Inglés y su Enseñanza I
Nadia Girón.
Proposal for Characteristics of
teaching the Proposal
This proposal has a main
objective to help students
read literature rather than to
Get it right from the develop fluency in the spoken
language,it was tought that
beginning
this provided students with
good mental exercise to help
develop their intellectual and
academic abilities.
It support the idea that says
that language acquisition
takes place when learners are
exposed to comprehensible
input. According to this
proposal, learners do not need
to produce language in order
to learn it.
Just listen… and read.
Studies Interpreating the research
N°14:Audiolingual Pattern
Drill(Patsy Lightbown, 1970).
Instruction that is based on decontextualized
repetition does not guarantee high levels of
accuracy and
does not contribute to the development of
comprehension, fluency and communicative
N°15:Grammar plus
abilities.
communicative practice
(Sandra Savignon, 1972)
N°16: Learners can make important progress in 2nd
Comprehension -based language learning,if they have sustained
instruction for children.(Patsy exposure to language they understand.
Lightbown) In response of this approach Merril Swain
N°17: created the Comprehensible Output
Reading for words (Marlise Hypothesis, which says that students realize
Horst, 2005). which are their limitations, when they produce
N°18: language.
Input Flood (Marta Trahey and
Lydia White, 1993).
N°19:
Enhanced input (Michael
Sharwood Smith, 1993)
N°20: Processing Instruction
(Bill Van Pattern, 2004)
N°21: Learners Talking to
Learners (Michael Long and
Patricia Porter, 1985).
Inglés y su Enseñanza I
Nadia Girón.
This proposal says that when
learning a second language, it
is important for the learner to
be provided of
comprehensible input and
conversational interaction,
Let´s Talk.
because when trying to use
the language is when
negotiation of meaning
appears, and it leads learners
to acquire the language forms
that will help them express
what they mean.
In content-based language
teaching it is expected that
students learn the content of
an specific subject, and at
the same time they acquire a
2nd language. It is
Get two for one.
implemented in a great
variety of instructional
settings, like immersion
programmes and the content
and language-integrated
learning (CLIL).
Researchers supporting this
Teach what is proposal, say that some
linguistic structures develop
Teachable.
along a predictable
developmental pat and that
Learners’ acquisition of them
will depend on different
factors, including how
learners’ identities and
N°22: Learner language and
proficiency level
(George Yule and Doris Learners can offer each other genuine
McDonald, 1990). communicative practice which includes
N°23: The dynamics of pair negotiation of meaning that is essential for
work (Neomy Storch, 2002). language acquisition.
Teachers should sometimes place more
N°24: Interaction and second
advanced students in less dominant roles in
language development (Alison
paired activities with learners that are at a
Mackey, 1999).
lower level.
N°25: Learner-learner
When pair work functions, and both learners
interaction in a Thai classroom
contribute to it, they engage in the co-
(Kim McDonough, 2004).
construction of knowledge.
N°26: French Immersion This proposal has the advantage of increasing
Programmes in Canada the time learners are exposed to the new
(Lambert and Tucker , 1972). language, and it also motivates students to
N°27: Late Immersion in Hong learn the language in order to understand the
Kong (Keit Jhonson, 1997). content.However, it also has disadvantages
such as, that students need 5-7 years before
N°28: Dual Immersion (Patsy
their ability to use the language has reached an
Lightbown, 2007).
age appropriate level. As a consequence, those
N°29: Inuit children in
students that fall behind with language may
content- based programmes
also have problems with the subject.
(Nina Spada and Nancy
Lightbown, 2002).
N°30: Ready to Learn (Manfred Targeting instructional or interactional input to
Painnman, 1988). learners, when they are developmentally ready
to progress further in the second language, can
N°31: Readies, unreadies, and
be beneficial. Other factors such as type of
recasts (Alison Mackey and
input and first language influence can interact
Jenefer Philp,1998).
with learners’ developmental readiness in
N°32: Developmental stage
complex ways.
and first language influence
(Nina Spada and Patsy
Lightbown, 1999).
Inglés y su Enseñanza I
Nadia Girón.
cultures are acknowledged in
the classroom. It is also
suggested that Instruction
cannot change the
developmental course.
They also claim that certain
other aspects of language can
be taught at any time.
People that support this
proposal, recognize an
important role for form-
focused instruction, they
Get it right in the
argue this kind of instruction
end.
is beneficial for learners, in
terms of efficiency in their
learning and in the level of
proficiency they will
eventually reach.
N°33: Form –focus
experiments in intensive ESL
(Nina Spada and Patsy
Lightbown,1990 – 1994)
N°34: Focusing on gender in
French (Birgit Harley, 1998). The results of studies supported the hypothesis
that form-focused instruction and corrective
N°35: Focusing on
feedback can help learners improve their
sociolinguistic forms in French
knowledge and the use of particular
immersion (Roy Lister, 1994).
grammatical features.
N°36:Focusing on verb Forms
in content-based learning
classrooms(Catherine Doughty
and Elisabeth Varela,1998)
N°37: Recasts and Promps in
French classrooms
(Lyster,2005)
N°38:Focus on form through
collaborative dialogue (Marry
Swain and Sharon
Lampkin,2002).
N°39: Focus on form in task
based instruction(Virginia
samuda,2001)
N°40: The time in focus on
form instruction(Nina
Spada,2012).