 Storytelling in the Yup’ik Immersion Classroom
The Natural Approach
The Natural Approach to second language acquisition is based
on five hypotheses proposed in Krashen’s Monitor Model:
- the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,
- the Monitor hypothesis,
- the Natural Order hypothesis,
- the Input hypothesis (to which I also add Swain’s Comprehensible
Output),
- and the Affective Filter hypothesis (Krashen and Terrell, 1983).
The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis claims that
language learners have two independent ways of developing competence in a second
language. Of the two, the most important is acquisition. Acquiring a language
is a subconscious process similar to the way children develop ability in the
first language (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Language learning on the other
hand requires conscious study and knowledge of grammatical rules and being
able to talk about them. Krashen believes that ‘learning’ is less
important than acquisition. At Ayaprun Elitnaurvik at the primary level, we
focus primarily on acquisition. Grammar study is emphasized in the later grades
when students have acquired sufficient competence in Yup’ik (Ayaprun
Elitnaurvik, 2003). TPR Storytelling focuses on the acquisition of language
rather than the learning of language by presenting items in meaningful, observable
way, rather than teaching grammatical rules and vocabulary lists (Brune, 2004).
Krashen’s second hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis,
summarizes the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the
role of grammar. Acquisition is responsible for becoming fluent in a language,
while the learning system performs the role of the ‘monitor’ or
the ‘editor’ (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). We use acquisition
when we initiate sentences in second languages, and learning as a kind of after-thought
to make changes and corrections (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). This can be
illustrated with the example of the students in my class requesting a drink
of water. When they stumble the first time, they use the gesture for drinking
water to help them remember the word and say it correctly. Because I do not
want to hurt their self-confidence, I do not pay too much attention to their
pronunciation (Asher, 1993). If I understand what the student is trying to
say through the gesture, I simply repeat the word back to the student and then
let them get a drink. In TPR Storytelling, new vocabulary is introduced before
the story is told and meaning of words and grammatical forms are explained
as they arise within the telling of the story itself (Brune, 2004).
Krashen’s third hypothesis is the Natural Order
Hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that the acquisition of grammatical
structures follows a ‘natural order’ which is predictable (Krashen & Terrell,
1983). Krashen and Terrell hypothesize that there is a predictable order
in which grammatical components of the language are acquired (Ray & Seely,
2001). Because TPR does not place an emphasis on grammar (Asher, 1993), students
can acquire language in its Natural Order. TPR Storytelling deemphasizes
grammar explanations because according to Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis,
grammatical explanations have little or no effect on the order in which grammatical
structures are in fact acquired (Brune, 2004).
The fourth of Krashen’s hypotheses’ is the Input
Hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that we acquire (not learn)
language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level
of (acquired) competence (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). In the Input Hypothesis,
the learner improves and progresses along the natural order when he/she receives
second language input that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic
competence (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Krashen claims that acquisition
for learners can only take place if they are exposed to comprehensible
input. Comprehensible input is language presented to the student
in such a way that the student can understand without the need of translation
(Anderson & Marsh, 1998). The learner must always be challenged, but
never to a point at which frustration sets in. In accordance with Krashen’s
Input Hypothesis, TPR Storytelling places a heavy emphasis on the comprehensibility
of the language used during the course of a lesson (Brune, 2004). The very
fact of using gestures to show what happens in the story makes the input
comprehensible.
Merrill Swain (1985) has claimed that comprehensible input is
not enough. She suggests that students acquire language most meaningfully when
they also have the opportunity for comprehensible output.
They need to have a setting in which their attempts at communication are valued
and shaped to make them acceptable and understandable (Curtain & Dahlberg,
2004). Cummins and Swain (1986) argue that immersion students do not demonstrate
the ability to speak (or write) like native speakers, not because their comprehensible
input is limited, but because their comprehensible output is limited in two
ways: 1.) Students are simply not given – especially in later grades – adequate
opportunities to use the target language in the classroom context, and 2.)
they are not being ‘pushed’ in their output. They add that immersion
students have developed, in the early grades, strategies for getting their
meaning across which are adequate for the situation they find themselves in
with their teachers and peers (Cummins & Swain, 1986). Because of this,
there appears to be little social or cognitive pressure to produce language
(Cummins & Swain, 1986). TPR Storytelling encourages comprehensible output
by providing students the chance to practice using vocabulary and sentences
in the context of the story. Given practice for comprehensible output during
the stories, it makes it easier for them to use vocabulary and phrases more
spontaneously in their everyday interactions with each other. One day I had
a student who was upset about something and another student comforted him using
vocabulary from one of our previous stories. The sad child’s mood changed
before I found it necessary to intervene to help solve the problem. In these
ways, TPR Storytelling encourages students to use Yup’ik with each other.
Immersion language teachers recognize the need for a structured
learning environment that attends to language development and content. Also
needed is having predictable instructional routines and patterned language
for transitions between subjects (Curtain & Fortune, 1997). The students
need to have a setting in which they are given many opportunities to produce
new forms and to communicate (Curtain & Fortune, 1997). Students need more
opportunities to use the language and more wait time for responses without
immediately supplying answers (Curtain & Fortune, 1997). Other strategies
to increase student output are interactive partner and cooperative learning
tasks (Curtain & Fortune, 1997).
One practice I use for students to practice output is having
a “Show n’ Tell” where students are invited to bring an item
to share/talk about or just talk about something important in their lives.
Another way students can practice their language output is through print. Students
may be given time to write in their picture journals and write their thoughts.
Once students begin to express themselves orally, it becomes the teacher’s
task to provide encouragement and opportunity to communicate with one another
in a variety of ways (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004). One year when I taught
fifth and sixth grade social studies, I was struck by the students’ hesitancy
when given the opportunity to tell a story using flannel board pieces. Their
simultaneous emotions of being hesitant and excited to try something new triggered
my thinking that more opportunities such as flannel board storytelling would
provide some needed spontaneous usage of the language. With my first grade,
I have found the importance of mid-morning breaks after our snack time and
water and break times for students to have an opportunity to have leisurely
breaks in the classroom. I noticed a lot more Yup’ik conversation goes
on during these breaks that I didn’t normally witness during lessons.
As immersion teachers we need to be ever persistent and consistent in expecting
students to use complete sentences during their speech. For example, when students
want to know if we’ll be having gym that certain day, they’re inclined
to ask, Qirvan, gym? ‘Qirvan, gym?’ instead of Qirvan,
gym-arciqukut-qaa? ‘Qirvan, will we have gym?’ When
I respond back to them, Qirvan, gym?, they take it as a cue for a
more complete sentence in which they ask again, Qirvan, gym-arciqukut-qaa? ‘Qirvan,
will we have gym?’ To which I respond enthusiastically, Ii-i,
gym-arciqukut! ‘Yes, we will have gym!’ There are other
instances when students struggle with conveying thoughts. Because of all the
gesturing involved with TPR Storytelling, the gesturing aids in conveying their
thoughts as they speak.
Krashen’s last hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis
suggests that a number of ‘affective variables’ play a facilitative
role in second language acquisition. These variables include motivation, self-confidence
and anxiety. Learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image,
and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language
acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can
combine to ‘raise’ the affective filter forming a ‘mental
block’ preventing comprehensible input from being used for acquisition.
I believe that the climate we create in our classrooms makes
our students feel at ease and lowers their affective filter. TPR Storytelling
stories cause laughter among the students during TPR Storytelling sessions;
they feel comfortable knowing that they won’t be singled out. Students
are faced with questions that are at their challenge level and are never made
to feel frustrated. Spontaneous singing may be additional evidence of a low
affective filter in my classroom. My students will subtly start an Eskimo dance
song they know right in the middle of a class lesson while they are on task.
One student will begin a song quietly and then while the students are busy
with their work, the others join. One year I had a visitor who noticed this.
I told her that if it doesn’t interfere with their learning, I allow
it. I also notice that I’ll begin humming or singing a few words to a
song and then the class will (at times unexpectedly) chime in regardless of
what task they are doing. Then without a prompt, the class resumes the lesson.
They all know though that singing isn’t allowed while we’re eating,
as advised by our parents and elders.
Together these hypotheses form the basis for the Natural Approach.
The Natural Approach emphasizes real communication for practical purposes.
The focus is on the learning activities and not the language. Students
indirectly acquire linguistic understanding through direct involvement in learning
and play activities that are meaningful to them. Grammar study is introduced
in the later grades when students have acquired sufficient competence in the
target language (Yup’ik) and are ready for this sort of analysis (Ayaprun
Elitnaurvik, 2003).
Many teachers have found The Natural Approach to be effective
in promoting student comprehension of the language but have had difficulty
moving the students naturally from comprehension to production (Anderson & Marsh,
1998). TPR Storytelling takes students beyond merely listening, understanding,
and producing single-word responses. The medium of storytelling provides the
framework within which students contextualize the words they have learned.
TPR Storytelling focuses on input by providing many input-based activities
before students are required or expected to speak and/or write. Teachers focus
on providing ample amounts of Contextualized Comprehensible Input
(CCI) in which learners are exposed to planned, sequential and repetitive and
engaging stories (TPR Storytelling, 2006). TPR Storytelling focuses on output
by involving students directly in telling and sharing stories with each other
and an audience. As I have observed in my own classroom, learning a language
becomes fun unconsciously and students (including the more inhibited) are eager
to volunteer for parts in our weekly stories.
The stories are often exaggerated, personalized and usually have
humorous endings (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004) which brings laughter into
the classroom thus keeping the students’ affective filter low, an important
factor in the language acquisition process (Cantoni, 1999). With the TPR Storytelling
drama in the mini-stories and the practice in speaking over time, it seems
to also decrease the speaker’s anxiety (Ray & Seely, 2001) or, as
Krashen puts it, it “lowers the affective filter.”
In summary, TPR Storytelling focuses on acquisition of language
rather than the learning of language by presenting items in meaningful, observable
ways, rather than teaching grammatical rules and vocabulary lists (Brune, 2004).
TPR Storytelling provides Contextualized Comprehensible Input (CCI) in which
learners are exposed to planned, sequential and repetitive and engaging stories
(TPR Storytelling, 2006). TPR Storytelling encourages comprehensible output
by providing students the chance to practice using vocabulary and sentences
in the context of the story. Given practice for comprehensible output during
the stories, it makes it easier for them to use vocabulary and phrases more
spontaneously in their everyday interactions with each other. TPR Storytelling
also lowers the affective filter by engaging students in fun and often funny
dramatic routines that allow them to practice speaking without fear of being
singled out, challenged or corrected in overt ways.
Table of Contents
| 
