~ 1 ~

How would you describe your personal theories of language learning and teaching, i.e., your justification for why you teach as you do? What support for these personal theories is there in the public theories discussed in this unit and in the wider literature?

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 1

~ 2 ~
Contents Page

Introduction

My Teaching Practices and Their Influences i) Grammar Vs Vocabulary ii) Contextual Language Use iii) Error Correction iv) Level of Work Research into the Effect of Teaching Methods

5 5 8 12 16 20

Conclusion

22

Bibliography

24

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 2

~ 3 ~
Introduction In order to develop a personal theory of language learning and the manner in which it is taught, it is necessary to define exactly what it is you believe, as the teacher, defines language learning. That is, when your students progress and finish your course, what learning outcome should be achieved, be it in a constricted session or over an extended period? The objective of my class is for the students to achieve communicative competence. Tracy Terrell (1977) defines communicative competence as:

[] a student can understand the essential points of what a native speakers says to him in a real communicative situation and can respond in such a way that the native speaker interprets the response with little or no effort and without errors that are so distracting that they interfere drastically with communication. I believe any theory of language acquisition and the teaching practices that stem from it must provide students with the confidence, skills and abilities to effectively communicate with a native speaker of the target language. Communication can, however, come in many forms. The Oxford Dictionary provides the following definition of communication the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium. According to this definition Terrells (1977) communicative competence excludes several parts of communication. Given this information it may be surprising I have chosen this approach. For this to be understood I must explain the context in which I teach, after all it is the job of the teacher to adapt and mould theories of language learning to reflect the needs of their students. I work in a public high school in South Korea; I am the only native English teacher in the school. My students spend approximately five hours a week studying English; four of those are with a Korean teacher in which they concentrate on the use of grammar and vocabulary in reading and writing. Little to no English is spoken in this time. Thus for only one hour a week (one fifth of their time studying English), they have an opportunity to learn how to communicate verbally with a native speaker. This one hour a week constitutes my students only opportunity to learn and focus on what Campbell and Wales (1970) describe as by far the most important linguistic
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 3

~ 4 ~
ability, being able to produce or understand utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more importantly, appropriate to the context in which they are made (Canale 1980:247), and so to achieve communicative competence.

Given this objective and context, I feel my focus must be on the production of the spoken form of communication, and so I utilize a communicative methodology in the classroom. In this essay I shall give a detailed description of the teaching methods I use, in doing so I shall describe my personal theories of language learning and teaching within the context in which I teach. I will also evaluate the theoretical basis of these methods within established theories of second language acquisition. I will concentrate my evaluation, not on the theoretical soundness of the research, but on the classroom techniques they advocate and the effectiveness that these would have in my classroom. As part of this evaluation I will explore possible means by which I could improve the way I teach based on other research and theories of second language learning. Of course, when evaluating theories and research into second language acquisition and their application to the classroom it is important to bare in my mind that, as Schulz (1991) notes, most of the research conducted in the field of L2 acquisition has not actually focused on how students learn in a classroom setting, unfortunately, theoretical inquiry and empirical research into areas related to language acquisition orient themselves most often to L1 (native language) acquisition or to L2 (second language) acquisition in a naturalistic (non-tutored) setting (Vol. 75, no. 1 Spring 1991). Given this problem, it is necessary to make assumptions about classroom teaching methods the research and theories advocate.

My Teaching Practices and Their Influences i) Grammar Vs Vocabulary In the development of my curriculum I try to keep an equal balance of both vocabulary and grammar as I feel both are essential aspects of language acquisition. I believe that the use of both vocabulary and grammar are essential in understanding language and producing understandable language, the necessity for
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 4

