Approach, Design, and Technique Defined in Relation to Second Language Teaching Methodology Comparative Analysis of two Second Language Teaching Methods.
Approach, Design, and Technique Defined in Relation to Second Language Teaching Methodology
Comparative Analysis of two Second Language Teaching Methods
by
Lee Douglas Blois
M.A. Applied Linguistics (Candidate)
University of Southern Queensland
June, 2003
In analyzing second language teaching methodology, there are three important underlying interrelated terms that must be considered: approach, design, and technique. Long & Richards (1987, p.146) mention in their article on the subject that Anthony (1963) originally made the distinction and clarified language-teaching methodology into these three central terms. Long & Richards (1987, p.146) also point out that Anthony's (1963) distinction has been since tailored and therefore methodology is generally referred to by speaking of approach, design, and procedure. These three terms will be defined and then used to describe and critically analyze two popular second language-teaching methods: The Natural Approach and Community Language Learning.
* Approach:
A SLT method's 'approach' in language teaching is based both on theory of language and theory of language learning. Teachers of second languages all naturally or academically attain or accept some theory of how learners learn language and how language is constructed in terms of the various components that comprise it (affixes, words, conjuncts, verbs, sentences, etc, etc.). A method's 'approach' is therefore the basis on what the teacher believes are the means by which learners acquire language and, subsequently, how they go about teaching the L2 in the classroom via their chosen materials and teaching techniques.
In further discussing approach and theory of language, it will be helpful to mention three prominent theories relating to second language teaching methodology which have bearing on approach, design, and procedure: the structural view, the functional view, and the interactional view. In a more concerted sense with respect to design, for example, these theories will have varying effects on the roles of the teachers and students within the classroom.
The structural view sees language as 'a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning'. (Long & Richards, 1987, p.147). Teachers employing this theory in their teaching method, for example, will likely focus their syllabus design and choice of materials on the structural elements of language such as grammar and its functions.
The functional view sees language as 'a vehicle for the expression of meaning.' (Long & Richards, 1987, p.147). Teachers employing this view in their teaching method will likely focus their syllabus design and choice of materials less on language form and more on performing language actions from a semantic, rather than grammatical, point of view.
The interactional view 'sees language as a vehicle for the realization of interpersonal relations and for the performance of social transactions between individuals.' (Long & Richards, 1987, p.147). Teachers employing this view in their teaching method, for example, may focus their syllabus design and choice of materials less on grammatical structure or functionality and more on the discovery of language content through interpersonal communication. (Some examples of common approaches had been provided in Appendix A)
* Design:
'Design' concerns the instructional materials and the corresponding activities teachers utilize in the classroom. In designing a curriculum or syllabus for SL courses, there are two factors that teachers consider: 'what to talk about (subject matter) and how to talk about it (linguistic matter)' (Long & Richards, 1987: p.148).
According to Long & Richards (1987: p.148), there are four conditions in terms of design: The content of instruction (i.e. syllabus), learner roles in the system, teacher roles in the system, and instructional material types and functions. Richards & Rodgers (1986) further add to these considerations: (These conditions will be discussed and used later to analyze the two methods in question).
'Design is the level of method analysis in which we consider: (a) the objectives; (b) the syllabus; (c) learning tasks and teaching activities (d) learner roles; (e) teacher roles; and (f) the role of instructional materials. (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.24)
* Technique/Procedure:
Procedure 'comprises the classroom practices which are consequences of particular approaches and designs.' (Long, M. & Richards, J., 1987, p. 146). In other words, the technical or procedural constituent (how the teacher goes about teaching) in SLT methodology is directly related and affected by a method's approach and course design. Depending on how the teacher views SLA and, for example, what materials he or she chooses for course work, a SL teacher's classroom procedures will vary considerably. Other factors such as class length, environment, or class size will have relevance on the techniques or procedures used by teachers as well.
A teacher employing the Grammar Translation Approach, for example, may design his or her curriculum around slightly difficult texts and little else. The teacher's techniques may therefore include presenting the language content in the form of unrelated sentences that the students would then translate into the L1. The teacher's instruction of the grammatical points would most likely be in the L1 and other language variables, such as listening comprehension or pronunciation, would have little importance in the drills conducted in class.
Grammar instruction provides the rules for putting words together; instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words. Reading of difficult texts is begun early in the course of study. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue, and vice versa. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation. (Mora, J.K., 1999)
Contrarily, those employing the Direct Approach would most likely use no L1 in the classroom and would not include the translation of grammar. The teaching procedure for classroom exercises and drills would most likely be the elicitation of a story or dialogue from the student through student directed questions followed by a series of teacher questions (for example yes/no, 'or', or '5W' questions) to be answered in the L2 by the students. Teachers may reverse this role and consequently have the students ask the questions to each other or to the teacher. Grammar is therefore not presented textually and is taught inductively through the controlled use of the L2 based on target language or topics contained within the classroom materials.
The mother tongue is NEVER, NEVER used. There is no translation. The preferred type of exercise is a series of questions in the target language based on the dialogue or an anecdotal narrative. Questions are answered in the target language. Grammar is taught inductively--rules are generalized from the practice and experience with the target language. (Mora, J.K., 1999)
With these definitions and examples in mind, we can now utilize them in describing and analyzing two prominent methods of second language teaching: The Natural Approach and Community Language Learning (CLL).
METHOD DESCRIPTION AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS - #1:
THE NATURAL APPROACH
'The Natural Approach' (Terrell, 1977; 1982) is the term coined for the approach proposed by Tracy Terrell (1977) based on his methodological deductions in teaching Spanish to second language learners in California. In order to situate a theoretical foundation for his proposed approach to second language teaching, Terrell collaborated with Stephen Krashen, 'an applied linguist at the University of California' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 178), whose naturalistic theories on second language acquisition ('Language Acquisition Theory': Krashen, 1981; 1982) have had significant influence on applied linguistics in recent years.
Terrell and Krashen's basis for their collaborated 'Natural Approach' ('the NA) (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) shares common convention with the 'Natural Method' (Saveur, L. 1826-1907) and the 'Direct Method'. However, as the foundations of these methods are commonly based on the natural components of first language acquisition, the basis of the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) stems from Krashen & Terrell's naturalistic views on second language acquisition.
'In the Natural Approach there is emphasis on exposure, or input, rather than practice; optimizing emotional preparedness for learning; a prolonged period of attention to what the language learners hear before they try to produce language; and a willingness to use written and other materials as a source of comprehensible input.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.178)
* Approach:
Theory of Language: Terrell and Krashen's basis for their theory of language and subsequent approach to language teaching lie in their view that language is a functional tool for communication and conveying messages. They contend that communicative ability is the principal factor in SLL and view a language's lexicon as the major factor in expressing oneself through spoken language. They propose that grammar only 'inconsequently determines how the lexicon is exploited to produce messages.' (Long, M. & Richards, J., 1987, p.180)
It is interestingly noted by Long & Richards (1987, p.180) that Terrell and Krashen 'give little attention to a theory of language. A critic of Krashen suggested that he has no theory of language at all'. (Gregg 1984: Long, M. & Richards, J., 1987, p.180). Much of Terrell and Krashen's 'approach' to the Natural Approach is based on Krashen's (1982) theory of second language acquisition.
Theory of Learning: Since Terrell and Krashen's approach to SLT lies mainly in Krashen's (1982) theories of SLA and not in a specific theory of language per se, they seemingly see faults in many other grammatically focused methods of SLT. They feel the teaching of grammar weighs more heavily in structural language theory and has little influence on successful SLA. Therefore, classroom focus, with respect to the Natural Approach, is given to the SL learner's deduction of grammatical structure from comprehensible input (i + 1) (see 'Input Hypothesis'- Appendix B) through the use of 'language that consists of lexical items, structures, and messages' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 180). Consequently, the Natural Approach avoids the structural teaching of grammar in its methodology and gives the systematic teaching of grammar a backseat to the focus of comprehensible input in the classroom.
'The Natural Approach thus assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through encounters with "input" containing structures at the "I + 1" level.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 180)
Since the influence of approach weighs heavily in design and procedure, it may be useful to briefly review Krashen's (1982) theory of second language acquisition and its five underlying hypothesis. These hypotheses will have significant bearing on the Natural Approach's design and procedure, to be discussed later. (In the interest of economy, this theory has been provided in 'Appendix B' at the end of this report ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
'The Natural Approach thus assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through encounters with "input" containing structures at the "I + 1" level.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 180)
Since the influence of approach weighs heavily in design and procedure, it may be useful to briefly review Krashen's (1982) theory of second language acquisition and its five underlying hypothesis. These hypotheses will have significant bearing on the Natural Approach's design and procedure, to be discussed later. (In the interest of economy, this theory has been provided in 'Appendix B' at the end of this report for required reference.)
* Design:
(a) The Objectives: The objectives of the Natural Approach relate directly to the level and learning objectives of the learner pertaining to the four main attributes of language learning (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). The Natural Approach does not attempt to seek perfection from the learner in the target language, but rather to improve upon current competence levels of students (primarily beginner level students) and to help them perform more adequately in the TL.
For example, teachers (employing the Natural Approach) teaching low level learners in a language course, may offer their students the abilities they will both be able to perform and not be able to perform after, say, 100 to 150 hours of course study. (For example, 'you will be able to communicate your thoughts in the L2 without grammatical perfection but may not be able to successfully engage in a telephone conversation'.)
Through this approach, the course objectives will most likely concern three stages of development:
(1) Pre-production - developing listening skills;
(2) Early Production - students struggle with the language and make many errors which are corrected based on content and not structure
(3) Extending Production - promoting fluency through a variety of more challenging activities.
