BUILDING A BALANCED LANGUAGE PROGRAM: AN INTRODUCTION TO NATION'S FOUR STRANDS David Herman

BUILDING A BALANCED LANGUAGE PROGRAM: AN INTRODUCTION TO NATION’S FOUR STRANDS

David Herman Foundation for Scholarly Exchange in Taipei, Taiwan

Most language teachers would agree that the purpose of any language course is to help students develop fluent control over features of the target language such as vocabulary, grammar, and discourse features so that they can be used in effective communication. In other words, we teach the language with the goal that our students will be able to use the language. Unfortunately, the ways in which many traditionally teach classes – teacher-centered with an emphasis on vocabulary and grammar – do not provide our students with the practice and practical skills development to become a fluent user of the target language. Achieving the goal of effective communication in the target language requires a broad set of skills across language domains. For example, effective participation in an oral conversation requires skills in both speaking and listening. In order to provide language learners with optimal opportunities to develop all the language skills needed for effective communication, Paul Nation developed what he calls a well-balanced language curriculum. Paul Nation is an emeritus professor from the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. He specializes in the teaching and learning of vocabulary and in language teaching methodology.

The purpose of Nation’s four strands is to help language teachers and course designers make sure that there is a balance of different learning opportunities in any language course. Nation (1996) notes that it is not uncommon to see courses that do little else than focus on formal features of the target language, such as vocabulary and grammar, and provide little opportunity for students to put what they have learned to practical use. On the other extreme, some courses may have a very strong communicative focus and actively discourse form-focused direct instruction. Nation (2012) argues that neither situation is ideal for helping learners develop practical communication skills. A focus on form is not enough, neither is a focus on communication. What is needed is a balance of proven strategies across the four strands.

Teachers are often looking for the ‘best methods’ when deciding how to teach their students. Nation (1996), however, argues that “it is much more productive to become aware of the important principles of teaching and learning, and to apply these in ways that suit the learners, the teaching conditions and the skills of the teacher” (p. 7). In other words, “it makes more sense to have a range of ways of helping the learning of certain language features and skills than to rely on only one way” (Nation, 2012, p. 168). Nation (1996) even goes so far as to say “...it is not wise for a teacher or course designer to ally themselves with a particular method of language teaching” (p. 7). Therefore, the four strands are presented as a set of principles for creating a well-balanced language curriculum. The specific teaching techniques and activities used, however, are up to the teacher and learners.

Nation (2012) notes that, through the four strands, a teacher or course designer can answer questions such as the following: ● How can I teach vocabulary? ● What should a well-balanced listening course contain? ● How much extensive reading should we do?

As the four strands are not content-specific nor are they method-specific, the principles can be applied to language courses of any focus. The answer lies in the balance. Nation argues that by applying roughly equal attention to learning opportunities in each strand, optimal language learning can be achieved. In the following article, I will introduce each of Nation’s four strands including optimal conditions as well as possible activities.

Overview

As the name suggests, Nation’s four strands consists of four distinct components: language-focused learning, meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, and fluency development. Simply put, these strands are designed to help remind teachers to provide a balance of opportunities for their students to engage with the target language for the purpose of developing functional fluency. This requires a mix of direct instruction, meaningful input through reading and listening, meaningful output through speaking and writing, and direct practice engaging with target language more naturally and smoothly. The argument is that, regardless of the course, roughly equal amounts of time and attention, in no particular order, should be given to each strand. This may be done at the course level, unit level, or even lesson level. In addition, the four strands are presented through a learner-centered perspective, meaning the focus is put on what the learner is learning rather than what the teacher is teaching. Furthermore, “[the model] sees the teacher’s most important role as being a planner not a teacher” (Nation, 2012, p. 178). This planner role “... involves deciding what are the most important language items for the learner to be focusing on at a particular stage, and providing a range of learning opportunities across the four strands so that this material will be learned” (Nation, 2012, p. 178). Nation argues that “it is through these strands that learners achieve the learning goals of a language course; namely fluent control of the sounds, spelling, vocabulary, grammar and discourse features of the language, so that they can be used to communicate effectively” (Nation, 1996, p. 7).

In the following section, each strand will be introduced individually including optimal conditions and suggested activities.

Language-focused Learning

Form-focused learning is the strand that language teachers and learners are likely most familiar with. This strand focuses on “...the direct presentation and explanation of language features. Typically, this involves the teaching of spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, collocations, grammatical features and patterns, and discourse features” (Nation, 2012, p. 178). Nation notes that “...there is plenty of evidence, certainly in vocabulary learning, that deliberate learning can make a very useful contribution to a learner’s language proficiency.” (Nation, 2012, p. 178). However, he also notes that “...direct teaching is not greatly effective” and that …[direct] “teaching should play a rather reduced role in a language program” (Nation, 2012, p. 178). In other words, direct language-focused instruction can be an important part of an effective language program, but it should not be the only or even main part. Languagefocused learning

