Natural and Unnatural Approaches to Learning English
Sixteenth-century grammarian Desiderius Erasmus and Latin teacher Bishop J. A. Comenius disagreed about the roles of conversation and grammar in the teaching of Latin. Comenius argued against the use of grammar study, whereas Erasmus proposed teaching Latin through a combination of conversation and grammar.
Comenius’s style of language teaching was reborn in the nineteenth century as the natural approach, an approach to language teaching that relies heavily on oral language. Nineteenth-century Europe also gave rise to the direct method, which probably would have had Erasmus’s approval. The direct method is a hybrid of grammar and natural methodology that employs conversation but pays heed to structure.
Since Erasmus’s time, and probably for centuries before that, the language teaching pendulum has swung back and forth between the extremes of analytical methods that involve the study of grammar and experiential methods that are based on oral language use.
THE NATURAL APPROACH: LEARNING ENGLISH BY HEARING AND SPEAKING IT
The natural approach was popularized more recently (relative to Comenius’s era at least) by University of Southern California education professor Steven Krashen and his associate Tracy Terrell. The modern version of the natural approach emphasizes presenting the language naturally in pieces that the student can understand without resorting to translation. Krashen calls these intelligible bits of target language comprehensible input.
Krashen recommends creating a pleasant classroom environment and communicating in a manner that is 90% intelligible to the students. The teacher can do this by demonstrating while speaking or by using familiar vocabulary and context clues. Krashen differentiates between language learning, which occurs as the result of formal study, and acquisition, which is the result of contact and practice. Krashen insists that the latter is more effective. He also theorizes that there is a silent period during which a learner hears and learns but is not yet prepared to produce.
Perhaps the best known of Krashen’s theories is the monitor theory. According to this theory, the mind absorbs language, but an affective filter may get in the way of this natural process. When the teacher creates a pleasant environment along with comprehensible input, the affective filter is lowered and language acquisition occurs. He theorizes that there is another mental device called the monitor that can edit thoughts and utterances and allow a speaker to consciously control speech, but that this process is part of learning and not the more efficient acquisition.
It is hard to argue with the notion that one should learn by doing. In the case of language learning (or acquisition, as Krashen would say), this means learning to understand a language by hearing it and to speak a language by speaking it. A strong argument for the natural approach is the fact that almost all human beings manage to learn their primary language simply by being immersed in it.
Inert and Active Knowledge
It is possible to understand bits of knowledge but not be able to apply them. An English learner might know that a certain letter makes a certain sound but he may not be able to produce that sound or even differentiate it from similar sounds. He might know the meaning of a certain word but not be able to say or even recognize that word when he hears it, or he might be able to recognize the word in isolation but not be able to pick it out of a sentence. He might know that ed attached to a verb indicates the past tense, yet he might not be able to apply that rule quickly and automatically enough to use it in conversation, either to produce an oral sentence in the past tense or to understand the tense of a sentence he hears.
Knowledge that one has but cannot readily apply is sometimes called inert knowledge, while that which one can apply is called active knowledge. It is easier to impart inert knowledge, but active knowledge is clearly more useful. There are people who have learned pages of German vocabulary and the conjugations of hundreds of German verbs yet would still have trouble ordering a bratwurst and a beer in Berlin.
Active and Inert Knowledge of the Metric System
Consider how you learned the metric system. If you know the formulae for converting between ounces and pounds and grams and kilos but do not know how many grams or kilos different items weigh without doing a conversion, your knowledge of the metric system is inert. If you know that you weigh 75 kilos, that your car weighs 1,000 kilos, that your neighbor’s SUV weighs 2,000 kilos, that a 300-gram steak is enough for a hearty meal, and that 50 grams of cheese is enough for a nice sandwich, you possess active knowledge of metric weights. Although it is easier to learn to divide pounds by 2.2 or to multiply ounces times 28 than it is to weigh thousands of items on a metric scale, it is easier to work with metric weights after you have weighed a certain number of items on a metric scale and noted their metric weights. In like manner, direct use of the language enables and enhances active knowledge of it.