~ 5 ~
both has been demonstrated in second language acquisition theory and research. Chomsky (1965) uses the terms competence and performance, with competence being the knowledge of the language, and performance being the use of the language in real situations. (Campbell & Wales 1970). Taking this distinction further, Chomsky (1965) argues that a theory of competence is a theory of grammar as it is through grammar that we know the linguistic rules that allow us to express meaning. A theory of performance, however, looks at how sentences are acceptable, it looks at both grammar and non-grammatical psychological factors. Canale & Swain (1980) provide an example of this:

a. the was cheese green (ungrammatical) b. the cheese the rat the cat the dog saw chased ate was green (grammatical but unacceptable) c. the dog saw the cat that chased the rat that ate the cheese that was green (grammatical and acceptable). (Canale & Swain 1980:4) These sentences all differ in terms of grammaticality and acceptability. They show that some knowledge of grammar is essential in being understood. Thus I feel it is imperative that in order for my students to have the ability to communicate in real situations they must have some grasp of grammar, but they must also have knowledge of when and how to use the grammatical structures, a point that will be explored further. Terrell (1977) on the other hand, has shown that language teaching must also focus on vocabulary. She explains how vocabulary is the easiest way to understand and be understood, it gives the student the ability to comprehend utterances and at least some ability to respond in real communicative situations (p.327). She goes on to argue that Grammar is not necessary for basic communication, it is definitely not sufficient for successful interaction with a native speaker in the language (1977:326). Coady (2004) explains how around 80% of English text contains around 2000 words, thus with just a limited range of vocabulary you can understand a large percentage of the English language. The fact is that without any vocabulary it would be impossible to express yourself even with the most flawless grammar. Wilkins puts this eloquently when he states without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 5

~ 6 ~
conveyed. (1972: 111). Lewis (1993) developed what became known as the lexical approach, this shows how there are lexical chunks that can form phrases and formulaic expressions. He argues that native speakers can draw upon these lexical chunks in order to produce fluent language. According to this, language is grammaticalized lexis rather than lexicalized grammar, in other words lexis provides more importance when trying to convey meaning than grammar. It is my opinion that both vocabulary and grammar are important for my students to express and understand meaning, and so necessary for communicative competence. In every class I actually combine the teaching of vocabulary with grammar, as they go hand in hand. When my students leave the classroom and speak with a native speaker they wont be using only grammar and they wont be using only vocabulary, thus I need to provide them with the skills to use both in unison to form meaningful utterances.

ii) Contextual Language Use

As discussed earlier, Chomsky (1965) describes how, in order to form meaningful utterances, a language learner must know and understand not just how, but where and when to form the utterances, in other words it must have a context. In my class, language is always taught within the context it will be used, this is the same for both vocabulary and grammar. My students language ability provides evidence of the need for a context. Korean second language education is based on non-contextualized memorization of vocabulary and grammar rules. Many of my students score perfectly in their written grammar and reading comprehension exams, however, unless they have lived abroad, they struggle to form even the most grammatically basic sentences within a relevant context, yet their knowledge of English grammar is extremely acute. I try to improve their understanding of the contextual use of language, and therefore their confidence in using the language they have already learnt by providing activities that give the students a chance to see the language in context, and then moving on to using the language in the types of scenarios they are likely to encounter or use it in. When teaching the present perfect, I may create a role play in which they interview each other and try to guess why they have been turned down for a job, for example, you have never worked in
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 6

~ 7 ~
a restaurant before. This type of activity takes the students beyond simply knowing the grammar rule, and puts them into a situation that forces them to apply it and create the language in a real context and scenario. Another theoretical basis for contextual learning is based on the idea of communicative competence. Communicative competence was developed by Hymes (1985) in response to Chomskys (1965) notion that linguistic competence is rooted in a learners knowledge of grammar (from Spolsky 1989). Hymes used communicative competence to look at the social appropriacy of what one says. The theoretical basis behind this view on communicative competence was, as Hymes explains:

We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about to whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others. (Hymes 1972:277-8 from Spolsky 1989:139) Thus, someone who is learning a second language must also learn the appropriate contexts as to when and how to use the language. I do not believe this is possible through memorization of rules of grammar and vocabulary by themselves. As teachers, I believe we have to present our students with the social situations in which the language being taught should be utilized. This is especially important for me on a personal level due to the context and culture in which I teach. South Korea, culturally and linguistically, is extremely different to any Englishspeaking country. There are social rules here that one must abide by as to not cause offense, and equally there are social rules with regards to contextual language and etiquettes that often result in native English speakers being caused offense as a result of a faux pas. One very regular example of this is, on meeting a Korean person, both in business and in personal relationships, it is usual to be asked within minutes of meeting you what we consider very personal questions, such as your job, your income, your family, and it is extremely common for them to ask about your parents marital status. Questions such as this would undoubtedly
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 7