(Author, englishraven.com, n.d.)
(b) The Syllabus: As the objectives of a course employing the Natural Approach focus on students' needs and levels, the design of the syllabus will also be as such. The teacher must assess the needs of the students and communication goals will then be set forth accordingly. The goals will eventually be met through a variety of communicative exercises such as games, role-plays, dialogs, group work, and topic discussions. (Author, englishraven.com, n.d.)
Krashen and Terrell (1983) suggest that goals the Natural Approach strives to achieve are 'basic personal communication skills: oral (e.g. listening to announcements in public places) and written (e.g., reading and writing personal letters)' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.184). Other goals such as those pertaining to academia cannot be attained through this teaching method.
Finally, in the spirit of Krashen's (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis (see Appendix B), syllabus content under this method should maintain low affective filters by including interesting topics & activities and maintain a relaxed environment creating as little stress and/or anxiety as possible.
(c) Learning Tasks And Teaching Activities: The Natural Approach allows for a silent period among students where they are not required by the teacher to speak until they feel they have acquired enough input to contribute to the class. The essence of this allowance of silence seeks to create low affective filters by not applying pressure to students who are not yet ready to speak in the TL.
Beyond this period of allowable silence however, students may be required to physically respond to commands (i.e. Please raise your hand . . .) or respond to teacher input in other ways (i.e. 'If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.').
When students are ready to begin using the TL, teacher input will progress slowly through questions requiring simple 'yes/no' answers or questions requiring other one-word responses. The main focus of learning tasks and teaching activities remains in view of comprehensible input and not grammatical perfection or properly structured utterances. Therefore, pair or group-work can also be used as a means of attaining comprehensible input since students who speak with each other can seek to make each other understand without fear of erring in structure. Usually, only mistakes in content (and not in structure) will be corrected by the teacher; much the same way parents do with children. (i.e. 'The sky green'. No, the sky is blue.' 'Right, the sky blue. In this example, no attempt was made to emphasize grammatical error, only errors concerning content).
(d) Learner Roles: Learners studying under this approach are largely relied upon by the teacher to initially state their needs and goals in order to suitably decide teaching materials and a suitable syllabus. Students are also given the responsibility of deciding when to speak in class (silent period/pre-production stage), deciding how much grammar study is required, providing comprehensible input, and even deciding how much correction the teacher should engage in.
The learner's roles are also seen to progress through the three development stages (mentioned in 'Objectives'). At the pre-production stage, students are not required to speak per se, but may be required to act on command from the teacher (same as during 'the silent period'). During the early-production stage, students will take the role of responding accordingly to teacher cues through short answers or easily answered questions such as 'What time is it?' Finally, in the extending production stage, 'students involve themselves in role-plays and games, contribute personal information and opinions, and participate in group problem solving.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.186).
(e) Teacher Roles: The principal teacher role in this approach is to provide and maintain comprehensible input. Teachers can accomplish this role by using a variety of class-time relatable vocabulary in cooperation with gestures and body language that will help provide understanding of the topic at hand.
Secondly, teachers must provide an atmosphere that creates and maintains low affective filters (Affective Filter Hypothesis). According to Terrell and Krashen (1986), comprehensible input cannot be acquired if affective filters are high due to stressful conditions or situations creating anxiety.
Finally, based on student needs, the teacher must assume the role of choosing and providing fun and/or interesting materials that promote comprehensible input.
(f) The Role of Instructional Materials: Since the basis of the Natural Approach is to utilize input that in comprehensible through meaning rather than structure, the role of the instructional material is to be 'real' and meaningful in itself. The materials should be relatable to the students so that they can acquire the L2 through proper communication based on relatable and interesting topics. 'Materials come from the world of realia rather than form textbooks. Pictures and other visual aids are essential. Other recommended materials include schedules, brochures, advertisements, maps, etc.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.188)
Discussing topics that are clearly unfamiliar or uninteresting will not be memorable and therefore will not be acquired by the student according to the Natural Approach. For example, in business classes in Japan, materials that are required to be used by the teacher rarely spark interest in the students; nor do they provide any sort of relatable input on which the students can converse. Students often fall asleep or daydream due to the 'boring' content of the business texts their managers force upon them during ESL study.
* Procedure (techniques):
Richards and Rodgers (1986) mention, more than once, that the Natural Approach is not an 'original' approach in the sense that it implements it's own exclusive ideas on SLT methodology. Since the Natural approach depends largely on the needs and levels of the learners, it is possible that teachers can employ a variety of techniques and ideas from other popular language teaching methods to achieve classroom learning objectives and goals.
For example, under the Natural Approach, beginner-level students who have not yet acquired enough comprehensible input to begin speaking in class will most likely be subject to procedures incorporated from TPR (Total Physical Response). This would involve teacher-induced commands such as "walk to the door and open it". Should students respond correctly through the intended action, comprehensible input is therefore being achieved even though no utterance has yet been performed by the student. Techniques as such utilized during the pre-production stage seek to improve listening skills and gear the student up for speaking once enough language has been acquired.
Other teaching techniques include the teacher speaking in context about objects about the room and asking for physical response. (i.e. 'Pass the green sweater with the picture of Kermit the Frog on the front to the student wearing the blue sweater with no picture on the front.')
Speaking through mime is another means of providing comprehensible input (CI) to students. Extending the arms to illustrate something that is log or flapping one's arms like a chicken to illustrate the word 'chicken' are ways that not only provide CI, but also create a fun and interesting atmosphere, thereby lowering affective filters.
Procedures concerning the Natural Approach also rely heavily on visual stimuli, such as magazine pictures, maps, etc. to introduce new vocabulary and to provide topics for early and extending production. (i.e. a picture of a man running up a set of stairs can provide a slue of new language including clothing, places, actions, verb structures such as tenses, conditionals, etc. It also can create an atmosphere for topic induction should questions like, "Where do you think he is going?" or "Why do you think he is wearing shorts?" be asked of the students.
During all activities and discussion, the teacher must maintain comprehensible input via repetition, slowed or clear speech, physical gestures, and other means of ensuring the students are clearly following the lesson.
Critical Analysis:
Although my studies in Applied Linguistics have essentially just begun, I've thus far become an advocate of many of Krashen's hypotheses on SLA and accordingly chose this teaching method for analysis. Teaching business-English in Japan allows for a great deal of exposure to how Krashen's views apply in the classroom since, for example, many students suffer from anxiety and stress from conditions in the workplace and have little chance to receive comprehensible input outside of the classroom.
Krashen's (1982) 'Input' and 'Affective Filter' Hypotheses have seemed to make the most sense in terms of applicable classroom teaching and therefore I feel the Natural Approach's theory of learning makes more sense than most learning theories of other methods. I feel the exclusion of grammar explanation in the classroom, however, allows too much room for uncertainty. Krashen's own Monitor Hypothesis (see Appendix B) may support my opinion in that a student's learned knowledge (i.e. grammar) serves as a monitor for the correction of performance errors. I feel that with the exclusion of (some) grammar teaching in the classroom, students may be denied a monitor with which to correct their own mistakes during attempts at L2 performance.
The objectives of the NA seem practical. The NA attempts to tailor to the learning needs of the students. The only fault I can see in this objective is applying it to large classes where student goals may vary considerably. I've personally taught classes where some students wanted only to improve their business letter writing skills while others wanted to simply improve their TOEIC scores through tedious grammar study. Either one of these goals would not likely see the NA as the most suitable teaching method for such students. However, as the Natural approach seeks to maintain low affective filters through interesting and varied classroom activities, a syllabus containing enjoyable games and activities may satisfy students who are willing to be empathetic to the needs of their classmates.
I feel the notion of the silent period to be a good idea in maintaining low affective filters. However, this notion does not play well in Japan where 'uncomfortable' silences can last much longer than expected since Japanese culture stereotypically does not require Japanese people to break silence with small talk. I've personally tried to outlast some of my students in 'competitions' of silence only to be out done and consequently become the most frustrated person in the room.
Having someone talk is more comfortable for everyone rather than sitting in silence. In Japan, this is the opposite. There is a saying that goes, 'Silence is golden. Don't speak too much; let them guess.' So if you could imagine sitting at the dinner table in complete silence, then you could understand how hard it is for Japanese people to have a fluent conversation while sitting.
(Author, About Japanese people, n.d.)
However, the notion of not striving for perfection in the NA, I feel, is suitable for achieving low effective filters by not applying unneeded pressure and anxiety on the students during class-time.
Allowing students to assume their own roles in the classroom by handing them the responsibility of making decisions about their participation level in class is an honorable notion, but I feel the success of this idea lies heavily in the type of students and their level of motivation for self-improvement. Many students in business-English classes in Japan are 'forced' to participate in ESL classes and if not prodded to participate in class discussions, they would be happy to sit in silence, or sleep, for the duration of every lesson. Therefore, I feel the notion of assigning the participation responsibility upon the student should be taken cautiously by teachers employing this method; especially in Japan.
Teacher roles in this method are, in my opinion, easy to fulfill. Maintaining CI in class is not a daunting task should the teacher have any limited amount of experience teaching ESL. Furthermore, assessing student needs through direct inquiry does not seemingly require any type of special training. However, the difficulty in the NA may lie in maintaining the students' interest through a variety of games and activities. For example, my company classes are only two hours per week and include students with extremely low levels of motivation. With no chance for comprehensible input outside of the classroom and a lack of interest in outside study (i.e. homework), their levels don't seem to improve much over time. Furthermore, I teach the same students, term in term out, and therefore many of them have been exposed to a repetition of classroom activities that no longer maintain interest. Therefore, attempting to stay original can be discouraging at times. However, through the NA, I feel that the role of the instructional materials being related to 'realia' may help to solve my problem of any student's lack of interest. But again, many students 'expect' some sort of structured syllabus and therefore textbooks and other such materials provide, to some extent, comfort to the veteran ESL student. Changes in rhythm or method, especially in a conservative country like Japan, are not without problems.
Finally, from a teacher's perspective, the procedures involved in the NA are beneficial in that a teacher can draw on past experience and other teaching methods in his or her attempt to provide CI and maintain low affective filters in the classroom. But, as I've already stated, some students may wish a more structured approach to their learning of a L2 and may not be open to such open-minded approaches like the NA. Therefore, through my own experience in Japan, I feel the NA may be suitable for small classes of up to six people including younger students with medium to high levels of self-motivation who are willing to participate in classroom activities.
METHOD DESCRIPTION AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS #2:
COMMUNITY LANGUAGE LEARNING
Community Language Learning (CLL), as the name suggests, is a language teaching method that seeks to treat the second language classroom as a venue for communal language learning and counseling between students and teacher. This language teaching/learning method was derived from 'Counseling Learning' developed by Charles A. Curran (and his associates), a psychology professor from Loyola University. It 'redefines the role of the teacher (the counselor) and learners (the clients) in the language classroom.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.90).
This method is related to two prominent language-teaching methods. The first, humanistic techniques (Moskowitz, 1972: Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p90), focuses on the affective factors of the students. Building and nurturing the students' self-esteem and self-confidence are seen as the foremost important factors for successful acquisition of the L2 in the classroom. The second, language alteration (Mackey, 1972: Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p90), 'a message/lesson/class is presented first in the native language and then again in the second language. Students know the meaning and flow of an L2 message from their recall of the parallel meaning and flow of an L1 message.' (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p90)
* Approach:
Theory of Language: CLL shares both structural and interactional theories of language. Beginning with a structuralist view, it sees language theory as a construct of sounds that are used to produce the messages contained in spoken language. Beyond this observation however, it also views language as an exchange of messages between speaker and listener. However, unlike the Natural Method that acknowledges language as a system of spoken messages, CLL goes one step beyond this view to recognize listener-feedback as a key element in speaker-listener communication.
Theory of Learning: In the CLL classroom, social interactions through the L2 take place in two forms: Interactions between learners and interactions between learners and 'knowers' (teachers). In the CLL classroom, interactions between learners are seen to foster relationships between the students thereby creating unity among the group. Much like the Natural Approach, but even more so, lowering the group's affective filters through communal unity will seemingly allow the students to express themselves more freely and exert more confidence in their abilities to perform the L2 during later stages of CLL.
Unlike the Natural Approach, where all interactions are done in the L2, all beginning stage interactions in CLL are done in the L1. The teacher, after being told in the L1 by the learner what he/she wants to say in the L2, will then repeat the corresponding utterance in the L2 so that students can repeat and subsequently learn the corresponding vocabulary and structural pattern of the statement. Through this method, the students will eventually progress to an independent stage where they will be able to express themselves freely in the L2.
Curran suggests that the development of the students' L2 performance abilities through CLL is not unlike the development stages of children. He views language learning as a 'rebirth' of oneself including all of the 'trials and challenges that are associated with birth and maturation'. (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p92) He acknowledges five stages:
'The first he calls the 'Embryonic Stage', where there is almost total dependence on the teacher. Second is the 'Self-Assertion Stage' (the mother feels life in the womb) as the student-client begins to show some independence and tries out the language. Next is the 'Birth Stage', when the client speaks independently, though imperfectly. It is now that s/he is most likely to resent what s/he feels is unnecessary assistance from the knower. Fourth comes the 'Reversal Stage' when s/he is secure enough to take correction ~ In the final or "Independent Stage', interruptions are infrequent; they occur occasionally for correction, but more often for enrichment or improvement of style.' (Madsen, H.S., 1979: 34)
Finally, Curran (1976:6: Richards & Rodgers, 1986: p.92) uses the acronym 'SARD' to describe four psychological requirements he feels are essential in SLL and are developed in CLL:
S: (Security) Learners must feel secure in their learning environment.
A: (Attention and Aggression) Loss of attention by learners in class is seen as a need for more variety in classroom activities. Aggression relates to child psychology in that a child, upon learning something, feels the need to express to those around him/her what has been learned in an attempt to gain affirmation.
R: (Retention and Reflection) Retention of what is taught in class assists the learner's attempt to gain new identity through the SL. A silent period of reflection is allowed during class time to reflect on what has been learned and future learning goals.
D: (Discrimination) Discrimination in the classroom sense appeals to how the student relates what has been learned to how he/she can use this newly learned information for communication in the L2.
* Design:
(a) The Objectives: Since there is no assigned syllabus in CLL, the objectives of CLL include allowing students to take charge of their learning by suggesting topics for discussion among the group. The term 'group', as opposed to 'class', is important since learners are expected to act as one in an empathetic and supportive manner. The beginning stages of SLL can be quite trying for some students. Therefore, CLL goes to great lengths to ensure affective filters (Krashen, 1982) are down by creating confidence and understanding between all members of the group, including the teacher. Maintaining trust in the other members of the group and confidence in oneself are the key objectives of CLL.
(b) The Syllabus: As stated above, there is no set syllabus in CLL classrooms. Students are initially expected to produce messages (in the L1) they want to convey to the other members of the group, which will be translated by the teacher. As students progress, they are expected to introduce topics for group discussions from where grammar and vocabulary will be learned deductively.
(c) Learning Tasks and Teaching Activities: Richards & Rodgers (1986: 93) list eight examples of tasks and activities: Translation, Group Work, Recording of class-time
discussions and utterances for later reflection, Transcription, Teacher/student Analysis, Reflection and observation, Listening, Free Conversation.
(d) Learner Roles: As stated throughout this description, the roles of the learners are key in the success of the method. Learners are expected to act and collaborate as a group rather than individually. Success in learning the target language is viewed as a collaborated effort. When problems arise concerning the affective factors of the students such as diminished confidence or heightened anxiety, the group is expected to empathetically and jointly solve such problems.
(e) Teacher Roles: The teacher serves as the counselor of the group. He/she must be sympathetic and encouraging with the students in order to maintain low affective filters. When problems arise, the teacher must be empathetic and rationalize such problems in a manner that is non-threatening or intimidating.
The teacher's roles also directly relate to the five stages mentioned previously. Therefore, in keeping with student progression through these five stages, the teacher must be supportive, observant, helpful, critical, and nurturing; much the same as parents are with their children.
(f) The Role of Instructional Materials: As stated before, there is not much by way of curriculum or syllabus and therefore there are no instructional textbooks, etc. Students are expected to progress naturally through their own observances of messages and discussions viewed in the classroom. Any materials that are used in class are most likely developed by the teacher, or the students themselves, based on what happens in class concerning previous group discussions in the form of notes or recorded dialogues.
* Procedure:
Most CLL classes follow their own, unique patterns of learning through group interaction and therefore there are no 'concrete' procedures to speak of. However, there are some typical procedures one may experience if they were to partake in CLL:
* CLL typically requires the learner to record his/her utterances in class for later reflection or review.
* Some classroom discussions may be transcribed by in the L1 the teacher for later analysis.
* During any given lesson, teachers will allow students time for reflection on the activities just completed in class and have them express their feelings about the topic or even the relevance to their own learning.
* Teachers may allow students to listen to their taped utterances during class-time for self-reflection or critical self/group analysis.
* The teacher may act as a 'human-computer' for the students to control - the teacher stating anything in the target language the student wants to practice, giving them the opportunity to self correct. (Author, englishraven.com, n.d.)
* Students may be broken into groups for practice of transcripts or to create new sentences.
Critical Analysis of CLL and feature comparison to the Natural Approach:
I prefer the theory of language put forth by CLL. It includes both structuralist and communicative views on language. As the NA expects students to inductively acquire grammatical structures thus evading grammatical explanation, CLL places great importance on language structure as well as collective communication.
Another significant difference from the NA is that CLL utilizes the L1 in all beginning or problematic stages of L2 production in the classroom, whereas the NA seeks to avoid utterances of the L1. I can see the advantages of such an approach, however based on my experience, translation of L1 to L2 is not always straightforward and can lead to considerable confusion in attempting to translate semantic or pragmatic meaning. There lies the possibility that too much time could be spent on discussing grammatical structures in the L1 thus wasting time possibly spent on more productive matters. I feel that a method lying somewhere in between these two theories of learning would be best suited for the type of business classes I teach in Japan, for example. In order to save time (since most classes are once a week and two hours in length), I feel grammatical explanation should be allowed, but not focused on. Also, where applicable, quick explanations in the L1 should be made by the teacher to avoid student frustration, and when all other attempts at explanation in the L2 have failed.
The comparison of CLL to the maturation of children, I feel, is a feasible point. However, I get the impression that such a method requires great amounts of time and commitment from both the teacher and students. For intensive courses that hold lengthy group meetings more than once a week, CLL may be a good learning road for beginners. But again, in Japan, such a method would not be practical since most students seemingly cannot commit to the amount of time and effort it takes to partake in such a course due to working conditions in most Japanese companies. Furthermore, finding teachers with enough ability in both the L1 and L2 (i.e. Japanese and English) would be an extremely difficult task. I feel non-native English teachers teaching Japanese students in this method could create unsuitable explanations of grammar and inappropriate (corresponding) L2 utterances when students produce an L1 utterance looking for the L2 translation. This I feel would be due to the difficulties many Japanese learners of English encounter in ESL.
