more on the natural method
The most important implication of acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis is that form-focused and meaning-based activities should be separated. Therefore, we divided our English program into two unequal parts: input and grammar hours. 75 % of the program is formed by input hours and grammar is handled only in the remaining 25 %. A similar division was made in the test system. 80 % of a common test includes meaning based questions whereas grammar questions formed 20 %. Such a parallelism between what is done in class and what is tested in exams is necessary to avoid negative backwash. That is, if common tests were heavily grammar-oriented, then students would not pay enough attention to meaning-based activities in class.
What kinds of meaning based activities are there in input hours? The majority of input hours is filled with listening activities. Why listening? Because while listening students get input. Why not reading? Because reading can be done outside with ease but not listening. You can make thirty or so students listen to the same tape in class but outside the class you need thirty or so tapes to attain the same efficiency.
Therefore listening activities form the core of the whole English program throughout the year.
Reading, on the other hand, is done extensively outside the class. How about intensive reading? The reason why we prefer extensive reading is the ample amount of input you can get in this way. For instance suppose that intensive reading of a one-page difficult text takes an hour whereas you can read ten pages of simplified text within the same amount of time. One page on the one hand, ten pages on the other. From a cost-efficiency point of view, therefore, intensive reading is held at a minimum in class. Instead students are encouraged to read simplified novels and the number of books read by each student is over 60 (in March). This amounts to more than 3000 pages of written input.
Aren't the students assigned any grammar outside the class? Yes, but not extensively. Grammar plays a minor role outside the class as it does inside. How is the grammar taught in class? Through deduction or even through grammar translation. Why are such old-fashioned techniques used? Because deduction is easier and faster than induction and it is no less effective (especially for adults). Some methodologists suggest that inductively discovered rules are retained better, but one should not forget that it takes quite a long time. What is more, there is no guarantee that the inductively learned rules become acquired as has been emphasized before. Both induction and deduction are instances of learning not of acquisition. If neither of them result in acquisition, then why should we spend so much time with indirect teaching of grammar? In our application, therefore we preferred direct, deductive teaching of grammar basically because it is the shortest way of teaching grammar allowing us to give more time to acquisition activities.
What is the relative weight of production-based activities as compared to comprehension-oriented ones? Aren't speaking and writing as important as listening and reading? Sure, they are. In fact one of the most important aims in NA is to develop students' communicative skills.
But the way to develop them is different from other communicative methods. The NA theory suggests that dwelling on receptive skills positively affects the productive ones as well. Therefore in NA speaking and writing activities occupy a small portion of class time.
Students are believed to develop all of the four skills provided that they are exposed to ample amount of input.
During the first semester, students are not forced to speak or write. This practice is in line with the concept of "Silent Period" mentioned in Krashen's theory. During this silent period students are not passive but actively processing the input and developing their acquired competence. Forcing students to produce before they have enough subconscious grammar knowledge (AC), enhances students' anxiety. Especially in Communicative Approach, the students are required to speak from the very beginning. In NA, however, this is avoided in order not to strengthen the affective filter. If the filter is strong, LAD cannot be triggered. Therefore the only thing that NA students have to do (especially during the first semester) is to display their comprehension one way or another. To achieve this, they can use single or double-word answers, non-verbal means, body language, or even mother tongue.
Answering T/F or wh-questions, drawing charts while listening are other means of displaying comprehension. If students spend most of their class-time by just listening, doesn't it mean that NA teachers are doing the speaking all the time? Isn't this too much burden on the shoulders of our teachers? In Krashenian NA, yes! Krashen's NA teachers has to speak a lot because he is a native (or at least native-like) speaker and he is the main source of input in class. But in our EFL setting, teachers are non- ative . Let alone the non-natives, it is even hard for the native teachers to be the only source of input in class. The solution that we have found to this problem is to use authentic listening texts in the form of audio or video cassettes from the ELT market in addition to the audio and video cassettes of our old coursebook.
If the main source of input is authentic material then what is the role of teacher? The basic duty of our teachers is to check students' comprehension? This is far easier than being the main source of input or being a communicative teacher.
Interestingly, however, this easy method of language teaching is not necessarily less effective than others. One can even suggest that it is one of the most effective methods. To test the efficacy of our application in Kuleli we gave a standard test (KET) comprising listening, reading, writing components plus a separate grammar test (in March). We also gave the same tests to the students in another military high school using the same textbook but with a grammar-oriented method. The test results indicated that Kuleli students are 25 % better off in reading, 40 % in listening. Their better performance might be considered as a natural, expected outcome of the heavy emphasis on receptive skills.
What is more interesting, however, are the writing and grammar results. Kuleli students performed 18 % better in grammar and 30 % in writing though these two language areas have not been emphasized in our program. Even if there were no differences in success between Kuleli and other school students, NA would be successful due to their superiority in overall-proficiency. In short, research results have confirmed the hypothesis that getting great quantities of input develops not only the receptive skills but also the productive ones plus grammar.