~ 8 ~
cause offense in an English speaking country. They are also likely to comment on your physical appearance. They will tell you if they think you look tired or if you look sick, as doing this is viewed in Korea as caring about someones health. This shows how important it is to provide a context, for example, when I teach my students about greeting or meeting someone for the first time, whether it is on a business or a personal level I must make them aware of the correct context in which they must use language they have learnt.

Krashen (1982) distinguishes between learning a language and acquiring a language. He explains that acquisition is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language [whereas learning is] a conscious process that results in knowing about language (Krashen 1985:1). According to these definitions, with my students knowledge of the English language, but lack of ability to communicate in English, they have learnt English to a degree, but it has not yet been acquired. Krashen (1985) goes on to explain that language becomes acquired when language is produced through communication, the focus of language teaching, for Krashen, should not be rule learning but communication (McLaughlin 1986:24). Gregg (1984) was critical of this distinction; he demonstrates how it is possible to learn grammatical rules of a second language (in his case Japanese) without any meaningful interaction with a native speaker. This raises an important point, especially with regards to my teaching situation; one of Krashens criteria for acquisition to take place is substantial interaction with a native speaker, but realistically not many students get to spend a significant amount of time interacting with a native speaker unless they live in the country of the language they are trying to acquire. I see 35 of my students at a time for one hour a week, and so it is difficult for each one of them to spend a meaningful time interacting one on one with me. As language teachers, I feel we need to provide our students with the confidence to interact with native speakers should they get an opportunity outside of the classroom. Acquisition does not always have to occur in the classroom. By giving my students a context in which to use the language, the research presented here indicates that I am both aiding the process of acquisition and increasing the likelihood of my students using the target language outside of the classroom.
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 8

~ 9 ~

iii) Error Correction

To try and aid the students ability to communicate in English outside of the classroom, I like to keep error correction to an absolute minimum. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, and this is especially important given my current role, I feel that if students are constantly being corrected it may affect their confidence and could create self-doubt in their abilities to communicate in the target language. I believe that too much error correction could also make my students apprehensive and unlikely to want to speak up in class. This is especially apparent in the high school environment in which I teach. I have to take account of the fact that, culturally in Korea, it is important for students to remain dignified in front of their peers. In order to learn I feel it is important that the students trust the teacher to support them whenever they attempt to speak English. This is reflective of what Krashen (1985) calls the affective filter. This is, as Schulz (1991) describes a mental screen between the learner and the environment which is activated by affective factors (e.g., anxiety, self confidence, etc.) (1991:21). Correcting students, especially in front of their peers, may lead to a situation where their affective filter is heightened. As has previously been discussed, I do not believe it is possible for all acquisition to take place in the classroom, and so students must gain the confidence to speak in genuine situations. Secondly, I do not feel that specific error correction is a normal part of speech and is therefore unlikely to occur in a normal conversation. The students must be able to engage in conversation without the support of a teacher. A negotiation of meaning is more likely to occur than specific error correction in conversation. Take the following dialog for example: Student (St) Will you go to the park yesterday? Native Speaker (NS) Do you mean tomorrow? St No, yesterday Ns Oh, you mean did I go to the park yesterday? St Oh yes! Did you go to the park yesterday? Ns No, it was raining. The native speaker was unaware as to whether the student had initially made a mistake with their vocabulary (today/tomorrow/yesterday) or their grammar (tense). The NS established the Sts meaning through a negotiation. In class I almost always
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 9