25%

25%

Meaningfocused output Meaningfocused input

25%

25%

Fluency development

Fig. 1 Nation’s Four Strands

Nation created a list of conditions for a teacher’s direct instruction of a particular language feature to optimally support students’ language learning:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. The learners should give deliberate attention to language features. The learners should process the language features in deep and thoughtful ways. There should be opportunities to give spaced, repeated attention to the same features. The features that are focused on should be simple and not dependent on developmental knowledge that the learners do not have. Features that are studied in the language-focused learning strand should also occur often in the other three strands of the course. (Nation, 2007, p. 5)

The purpose of this strand is both to acknowledge the value of direct instruction in language learning and to remind teachers not to overemphasize it in their classrooms. Direct instruction can be an important part of the language classroom, but it should not take up more than 25% of the total learning time. An overemphasis on form-focused instruction often “leads to a preoccupation with correctness and grammatical knowledge, with hardly any attention to competent and fluent language use” (Funk, 2012, p. 302). As stated earlier, balance is key.

Meaning-focused Input

Another of the four strands is meaning-focused input. As the name suggests, this strand focuses on language input, specifically the receptive skills of listening and reading. Nation (2012) points out that “this is largely incidental learning because the learners’ attention should be focused on comprehending what is being read or listened to” (p. 167). In order to achieve this, learners should read and listen to large amounts of content in their target language that is at a generally comprehensible level with very few new words or structures.

Common activities within this strand may include listening to stories or songs, watching TV or films, and being the listener in a conversation.

In order for this strand to effectively exist, the following conditions should be present:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. Most of what the learners are listening to or reading is already familiar to them. The learners are interested in the input and want to understand it. Only a small proportion of the language features are unknown to the learners (5%). The learners can gain some knowledge of the unknown language items through context clues and background knowledge. There are large quantities of input. (Nation, 2007, p. 2)

In a balanced language course, around one quarter of course time should be spent with learners reading or listening to content which is independently understandable to them. This strand is often neglected as many teachers feel class time is better spent with the teacher introducing new content than with students, for example, reading independently. Extensive reading and listening are important aspects of the language learning process, however, and are not likely to be done by students independently on their own time (unless assigned specifically as homework). Nation states that “the major principle supporting the idea of the four strands is the time-on-task principle” (2012, p. 168). This principle states that the more time you spend doing something, the better you get at it. Therefore, as the abilities to read and listen are valuable skills for communication, it is important that time is spent doing these things, particularly in meaningful ways.

The next strand is, in a sense, the opposite of the previous strand. Again referring to the time-ontask principle, if learners wish to become better speakers and writers, they need time and practice speaking and writing. Whereas the previous strand focuses on input, this strand focuses on output or production. Similar to meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output puts focus on meaning making. This means that learners are encouraged to produce language using largely words and structures they already know with the goal of being understood by the listener or reader.

Common activities under this strand may include talking in a conversation, presenting a speech, telling a story, instructing someone in a task, writing a journal or diary entry, taking notes, or writing a letter.

The conditions that apply to meaning-focused input largely apply to meaning-focused output:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. The learners write and talk about things that are largely familiar to them. The learners’ main goal is to convey their message to someone else. Only a small proportion of the language they need to use is not familiar to them. The learners can use communication strategies, dictionaries or previous input to make up for gaps in their productive knowledge. There are plenty of opportunities to speak and write. (Nation, 2007, p. 3)

In sum, the strand of meaning-focused output ensures that learners spend approximately 25% of their learning time producing the target language with a focus on being understood by others. This is not the same as repeating dialogues or reciting poems. Within this strand, students should be producing language in their own words with a focus on meaning over form.

Fluency Development

The fourth and final strand of a balanced language course is fluency development. This strand is often the most neglected of the four but is suggested by Nation to be given as much time and attention as all other strands. Nation (2012) defines fluency as “the ability to receive and produce language at a reasonable rate” (p. 168). Fluency development involves all four language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), especially as learners can be more fluent in some language domains over others, and the focus is using language that is already known but attempting to use it faster and more fluidly than usual. Unlike the previous two strands which ask the learner to focus on meaning, this strand asks the learner to focus on speed and fluidity.

Common activities within this strand may include speed reading, repeated retelling, freewriting, listening to easy stories, repeated reading, and skimming and scanning. Nation (2007) notes that “There are two major types of second language fluency activities, those that involve repetitive reception or production of the same material as in 4/3/2 and repeated reading, and those that do not as in easy extensive reading or the traditional speed reading course with passages and questions” (p. 7). Nation (2007) goes on to explain that “studies of the 4/3/2 technique, where the same talk is repeated to different listeners in a decreasing time frame (four minutes, then three minutes then two), have shown increases in fluency during the task, but surprisingly also increases in grammatical accuracy and grammatical complexity” (p. 7).

Conditions for this strand include the following:

1.

2. All of what the learners are listening to, reading, speaking or writing is largely familiar to them. That is, there is no unfamiliar language content or discourse features. The learners’ focus is on receiving or conveying meaning.

