Conclusions. We have studied some theories of language learning and some approaches to language teaching in order to come to conclusions about a methodological approach to

We have studied some theories of language learning and some approaches to language teaching in order to come to conclusions about a methodological approach to the subject. We have not been exhaustive by any means, but we have discussed those issues, which have most closely influenced the methodology.

We have seen that behaviourist philosophy saw the acquisition of language as the result of conditioning. Cognitivism, on the other hand, led to language learning being seen as the ability to be creative on the basis of acquired rules.

We studied more recent methodological implications of approaches that stress the need for acquisition in the classroom. We discussed approaches that depend on task-based learning and humanistic techniques. We looked at the students’ ability to take charge of their own learning. The suggestion was that the involvement of the students through task-based activities and the acquisition of language through comprehensible input would be more effective than the conscious learning of language items.

We concluded that while students need a lot of input which is roughly-tuned, and while there must be an emphasis on communicative activities which improve the students’ ability to communicate, there is also a place for controlled presentation of finely tuned input and semi-controlled language practice.

Finally we advocated a balanced activities approach which sees the methodology as being a balance between the components of input and output. Both for pedagogical reasons and for our students’ continuing interest in the language programme this balance is the essential ingredient of the methodology.

Discussion

1. If you were learning the third foreign language (Spanish, etc.) would you expect the teacher to involve you in conscious learning? If so, why? What is the expected communicative approach to teaching Latin and Gothic then?

2. We have said that it is a good idea to offer students input that is roughly-tuned. Do you roughly-tune your input when you are speaking to any other type of person? Why?

3. In your opinion, is conditioning an important part of learning either a first or a second language? Why?

4. Think back to your own experience as a school language learner. Can you identify moments when you received roughly-tuned input or finely-tuned input? How much communicative output was there in the classroom?

5. Make a list of activities to be used for communication output in the classroom. Compare them with the exercises an English language textbook suggests. Say whether the exercises in the book give input or are designed for output practice. Decide if the input is roughly-tuned or finely-tuned, and say whether the output activities are for practice or communication.

6. Think of a problem-solving task similar to the kind mentioned in our discussion of Prabhu’s procedural syllabus (e.g., reading timetables, map-reading, etc.). What language would such a task be most likely to provoke?