~ 10 ~
know what my students mean to say as the activity I have given them will be based around certain grammar, vocabulary or a combination of both. However, I will still enter this negotiation of meaning with them in order to replicate how they are likely to encounter communicative situations with a native speaker. I also believe it is through this negotiation that true acquisition occurs. As part of the discourse theory, Ellis (1986) explains how students learn language by actively participating in communicative interaction, i.e., by negotiating meaning (from Schulz 1991:20). With this information in mind, I aim to give my students as many opportunities as possible to negotiate meaning, not just with myself but with each other. This is achieved by, for example, giving them problems to solve or having them, within the context of a group, decide on the meaning of new vocabulary by analyzing its context. I also limit specific error correction in order to instil the belief into my students that the conveyance of meaning should be their priority. Many of the tasks I give my students, especially the higher level students, involve free discussion and negotiating answers with each other. I monitor to check they are on task, but I resist correcting every error I hear; this is due to the fact that I feel it is of greater benefit to allow conversation its fluidity. This gives the students a chance to use what Krashen (1985) termed their monitors. The monitor refers to the students ability to self correct using the knowledge that they have learnt. According to Krashen (1985), use of the students monitor is how language goes from being learnt to acquired. However, this does not mean that I cannot encourage the students to negotiate meaning both with each other and with the teacher in order to overcome errors. Lightbrown summarizes the need for error correction in the following way: In order to make a lasting change in language behavior, there must be a change in knowledge. There must be a restructuring of the system itself-something which may take some time and considerably more information than is provided in a single error correction. (1985:178) There is also a theoretical basis for a negotiation of meaning rather than explicit error correction in Selinkers (1972) paper on interlanguage. Selinker (1972) uses the term interlanguage to describe a third kind of language in between the
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 10

~ 11 ~
students first and second languages. In other words, it is a language which the student creates themselves with components of their native tongue and the language they are learning. The language is constructed by the learner as a result of five processes: 1) Language transfer from the mother tongue. 2) Transfer of training. 3) Second language learning strategies. 4) Second language communication strategies. 5) Overgeneralization of the rules of the target language. He sees many of these errors as a normal part of language learning, that should eventually be self corrected once the learner has had sufficient input. From the perspective of interlanguage theory, most errors become self corrected, and so it is not proportionate to the possible negative effects on motivation, attitude and embarrassment that can result from specific error correction.

iv) Level of Work

The correct level of work that should be allocated to students can be a problematic decision for teachers. The high school in which I work has asked me to improve my students conversational English. The problem that I face is that my students knowledge of the English language far surpasses their speaking and conversational abilities. If you were to put a text in front of my students and ask them to find a grammatical mistake their ability to do this would prove to be far beyond their ability to use that grammar rule in a format where they have to create the language themselves. This is true for both creative writing and speaking tasks, although they find speaking the most taxing. Due to the manner in which languages are taught in Korea, my students have never been asked to create the English language before, only to analyze it. I have found that giving students conversational tasks that are slightly above their current speaking ability is the best way to improve their spoken English. If the tasks are too easy for them then they are simply practicing what they already know. This would not increase their confidence to try and converse in English outside the classroom as they would be nervous using language they were not already proficient with, thus it would not be bringing them closer to achieving communicative competence. If the language is too difficult it will
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 11

~ 12 ~
affect both their confidence and their motivation. By giving my students tasks at a level that will encourage them to use language they may not have had the confidence to use in a less safe environment, I am attempting to increase the range of language they may be willing to use outside of the classroom, and helping more language move from being learned to acquired. Krashens (1985) input hypotheses is a prevalent theoretical base for this approach. He explains that language is acquired through receiving comprehensible input. With this theory in mind, we increase our ability to use language through receiving language at a level slightly above our current ability. He states, we move from i, our current level, to i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1 (Krashen 1985:2). Of course, the immediate problem with this is that it is difficult to define exactly what the +1 should constitute, and Krashen (1985) offers very limited advice on this. For every teacher this will differ depending on their circumstances and subjective interpretation, whether Krashen (1985) would agree that the level of work I give my students constitutes i+1 is hard to know. Loup (1984) summarizes the problem that this hypothesis leaves teachers with, this presumes that it is possible to define a set of levels and determine which structures constitute the i+1 level. At the present stage of language study, both tasks are impossible for researchers, and, above all, for teachers dealing with many students at different levels of ability (from McLaughlin 1986:39). Vygotskys (1978) zone of proximal development (ZDP) also lent support to the idea that interaction at a level slightly above the students current capabilities will result in language acquisition. Vygotsky (1978) defined ZDP as the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in cooperation with more capable peers (1978: 86). From this perspective, we can see the reasons for and the importance of giving students work at the correct level; that is slightly above their current ability. Gass (1982) disagrees that the level of work should be just above the learners current level, he believed that if we teach several steps above a students ability they will not only learn what is intended to be taught, but also other parts of the less complex structures. In my experience, however, if the activities are several levels beyond my students ability they find it very discouraging, and will often give up and become unmotivated.
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 12

