Firstly, I would like to say the increasing demand of English for meaningful communication

produce a huge need for better English language education and lately, it becomes
fundamental for the people to set up their kids with good knowledge of this language
according to Richards (2006), in this order, the role and commitment of English teacher has
increased for developing effective communication skills in the current academic sceneries
(Ahmad & Rao, 2013). Even though, English has been taught through grammar rules,
translation methods and memorizing; reality has changed over the years due to students’
needs and interests.
If we come back some years ago, certainly, English was taught through methods very
traditionalist which have adapted little by little integrating new technologies and mixed
with others like audio-visual, TPR and communicative approaches (Kawaguchi & Di-Biase,
2009).
On the other hand, I would like to mention that the spoken language is more used than
written in L2 rather than L1 in the classrooms nowadays because day by day the
communicative competence has become an essential element for learners in order to
strengthen their ability to convey ideas in another language, also it can be used by them in
different contexts. In this order, the grammatical aspects are being taught by the teachers
communicatively instead of explicit teaching of rules (Ellis, 2003).
Following, there are advocates as Cook, Harmer, Hymes, and Jong who support the prior
argument talking the importance to emphasize the teaching and learning non-native
language due to the fluency and accuracy are achieved after much practice and by applying
various evaluative techniques such as teacher’s correction or self-monitoring; creating in
this sense a second language environment through communicative and task-based teaching
(Cook, 2008; Harmer, 1998; Hymes, 1972 and Jong, 2005).
Despite that, the two languages in one mind cannot be regarded as completely independent
taking into account the knowledge of L2 affects the Knowledge of L1 in distinct ways, for
instance, daily routines. What I mean is they complement each other, the use of L1 helps in
introducing text, give instructions in activities, understanding grammar rules and their
meaning, which are harder to explain and assimilate in L2 (Cook, 2008). Whereas L2
contributes to learners can comprehend much better the world's cultures and situations,
most of which are not in their native language.
Certainly, when L2 takes the position, the mother language just becomes almost invisible
during the class, but it does not mean that the use of both languages do not produce good
outcomes and generate better learning environment, nevertheless, if the learners are more
expose to their target language assuredly in short time and good rhythm they acquire
proficient abilities. In other words, “the external and internal goals of achieving language
may be boosted if students are taken as successful L2 users instead of lacking in language
aspects (Cook, 2001b)”.
Evidently, teaching language is a dynamic process, it has changed with the transition of
new methods and approaches. Many of them have been evolved to meet the needs of
second language learners (Snow, Kahmi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006). Every methodology took
place at a certain age, presented ups and downs due to its limitations and further research in
the field of teaching language (Richards & Rodgers 2001, p.15). In every approach, the
teachers, as well as learners, have played different roles; being currently the learners who
construct their own knowledge at developing deeper levels understanding through analyze,
evaluate and synthesize of ideas; thanks to environments, opportunities, interactions, and
task provided by the skilled teachers.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, S. & Rao, C (2013). Applying Communicative Approach in Teaching English as a

Foreign Language: A Case Study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, 20, 187-203. ISSN: 1697-
7467
Cook, V. (2001b). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, London: Edward
Arnold. 3rd edition.
Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold.
ISBN 978-0-340-95876-6.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
http://dx.doi.org.bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co/10.1093/applin/5.2.79.
Harmer, J. (1998). How to Teach English. England: Longman.
Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Jong, D. N., (2005). From comprehension to production in second language acquisition.
Paper presented at the Amsterdam Psycholinguistics Forum, Amsterdam.
Kawaguchi, S. & Di Biase, B. (2009). Aligning Second Language Learning and Computer-
Assisted Language Learning: Networking the Language Class, Tandem Learning and e-
movies, The International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 287-302.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches, Methods in Language Teaching: A
Description and Analysis. Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, M. A., Kamhi-Stein, L. D. & Brinton, D. (2006). Teacher training for English as a
lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 261-81.

Written by: Angelica Maria Betancourt Ramirez

Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia.