The present study investigates three approaches to teaching introduced into practice via the research domain of applied linguistics: Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, and the use of L1 in the L2 classroom. The paper provides a literature review and relies on personal reflection, detailing the author's experiences as both a second language learner and a teacher in a higher education setting. The evidence presented herein supports the key proposition of Comprehensible Input theory, which is that comprehensible input is essential for language acquisition. However, it also suggests that input used as a strategy in isolation is not practical for informing the process of language acquisition, and so must complemented by Comprehensible Output. Finally, the findings relating to L1 use, support Macaro's (2005) recommendation regarding the use of the L1 as a facilitator to increase L2 input to optimal levels in the L2 classroom. The study recommends future empirical research; i.e. studies concentrating on the interlanguage of learners, and the application of Macaro's (2005) strategies in context through different learning tasks and activities.

Patients should be able to rely on optometrists and optical dispensers to provide evidence-based answers to their questions on eye protection, including against ultraviolet radiation. Surveys indicate that there is public concern about the need for protection against ultraviolet radiation, particularly in sunlight. This investigation aimed to evaluate the quality of information provided by practitioners in response to typical questions to which they might reasonably be expected to have ready answers. A cross-sectional study was conducted of on-site responses from attendees of a 3 day optical fair, in Sydney, Australia, in 2017. Subjects were not forewarned about the study. The portion of the questionnaire reported here comprised open answers to four questions intended to represent typical enquiries of patients. The questions were about recommendations for ultraviolet protection in the context of 1) computer use, 2) outdoor use, 3) driving and 4) under office lighting. Eighty-three participants returned completed questionnaires out of 140 issued (61% response). The open-answer question responses were grouped into appropriate, borderline (mostly appropriate but mixed with non-UVR related recommendations) and others (mostly non-UVR related recommendations) and by job title. The proportion of appropriate answers to the four questions were 20%, 30%, 12% and 15%, respectively, which did not differ by job title. A significantly higher proportion of optical dispensers than optometrists selected 'Don't know/no answer' for all questions except office use. Eyecare professionals need to be educated on eye protection against UV radiation to improve the quality of information to be given to the public.