좋은 성과가 있기를 바랍니다.
인용한 Report는 Stanford 대학의 한 교수가 Stephan Krashen의 가설을 해석하고 반박한 것이며,
많은 부분 동의 할 만한 내용이어서 게재합니다.
건설적인 논의를 환영합니다.
Krashen and Terrell’s “Natural Approach” by Ken Romeo
The Natural Order Hypothesis
The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order. Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers. These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes. Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups. A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.
Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.
McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language. The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.
The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident. Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes. The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar. As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.
When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent. Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production. McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33). In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition. Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension? Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production? First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children. Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact.
Curriculum Design
The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.
This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.
Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty. Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background. The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved. It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101). However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.
Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions. These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84). These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model. The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production. Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose. Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.
Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening. However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension. Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway. Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best. Consider the dialog presented on p.87:
. . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run. The instructor expands the answer. Yes, that’s right, he’s running.
The exchange is meant to illustrate how allowing for errors, while at the same time providing corrected input can help students in “acquisition”. To the student, however, the information in the instructor’s response is completely contained in the word “Yes”. Krashen makes no comment on how, even if it is comprehended, the extra information of “He’s running” enters the student’s production. If simple exposure is the answer, then “that’s right” is more likely to be “acquired” given its proximity to the carrier of meaning “Yes”.
This issue is the subject of extensive psycholinguistic research in sentence processing and bilingual lexical memory, and conclusive answers have not yet been found. The length of the path from 1) understanding the above question to 2) giving a one-word answer, to 3) being able to give a full sentence answer, and then 4) being able to ask a similar question is quite unclear. Especially if the teacher is to rely on input alone, it is very conceivable that the students could be working their way through the intermediate steps for quite some time. Teachers would perhaps be better served by a less dogmatic approach that informed them of not only single steps, but what exactly has been found in current research. This of course includes hypotheses and findings that have not been conclusively proven yet, but a more balanced approach than the present one would allow teachers to use their valuable experience in the classroom to make informed judgments about curriculum. In attempting to teach a subject whose process is not clearly known, it seems obvious that a well-rounded awareness of the theoretical issues involved is necessary. For this reason concurrent teacher education in language education is essential to insure the needs of all students are met.
Conclusions
Krashen seemed to be on the right track with each of his hypotheses. Anyone who has learned a language, and especially those who have seen the grammar-translation method in action seems to have a gut level feeling that the road to proficiency runs somewhere outside of textbooks and classrooms. Indeed, in the literature, every reviewer makes a special effort to acknowledge the incredible contribution that Krashen had made to language education. Kramsch (1995) points out that the input metaphor may be a relic of the prestige of the physical sciences and electrical engineering, but that Krashen’s acquisition-learning dichotomy cuts at the heart of academic legitimation. She advocates a more productive discourse between applied linguists and foreign language teachers to explore and question the historical and social forces that have created the present context.
Krashen’s conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: “It is possible that ‘no pain, no gain’ does not apply to language acquisition” (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to “comprehensible input” we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an “easy way” philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
This does not mean, however, that teachers should be sent to their classrooms with no direction, or worse yet, back to a grammar-based or audiolingual approach. The issue of exactly what and how to tell teachers to teach is one of the most complex and sensitive issues that policy has to implement. It is only through basic research into a wide variety of areas such as the role of exposure in comprehension and production that we can begin to develop the policies to create the best practices for the classroom.
Bibliography
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Home Page. Revised Knowledge and Skill Areas Assessed on Tests 1-3 of the (Bilingual) Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD/BCLAD). 1998. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 14 December 2000.
<
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/clad_bclad_revisions/clad_bclad_revisions.html>
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (p.51-79). California State Department of Education.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, Longman.
Krashen, S.D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In James E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 409-431.
Krashen, S.D. (1993a). Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction. Another educator comments . . . . TESOL Quarterly, 26, No. 2. 409-411
Krashen, S.D. (1993b). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 26, No.3. 722-725.
Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Chang님의 글입니다.
> 참고로 실험내용을 조금 언급해 두겠습니다.
>
> * Dulay, Burt (1974)
> Spanish 60명과 Chinese 55명을 상대로 실험했습니다. 연령대는 애들입니다.
> 모국어가 Spanish, Chinese로 서로 달랐지만 거의 동일한 결과가 나왔습니다.
>
> * Bailey, Madden, Krashen (1974)
> Spanish33명, non-Spanish 40명 (Greek, Farsi, Italian, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Afgan, Hebrew, Arabic, Vietnamese가 섞어 있었습니다.)을 대상으로 실험했습니다. 연령대는 어른의 경우입니다.
> 이 실험에서도 Dulay, Burt와 거의 같은 결과를 얻었습니다.
>
> 이러한 실험들을 바탕으로 L2로 영어를 배우는 학습자가 어른이든, 아이든 모국어가 어떤 언어체계를 가지고 있든 대체로 비슷한 순서에 입각하여 말을 배운다는 것은 정설로 받아들여지고 있는 것으로 알고 있습니다. 물론 이 실험의 구체적인 그래프를 보면 모국어가 어떤것인가에 따라 약간의 변수는 있는 것으로 알려져 있습니다만... 불행히도 이 실험에서 한국어는 없었지만 한국어의 경우도 비슷할 것으로 충분히 추정할 수 있을 것으로 생각됩니다.
>
> 한국말의 경우에 대한 구체적인 사례를 가지고 정리를 한번 해서 글을 한번 더 올리도록 하겠습니다.
>
> Chang
쑥쑥몰
> 
Chang 
최신
이전