The fluency development strand states that language learners should spend roughly one-quarter of their learning time developing their language fluency, that is engaging in language that they are familiar with and working at receiving and producing at a quicker pace than they otherwise would. This is also an often-neglected strand of language learning as teachers and learners may assume that fluency will develop through the different activities typically presented in the language class. Nation, however, argues that fluency is a skill that should be targeted directly and deserves 25% of the learning time.

Conclusion

The overall purpose of Nation’s four strands is to help teachers and curriculum designers to consider the overall needs of a well-rounded classroom curriculum in order to help learners develop the ability to engage fluently with the target language for the purpose of effective communication. Traditional language learning settings tend to be teacher-centered and form-focused leading to an imbalance in learning activities, neglecting certain skills in favor of others. In order to help develop a well-rounded language learner, however, emphasis should be placed on balance. And although Nation (2015) acknowledges that “there is no direct research justification for these proportions, applying the four strands principle provides a rational, justifiable way of deciding how much time should be given to each kind of activity in a course” (p.139). Note that “75% of classroom time is spent on communicating meaning, and the remaining 25% is given to language-focused learning. [Nation] argues that this 75/25 split is important because while language focused learning is efficient, the other three strands are more widely beneficial” (Coxhead, 2010, p. 4).

When teachers spend too much time teaching about the language, learners are left without enough time engaging with the language. And as most teachers acknowledge, students learning a foreign language, especially those in the lower stages, are not likely to engage with the language on their own outside of class. Target language practice is likely largely restricted to the language classroom and through assigned homework. Therefore, it is important that teachers utilize class time and homework to help learners practice and develop all language skills that they will be expected to demonstrate. This also means paying attention to the kinds of exercises provided to learners. “Exercises should always be designed from the end of the process, that is, the intended learning outcome, taking into account the target task they try to prepare students for” (Funk, 2012, p. 302). In other words, if a final task requires students to demonstrate fluent language use when orally communicating about a particular topic, it follows that the students should be provided ample practice ahead of the final task in developing both their speaking and listening fluencies. In cases like this, form-focused direct instruction is likely to have little practical value.

Funk (2012) notes that “if the correct application of rules is the prime target of teaching and testing, this model will serve this purpose well, since people will eventually get very good at what they practice, provided they are informed about the goals and there is enough time and practice materials” (p. 302). This again refers back to Nation’s time-on-task principle. When trying to determine whether a course is meeting the balance of the four strands, Nation recommends that teachers “keep a record of the activities done in the course, the strand they fit into and the amount of time spent on them” (Nation, 2007, p. 10).

It is important to note that not only is each strand of equal importance, but there is no order in which the strands should be presented in class. In fact, Nation (1996, p. 12) notes that “The last three strands become very difficult to distinguish from each other as learners’ proficiency increases.” This is because as learners become more communicative, the more multiple language skills can be used simultaneously, such as both listening and speaking while participating in a conversation. Nation

notes that, especially when working with more advanced learners, “What is more important [than trying to distinguish the strands] is to ensure that the learners are not getting too much of one strand at the expense of another” (p. 12).

In conclusion, Paul Nation’s four strands of a balanced language course are a set of principles that state that a well-balanced language course should provide equal time and attention to four specific areas of learning: language focused learning, meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, and fluency development. By ensuring this balance across a course, it is argued that learners are provided an optimal balance of learning opportunities during their development toward practical fluency. For more information regarding Nation’s four strands, including downloadable publications, free graded readers, wordlists, and speed reading courses, I recommend visiting his website at https://www.wgtn. ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation.

REFERENCES

Coxhead, A. 2010. Grabbed early by vocabulary: Nation’s ongoing contributions to vocabulary and reading in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22 (1), 1–14. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887869.pdf Funk, H. 2012. Four Models of Language Learning and Acquisition and Their Methodological Implications for Textbook Design. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9 (1), 298–311. Retrieved from https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v9s12012/funk.pdf Nation, I.S.P. 1996. The four strands of a language course. TESOL in Context, 6 (1), 7–12. Retrieved from https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/Publications/paul-nation/1996-Four-strands.pdf Nation, I.S.P. 2007. The Four Strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 2–13. Retrieved from https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/Publications/paul-nation/2007-Fourstrands.pdf Nation, I.S.P., & Yamamoto, A. 2012. Applying the Four Strands to Language Learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 1 (2), 167–181. Retrieved from https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/publications/paul-nation/yamamoto-four-strands.pdf

EATE CONGRATULATES

Nora Toots, Associate Professor Emerita of the University of Tartu, who celebrated her 90th birthday on 19 March. Her main speciality was phonetics; in co-authorship with Heino Liiv, she published the textbook Advanced English for the Estonian Learner (Part I, 1978; Part II, 1980). She had the ability to engage her students and make them work hard. Nora was among the founding members of EATE and served for a long time on the EATE Committee. She is famous for her endless energy, both mental and physical. The photo on the right shows her on her 50th birthday dancing with Jaanus Õunpuu, a student of French philology.