One seemingly close similarity of CLL and the NA is the notion and importance of affective factors in SLL/SLA. Both methods provide great attention to making students feel comfortable in the classroom while wielding low levels of anxiety and maintaining high levels of self-confidence for the purpose of heightened language learning and acquisition. However, contained within the acronym (SARD) for the four psychological requirements Curran feels are essential in SLL, is the notion of R (Retention and Reflection) I feel could be a possible waste of time for groups that don't have much of it. I sincerely feel that if I gave my current students an hour of silent time to reflect upon their learning, there would be a lot of sleeping happening in the room; which brings us back to the notion of motivated students who are willing to learn and the effectiveness of this method.
The design objectives of this method may be too simplified and rely too much on the students for input. Provided the students are energetic and willing to engage in conversation, there can be many benefits to CLL as students can engage in discussions they themselves induce in class, thereby learning from matters that are interesting to the collective group. However, the design objectives of the NA seem more structured, compared to CLL, and may be better suited for students who have less time and effort to commit to ESL.
One of the activities I saw advantages in, as well as disadvantages, was the recording of utterances and dialogues by the students. My feeling on many of the arguments posed here depends mainly on the willingness of the students to participate in such activities. Provided the students are willing, I feel a lot can be gained from recording utterances for later reflection. However, in my experience, any site of a recording device raises affective filters in the classroom creating anxiety and nervousness for the fear of making mistakes.
The roles of both teacher (knower) and learner appear to be quite challenging. As for the students, they must invest enough time in CLL to become acquainted and share a collective empathy among the group. Due to varying personality factors among people, certain members may take longer to find togetherness within the group than more extroverted people.
As for the teacher, he/she must be fluent in both the L1 and the L2 in order to effectively translate utterances in class. All class problems relating to student personality factors must also be dealt with in a calm and collective manner so not to raise affective filters. It is important for the students to maintain self-confidence, etc., but it is also important for the teacher to maintain composure during times of student frustration and anger. Furthermore, should a group include students from various countries and hence, different languages, the teaching task (and learning task) through CLL becomes more difficult since translation is a key part of this method.
Appendix A
Some Common Examples Of Varying SLT Approaches
o Lexical approach: an approach that focuses on language being taught through words and their combinations. Teachers who use this approach tend to teach 'frequently occurring expressions that occur often in language rather than in originally created sentences'. (Lewis, 1997a, p. 212: Moudraia, Olga, 2001) .
o Grammar translation approach: an approach where teachers mainly use the L1 as the language for instruction. Students are generally required to use text written in the L2 and required to translate it into the L1 (or vice versa) using the grammatical patterns presented by the teacher and/or by the accompanying text.
o Communicative approach: the focus of this approach is meaningful communication in the L2 rather than the L2's grammatical structures. Teachers using this approach often concentrate on having students use functional aspects of the L2 (i.e. giving advice, asking for directions, etc.) and not on grammatical or structural characteristics.
o Natural approach: Proposed by Tracy Terrell (1977), this approach is based on the Language Acquisition Theory (Krashen, 1981, 1982). This theory suggests that SL learners acquire language naturally; much the same children do, through mere exposure to comprehensible input (language that students can understand, plus language that is slightly beyond their present level of understanding). Therefore, teachers employing this approach focus on providing comprehensible input in the classroom and thus steer away from grammar teaching and other forms of grammatically structured instruction.
Appendix B
Krashen's (1982) Theory of Second Language Acquisition
The Acquisition-Learning distinction: Through this distinction, it is believed that a second language is acquired much in the same the way a child naturally acquires his or her first language; through mere exposure to the language. Krashen (1981) contrasts the term learning with the term acquisition by referring to it as the 'conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them.' (Krashen 1981: Wilson, R. 2000). Krashen asserts that 'Language learning' is therefore in balance with learning about a language. This hypothesis also contends that since children naturally acquire their first language with little or no error correction, error correction also plays little part in the successful acquisition of a second language for adults.
The Natural Order Hypothesis: The Natural Order Hypothesis and related research further demonstrated that when English children acquire their first language, they tend to acquire specific morphemes earlier than others. (Krashen, S.; Long, M. & Richards, J. 1987: p.36) Brown's (1973) research, for example, showed that children acquired the plural use of /s/ in the early stages of FLA (first language acquisition) and the possessive use of 's in the late stages of FLA. (Krashen, S.; Long, M. & Richards, J. 1987: p.36). This hypothesis also contends that the acquisition of some grammatical structures is predictable in SL learners through the observance of the types of errors they make in the stages leading up to correct performance of the structure.
The Monitor Hypothesis: The basis of this hypothesis is closely related to the Learning-Acquisition distinction. Krashen (1981, 1982) claims 'that subconscious acquisition is responsible for fluency in a second language and that conscious learning plays only one role: to act as a monitor, by allowing a L2 learner to refer to his or her consciously learned grammar 'to make corrections, to change the form of the output for the acquired system before we write or speak, or sometimes after (self-correction).' (Krashen, S.: Long & Richards 1987: p.37).
