L2 Language Learning

INTRODUCING A NEW TERM:
INTEGRATED L2 LANGUAGE TEACHING
Similar to other professions, teaching requires a plan of up-coming instructions. Improvising, although helpful as a style while teaching, is not thought to be enough for successful learning. Thus, a teacher needs to know some teaching techniques which are proven to be successful according to learners’ positive reactions.
There have been many studies about second language teaching. Effectiveness, facility, and clarity of the results generally determine the validity of the research. There has been prolonging arguments about what the most effective method for teaching a second language is. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is already a part of the world of academicians and scientists. Many methods of teaching to improve SLA have been introduced to the world of education.
This review will basically cover three methods of instructions which play a great role in the debate. Form-based instruction, meaning-based instruction; and the combination of both, integrative language teaching.
Traditional form-based instruction (Spada & Lightbown, 1993) focuses on the linguistic and grammatical structure which makes the speech grammatically accurate. In this method, linguistic and syntactic features of the target language are introduced to the learners. However, the accuracy does not come along with the competence in the language because the students instructed with the form-based approach lack the ability to produce spontaneous speeches (Sysoyev, 1999).
Unlike form-based instruction, meaning-based (Spada & Lightbown, 1993) instructional approach focuses on performance of the learners’ spontaneous response in communicative speeches (Sysoyev, 1999). Linguistic accuracy is not guaranteed in this type of approach.
To sum up, form-based instruction draws students’ attention to the structure of the language itself: grammar, pronunciation, pragmatics, and vocabulary. On the other hand, meaning-based instruction leaves the

References: Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult tesol classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 1(27), Retrieved from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ Brumfit, C Burns, A. (2003). ‘Grammar as ‘‘poison’’ or ‘‘fishing’’?—Developing an Australian distancelearning course in systemic functional grammar’ in D. Liu, and P. Master (eds): Grammar Teaching in Teacher Education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Celce-Murcia,M. and E. Olshtain. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford: Pergamon. Little, D. (1994). ‘Words and their properties: Arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar’ in T. Odlin (ed.): Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy,’ Applied Linguistics 21/3: 281–303. Savignon, S.J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Savignon, S.J. (1983). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Spada, N., Lightbown, P Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6(1), 68-83. Sysoyev, P.V. (1999). Integrative L2 grammar teaching: exploration, explanation and expression. The Internet TESL Journal, 5, Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sysoyev-Integrative.html