Natural approach

Last updated

The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Natural Approach has been used in ESL classes as well as foreign language classes for people of all ages and in various educational settings, from primary schools to universities. [1] It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in the classroom setting by emphasizing communication [2] and limiting conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors [3] . Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible, by lowering the affective filter. [4] In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input. Comprehensible inpu t is the content that language learners are exposed to in the target language. Krashen suggests that language learners should be able to understand the comprehensible input provided at their current levels of language acquisition, while also making it as interesting and engaging as possible. [5]

Contents

Background

The natural approach was originally created in 1977 by Terrell, a Spanish teacher in California, who wished to develop a style of teaching based on the findings of naturalistic studies of second-language acquisition. [6] [7] After the original formulation, Terrell worked with Krashen to further develop the theoretical aspects of the method. Terrell and Krashen published the results of their collaboration in the 1983 book The Natural Approach. [8]

The natural approach was strikingly different from the mainstream approach in the United States in the 1970s and early 1980s, the audio-lingual method. While the audio-lingual method prized drilling and error correction, these things disappeared almost entirely from the natural approach. [9] Terrell and Krashen themselves characterized the natural approach as a "traditional" method [6] and contrasted it with grammar-based approaches, which they characterized as new inventions that had "misled" teachers. [10]

The natural approach shares many features with the direct method (itself also known as the "natural method"), which was formulated around 1900 and was also a reaction to grammar-translation. [11] Both the natural approach and the direct method are based on the idea of enabling naturalistic language acquisition in the language classroom; they differ in that the natural approach puts less emphasis on practice and more on exposure to language input and on reducing learners' anxiety. [11]

Outline

The aim of the natural approach is to develop communicative skills, [12] and it is primarily intended to be used with beginning learners. [13] It is presented as a set of principles that can apply to a wide range of learners and teaching situations, and concrete objectives depend on the specific context in which it is used. [13] Terrell outlines three basic principles of the approach:

These principles result in classrooms where the teacher emphasizes interesting, comprehensible input and low-anxiety situations. [12] Lessons in the natural approach focus on understanding messages in the foreign language, and place little or no importance on error correction, drilling or on conscious learning of grammar rules. [12] [7] [15] They also emphasize learning of a wide vocabulary base over learning new grammatical structures. [7] In addition, teachers using the natural approach aim to create situations in the classroom that are intrinsically motivating for students. [12]

Terrell sees learners going through three stages in their acquisition of speech: comprehension, early speech, and speech emergence. [16] In the comprehension stage Terrell focuses on students' vocabulary knowledge. His aim is to make the vocabulary stick in students' long term memory, a process which he calls binding. [17] Terrell sees some techniques as more binding than others; for example, the use of gestures or actions, such as in total physical response, is seen to be more binding than the use of translation. [17]

According to Terrell, students' speech will only emerge after enough language has been bound through communicative input. [17] When this occurs, the learners enter the early speech stage. In this stage, students answer simple questions, use single words and set phrases, and fill in simple charts in the foreign language. [18] In the speech emergence stage, students take part in activities requiring more advanced language, such as role-plays and problem-solving activities. [18]

Theory

Although Terrell originally created the natural approach without relying on a particular theoretical model, his subsequent collaboration with Krashen has meant that the method is often seen as an application to language teaching of Krashen's monitor model. [10] Krashen outlined five hypotheses in his model:

  1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. This states that there is a strict separation between conscious learning of language and subconscious acquisition of language, and that only acquisition can lead to fluent language use. [10]
  2. The monitor hypothesis. This states that language knowledge that is consciously learned can only be used to monitor output, not to generate new language. Monitoring output requires learners to be focused on the rule and to have time to apply it. [10]
  3. The input hypothesis. This states that language is acquired by exposure to comprehensible input at a level a little higher than that the learner can already understand. Krashen names this kind of input "i+1". [10]
  4. The natural order hypothesis. This states that learners acquire the grammatical features of a language in a fixed order, and that this is not affected by instruction. [10]
  5. The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners must be relaxed and open to learning in order for language to be acquired. Learners who are nervous or distressed may not learn features in the input that more relaxed learners would pick up with little effort. [10]

Despite its basis in Krashen's theory, the natural approach does not adhere to the theory strictly. In particular, Terrell perceives a greater role for the conscious learning of grammar than Krashen. Krashen's monitor hypothesis contends that conscious learning has no effect on learners' ability to generate new language, whereas Terrell believes that some conscious learning of grammar rules can be beneficial. [12]

Syllabus

Terrell outlines four categories of classroom activities that can facilitate language acquisition (as opposed to language learning):

Reception

The natural approach enjoyed much popularity with language teachers, particularly with Spanish teachers in the United States. [10] Markee (1997) puts forward four reasons for the success of the method. First, he says that the method was simple to understand, despite the complex nature of the research involved. Second, it was also compatible with the knowledge about second-language acquisition at the time. Third, Krashen stressed that teachers should be free to try the method, and that it could go alongside their existing classroom practices. Finally, Krashen demonstrated the method to many teachers' groups, so that they could see how it would work in practice. [10] The natural approach has become closely associated with Krashen's monitor model, and it is often seen as an application of the theory to language teaching. Despite this perception, there are some differences, particularly Terrell's view that some degree of conscious grammar study can be beneficial.