Krashen (1982, p.19) indicates that in order for a L2 learner to use his or her monitor effectively, three conditions must be met. First, there must be enough time for the learner to refer to his knowledge of the language and use the knowledge effectively during discourse. Second, the learner must be 'focused on form', paying close attention to correctness. Finally, the learner must 'know the rule'. In other words, the learner must have accurate competence concerning the rule in order for it to be correctly applied.
Lastly, in describing the hypothesis, Krashen (1982, p.19) calls attention to three types of Monitor users:
. Monitor over-users: learners who monitor too much during conversation.
2. Monitor under-users: learners who don't, or seldom, use the Monitor.
3. Optimal Monitor Users: learners who tend to use the monitor when writing and who don't use the monitor when it interferes with oral communication.
The Input Hypothesis: Krashen (1981) declares another important theory called the 'Input Hypothesis' which, again, refers to the acquisition of language rather than explicit learning. Firstly, he uses the formula 'i+1' to refer to language that has already been acquired (i) plus (+) 'comprehensible input', or language, that is ready to be acquired (1). He claims:
'that humans acquire by understanding input containing structures that are a bit beyond our current competence. In terms of the Natural Order hypothesis, we move from our current level of i to the next level i + 1 by understanding input containing i +1.' (Krashen, S.; Long, M. & Richards, J. 1987: p.38).
He further explains that during SLA, learners focus on the meaning of utterances rather than the forms or structures with which they are produced. Krashen compares SLA to children learning a first language (FLA). As children are growing up amongst their caregivers, they are spoken to by their caregivers in what is referred to as 'caretaker speech' (Clark & Clark, 1977: Krashen, 1982, p.22).
The Affective Filter Hypothesis: Krashen (1982) suggests that three basic affective factors affect the amount of input acquired by L2 learners: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. He claims that the varying levels of these factors may have direct results on SLA. He further posits that these factors mainly affect subconscious acquisition rather than conscious learning.
Bibliography
Web Pages:
Author, (n.d.) About Japanese people. Retrieved December10, 2002 from
http://www.geocities.com/ayamatsush/en/jppeople.html
Author, n.d. Communicative Approach. Retrieved December 5, 2002 from http://bogglesworld.com/glossary/communicativeapproach.htm
Author, (n.d). ESL and EFL Resources. Principles and Methodologies. Retrieved December 8, 202 from http://www.englishraven.com/method_natural.html
Author, n.d. Language acquisition. Retrieved November 7, 2002 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/aasc/unz/langacq.html
Krashen, Stephen: (1998). Teaching grammar: why bother? Retrieved November 7, 2002 from http://www.msu.edu/%7Esandinkr/grammarwhybother.htm
Mason, Timothy (n.d.). Didactics -11: Critique of Krashen VII The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Retrieved November 7, 2002 from http://perso.club-nternet.fr/tmason/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures /L11_Affective_Filter.htm#Anxiety
Mora, J.K. (1999) Ed.D. SLT Methods - Principles and Procedures. Retrieved December 10, 2002. http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/ALMMethods.htm#Grammar
Mora, J.K. (1999). Theoretical Basis for the Natural Approach. Retrieved December 10, 2002 from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/NatApprTheory-Eng/Default.htm
Moudraia, Olga (June 2001). Lexical Approach to Second Language Teaching. Retrieved December 5, 2002 from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0102lexical.html
Norris-Holt, Jacqueline (2001). Motivation as a Contributing Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved November 19, 2002 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html
Rice, P.C. (n.d.) What if they don't speak English? Retrieved December 3, 2002 from http://www.misd.net/Bilingual/WhatIfThey.pdf
Romeo, Ken. (n.d.). Krashen and Terrell's "natural approach". Retrieved November 19, 2002 from http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ehakuta/LAU/ICLangLit/Natural Approach.htm#Acquisition
Wilson, Reid (2000). A Summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition". 2000 Language Impact. Retrieved November 19, 2002 from http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm.
Yoneoka, Judy (n.d.) No title. Kumamoto Gakuen University.
Retrieved November 2, 2002 from http://www2.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/~judy/gyoseki/18.pairwork
Printed Resources:
Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
English language teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. 202 pages.
Krashen, S. (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition (pp. 9-32). Oxford: Pergamon.
Long, M. & Richards, J. (1987). Methodology in TESOL. A book of readings. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Boston Massachusetts.
Madsen, H.S. (1979). Innovative methodologies applicable to TESL. In M. Celce-Murcia & L. McIntosh (Eds), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 29-37). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers
Oxford, R.L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. Affect in language learning (pp. 58-67). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in language teaching 2nd Edition (2001). Cambridge: CUP, United Kingdom.
4