NA, in its somewhat modified version, seems to be an appropriate method applicable in an EFL setting like Turkiye. It is a reality that the number of native or true- bilingual teachers is low in our country. But even under such restricted conditions, the application of NA at Kuleli prep has shown that students attain high levels of proficiency when exposed to ample amount of input. To sum up, NA seems to be a method of fostering both productive and receptive skills plus grammar by just relying on input, a method of killing many birds with one stone.
What kinds of meaning based activities are there in input hours? The majority of input hours is filled with listening activities. Why listening? Because while listening students get input. Why not reading? Because reading can be done outside with ease but not listening. You can make thirty or so students listen to the same tape in class but outside the class you need thirty or so tapes to attain the same efficiency.
Therefore listening activities form the core of the whole English program throughout the year.
Reading, on the other hand, is done extensively outside the class. How about intensive reading? The reason why we prefer extensive reading is the ample amount of input you can get in this way. For instance suppose that intensive reading of a one-page difficult text takes an hour whereas you can read ten pages of simplified text within the same amount of time. One page on the one hand, ten pages on the other. From a cost-efficiency point of view, therefore, intensive reading is held at a minimum in class. Instead students are encouraged to read simplified novels and the number of books read by each student is over 60 (in March). This amounts to more than 3000 pages of written input.
Aren't the students assigned any grammar outside the class? Yes, but not extensively. Grammar plays a minor role outside the class as it does inside. How is the grammar taught in class? Through deduction or even through grammar translation. Why are such old-fashioned techniques used? Because deduction is easier and faster than induction and it is no less effective (especially for adults). Some methodologists suggest that inductively discovered rules are retained better, but one should not forget that it takes quite a long time. What is more, there is no guarantee that the inductively learned rules become acquired as has been emphasized before. Both induction and deduction are instances of learning not of acquisition. If neither of them result in acquisition, then why should we spend so much time with indirect teaching of grammar? In our application, therefore we preferred direct, deductive teaching of grammar basically because it is the shortest way of teaching grammar allowing us to give more time to acquisition activities.
What is the relative weight of production-based activities as compared to comprehension-oriented ones? Aren't speaking and writing as important as listening and reading? Sure, they are. In fact one of the most important aims in NA is to develop students' communicative skills.
But the way to develop them is different from other communicative methods. The NA theory suggests that dwelling on receptive skills positively affects the productive ones as well. Therefore in NA speaking and writing activities occupy a small portion of class time.
Students are believed to develop all of the four skills provided that they are exposed to ample amount of input.
During the first semester, students are not forced to speak or write. This practice is in line with the concept of "Silent Period" mentioned in Krashen's theory. During this silent period students are not passive but actively processing the input and developing their acquired competence. Forcing students to produce before they have enough subconscious grammar knowledge (AC), enhances students' anxiety. Especially in Communicative Approach, the students are required to speak from the very beginning. In NA, however, this is avoided in order not to strengthen the affective filter. If the filter is strong, LAD cannot be triggered. Therefore the only thing that NA students have to do (especially during the first semester) is to display their comprehension one way or another. To achieve this, they can use single or double-word answers, non-verbal means, body language, or even mother tongue.
Answering T/F or wh-questions, drawing charts while listening are other means of displaying comprehension. If students spend most of their class-time by just listening, doesn't it mean that NA teachers are doing the speaking all the time? Isn't this too much burden on the shoulders of our teachers? In Krashenian NA, yes! Krashen's NA teachers has to speak a lot because he is a native (or at least native-like) speaker and he is the main source of input in class. But in our EFL setting, teachers are non- ative . Let alone the non-natives, it is even hard for the native teachers to be the only source of input in class. The solution that we have found to this problem is to use authentic listening texts in the form of audio or video cassettes from the ELT market in addition to the audio and video cassettes of our old coursebook.
If the main source of input is authentic material then what is the role of teacher? The basic duty of our teachers is to check students' comprehension? This is far easier than being the main source of input or being a communicative teacher.
Interestingly, however, this easy method of language teaching is not necessarily less effective than others. One can even suggest that it is one of the most effective methods. To test the efficacy of our application in Kuleli we gave a standard test (KET) comprising listening, reading, writing components plus a separate grammar test (in March). We also gave the same tests to the students in another military high school using the same textbook but with a grammar-oriented method. The test results indicated that Kuleli students are 25 % better off in reading, 40 % in listening. Their better performance might be considered as a natural, expected outcome of the heavy emphasis on receptive skills.
What is more interesting, however, are the writing and grammar results. Kuleli students performed 18 % better in grammar and 30 % in writing though these two language areas have not been emphasized in our program. Even if there were no differences in success between Kuleli and other school students, NA would be successful due to their superiority in overall-proficiency. In short, research results have confirmed the hypothesis that getting great quantities of input develops not only the receptive skills but also the productive ones plus grammar.
NA, in its somewhat modified version, seems to be an appropriate method applicable in an EFL setting like Turkiye. It is a reality that the number of native or true- bilingual teachers is low in our country. But even under such restricted conditions, the application of NA at Kuleli prep has shown that students attain high levels of proficiency when exposed to ample amount of input. To sum up, NA seems to be a method of fostering both productive and receptive skills plus grammar by just relying on input, a method of killing many birds with one stone.
posted by david at 8:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home