~ 13 ~
If we are to proceed to give students work slightly above their current level I have found it is important to provide them with the support and tools in which to do this. One strategy that I have found works well in my classroom is to slowly build up to having the students create and use the language for themselves. The first task I give students generally involves them reading or listening to the target language being used. This will be followed by some comprehension questions that encourage them to think about the target language. So, for example, if I am teaching one of my low levels classes how to use the past tense in conversation, I may give them a dialogue to read, then have them (in pairs) decide where to place the events on a timeline. We would then move onto analysing how the past tense is formed, followed by an activity that requires them to form the past tense in a scenario that they have created, for example asking each other what they did at the weekend, using the information to fill in the chart, then changing partners and telling the new partner what the previous partner did at the weekend. By taking the students from a very structured look at the target language, to a less structured practice and then onto free use of the language, I am attempting to provide the students with the skills and knowledge necessary to form the language in a correct context. Although it is I who designates the tasks, having 35 students makes it impossible for me to converse with every student, so I encourage them to help each other with feedback. While this does not directly follow Vygotskys (1978) idea of scaffolding, which necessitates that the teacher, or another expert, is the one that offers social mediation, it does provide a structure that my students seem comfortable with. From the above structure it is apparent that I encourage my students not simply to memorize role plays or dialogues, but to actively create them. Swain (2000) called this collaborative dialogue, that is a dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building (Swain 2000: 102). This is a development of the dialog used in the interaction hypothesis which was primarily for students to exchange information. In a collaborative dialogue students are not merely negotiating meaning but it acts as assistance in internalization (Cook 2008:230).

Research into the Effect of Teaching Methods

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 13

~ 14 ~
Research on the effectiveness of various approaches to second language acquisition has proved mostly inconclusive. Savignon (1972) conducted a study on her college students. In one class she put an emphasis on getting ones meaning across, and in the others she focused on grammaticality. The first group actually showed a significant drop in integrative motivation. However, Savignon (1972) admitted that this was likely caused by the shock of a completely different teaching style. Savignon (1972) conducted a further study on three groups of college students. All three groups received the same amount of instruction in the standard formal and grammatical programme, but one of the classes was given an extra hour per week solely concentrating on communicative tasks, another of the classes spent an additional hour on culture. The results were that all of the groups scored similarly on the grammar test, but the group that focused on communication scored better on the communicative tasks. Palmer (1978) studied two groups of children, for one group the exercises were modified to focus on communicative activities; the other group was given standard activities. The results were that the first group scored lower on one of the grammar tests, other than that the two groups scored the same for all the grammar and communicative tests, however, the communicative tasks did not involve language use for personal or realistic needs, and the students in the grammar class spent a lot of time outside of the class conversing with the teacher, so again it is hard to form any firm conclusions. There is also research from Carroll (1978) to suggest that in fact when second language learners are speaking to native speakers the native speaker is actually more concerned with the speakers grammatical accuracy than with their meaning. Currie (1975), Casey (1986) and Levin (1969) all conducted research explore the effectiveness of grammatical and communicative based teaching methods and nothing of statistical significance to differ the two methods. Even the Pennsylvania Foreign Research project was unable to form any firm conclusions about the value of the different teaching methods (Terrell, 1977). It is very hard to form a firm conclusion based on the research done as to what the most effective approach teaching a second language is. There seems to be no strong theoretical reason that can be found in the research to suggest that as language teachers we should be concentrating on grammar, vocabulary or meaning What I feel it does show, and what I have tried to show throughout this paper, is that
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 14

