Natural Approach

Kia ora koutou,

The direct approach discussed last week leads on to the Natural Approach which was developed by Stephen Krashen and others in the 1970s. The nature of the approach was still communicative, ie the learning was based on the premise that language is the communication of messages which can be understood, but includes some underlying hypotheses about language learning derived from more recent thinking.

The first of these hypotheses is that language acquisition is different from the learning of language. Krashen holds that the acquisition of language is unconscious and is developed through using language meaningfully. This is believed to be the only way to gain competence in a language. (The Acquisition hypothesis) This concept follows work by Stephen Pinker, and also Noam Chomsky who have made a case for language being genetically programmed in humans.

The deliberate learning of language is what Krashen refers to as the monitor, which is seen as the way in which language is checked or fixed. We can see this in operation when we realise that what we have just said could have been said better, usually too late but helping us to improve next time. (The Monitor hypothesis)

Language structures are believed to be acquired in a natural order and any efforts to change this order will be unsuccessful. (The Natural Order hypothesis) Best learning takes place when the language being heard or read is slightly harder than the learner’s present ability, sometimes expressed as Input plus 1. (The Input hypothesis)

The learner’s ability to learn is affected by their emotional situation. So too much pressure, social influences, overly formal learning environments etc make it more difficult to learn the language . (The Affective Filter hypothesis)

The concept of comprehensible input is critical to the approach, so learners are exposed to language which they can make meaning of with the help of teaching aids, pictures, body language etc. This is one of the many elements of the Natural Approach seen in our classrooms, especially those where the target language is used as the language of instruction.

Areas of debate include whether directing student’s learning can aid the acquisition of language, and whether or not the order of grammatical structures can be predicted and perhaps planned.

All in all the Natural Approach has had wide influence in NZ language learning with its emphasis on the importance of using the language for meaningful communication.

Noho ora mai ra,

Chris

The direct or natural method of language learning

Bonjour,

In the early 1900s the direct or natural method of language learning became of interest to second language teachers. It originated with the work of Berlitz and Sauzé who developed earlier theories that second languages were better learned in the same way as the first. The direct method sets out to replicate the way babies learn their first language. It was noted that babies did not rely on another language to acquire their first, they made direct connections between experiences and the language used to communicate those experiences…perception to communication. Within this method there is focus on pronunciation and oral usage rather than learning grammar rules, and immersion of the learner in the target language. It also discourages exposure to reading and writing.

However in classroom use the method differs from the normal process of learning one’s first language in that the content is structured into lessons, whereas a babies learning is focused on the experiences of the day which are much broader, richer, and far more random.

A great many aspects of this approach are seen in our daily school programmes.

Immersion education attempts to create language learning where the first language is not used, and learning of the target language is expected to occur in the same way as the student’s first language. The Ataarangi method eschews the use of English, writing and reading except for the recording of correct patterns.

The need for teaching oral skills is perhaps an area where we might usefully include some of the direct method thinking in our practice.

Au revoir,

Chris

The basics of bilingual education

Talofa lava.

By now I guess we will have quite a few parents who have joined the school community since this column began, so perhaps it is a good time to return to some of the basics of bilingual education. To enable us to better understand the issues faced in bilingual education it might be a good move to review the different models and approaches that have been developed over the years and the influence they have had.

Possibly one of the earliest approaches to language learning and teaching is the one known as the Grammar Translation approach. Wikipedia explains it as, “ …a foreign language teaching method derived from the classical (sometimes called traditional) method of teaching Greek and Latin. The method requires students to translate whole texts word for word and memorize numerous grammatical rules and exceptions as well as enormous vocabulary lists. The goal of this method is to be able to read and translate literary masterpieces and classics.”

Notable in this approach is that the teaching is all conducted in the learner’s first language. The programme depends on texts and the place of grammar in setting the rules by which sentences are put together. This results in student having to learn long lists of words, and grammar rules covering all possible situations. The content of the programme is structured in the syllabus by setting which grammatical structures are taught and ordering them from easy to difficult. Thus the language learned is not based on a need to communicate something. Communication in the target language is not a primary objective.

So we can see that this approach is not effective in producing native-like speakers of the language except perhaps in small numbers. It does not teach us to use language in real situations for real purposes. Additionally success depends on a high level of intellectual sophistication on the part of the learner.

However there is still a place for some elements of the approach particularly in developing metacognition, that is having the language and understanding of structure to be able to discuss what is going on by using words like noun, verb etc to talk about the target language. And there is always a place for learning lists of vocabulary items provided they are based on real situations and experiences.

I believe that one of the interesting effects of this approach has been the well embedded belief that grammar is the rule by which correct language is created. We hear this attitude expressed when someone says we need to know grammar to speak our language. It is often used as a way of establishing a sense of superiority in the critic who believes that their language is “correct.”

Grammar is more profitably seen as a set of descriptions of how a language is constructed, and this changes as the language evolves. Grammar in the first sense would demand that we say, “The man to whom the money was given.” Native speakers of English defy the “rule” nowadays by saying, “The man (who) the money was given to.” The person who says, “ to whom…” just sounds pompous. Whom is a word on the endangered list in English!

Ia manuia lou aso,

Chris