In 1977, Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in
California, outlined "a proposal for a 'new' philosophy of language
teaching which [he] called the Natural Approach" (Terrell 1977; 1982:
121). This was an attempt to develop a language teaching proposal that
incorporated the "naturalistic" principles researchers had identified
in studies of second language acquisition. The Natural Approach grew out of
Terrell's experiences teaching Spanish classes. Since that time Terrell and
others have experimented with implementing the Natural Approach in elementary-
to advanced-level classes and with several other languages. At the same time he
has joined forces with Stephen Krashen, an applied linguist at the University
of Southern California, in elaborating a theoretical rationale for the Natural
Approach, drawing on Krashen's influential theory of second language
acquisition. Krashen and Terrell's combined statement of the principles and
practices of the Natural Approach appeared in their book, The Natural
Approach, published in 1983. The Natural Approach has attracted a wider
interest than some of the other innovative language teaching proposals
discussed in this book, largely because of its support by Krashen. Krashen and
Terrell's book contains theoretical sections prepared by Krashen that outline
his views on second language acquisition (Krashen 1981; 1982), and sections on
implementation and classroom procedures, prepared largely by Terrell.
Krashen and
Terrell have identified the Natural Approach with what they call
"traditional" approaches to language teaching. Traditional approaches
are defined as "based on the use of language in communicative situations
without recourse to the native language" - and, perhaps, needless to say,
without reference to grammatical analysis, grammatical drilling, or to a
particular theory of grammar. Krashen and Terrell note that such
"approaches have been called natural, psychological, phonetic, new,
reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth" (Krashen and Terrell
1983: 9). The fact that the authors of the Natural Approach relate their
approach to the Natural Method has led some to assume chat Natural Approach and
Natural Method are synonymous terms. Although the tradition is a common
one, there are important differences between the Natural Approach and the older Natural Method,
which it will be useful to consider at the outset.
The Natural Method
is another term for what by the turn of the century had become known as the
Direct Method.. It is described in a report on the state of the art in language
teaching commissioned by the Modern Language Association in 1901 (the report
of the "Committee of 12"):
The term natural , used in reference
to the Direct Method, merely emphasized that the principles underlying the
method were believed to conform to the principles of naturalistic language
learning in young children. Similarly, the Natural Approach, as defined by
Krashen and Terrell, is believed to conform to the naturalistic principles
found in successful second language acquisition. Unlike the Direct Method,
however, it places less emphasis on teacher monologues, direct repetition, and
formal questions and answers, and less focus on accurate production of target
language sentences. In the Natural Approach there is an 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. The emphasis on the
central role of comprehension in the Natural Approach links it to other
comprehension-based approaches in language teaching.
Approach
Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary
function of language, and since their approach focuses on teaching
communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an example of a
communicative approach. The Natural Approach "is similar to other com municative approaches being developed today"
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They reject earlier methods of language
teaching, such as the Audiolingual Method, which viewed grammar as the central
component of language. According to Krashen and Terrell, the major problem with
these methods was that they were built not around "actual theories of
language acquisition, but theories of something else; for example, the
structure of language" (1983: 1). Unlike proponents of Communicative
Language Teaching, however, Krashen and Terrell give little attention to a
theory of language. Indeed, a recent critic of Krashen suggests he has no
theory of language at all (Gregg 1984). What Krashen and Terrell do describe
about the nature of language emphasizes the primacy of meaning. The importance
of the vocabulary is stressed, for example, suggesting the view that a language
is essentially its lexicon and only inconsequently the grammar that determines
how the lexicon is exploited to produce messages. Terrell quotes Dwight
Bolinger to support this view:
The quantity of information in the lexicon far
outweighs that in any other part of the language, and if there is anything to
the notion of redundancy it should be easier to reconstruct a message
containing just words than one containing just the syntactic relations. The
significant fact is the subordinate role of grammar. The most important thing
is to get the words in. (Bolinger, in Terrell 1977: 333).
Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating
meanings and messages. Hence Krashen
Krashen and Terrell make continuing reference
to the theoretical and research base claimed to underlie the Natural Approach
and to the fact that the method is unique in having such a base. "It is
based on an empirically grounded theory of second language acquisition, which
has been supported by a large number of scientific studies in a wide variety of
language acquisition and learning contexts" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 1).
The theory and research are grounded on Krashen's views of language acquisition,
which we will collectively refer to as Krashen's language acquisition theory.
Krashen's views have been presented and discussed extensively elsewhere (e.g.,
Krashen 1982), so we will not try to present or critique Krashen's arguments
here.
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis claims that there
are two distinctive ways of developing competence in a second or foreign
language. Acquisition is the "natural" way, paralleling first
language development in children. Acquisition refers to an unconscious process
that involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency through
understanding language and through using language for meaningful communication.
Learning, by contrast, refers to a process in which conscious rules
about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge about the
forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge. Formal
teaching is necessary for "learning" to occur, and correction of
errors helps with the development of learned rules. Learning, according to the
theory, cannot lead to acquisition.
The acquired
linguistic system is said to initiate utterances when we communicate in a
second or foreign language. Conscious learning can function only as a monitor
or editor that checks and repairs the output of the acquired system. I he Monitor Hypothesis claims
that we may call upon learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we
communicate, hut that conscious learning (i.e., the learned system) has only
this function. Three conditions limit the successful use of the monitor:
1. Time. There
must be sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a learned rule.
2. Focus on
form. The language user must be focused on correctness or on the form of
the output.
3. Knowledge of rules. The performer
must know the rules. The monitor does best with rules that are simple in two
ways. They must be simple to describe and they must not require complex
movements and rearrangements.
According to the Natural
Order Hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a
predictable order. Research is said to have shown that certain grammatical
structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language
acquisition of English, and a similar natural order is found in second language
acquisition. Errors are signs of naturalistic developmental processes, and
during acquisition (but not during learning), similar developmental errors
occur in learners no matter what their mother tongue is.
The Input
Hypothesis claims to explain the relationship between what the learner is
exposed to of a language (the input) and language acquisition. It involves
four main issues.
First, the
hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning.
Second, people
acquire language best by understanding input that is slightly beyond their
current level of competence:
An acquirer can
"move" from a stage I (where I is the acquirer's level of competence)
to a stage I +1 (where I + 1 is the stage immediately following I along some
natural order) by understanding language containing I + 1. (Krashen and Terrell
1983: 32)
Clues based on the situation and the context, extra
linguistic information, and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible.
Third, the ability
to speak fluently cannot be taught directly; rather, it "emerges" independently
in time, after the acquirer has built up linguistic competence by
understanding input.
Fourth, if there
is a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input, I + 1 will usually be
provided automatically. Comprehensible input refers to utterances that the
learner understands based on the context in which they are used as well as the language in which they
are phrased. When a speaker uses language so that the acquirer understands the
message, the speaker "casts a net" of structure around the acquirer's
current level of competence, and this will include many instances of I + 1.
Thus, input need not be finely tuned to a learner's current level of linguistic
competence, and in fact cannot be so finely tuned in a language class, where
learners will be at many different levels of competence.
Just as child
acquirers of a first language are provided with samples of "caretaker
speech," rough-tuned to their present level of understanding, so adult
acquirers of a second language are provided with simple codes that facilitate
second language comprehension. One such code is "foreigner talk,"
which refers to the speech native speakers use to simplify communication with
foreigners. Foreigner talk is characterized by a slower rate of speech,
repetition, restating, use of Yes/No instead of Who- questions, and other
changes that make messages more comprehensible to persons of limited language
proficiency.
Krashen sees the
learner's emotional state or attitudes as an adjustable filter that freely
passes, impedes, or blocks input necessary to acquisition. A low affective
filter is desirable, since it impedes or blocks less of this necessary input.
The hypothesis is built on research in second language acquisition, which has
identified three kinds of affective or attitudinal variables related to second
language acquisition.
1. Motivation. Learners
with high motivation generally do better.
2. Self-confidence.
Learners with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to be more
successful.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar