Contact Us

© Natural Approach Web Site

A r t i c l e s                         

Table of Contents :: Back to List of Articles

How to Apply the Approach

A Curious Analogy, The Learning Theory Behind NA, Learning, Acquisition, Pienemann and Ellis, Krashen's NON-IP, A Common Misconception, The Aim of Teaching Grammar, Implications of Acquisition-Learning Distinction, Weight of Production-based Activities, Results, Bibliography

 

Search :: Top :: Close

How to Apply the Natural Approach

by Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu, 1997

In this paper, we will try to explain how the Natural Approach (NA) has been applied at the prep class of Kuleli Military High School. To our knowledge, Kuleli is the first school in Turkiye applying this rather unpopular method. Since the method is not commonly known and sometimes misinterpreted, a brief theoretical introduction would be beneficial. We'd like to start with a curious analogy between swimming and language acquisition: we as human beings are probably the only creatures who are capable of drowning (!) This is not necessarily because of our heavy flesh: even elephants which are heavier than man simply lay their bodies freely in water and almost never experience drowning. It seems as if the more we flutter, the deeper we sink. It is as if man's conscious swimming attempt deprives him off the natural swimming or floating capacity.

Interestingly, new born babies, who are free from fluttering in water, make the best use of their natural swimming ability and do better than their elders. Another domain where infants outsmart us is language acquisition. While babies pick up their mother tongue with ease, most adults can not learn a new language without much trouble. Even with their advanced cognitive capacity and problem solving skills they simply fall behind children's ultimate level of success. Again it seems as if adults' conscious learning attempts deprive them off the natural language acquisition capacity.

Is it not true that while teaching swimming, the first step is to make learners realize their natural ability to float on the surface of the water? Similarly in NA the aim is to make students rediscover their innate capacity to acquire a language. In fact NA is not the only method which tries to tap this natural capacity. What makes NA different from others, however, is its theory of second language acquisition.

The learning theory underlying NA is called the Monitor Model. It was put forward by an American applied linguist at the University of Southern California. There are five basic hypotheses in the Monitor Model. The first and probably the most important one is the "acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis according to which L2 learners have two distinct ways to develop competence in a second language: learning and acquisition.

Learning is the process of dealing with grammar in conscious way. It is the common practise experienced in most foreign language classrooms even today. Students consciously examine the grammar structures and try to internalize them through extensive practice. In this
sense learning a language is similar to any other kind of subject matter or skill learning like learning math, learning how to type or drive. In all these, you first learn the rules consciously and try to make them automatic through extensive practice. The product of learning process is also a kind of conscious knowledge which Krashen calls learned competence (LC).

Acquisition, on the other hand, is a subconscious process. It is similar, if not identical, to the way we pick up our mother tongue. Unlike a learner, an acquirer cannot feel the processes, the changes happening in his brind (brain and/or mind). When he acquires a new rule, he does not know what has happened because acquisition takes place below his level of awareness. The product of acquisition, AC, is also subconscious. That is why native speakers of a language do not know that they use their L1 grammar knowledge while speaking. In fact, without grammar communication would be greatly damaged. The same is true for second language speakers. While speaking fluently in another language, we have to use our subconsciously provided knowledge.

The existence of conscious and subconscious knowledge in the minds of second language learners is accepted by almost everyone. What is controversial, however, is the claim that consciously learned rules cannot become subconsciously acquired through practice. This view belongs to Krashen and reflected in his oft-criticised claim that "learning does not become acquisition". According to Krashen, LC and AC represent two separate knowledge systems between which there is no seepage, no passage, no interface. This view is known as NON-INTERFACE (NIP) position.

The majority of teachers and methodologists on the other hand, believe that we first learn a grammar rule and through practice it becomes automatic thus subconsciously acquired. This second view, known as INTERFACE (IP)position, appeals to our intuitions whereas NIP is quite counter-intuitive.

In scientific philosophizing intuitions are of undeniable importance but as long as they are not contrary to research findings. And it is at his point that IP and empiric data are in conflict. Research has been telling us, at least for the last two decades, that the development of AC and LC are rather independent. It has been repeatedly found that second language "acquirers" pick up the grammar rules of their target language in an unchangeable natural order even when the teaching/learning order in class is different. (Bailey, et al., 1974; Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fabris, 1978; Christison, 1979) The natural order that researchers have found does not necessarily match our teaching order. Third person singular "s", for example, is an item that we teach at the very beginning of our teaching program but our students seem to resist using this simple rule. In grammar exams where they can use their LC there is no major problem but while speaking fluently they simply ignore it as if they did not know the rule.

This apparent gap between what students consciously know and what they can use during fluent speech has led many researchers to investigate whether the natural order of acquisition can be altered or, in other words, whether they can interfere the process of acquisition. In two separate experiments carried out in 1989, Pienemann and Ellis examined the acquisition three of German grammar rules in a classroom setting. They presented these rules in a reversed natural order. That is, if A is the first rule of German acquisition then they presented it last and emphasized it the least: similarly they taught the last acquired C rule the first and emphasized it the most. At the end of the teaching period they analyzed their students' free conversation and found that again the students follow the natural order, just like naturalistic acquirers.

A comparison of this sequence with that reported for naturalistic learners of German revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to rules in the instruction differed from the naturalistic order... The results of this study support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition ... follow similar routes. (Ellis, 1989, p.305) formal learners develop their language stepwise despite the scheduling of the teaching [and], more importantly, in the same order as has been found for natural acquisition. (Pienemann, 1989, pp. 71-72).

These and many other similar research results confirm Krashen's NON-IP. If learning became acquisition then it would be possible to change the natural order. Since conscious learning and practice cannot change the order of acquisition, Krashen asserts that acquisition and learning are two distinct processes and that learning does not become acquisition. If we cannot acquire through learning then how does acquisition take place? Krashen's input hypothesis gives the answer. According to this hypothesis, we acquire any human language in an "amazingly simple way": by understanding messages. Not through grammar practice nor through speaking and writing practice but by way of getting comprehensible input.

A cornerstone of Krashen's theory is that human beings are equipped with a language-specific acquisition device (LAD), which is triggered by comprehensible input. When we understand a message, LAD automatically operates and picks up the new grammar in that input subconsciously. That is, while we are focusing consciously on the meaning of a message, a subconscious mechanism, LAD, focuses on the form or the grammar of the same message.

Provided that a message is understood, LAD can acquire the new grammar items in it in accordance with the natural order. How does this gradual, piecemeal acquisition take place then?. Let's suppose that a learner-acquirer is at the level of "X" in terms of his current competence in his second language. In order for him to move from x to x+1, that is, the next stage along the natural order, he is to get a message that includes those structures representing x+1 . One cannot acquire an x+2 rule unless he is at the level x+1 even when the message is understood. Technically speaking, one who is at the level of x is not psycholinguistically ready to acquire x+2 structures. That is why, understanding sentences with 3rd person singular "s" does not result in the acquisition of that specific rule.

A common misconception among foreign language teachers is that when students are not told the grammar rules directly, that is, when we make them discover the rules on their own in an inductive way, they will be able to acquire them. However, research has shown us that a structure cannot be acquired either through deduction or induction if the learner is not psycholinguistically ready, namely, if he is not at the relevant stage at the natural order. Both deduction and induction are types of learning, not of acquisition. Both require a conscious focus on grammar whereas acquisition necessitates a focus on meaning.

But isn't there any good of teaching grammar? If you ask this question to Krashen, he would probably say "little, if any". For him the only function of learned competence is to make corrections while speaking or writing. Krashen might be justified in his underestimation of grammar since his ideal NA teacher is that of a highly proficient (preferably native) one providing an input-rich environment for the students. But in a scarcity-of-input EFL environment, where neither the teacher nor the environment can provide sufficient amount of authentic input, grammar plays a far more important role. Alongside its correction role in production, LC helps you understand better. With the help of some conscious grammar knowledge, you can decode those texts that are not decodable only with AC. Especially in reading, the amount of books that you can process is doubled or trippled with the aid of some conscious grammar knowledge. The more you read, the faster you acquire. So grammar helps acquisition by bettering comprehension and by increasing the number of input avenues.

The aim of teaching grammar, however, is not to convert LC into AC but to enable the students to understand better and to get more input. Learning still does not become acquisition but it aids acquisition by easing the way for better comprehension.

The acceptance of the claim that learning does not become acquisition requires a tolerance for grammar mistakes. That is, an NA teacher must be patient when his students make very simple mistakes like the omission of third person singular "s". But if a teacher does not correct grammar mistake, won't it be hard to eradicate them later on? In other words "How is the problem of fossilization handled in NA?" Krashen would probably answer this question by saying that error correction does not necessarily lead to the correction of errors. Error correction might be a temporary solution. A long-term cure for fossilization is to provide comprehensible input. Provided that the students get ample amount of messages, grammar mistakes will be eradicated gradually.

The only type of mistake that needs to be corrected in NA is the one which hinders communication, the one which causes a meaning problem. That is, if the grammar mistake is so awful that the message is not understood then the teacher might ask the student to clarify his message or to restate his sentence.

Correcting form-based grammar mistakes is not only useless but also harmful. Especially at the beginning level, student production is full of mistakes. Dealing only with meaning errors is enough intervention. If a teacher corrects both meaning and form errors then students will feel offended and hesitate to speak in class. As a result, the classroom atmosphere will get tense.

The affective filter hypothesis in Krashen's SLA theory predicts that in such a negative atmosphere, acquisition process is greatly hampered. According to the theory, this filter gets strengthened when a learner has high anxiety, low motivation and low self-esteem. Incoming input cannot trigger LAD if the filter is strong. In short a teacher who is correcting form-based mistakes is not only wasting his time and effort but also doing disservice to his students.

So far we have roughly covered the theoretical basis of NA. Now I would like to explain how we have applied these principles at the prep class of Kuleli Military High School.

The most important implication of acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis is that form-focused and meaning-based activities should be separated. Therefore, we divided our English program into two unequal parts: input and grammar hours. 75 % of the program is formed by input hours and grammar is handled only in the remaining 25 %. A similar division was made in the test system. 80 % of a common test includes meaning based questions whereas grammar questions formed 20 %. Such a parallelism between what is done in class and what is tested in exams is necessary to avoid negative backwash. That is, if common tests were heavily grammar-oriented, then students would not pay enough attention to meaning-based activities in class.

What kinds of meaning based activities are there in input hours? The majority of input hours is filled with listening activities. Why listening? Because while listening students get input. Why not reading? Because reading can be done outside with ease but not listening. You can make thirty or so students listen to the same tape in class but outside the class you need thirty or so tapes to attain the same efficiency.

Therefore listening activities form the core of the whole English program throughout the year.

Reading, on the other hand, is done extensively outside the class. How about intensive reading? The reason why we prefer extensive reading is the ample amount of input you can get in this way. For instance suppose that intensive reading of a one-page difficult text takes an hour whereas you can read ten pages of simplified text within the same amount of time. One page on the one hand, ten pages on the other. From a cost-efficiency point of view, therefore, intensive reading is held at a minimum in class. Instead students are encouraged to read simplified novels and the number of books read by each student is over 60 (in March). This amounts to more than 3000 pages of written input.

Aren't the students assigned any grammar outside the class? Yes, but not extensively. Grammar plays a minor role outside the class as it does inside. How is the grammar taught in class? Through deduction or even through grammar translation. Why are such old-fashioned techniques used? Because deduction is easier and faster than induction and it is no less effective (especially for adults). Some methodologists suggest that inductively discovered rules are retained better, but one should not forget that it takes quite a long time. What is more, there is no guarantee that the inductively learned rules become acquired as has been emphasized before. Both induction and deduction are instances of learning not of acquisition. If neither of them result in acquisition, then why should we spend so much time with indirect teaching of grammar? In our application, therefore we preferred direct, deductive teaching of grammar basically because it is the shortest way of teaching grammar allowing us to give more time to acquisition activities.

What is the relative weight of production-based activities as compared to comprehension-oriented ones? Aren't speaking and writing as important as listening and reading? Sure, they are. In fact one of the most important aims in NA is to develop students' communicative skills.

But the way to develop them is different from other communicative methods. The NA theory suggests that dwelling on receptive skills positively affects the productive ones as well. Therefore in NA speaking and writing activities occupy a small portion of class time.

Students are believed to develop all of the four skills provided that they are exposed to ample amount of input.

During the first semester, students are not forced to speak or write. This practice is in line with the concept of "Silent Period" mentioned in Krashen's theory. During this silent period students are not passive but actively processing the input and developing their acquired competence. Forcing students to produce before they have enough subconscious grammar knowledge (AC), enhances students' anxiety. Especially in Communicative Approach, the students are required to speak from the very beginning. In NA, however, this is avoided in order not to strengthen the affective filter. If the filter is strong, LAD cannot be triggered. Therefore the only thing that NA students have to do (especially during the first semester) is to display their comprehension one way or another. To achieve this, they can use single or double-word answers, non-verbal means, body language, or even mother tongue.

Answering T/F or wh-questions, drawing charts while listening are other means of displaying comprehension. If students spend most of their class-time by just listening, doesn't it mean that NA teachers are doing the speaking all the time? Isn't this too much burden on the shoulders of our teachers? In Krashenian NA, yes! Krashen's NA teachers has to speak a lot because he is a native (or at least native-like) speaker and he is the main source of input in class. But in our EFL setting, teachers are non- ative . Let alone the non-natives, it is even hard for the native teachers to be the only source of input in class. The solution that we have found to this problem is to use authentic listening texts in the form of audio or video cassettes from the ELT market in addition to the audio and video cassettes of our old coursebook.

If the main source of input is authentic material then what is the role of teacher? The basic duty of our teachers is to check students' comprehension? This is far easier than being the main source of input or being a communicative teacher.

Interestingly, however, this easy method of language teaching is not necessarily less effective than others. One can even suggest that it is one of the most effective methods. To test the efficacy of our application in Kuleli we gave a standard test (KET) comprising listening, reading, writing components plus a separate grammar test (in March). We also gave the same tests to the students in another military high school using the same textbook but with a grammar-oriented method. The test results indicated that Kuleli students are 25 % better off in reading, 40 % in listening. Their better performance might be considered as a natural, expected outcome of the heavy emphasis on receptive skills.

What is more interesting, however, are the writing and grammar results. Kuleli students performed 18 % better in grammar and 30 % in writing though these two language areas have not been emphasized in our program. Even if there were no differences in success between Kuleli and other school students, NA would be successful due to their superiority in overall-proficiency. In short, research results have confirmed the hypothesis that getting great quantities of input develops not only the receptive skills but also the productive ones plus grammar.

NA, in its somewhat modified version, seems to be an appropriate method applicable in an EFL setting like Turkiye. It is a reality that the number of native or true- bilingual teachers is low in our country. But even under such restricted conditions, the application of NA at Kuleli prep has shown that students attain high levels of proficiency when exposed to ample amount of input. To sum up, NA seems to be a method of fostering both productive and receptive skills plus grammar by just relying on input, a method of killing many birds with one stone.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christison, M. (1979). Natural sequencing in adult second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 13:122-127

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24:37-53

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11:305-328

Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B. and Holmes, Janet (Eds.). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. London: Penguin Books 1972. 269-291.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

Larsen - Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is Language Teachable? Applied Linguistics. 10: 52-79.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the mind creates language. NY: William Morrow and company, inc.

Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A description and analysis. London: Cambridge Teaching Library.

Strozer, J. (1994). Language Acquisition After Puberty. USA: Georgetown University Press.

Swan, M. (1985) A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach In Rossner, R. and Bolitho, R. (Eds.) Currents of Change in English Language Teaching. OUP 1990 73-89.
 

6 Print This Article

TOP

Contact us at natural.approach@yahoo.com or send a message to us now.