Some Problems With the Natural Approach
That having been said, a few problems exist with the modern version of the natural approach. The premise that students can learn a second language the same way that they learned their first is flawed. Although young children seem to absorb second languages as naturally and effortlessly as they do their first, this does not appear to occur with adolescents and adults. Americans traveling abroad find surprisingly few American residents, even long-term residents, who speak the local language well. It is not uncommon to find Americans abroad who, even after 20 years living immersed in the local language, must rely on interpreters for all but the most basic communication. There are also a great many immigrants in the United States whose command of English is still poor, even after decades of English language contact.
Even if it were possible to absorb a second language the same way we acquired the first, the classroom is an artificial environment and cannot perfectly replicate a first-language learning experience. We begin to learn our first language through years of one-on-one interaction with our caregivers. If the classes are large, the teacher cannot have more than a few minutes per day of one-on-one interaction with each student. In addition, the sort of vocabulary and structures that students other than small children will need in school are not so easily absorbed. It is easy to make “I am jumping” comprehensible. Expressions like, “I wouldn’t have done that if I had known you didn’t want me to” are a different matter.
APPLYING FIRST LANGUAGE SKILLS TO SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Those who firmly believe in building knowledge of a second language entirely from the ground up are reminiscent of the protagonist in Jorge Borges’s short story, “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quijote.” In this tale the protagonist decides to replicate for himself all of the experiences of Miguel de Cervantes in the hope that he will be able to write (not copy) the entire text of the great novel Don Quijote exactly as Cervantes had written it. English learners bring knowledge and skills that can carry over from their native language to English. Those who argue for the exclusive use of natural approaches ignore the value of this carryover.
BALANCING EXPERIENTIAL AND ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
As Erasmus discovered centuries ago, an intelligent balance between experiential and analytical study of a language will bear fruit. Authentic use of the language teaches students to respond easily and automatically to the language as they hear it. The study of grammar allows learners to apply what they know of their native language to the target language and to discover syntactic and morphological patterns that they might never absorb without formal study. The rote study of vocabulary allows them to learn vocabulary, especially abstract vocabulary, more quickly than they could by just using the language.
Teachers who use natural techniques are able to present less material in a given period of time than those who work with word lists and drills, but authentic language use is more likely to instill active knowledge of the language. A foreign language teacher who has students for a mere 45 minutes per day for just a year or two must choose between imparting a lot of inert knowledge or less but more useful active knowledge of the language. ESL teachers who are allotted sufficient time to teach their subject well do not have to face this dilemma.
Getting Started, Naturally
The natural approach can be used effectively in the classroom as long as the teacher understands its limitations. It is essential to understand which concepts are best taught through the natural approach and under which conditions. Natural methods can be especially effective early in a beginning ESL course, and it is wise to use them extensively at least during the first two months or so. At that point most of the vocabulary should be concrete and, even though the teacher will speak using various tenses and structures, the students should not be expected to understand them all. In the first few months of study, most students will pick words out of English sentences and respond to them, as they will likely not understand all that is said.
It is not necessary to enforce the silent period at this time, but it is best to honor it. At this early point, students should not yet be required to speak or write, although they may attempt to do so if they wish. Class size makes a big difference with this approach. The larger the class, the less interaction will be possible between teacher and student, so the less effective the natural approach will be, unless English-speaking volunteers are available.
USING TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE (TPR)
Some seminatural techniques, however, can be used in large classrooms. One of the most effective for large groups of beginners is Total Physical Response (TPR), a technique developed by San Jose State University psychology professor James Asher. In this technique, the teacher demonstrates an action or indicates an object, describes it, and then gives a command to the students. You might point and say, “I am pointing,” and then command, “Point!” If the students do not understand, repeat, “Point!” and move a student’s hand into a pointing gesture. Then point to a door, a window, and a desk, describing each object as you do so, and ask students to point at those objects.
