top of page
Search

Naturalistic Approaches to TESOL: The Direct Method versus The Natural Approach

Writer's picture: Rebecca Kate HodgeRebecca Kate Hodge
Jul 31, 202110 min read

There are many popular methods and approaches to TESOL (teaching English to speakers of other languages) that are used in the classroom today, as well as several arguably outdated methods due to “evolving perspectives on language teaching” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) which are less commonly employed in present day language teaching. One strand of perspectives on TESOL is represented in ‘naturalistic’ approaches which umbrellas the thought-processes and practices associated with the idea of mirroring first language acquisition in the learning of subsequent languages (Thornbury, 2021). The naturalistic perspective arose as a reaction to previous methods and approaches that treated second language teaching as another classical, academic lesson and saw the learning of a language as a badge of intellect. This dates back to the days of teaching Latin and Greek with no intention for actually communicating in these languages (Teflnet, 2021). This essay compares The Direct Method with The Natural Approach- two separate teaching strategies, both formed from naturalistic ideas but with many notable differences in application. These two naturalistic approaches acknowledge the previous teaching styles that arguably isolated learners with a lower response to traditional academic lesson structures and aimed to approach TESOL from a more natural, developmental perspective.

It is important to begin by noting the difference between an approach and a method. An approach has a clear theory, in this case about teaching language, and set of principles which can be applied through many different classroom techniques. It is the “assumptions and beliefs about language learning” which can then be used to formulate appropriate methodology (Anthony, 1963:5). There is a flexibility in expression of these ideas about teaching language. A method is less flexible; it has specific design guidelines for application including activity types, skills focus, role of the teacher, etc. (Richards, 2011). A method can also be described more simply as “a set of teaching procedures” (Mackey, 1975:155, cited in Anthony, 1963:2) that teachers are obliged to follow fairly tightly.

The Direct Method was formulated in 1878 by Maximillian Berlitz in response to The Grammar Translation Method (InnovativeLanguage.com, 2021). GTM was an adaptation of The Classical Method used to teach Latin and Greek in the 16th century. Latin started to decline in the early 19th Century which meant The GTM found a new purpose in helping learners study L2 languages (Mambrol, 2020). The Grammar Translation Method was highly structured, teacher-controlled and almost entirely focused on vocabulary translation and grammar teaching. The main aim of the GTM was to strengthen learners’ ability to “read, write, and translate”, with accuracy being the main focus, not fluency, and believing that “literary language is superior to the spoken language” (Mambrol, 2020). Researchers began to think that this method was “failing in the goal of effective communication in a second language” (tesolonlne.com, 2021). Richards and Rodgers criticised GMT saying “it is a method for which there is no theory” (2001:4). Berlitz agreed, arguing that this method was unnatural, and that foreign language teaching should try to mimic the conditions in which we learn our first language (tesolonlne.com. 2021). This new idea was based upon the theory of behaviorism and its ideas about interaction which were applied to this new strategy (The Gift of Learning to Teach, 2021).


The most noticeable characteristic of the Direct Method is that it is taught exclusively in the target language, allowing the learner to be fully immersed into the language they are learning (Millsaps, 2020). In this sense, the direct method is quite the literal representation of how we acquire our native tongue- there is no translation, with a focus on speaking and listening skills required for everyday communication. Learners are expected to learn vocabulary and build up oral skills gradually, while grammar is acquired inductively through practice. Techniques used in this method include repeated question and answer exchanges, demonstrations (for example, doing a swimming motion with your arms for the verb to swim), dictation as the teacher reads a passage aloud, conversation practice (student-student/student-teacher) and paragraph writing (Rhalmi, 2018). It could be argued that the choice of activities given to students are limited without the use of the native language, for example, written and spoken translation activities of any kind cannot be used. In terms of materials, realia are used for props in representing concrete vocabulary, where association is often used for abstract concepts (Rhalmi, 2018). Hall describes materials as “anything that assists teaching and learning” (2011:233) and anything is very much utilised in the Direct Method in order to present vocabulary without translation. Visual cues paired with repetition of terms are vital in this method (Millsaps, 2020). Krause states that the Direct Method “demands more of a teacher” than more traditional methods (1916: 104). It can be argued that some concepts would be much easier explained through translation into the learner’s L1 and the lack of this teaching technique demonstrates the level of effort, creativity and energy the teacher needs in order to carry out this method. Learners are praised when demonstrating effective communication in the target language but there is little correction given by the teacher, instead repetition of techniques to explain vocabulary is used until the student has self-corrected (Millsaps, 2020). Due to repetition and practice of vocabulary, and with the main focus being on successful communication, it is likely that pronunciation will be more accurate from students taught in this method.

Like the Direct Method, the Natural Approach places importance on communication, conforming to naturalistic principles about language acquisition. Where the Direct Method has a set procedure, The Natural Approach is flexible in the way it can be expressed in the classroom. Founded by Tracy Terrel with the support and endorsement of Stephen Krashen in the early 1980s, this approach was a reaction to Situational Language Teaching and similar methods that followed behind the likes of the DM after having paved the way to challenging classical methods (Rhalmi, 2018). Krashen’s ‘Input Hypothesis’ provided the NA with theoretical validity; he believed that providing ‘comprehensible input’ was crucial in order for learners to acquire the target language (Schutz, 2019). At this point it is important to discuss the difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ which one of the five hypotheses making up Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition explains. ‘The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis’ defines learning as “the product of formal instruction”; gaining knowledge ‘about’ a language through conscious processes that teach the structures of a language explicitly (Krashen, 1987; cited in Rhalmi, 2018). Acquisition, however, is described as “the product of a subconscious process” (Schutz, 2019). Acquisition is the naturalistic development of competence in communicating using the target language (Krashen, 1987; cited in Rhalmi, 2018). Krashen believes that acquisition is more important than learning when it comes to second language learning (Schuts, 2019). With this theory as the foundation of The Natural Approach, different practical techniques were designed to put this into practice.

The major difference between the DM and the NA is that the latter teaches using both the L1 and target language. The focus of this approach is on listening and reading skills- this allows for the most possible exposure and absorption of the language. There is an emphasis on understanding and vocabulary development and the aim is for learners to grasp the meaning of messages being expressed (Rhalmi, 2018). The NA adopts a variety of techniques from other methods, including; command drills (from Total Physical Response method), demonstration, gestures, question and answer exchanges (from The Direct Method), group work and discussion (from Communicative Language Teaching) (Rhalmi, 2018). As learner levels increase activities get more complex and tasks might range from the likes of asking students to sort pictures and spot-the-difference games to following maps (Thornbury, 2021). This practice demonstrates the difference between a method and an approach- there is no set procedure to follow, only a set of principles which can be actioned through employing whichever techniques the teacher thinks best. Similar to the DM, students are not corrected, although rather than encouraging repetition in order to achieve self-correction, the teacher allows the learners to come to this awareness in their own time without prompt. Grammar rules are also acquired inductively; structures are indirectly taught through displays of the language by the teacher who often engages in the same activities as the students in their role as the “more proficient speaker” (Thornbury, 2021) Unlike the DM, using a combination of the L1 and target language to teach allows for translation of concepts, which supports an argument that this approach is less challenging for teachers. Communication is valued; however, speaking emerges later and students are not explicitly encouraged to speak in the target language until they naturally feel ready to do so (Thornbury, 2021). With a stronger emphasis on comprehension than production, it could also be argued that pronunciation would be weaker, particularly initially, from students taught with this approach if compared to students taught using the Direct Method.

In terms of effectiveness, several factors must be considered. Both the Direct Method and the Natural Approach are suitable for beginner learners, but the NA is designed for beginners, where the DM is appropriate for learners of any level. The DM also tends to be used with smaller classes as the techniques require a high level of alertness, and this would be difficult to demand from a larger class size. Whereas, the NA is less intense and sometimes utilises group interaction, therefore making it suitable for larger classes (Rhalmi, 2018). These characteristics also force the consideration of individual learner differences. Acknowledging this only briefly (aware there has been much more in-depth research into this aspect of TESOL), it could be said that the nature of the DM- intensive, requiring active, visible engagement- would be better suited to learners of a more extraverted character.

Krashen’s ‘Affective Filter Hypothesis’ (1987) points out “three types of emotional attitudinal factors that may affect acquisition”: motivation, self-esteem and anxiety (Rhalmi, 2018). Learners who have higher levels of motivation and self-esteem but lower levels of anxiety will acquire a language more successfully (a low effective filter). Inhibition and anxiety have the potential to create a ‘mental block’ that stops input from being absorbed (cited in Schutz, 2019). This effect was first argued by Dulay and Burt (1977), who suggested that TESOL will be more effective in environments that encourage low effective filters (Krashen, 1987:29). With this in mind, the Direct Method seems unconcerned with lowering levels of anxiety; in fact, its intensity demands constant verbal engagement which, for learners with lower confidence levels and/or introverted nature, is likely to cause some level of anxiety. The Natural Approach, however, considers varying student natures- it is a less pressured approach allowing for students to engage in the way they feel most comfortable. On the other hand, this level of comfort might not always positively affect acquisition as the student might be too relaxed and under no pressure to practice the target language. This in turn could slow the rate at which communicative competence is achieved.

Prabhu (1990) proposed that attempts to crown one method as the best was “illogical” due to the collaborative aspects which have evolved many methods and approaches, considering context and teachers’ own personal ideas (cited in Hall, 2017:66). However, though this idea seems to relate to the Natural Approach with its variability in methodologies, the Direct Method is not so adaptable with rules that so strongly characterise it such as, no L1 language is to be spoken in the classroom. Therefore, if effectiveness was to be based purely on adaptability, the DM would not be considered but rather the NA be favoured. Another conclusion drawn about effectiveness of approaches to TESOL is that the strongest methods provide relevant ‘comprehensible input’ in a low anxiety environment (Schuts, 2019). This is somewhat open to subjectivity though, when comprehensible input can be supplied in the form of speech or writing. The Direct Method focuses on listening and speaking skills and the learners are fully immersed into the target language with no option but to be exposed to input, although if no translating happens then the comprehensibleness of this input is questionable. Whereas listening and reading skills are valued the most in the Natural Approach and the L1 is utilised in teaching. For that reason, it can be justified that the NA provides more comprehensible input. Furthermore, the DM encourages reproduction of this input which allows students to express effective communication in the target language sooner than students taught using the NA.

Many more arguments could be made about the effectiveness of these two approaches to TESOL (considering other aspects such as their approaches to grammar and how important an aspect grammar is of second language learning) but with the factors discussed it seems reasonable to propose that the Direct Method is likely to produce more tangible, spoken results from some students, but the Natural Approach is the most considerable in terms of learner characteristics, context, flexibility in terms of teacher differences and allowing them to read the situation and adapt accordingly. In this sense, all types of learners are better catered for in the NA arguing greater overall effectiveness, compared with the DM whose set procedures could be extremely effective for some but not likely for all. References:

 
 
 

Comments

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

  • Twitter

@RebeccaWrites Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page