly inductive, students learn grammar rules through practice,
using the language at functional level and not through memorization.

The teacher can provide positive feedback, provoking learners’ interaction to become “real” by means of lowering the affective filter for learning.

Consider CEF “descriptors”

Notion of communicative competence

Weak version of CLT: p 92, lexical approach:

Learners’ brains as lexical stores, to be called upon in an almost “stimulus-response” fashion

Weak view of CLT: learning to use English

Providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes