Natural Approach Versus Communicative Approach in ESL Classroom

HOUR VANNAK

Natural Approach Versus Communicative Approach in ESL Classroom 1. Background and Definition 1.1 Natural Approach (NA) According to Irvine Valley College (2013), the Natural Approach was developed by Dr. Tracy D. Terrell, professor of linguistics at UC Irvine and UC San Diego and Dr. Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus of linguistics and education at USC. The Natural Approach to language learning is designed to develop basic communication skills, not make students experts in grammar. The scholars advocating to this approach argue that adult beginning language learners, just like children, go through different stages of competence in the new language.

1.2 Communicative Language Teaching Approach (CLT) CLT was developed in the 1970s, and in critical reaction to the formal and boring types of exercises used under the audio-lingual approach (‘drill-and-kill’ exercises). Communicative language teaching can be understood as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom (Richards, 2006).

2. Similarities Between NA and CLT Despites the two approaches are named differently – Natural-Based Approach and Communicative Language Teaching Approach – they share certain similarities. Both approaches share the same goal, which focuses on teaching speaking competence. To be competent in a language, the child must go through three main stages namely Comprehension, Early Production, and Emergent Language. Besides, referring to Irvine Valley College (2013), the Natural-Based Approach is designed to develop communication skills while Richards (2006) stated that Communicative Language Teaching Approach aims at teaching communicative competence, and which includes the following aspects of language knowledge: •

Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions

HOUR VANNAK

•

Knowing how to vary the use of language according to the setting and the participants (e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication)

•

Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives, reports, interviews, conversations)

•

Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication strategies)

Looking at both approaches, we know that they are designed to teach learners to be competent in the target language in a way that a child adopts his L1. To put it in simple words, first of all the child gets exposed to a particular language speaking environment over a period of time. Then, he eventually starts to babble producing sounds like words. Later on, he starts to speak out certain words with some pronunciation problems. This process goes on until he eventually becomes competent in the language without learning its rules and regulations in the first place.

In addition, many elements of NA and CLT do not focus on the language rules and regulations. Instead, both approaches pay more attention to the importance of vocabulary which is crucial in speaking the target language. “Krashen and Terrell do describe about the nature of language that 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” (“The Natural Approach,” n.d.). From the statement above, we can conclude that in order to fluently speak the target language, students must, first of all, learn its vocabulary. This can be achieved through NA and CLT and through which students are required to pay more attention to the use of words by observing, listening, and imitating their usage.

Besides, the two approaches view language as a vehicle for communicating meanings and messages. Acquisition of the target language can take place only when people who involve in the communication understand the messages that convey the 2

HOUR VANNAK

language (“The Natural Approach,” n.d.). It is true that language is nothing more than a tool used to conduct meanings. Therefore, grammar rules and sentence structure of the language are usually ignored by NA and CLT.

In addition, NA and CLT focus on one similar classroom activity known as “Communicative Practice”. Richards (2006) explained that communicative practice refers to activities where practice in using language within a real communicative context is the focus, where real information is exchanged, and where the language used is not totally predictable. For example, students might have to draw a map of their neighbourhood and answer questions about the location of different places, such as the nearest bus stop, the nearest café, etc. To simply put, we can assume that students are given autonomy over their conversation through which they ask and answer questions. Grammar is not a concern in this practice and any other speaking mistakes such as pronunciation, intonation, and speed are not monitored by the classroom teacher.

3. Differences Between NA and CLT There is a major difference between the two approaches -- NA and CLT. NA has never claimed to have any theory used to learn the target language besides the natural ways by which grammar rules and other regulations are not focused. It is absolutely the way a child learns his mother tongue. However, CLT has developed process-based CLT approaches in language acquisition. According to Richards (2006), there are two methodologies described as extensions of the process-based CLT approaches but both of them propose different ways to achieve the goal of communicative language teaching which is to develop learners’ communicative competence: content-based instruction (CBI) and task-based instruction (TBI).

According to British Council (2003), CBI focuses on the topic or subject matter. The process of this model is that students are required to focus on learning about something. It can be anything that is interesting to them from any subjects they may have learnt in other classes or their favourite singer, actor, and actress, or even a movie. They learn about this subject using the language they are trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool for developing knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the target language. Amazingly, we may think of 3

HOUR VANNAK

this as a natural approach but what makes the difference is “a recent critic of Krashen suggests he has no theory of the Natural Approach” (Gregg, 1984, as cited in “The Natural Approach,” n.d.). In other words, CBI and TBI are not mentioned in NA.

On the other hand, task-based instruction is another methodology that can be regarded as developing from a focus on classroom processes. In the case of TBI, the claim is that language learning will result from creating the right kinds of interactional processes in the classroom, and the best way to create these is to use specially designed instructional tasks. Rather than employing a conventional syllabus, particularly grammar-based one, advocators of TBI argue that grammar and other dimensions of communicative competence can be developed as a by-product of engaging learners in interactive tasks. Of course, most teachers make use of different kinds of tasks as parts of their regular teaching. However, TBI makes strong claims for the use of tasks and sees them as the primary unit to be used, both in planning teaching and also in classroom teaching (Richards, 2006).

Furthermore, CLT has a classroom activity which defies the NA theory. Mechanical practice, according to Richards (2006), refers to a controlled practice activity which students can successfully carry out without necessarily understanding the language they are using. Examples of this kind of activity would be repetition drills and substitution drills designed to practice the use of particular grammatical or other items. This activity opposes NA which supports the ideas that second language learners should learn the target language in the very same way as a child does, and by which grammar should not be mentioned, and drills and practices are discouraged.

4

References

British Council. (2013). Content-based instruction. From http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/content-based-instruction Irvine Valley College. (2013). The natural approach to learning a new language. From http://www.ivc.edu/faculty/jegasse/Pages/naturalapproach.aspx Richards, J.C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. From http://www.cambridge.org/other_files/downloads/esl/booklets/RichardsCommunicative-Language.pdf The natural approach. (n.d.). From http://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/Alternative%20methods/natural_approach.htm