Communicative Language Teaching
Content
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
The origins of communicative language teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, situational language teaching represented the major British approach to the teaching English as a second language. In situational language teaching, language was taught by practicing the basic structures in meaningful situation based activities. But just as the linguistic theory underlying audiolingualism was rejected in the US in the mid-1960s. Communicative language teaching (CLT) is promoted in teacher education programmes around the world, although the appropriateness of this methodology in contexts outside the Englishspeaking West has been questioned, often from a theoretical perspective. In fact, very little empirical research has been conducted into the practical knowledge of CLT of non-native speaker teachers of English, and there is a lack of such research investigating growth longitudinally in this area. Using observations, interviews, and reflective writing, this study charts the practical knowledge growth in CLT of a lower secondary teacher in the Middle East while she was studying part-time on an in-service BA (TESOL) programme run by the University of Leeds in conjunction with the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. Qualitative data suggests that the teacher’s practical knowledge of CLT developed considerably during the course. Further research into the influence of teacher education programmes in TESOL on practical knowledge is called for. Finnochiaro and Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive features of audio lingual method and the communicative approach, according to the interpretation: Audio-lingual 1. attends to structure and form more than meaning. 2. demands memorization of structure-based dialogs. 3. language items are not necessarily contextualized. 4. language learning is learning structures, sounds, or words. 5. mastery, or “over-learning” is sought. 6. drilling is a central technique. 7. native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought. 8. grammatical explanation is avoided. 9. communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills and exercises. 10. the use of the student’s native language is forbidden. 11. translation is forbidden in early levels. 12. reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered. 13. the target linguistic system will be learned through the overt teaching of the patterns of the system. 14. linguistic competence is the desired goal.
15. varieties of the language are recognized but not emphasized. 16. the sequence of units is determined solely by principles of linguistic complexity. Communicative Language Teaching 1. meaning is paramount. 2. dialog if used, center around communicative function and are not normally memorized. 3. contextualization is a basic premise. 4. language learning is learning to communicative. 5. effective communication is sought. 6. drilling may occur, but peripherally. 7. comprehensible pronunciation is sought. 8. any device which help the learner is accepted – varying according to their age, interest, etc. 9. attempts to communicative may be encouraged from the very beginning. 10. judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. 11. translation may be used where student need or benefit from it. 12. reading and writing can be start from the first day, if desired. 13. the target linguistic system will be learned best through the process of struggling to communicate. 14. communicative competence is the desired goal. 15. linguistic variation is a central concept in material and methodology. 16. sequencing is determined by any consideration of content, function, or meaning which maintains interest. The communicative approach in language teaching start from a theory of language as communication. The goal of language teaching is to the develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “communicative competence”. Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a communicative view of language and Chomksky’s theoryof competence. CLT was introduced in the first module of an in-service BA (TESOL) Programme created by the University of Leeds for the local Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. Diploma-holding teachers of English on the three-year course studied intensively during summer and winter terms, and then attended day release throughout the rest of the year, when they had an opportunity to put ideas picked up on the course into practice, as they were teaching on the other days. Once a semester, they were observed in their schools by a
regional tutor, who used feedback sessions to help them relate theory to practice. This teaching practice was not assessed. According to Richards and Rixon (2002, p. 5), who evaluated the project, the curriculum of the degree represented “a state-of-the-art coverage of the field of TESOL.” The first methodology module, TEYL, introduced CLT, the importance of context and meaning in language learning (Donaldson, 1978), and the characteristics of children as learners (Halliwell, 1992). The practical assignment through which the module was assessed involved designing a communicative activity and trying it out in the classroom, before evaluating it. This led into a second methodology module, when Cameron’s (2001) communicative task (including preparation, core and follow-up elements) was introduced. Ideally, the “core” communicative activity of an oral task would create a desire and purpose for communication, allow for a focus on meaning rather than form and for freedom in choice of language. Private, spontaneous speech would be encouraged through the inclusion of closed pairwork and groupwork. In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature about communicative dimension of language, little has been written about learning theory. More recent accounts of communicative language teaching, however have attempted to describe theories of language learning process that are compatible with the communicative approach.
TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method built around the coordination; it attempts to teach language through physical (motor) activity. TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language. The secret is a unique "conversation" between the parent and infant. For example, the first conversation is a parent saying, "Look at daddy. Look at daddy." The infant's face turns in the direction of the voice and daddy exclaims, "She's looking at me! She's looking at me!" Dr. Asher calls this "a language-body conversation" because the parent speaks and the infant answers with a physical response such as looking, smiling, laughing, turning, walking, reaching, grasping, holding, sitting, running, and so forth.
Notice that these "conversations" continue for many many months before the child utters anything more intelligible than "mommy" or "daddy." Although the infant is not yet speaking, the child is imprinting a linguistic map of how the language works. Silently, the child is internalizing the patterns and sounds of the target language. When the child has decoded enough of the target language, speaking appears spontaneously. The infant's speech will not be perfect, but gradually, the child's utterances will approximate more and more that of a native speaker. Children and adults experience the thrill of immediate understanding when you apply this powerful concept in your classroom. To discover how to do it step-by-step, take a look through our TPR catalog of Books, Games, Teacher Kits, Student Kits, and Video Demonstrations. Total physical response (TPR) is a method developed by Dr. James J. Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University, to aid learning second languages. The method relies on the assumption that when learning a second or additional language, language is internalized through a process of codebreaking similar to first language development and that the process allows for a long period of listening and developing comprehension prior to production. Students respond to commands that require physical movement. TPR is primarily intended for ESL/EAL teacher, although the method is used in teaching other languages as well. The method became popular in the 1970's and attracted the attention or allegiance of some teachers, but it has not received generalized support from mainstream educators. According to Asher, TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language. It looks to the way that children learn their native language. Communication between parents and their children combines both verbal and physical aspects. The child responds physically to the speech of their parent. The responses of the child are in turn positively reinforced by the speech of the parent. For many months the child absorbs the language without being able to speak. It is during this period that the internalization and codebreaking occurs. After this stage the child is able to reproduce the language spontaneously. With TPR the language teacher tries to mimic this process in class.
The method also promises double efficiency in terms of rate of learning, according to several studies in the literature and referenced in the above book. In the classroom the teacher and students take on roles similar to that of the parent and child respectively. Students must respond physically to the words of the teacher. The activity may be a simple game such as Simon Says or may involve more complex grammar and more detailed scenarios. TPR can be used to practice and teach various things. It is well suited to teaching classroom language and other vocabulary connected with actions. It can be used to teach imperatives and various tenses and aspects. It is also useful for story-telling. Because of its participatory approach, TPR may also be a useful alternative teaching strategy for students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, who typically experience difficulty learning foreign languages with traditional classroom instruction. According to its proponents, it has a number of advantages: Students will enjoy getting up out of their chairs and moving around. Simple TPR activities do not require a great deal of preparation on the part of the teacher. TPR is aptitude-free, working well with a mixed ability class, and with students having various disabilities. It is good for kinæsthetic learners who need to be active in the class. Class size need not be a problem, and it works effectively for children and adults. However, it is recognized that TPR is most useful for beginners, though it can be used at higher levels where preparation becomes an issue for the teacher. It does not give students the opportunity to express their own thoughts in a creative way. Further, it is easy to overuse TPR-- "Any novelty, if carried on too long, will trigger adaptation. It can be a challenge for shy students. Additionally, the nature of TPR places an unnaturally heavy emphasis on the use of the imperative mood, that is to say commands such as "sit down" and "stand up". These features are of limited utility to the learner, and can lead to a learner appearing rude when attempting to use his new language. Of course, as a TPR class progresses, group activities and descriptions can be used which continue the basic concepts of TPR into full communication situations.
THE NATURAL APPROACH
The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen, starting in 1977. It came to have a wide influence in language teaching in the United States and around the world. The syllabus for the Natural Approach is a communicative syllabus. The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998). Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself. He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized. However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech. Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart. Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple
linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful. Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs: by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1. In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction. Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis. One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34). He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language. However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence. This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammartranslation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.” Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition. This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”. Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.” He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and selfimage, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary. He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.
The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom. This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses. The Natural Approach is based on the following tenets:
•
•
•
• •
Language acquisition (an unconscious process developed through using language meaningfully) is different from language learning (consciously learning or discovering rules about a language) and language acquisition is the only way competence in a second language occurs. (The acquisition/learning hypothesis) Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or editor that checks or repairs the output of what has been acquired. (The monitor hypothesis) Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order and it does little good to try to learn them in another order.(The natural order hypothesis). People acquire language best from messages that are just slightly beyond their current competence. (The input hypothesis) The learner's emotional state can act as a filter that impedes or blocks input necessary to acquisition. (The affective filter hypothesis)
Here are some of the objectives of the Natural Approach
•
it is designed to help beginner become intermediates
•
It is designed to depend on learner needs
Types of learning techniques and activities
• • •
Comprehensible input is presented in the target language, using technqiues such as TPR, mime and gesture. Group techniques are similar to Communicative Language Teaching. Learners start to talk when they are ready.
Krashen’s conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: “It is possible that ‘no pain, no gain’ does not apply to language acquisition” (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to “comprehensible input” we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an “easy way” philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
The origins of communicative language teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, situational language teaching represented the major British approach to the teaching English as a second language. In situational language teaching, language was taught by practicing the basic structures in meaningful situation based activities. But just as the linguistic theory underlying audiolingualism was rejected in the US in the mid-1960s. Communicative language teaching (CLT) is promoted in teacher education programmes around the world, although the appropriateness of this methodology in contexts outside the Englishspeaking West has been questioned, often from a theoretical perspective. In fact, very little empirical research has been conducted into the practical knowledge of CLT of non-native speaker teachers of English, and there is a lack of such research investigating growth longitudinally in this area. Using observations, interviews, and reflective writing, this study charts the practical knowledge growth in CLT of a lower secondary teacher in the Middle East while she was studying part-time on an in-service BA (TESOL) programme run by the University of Leeds in conjunction with the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. Qualitative data suggests that the teacher’s practical knowledge of CLT developed considerably during the course. Further research into the influence of teacher education programmes in TESOL on practical knowledge is called for. Finnochiaro and Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive features of audio lingual method and the communicative approach, according to the interpretation: Audio-lingual 1. attends to structure and form more than meaning. 2. demands memorization of structure-based dialogs. 3. language items are not necessarily contextualized. 4. language learning is learning structures, sounds, or words. 5. mastery, or “over-learning” is sought. 6. drilling is a central technique. 7. native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought. 8. grammatical explanation is avoided. 9. communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills and exercises. 10. the use of the student’s native language is forbidden. 11. translation is forbidden in early levels. 12. reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered. 13. the target linguistic system will be learned through the overt teaching of the patterns of the system. 14. linguistic competence is the desired goal.
15. varieties of the language are recognized but not emphasized. 16. the sequence of units is determined solely by principles of linguistic complexity. Communicative Language Teaching 1. meaning is paramount. 2. dialog if used, center around communicative function and are not normally memorized. 3. contextualization is a basic premise. 4. language learning is learning to communicative. 5. effective communication is sought. 6. drilling may occur, but peripherally. 7. comprehensible pronunciation is sought. 8. any device which help the learner is accepted – varying according to their age, interest, etc. 9. attempts to communicative may be encouraged from the very beginning. 10. judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. 11. translation may be used where student need or benefit from it. 12. reading and writing can be start from the first day, if desired. 13. the target linguistic system will be learned best through the process of struggling to communicate. 14. communicative competence is the desired goal. 15. linguistic variation is a central concept in material and methodology. 16. sequencing is determined by any consideration of content, function, or meaning which maintains interest. The communicative approach in language teaching start from a theory of language as communication. The goal of language teaching is to the develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “communicative competence”. Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a communicative view of language and Chomksky’s theoryof competence. CLT was introduced in the first module of an in-service BA (TESOL) Programme created by the University of Leeds for the local Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman. Diploma-holding teachers of English on the three-year course studied intensively during summer and winter terms, and then attended day release throughout the rest of the year, when they had an opportunity to put ideas picked up on the course into practice, as they were teaching on the other days. Once a semester, they were observed in their schools by a
regional tutor, who used feedback sessions to help them relate theory to practice. This teaching practice was not assessed. According to Richards and Rixon (2002, p. 5), who evaluated the project, the curriculum of the degree represented “a state-of-the-art coverage of the field of TESOL.” The first methodology module, TEYL, introduced CLT, the importance of context and meaning in language learning (Donaldson, 1978), and the characteristics of children as learners (Halliwell, 1992). The practical assignment through which the module was assessed involved designing a communicative activity and trying it out in the classroom, before evaluating it. This led into a second methodology module, when Cameron’s (2001) communicative task (including preparation, core and follow-up elements) was introduced. Ideally, the “core” communicative activity of an oral task would create a desire and purpose for communication, allow for a focus on meaning rather than form and for freedom in choice of language. Private, spontaneous speech would be encouraged through the inclusion of closed pairwork and groupwork. In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Language Teaching literature about communicative dimension of language, little has been written about learning theory. More recent accounts of communicative language teaching, however have attempted to describe theories of language learning process that are compatible with the communicative approach.
TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method built around the coordination; it attempts to teach language through physical (motor) activity. TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language. The secret is a unique "conversation" between the parent and infant. For example, the first conversation is a parent saying, "Look at daddy. Look at daddy." The infant's face turns in the direction of the voice and daddy exclaims, "She's looking at me! She's looking at me!" Dr. Asher calls this "a language-body conversation" because the parent speaks and the infant answers with a physical response such as looking, smiling, laughing, turning, walking, reaching, grasping, holding, sitting, running, and so forth.
Notice that these "conversations" continue for many many months before the child utters anything more intelligible than "mommy" or "daddy." Although the infant is not yet speaking, the child is imprinting a linguistic map of how the language works. Silently, the child is internalizing the patterns and sounds of the target language. When the child has decoded enough of the target language, speaking appears spontaneously. The infant's speech will not be perfect, but gradually, the child's utterances will approximate more and more that of a native speaker. Children and adults experience the thrill of immediate understanding when you apply this powerful concept in your classroom. To discover how to do it step-by-step, take a look through our TPR catalog of Books, Games, Teacher Kits, Student Kits, and Video Demonstrations. Total physical response (TPR) is a method developed by Dr. James J. Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University, to aid learning second languages. The method relies on the assumption that when learning a second or additional language, language is internalized through a process of codebreaking similar to first language development and that the process allows for a long period of listening and developing comprehension prior to production. Students respond to commands that require physical movement. TPR is primarily intended for ESL/EAL teacher, although the method is used in teaching other languages as well. The method became popular in the 1970's and attracted the attention or allegiance of some teachers, but it has not received generalized support from mainstream educators. According to Asher, TPR is based on the premise that the human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign language of the deaf. The process is visible when we observe how infants internalize their first language. It looks to the way that children learn their native language. Communication between parents and their children combines both verbal and physical aspects. The child responds physically to the speech of their parent. The responses of the child are in turn positively reinforced by the speech of the parent. For many months the child absorbs the language without being able to speak. It is during this period that the internalization and codebreaking occurs. After this stage the child is able to reproduce the language spontaneously. With TPR the language teacher tries to mimic this process in class.
The method also promises double efficiency in terms of rate of learning, according to several studies in the literature and referenced in the above book. In the classroom the teacher and students take on roles similar to that of the parent and child respectively. Students must respond physically to the words of the teacher. The activity may be a simple game such as Simon Says or may involve more complex grammar and more detailed scenarios. TPR can be used to practice and teach various things. It is well suited to teaching classroom language and other vocabulary connected with actions. It can be used to teach imperatives and various tenses and aspects. It is also useful for story-telling. Because of its participatory approach, TPR may also be a useful alternative teaching strategy for students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, who typically experience difficulty learning foreign languages with traditional classroom instruction. According to its proponents, it has a number of advantages: Students will enjoy getting up out of their chairs and moving around. Simple TPR activities do not require a great deal of preparation on the part of the teacher. TPR is aptitude-free, working well with a mixed ability class, and with students having various disabilities. It is good for kinæsthetic learners who need to be active in the class. Class size need not be a problem, and it works effectively for children and adults. However, it is recognized that TPR is most useful for beginners, though it can be used at higher levels where preparation becomes an issue for the teacher. It does not give students the opportunity to express their own thoughts in a creative way. Further, it is easy to overuse TPR-- "Any novelty, if carried on too long, will trigger adaptation. It can be a challenge for shy students. Additionally, the nature of TPR places an unnaturally heavy emphasis on the use of the imperative mood, that is to say commands such as "sit down" and "stand up". These features are of limited utility to the learner, and can lead to a learner appearing rude when attempting to use his new language. Of course, as a TPR class progresses, group activities and descriptions can be used which continue the basic concepts of TPR into full communication situations.
THE NATURAL APPROACH
The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen, starting in 1977. It came to have a wide influence in language teaching in the United States and around the world. The syllabus for the Natural Approach is a communicative syllabus. The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998). Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself. He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized. However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech. Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart. Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple
linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful. Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs: by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1. In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction. Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis. One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34). He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language. However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence. This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammartranslation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.” Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition. This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”. Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.” He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and selfimage, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary. He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.
The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom. This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses. The Natural Approach is based on the following tenets:
•
•
•
• •
Language acquisition (an unconscious process developed through using language meaningfully) is different from language learning (consciously learning or discovering rules about a language) and language acquisition is the only way competence in a second language occurs. (The acquisition/learning hypothesis) Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or editor that checks or repairs the output of what has been acquired. (The monitor hypothesis) Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order and it does little good to try to learn them in another order.(The natural order hypothesis). People acquire language best from messages that are just slightly beyond their current competence. (The input hypothesis) The learner's emotional state can act as a filter that impedes or blocks input necessary to acquisition. (The affective filter hypothesis)
Here are some of the objectives of the Natural Approach
•
it is designed to help beginner become intermediates
•
It is designed to depend on learner needs
Types of learning techniques and activities
• • •
Comprehensible input is presented in the target language, using technqiues such as TPR, mime and gesture. Group techniques are similar to Communicative Language Teaching. Learners start to talk when they are ready.
Krashen’s conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: “It is possible that ‘no pain, no gain’ does not apply to language acquisition” (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to “comprehensible input” we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an “easy way” philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