You can even move into more difficult concepts with TPR. Ask students to point to the ball that is not red, or to give the ball to someone else. At this point the students should not be asked to repeat these commands, but rather merely to respond to them. When you ask them to produce these structures either in oral or written form a few weeks or months later, their task will be easier because of the foundation laid through TPR. If you have a three-hour block to teach ESL, you can easily cover a 1,000-word vocabulary in two months using this technique. Appendix 1, the vocabulary lists at the end of this book, lists several common concrete words and expressions that lend themselves well to TPR and other oral language-based techniques.
LANGUAGE IN THE FOREGROUND AND THE BACKGROUND
Brain studies give us some interesting insights into language learning. Electroencephalograms done on people who are speaking a language with which they are not familiar indicate wave activity all over the brain, while those who are speaking a language that they know well have wave activity concentrated in a much smaller area. When we formally study a language, we learn with great conscious effort. Let us call this “constructing language in the foreground of the mind.” Students at this point have to concentrate so much on the language itself that it is difficult for them to actually use the language as a tool to understand and communicate. When people speak with reasonable fluency, there is less conscious effort and words flow effortlessly. When this occurs, language is what it should be, a tool of communication. Let us call this phenomenon “constructing language in the background.”
Clearly it is desirable to lead students to this point as quickly as possible. This does not mean that language should never be studied in the foreground. That which is learned in the foreground can be practiced in the background. Because we usually use our native language without paying conscious attention to the language itself, it is good to practice second languages in the same way. When possible, review old structures and vocabulary in the background at the same time that you present new material. Once students have at least a tenuous grasp on the past tense, steer them toward its use when you present or practice other tenses, new vocabulary, or different kinds of sentences. When you speak with your students, use structures and vocabulary with which they are already familiar. When they speak to you, try to steer them into practicing what they have learned. Conversation makes the best review.
Academic study in English will naturally enhance language learning once students reach an intermediate level, but even with beginners you may do activities in which other academic skills are brought into the foreground in order to force language into the background. Simple arithmetic is a good way to take students’ conscious minds off the learning of numbers. When you ask students to add, subtract, multiply, or divide mentally, and you allow them too little time to translate mentally, the computation occupies their conscious minds, forcing the learning of numbers into the subconscious. For older students, simple algebra is a good way to drill letters as well. If x plus 7 equals 9, what is the value of x? If b minus 10 equals 15, what is the value of b? If 9f equals 72, what is the value of f? While teaching in Japan, I found that most Japanese students in the fourth grade could handle such equations. That should give some of our math teachers a bit of a scare.
WINNING OVER THE SKEPTICS IN YOUR SCHOOL
Some educators have strong opinions about natural approaches, either for or against. If your administrators or peers are in the “against” camp, they may observe you and conclude that you are wasting time. There are those who feel that learning is taking place only when there is tangible proof, like a completed worksheet, to show at the end of class. Administrators, fellow teachers, parents, or students who do not understand the language learning process may accuse competent language teachers of being too easy on students early in the year when they are teaching mostly oral language, and then accuse the same teachers of being too tough later in the course after they begin to pile on written work. It is not that these teachers get more demanding as the year progresses, but rather that the nature of the lessons changes as the students move ahead. To everything there is a season. If anyone objects to intensive use of oral language, show the nonbelievers the vocabulary you are teaching and the structures you are presenting. They will probably be astounded at the large amount of vocabulary you pack into your “play” lessons. If possible, give detractors a short, private lesson in a language they do not understand. That should make it clear to them that these natural lessons are not mere play.
Working With Younger Students
Natural and seminatural techniques are appropriate for all ages and levels, but teachers of young students will want to use them more than will teachers of older students. Teachers in early elementary school may want to use TPR throughout the first year of language instruction because most of what small children can understand even in their native language can be touched or demonstrated.
Natural techniques encourage the student to respond to English without going through the native language. Once students are able to respond directly to English, they can more efficiently get language from all sources available to them. Because older students have reading and writing skills, they will be able to get much of their language from print media. Younger students depend more heavily on the spoken word.