As pointed out at the time by its more thoughtful advocates, accurate use of the language system remained the major resource for successful communication. The richer strands of the CLT movement were not therefore advocating the abandonment of attention to form, as advocates of the natural approach were, but rather two changes of emphasis. The first was that,in addition to mastery of form, learners need other kinds of ability and knowledge if they are to communicate successfully. The second was that forms should be approached in the context of their usefulness rather than as an end in themselves. In other words, the traditional sequence of language learning was reversed. Whereas in the past, whether in grammar—translation or indirect method teaching, the emphasis had been upon mastery of forms first and their use later,CLT students considered first what they needed to do with the language and then learned the forms which would fulfil those needs. Teachers and materials designers were urged to identify things learners need to do with the language (i.e. conduct
a needs analysis)
and simulate thesein the classroom. This, it was believed, would also motivate the learners by constantlyemphasizing the relevance of classroom activity to their goals.