LESSON 2
According to the researches, immersion students have better results in tests of reading and listening comprehension than speaking and writing. There is a great difference between the use of communicative aids at learners and native speakers. It is obvious, that students’ grammar is less complex comparing with native speakers’ grammar.
Native speakers use various ways for expression of the same ideas, immersion students use one or two ways. Besides, their grammar is influenced by the grammar of their native language. It can result, for example, in the use of prepositions common for the use of their native language. The lexical and syntactic apply of learners differs greatly from native speakers and are usually incorrect or unusual. Thus, the productive language skills of immersion students are linguistically wrong, although functionally effective.
There is a connection between immersion students' productive and receptive language skills, because comprehension is necessary for language understanding and acquisition. Students are able to learn only comprehensive language. Thus, tests of comprehension are so effective. They assist to determine the level and grade of sunject achievements.
It is important to understand the development of immersion students' productive language skills and the use of the language for immersion education. It is known, that immersion students have only some possibilities to speak during class and less chances toform independent statements. Frequently, students apply language to give answers to questions or give comments to some statements. The lack of communicative opportunity leads to a small percentage of learners’ statements, low activity and unsufficiant production skills.
Students have possibilities to speak a foreign language opportunities in a classroom to develop language production skills. Such an activity centered immersion program differs greatly from a teacher-centered immersion program. Later a foreign language was applied to teach language, arts, mathematics, and science for half the day, the other half was devoted to leaning in the native language. Students were suggested various learning activities and subjects for study. Such program has proved its activity. Students had a chance to combine hands-on activities (e.g., designing models, preparing blueprints, or collecting objects) with strictly language-related work (e.g., library research). Physical activity was also included in a learning process. The students worked on various projects, make oral and written reports in the foreign language to develop their language skills. The task of the teachers in such activities was to consult and advise. The main principles of this program were its focus on activities as a basis for second language learning and its focus on individual choice of learning activities.
According to the teacher-centered program, the students worked on the same projects at the same time and in the same way; but they had less activity-based learning and less individual choice in learning activities. Another difference between these two programs was the degree of instruction via a foreign language. At the teacher-centered program learners applied had a foreign language for the whole day, at the activity-centered program students pracised the second language for only about 40% of the school day. At the teacher-centered program a foreign language was widely applied, but at the activity-centered program students were more fluent in speaking and listening comprehension, reading and writing. The advantages of the activity-centered program is obvious, because: 1) students had constant opportunities to speak a foreign language with their classmates in a friendly, comfortable and encouraging atmosphere; and 2) students were encouraged and motivated to learn a foreign language, because the teacher gave them many possibilities to apply their knowledge, skills and opportunities in situations of everyday life.
It is also effective to teach a foreign language when native speakers are invided to a classroom. In such case, students became to speak more fluently. Two-way bilingual programs are very effective too.
| 