Related Research Articles

A second language (L2) is a language spoken in addition to one's first language (L1). A second language may be a neighbouring language, another language of the speaker's home country, or a foreign language. A speaker's dominant language, which is the language a speaker uses most or is most comfortable with, is not necessarily the speaker's first language. For example, the Canadian census defines first language for its purposes as "the first language learned in childhood and still spoken", recognizing that for some, the earliest language may be lost, a process known as language attrition. This can happen when young children start school or move to a new language environment.

Language education – the process and practice of teaching a second or foreign language – is primarily a branch of applied linguistics, but can be an interdisciplinary field. There are four main learning categories for language education: communicative competencies, proficiencies, cross-cultural experiences, and multiple literacies.

Total physical response (TPR) is a language teaching method developed by James Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University. It is based on the coordination of language and physical movement. In TPR, instructors give commands to students in the target language with body movements, and students respond with whole-body actions.

TPR Storytelling is a method of teaching foreign languages. TPRS lessons use a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. Throughout these three steps, the teacher will use a number of techniques to help make the target language comprehensible to the students, including careful limiting of vocabulary, constant asking of easy comprehension questions, frequent comprehension checks, and very short grammar explanations known as "pop-up grammar". Many teachers also assign additional reading activities such as free voluntary reading, and there have been several easy novels written by TPRS teachers for this purpose.

Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning—otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.

Sheltered instruction is an educational approach designed to make academic content more accessible to English language learners (ELLs) while promoting their language development. It involves modifying instruction to accommodate students' language proficiency levels and providing additional support to help comprehend and engage with material effectively.

Sequential bilingualism occurs when a person becomes bilingual by first learning one language and then another. The process is contrasted with simultaneous bilingualism, in which both languages are learned at the same time.

Language teaching, like other educational activities, may employ specialized vocabulary and word use. This list is a glossary for English language learning and teaching using the communicative approach.

In the field of second language acquisition, there are many theories about the most effective way for language learners to acquire new language forms. One theory of language acquisition is the comprehensible output hypothesis.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisition–learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extensive reading</span> Reading longer, easier texts for extended periods of time

Extensive reading (ER) is the process of reading longer, easier texts for an extended period of time without a breakdown of comprehension, feeling overwhelmed, or the need to take breaks. It stands in contrast to intensive or academic reading, which is focused on a close reading of dense, shorter texts, typically not read for pleasure. Though used as a teaching strategy to promote second-language development, ER also applies to free voluntary reading and recreational reading both in and out of the classroom. ER is based on the assumption that we learn to read by reading.

The noticing hypothesis is a theory within second-language acquisition that a learner cannot continue advancing their language abilities or grasp linguistic features unless they consciously notice the input. The theory was proposed by Richard Schmidt in 1990.

Language pedagogy is the discipline concerned with the theories and techniques of teaching language. It has been described as a type of teaching wherein the teacher draws from their own prior knowledge and actual experience in teaching language. The approach is distinguished from research-based methodologies.

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.

Focus on form (FonF), also called form-focused instruction, is an approach to language education in which learners are made aware of linguistic forms – such as individual words and conjugations – in the context of a communicative activity. It is contrasted with focus on forms, in which forms are studied in isolation, and focus on meaning, in which no attention is paid to forms at all. For instruction to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on forms, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention. Focus on form was proposed by Michael Long in 1988.

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

Merrill Swain is a Canadian applied linguist whose research has focused on second language acquisition (SLA). Some of her most notable contributions to SLA research include the Output Hypothesis and her research related to immersion education. Swain is a Professor Emerita at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. Swain is also known for her work with Michael Canale on communicative competence. Swain was the president of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 1998. She received her PhD in psychology at the University of California. Swain has co-supervised 64 PhD students.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to second-language acquisition:

GrapeSEED is a research-based oral language acquisition and critical listening program for teachers that allows students to obtain the English language naturally. This natural approach, developed by Stephen Krashen, a linguist and researcher in the fields of second-language acquisition and bilingual education, and Tracy D. Terrell, an education theorist, is intended to give language learners the ability to "communicate with native speakers of the target language" by having students, who are taught in a classroom setting, first comprehend the language, and then "Speech production emerges as the acquisition process progresses."

James Marvin Brown was an American linguist who studied the evolution of Thai and related languages, supervised the teaching of English and Thai at AUA Language Center, Bangkok, Thailand and developed the Automatic Language Growth approach to language teaching.

References

  1. ↑ Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 121.
  2. ↑ Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 121.
  3. ↑ Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 126.
  4. ↑ Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied linguistics, 6(2), 175.
  5. ↑ Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied linguistics, 6(2), 175.
  6. 1 2 Richards & Rodgers 2001, p. 178.
  7. 1 2 3 Ohmaye 1998, p. 15.
  8. ↑ Ri & Rodgers 2001, p. 178.
  9. ↑ Markee 1997, p. 26.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Markee 1997, pp. 25–26.
  11. 1 2 Richards & Rodgers 2001, p. 178–179.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Dhority 1991, p. 32.
  13. 1 2 Richards & Rodgers 2001, p. 184.
  14. 1 2 3 Terrell, cited in Dhority 1991 , p. 32
  15. ↑ Hall 2011, p. 13.
  16. ↑ Dhority 1991, pp. 33–37.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dhority 1991, p. 33.
  18. 1 2 Richards & Rodgers 2001, p. 187.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.