If there are distinctions between a conventional course and Community Language Learning, to be able to see them three Japanese students who experienced these two sorts of directions were interviewed (the international languages they analyzed are different from each other).

Pupil A had a large motivation when she determined to have a conventional language course. However, her motivation decreased and as the course proceeded she became more apprehensive. She was fairly inactive in the course and gave no answers. She felt the linear relationship between the instructor and herself, and felt no link between herself to other pupils. Inside the CLL encounter; nevertheless, she felt no tension but firmly felt a sense of belonging to the training community. Because in CLL everyone is in charge of constructing their understanding. Responsibility was also felt by her towards the city. She was prepared to offer to talk about anything.

Regarding pupil B, she was dissatisfied with a conventional course because grammar was only practiced by them, and more time was spent by the teacher talking than the pupils did. Sitting usually in the front row, she didn’t see the faces of other pupils in any way. She felt isolated. She didn’t offer any sorts of answers to the questions in class. On the flip side of things, in her CLL encounter she frequently identified herself, raising her hand with no hesitation. She claims because she felt comfy with other members of the dialogue community that she did this.

Light is shed by what student C says on this comparison from the different angle. On her the first action of the CLL strategy, merely repeating the target language in a discussion circle provoked anxiety. When she could not discriminate the seems the counsel created and could not create unknown seems she felt uneasy among other pupils. For adult students in special circumstances, greater security might be provided by written forms.

Getting the opinions of students into account with these interviews, the CLL method appears better than the conventional procedure for language learning. Subsequently, a problem will spring up regarding how the CLL strategy could be employed in a language classroom and how powerful it happens to be. In 1980 a researcher performed an experiment that adapted counseling – learning (its effectiveness to be seen by learning) in NNP, which is a Japanese university language curriculum. The CL approach was compared by her with the Audio – Lingual Approach (ALM). The result shows that the average rating of the experimental team was somewhat more than that of the control groups. This outcome demonstrates that no less than the CL approach doesn’t create an adverse impact to pupils’ grades. Also, within this research motivation correlated absolutely with communicative competence. This research, nevertheless, doesn’t demonstrate that the CL approach changes students’ affective variables positively.

Regardless of good responses from scientists, the software of the new strategy in a conventional language course looks somewhat hard. The research concludes that even though conventional practice is nevertheless essential in a language course, a new strategy is advantageous too. To put it another way, these 2 methods of learning are not mutually exclusive.