~ 15 ~
all are necessary in order to achieve communicative competence. However this does raise a further problem and that is trying to combine grammar, vocabulary and communication. It is hard to organize a syllabus that covers all of these aspects equally well in an order that develops all of the students needs at the correct time. Johnson (1977) writes that it seems reasonable to expect sentences which form a homogenous functional grouping to be grammatically unlike. The choice of a functional organization therefore seems to imply a degree of structural disorganization. To the extent that many structurally dissimilar sentences may be presented in the same unit, while what may be taken to be key examples of particular grammatical structures will be scattered throughout the course (from Canale 1980:22). Conclusion

Throughout this paper my personal theory of language learning has leaned heavily towards the use of communicative methods of language teaching. I have emphasized the importance of making the communication as realistic as possible to how the students would communicate outside of the classroom. I hope to have shown how, through what I teach, error correction, the level of work, encouraging the creation of the language, providing students with contexts and providing an atmosphere where students can feel comfortable trying to use the English language, I am developing the skills needed to further my students ability to learn outside of the classroom and progress towards achieving communicative competence. I have demonstrated how, within the context in which I teach, it is not possible for me to provide my students with everything they need to know to become fluent in the English language, mainly due to contact hours and class sizes, but what I am attempting to do is allow them to carry on learning when they leave my classroom. I have provided the theoretical basis as to why I have chosen these techniques and in doing so I hope to of provided a convincing methodology that can be applied to the classroom. Every teacher is in a different situation, even if they are teaching in the same school with the same objectives, they will have different students who have different needs, and it is the job of the teacher to utilize and adapt the methods that they
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 15

~ 16 ~
believe will provide students the best chance of meeting their objectives. Some teachers have specific examinations which they have to prepare their students for, and it could well be that, for example, in this scenario behaviourist approaches that advocate drills and rote learning would be the most suitable. It has not been my intention to provide a universal theory of language learning, but merely explain how I have decided to approach my objective of increasing my students ability to communicate orally in the English language. I hope I have provided some ideas or cause for consideration as to how other language teachers in a similar situation may want to approach providing their students with the skills needed to become communicatively competent.

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 16

~ 17 ~
Bibliography Canale, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 (1), 1-47. Choudbury, A. (2010). Teaching Vocabulary in the ESL/EFL Classroom: Central Pedagogical Issues. MJAL. 2 (4), 306-316. Cook, J. (1997). Language Play, Language Learning. ELT Journal. 51/3 (51/3), 224254. Cook, V. (2008). Sociocultural SLA Theory. In: Cook, V Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Hodder Education. 228-230. Ellis, R. (1994). Variability in Learner Language. In: Ellis, R The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 119-158. Jayalakshmi, S. (2011). Effective Utilization of the Interpersonal Intelligence in Language Teaching - Based on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Language in India. 11 (6 June), 1-9. Kramsch, C. (2000). Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, and the Teaching of Foreign Languages. The Modern Language Journal. 84 (iii), 311-326. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. In: Krashen, S. The Input Hypotheses: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. 1-32. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. 245-249. Lewis, Michael. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. Lightbrown, P. (1985). Great Expectations: Second Language Acquisition Research and Classroom Teaching. Applied Linguistics. 6 (2), 173-189. Saville-Troike, M (2005). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 31-65. Schulz, R. (1991). Second Language Acquisition Theories and Teaching Practice: How Do They Fit?. The Modern Language Journal. 75 (1), 17-26. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231 Spolsky, B. (1989). Communicative Competence, Language Proficiency, and Beyond. Applied Linguistics. 10 (2), 138-156. Terrell, T. (1977). A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition and Learning. The Modern Language Journal. 61 (7), 325-337.
Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 17

~ 18 ~

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 7991 Wilkins, David A. (1972). Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.

Word Count 4386 (main body text minus references, quotes and titles)

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module XX4714: The Language Learner and Language Learning

Page 18