Background
In 1977, Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California,
outlined "a proposal for a 'new' philosophy of language teaching which
[he] called the Natural Approach" (Terrell 1977; 1982: 121). This was an
attempt to develop a language teaching proposal that incorporated the
"naturalistic" principles researchers had identified in studies of
second language acquisition. The Natural Approach grew out of Terrell's
experiences teaching Spanish classes. Since that time Terrell and others have
experimented with implementing the Natural Approach in elementary- to
advanced-level classes and with several other languages. At the same time he
has joined forces with Stephen Krashen, an applied linguist at the University
of Southern California, in elaborating a theoretical rationale for the Natural
Approach, drawing on Krashen's influential theory of second language
acquisition. Krashen and Terrell's combined statement of the principles and
practices of the Natural Approach appeared in their book, The Natural Approach,
published in 1983. The Natural Approach has attracted a wider interest than
some of the other innovative language teaching proposals discussed in this
book, largely because of its support by Krashen. Krashen and Terrell's book
contains theoretical sections prepared by Krashen that outline his views on
second language acquisition (Krashen 1981; 1982), and sections on
implementation and classroom procedures, prepared largely by Terrell.
Krashen and Terrell have identified the Natural Approach with
what they call "traditional" approaches to language teaching.
Traditional approaches are defined as "based on the use of language in
communicative situations without recourse to the native language" - and,
perhaps, needless to say, without reference to grammatical analysis,
grammatical drilling, or to a particular theory of grammar. Krashen and Terrell
note that such "approaches have been called natural, psychological,
phonetic, new, reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth" (Krashen
and Terrell 1983: 9). The fact that the authors of the Natural Approach relate
their approach to the Natural Method has led some to assume chat Natural
Approach and Natural Method are synonymous terms. Although the tradition is a
common one, there are important
differences between the Natural Approach and the older Natural Method,
which it will be useful to consider at the outset.
The Natural Method is another term for what by the turn of
the century had become known as the Direct Method.. It is described in a report
on the state of the art in language teaching commissioned by the Modern
Language Association in 1901 (the report of the "Committee of 12"):
Natural
The term natural , used in reference to the Direct Method,
merely emphasized that the principles underlying the method were believed to
conform to the principles of naturalistic language learning in young children.
Similarly, the Natural Approach, as defined by Krashen and Terrell, is believed
to conform to the naturalistic principles found in successful second language
acquisition. Unlike the Direct Method, however, it places less emphasis on
teacher monologues, direct repetition, and formal questions and answers, and
less focus on accurate production of target language sentences. In the Natural
Approach there is an emphasis on exposure, or input, rather than practice;
optimizing emotional preparedness for learning; a prolonged period of attention
to what the language learners hear before they try to produce language; and a
willingness to use written and other materials as a source of comprehensible
input. The emphasis on the central role of comprehension in the Natural
Approach links it to other comprehension-based approaches in language teaching.
Approach
Theory of
language
Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary function
of language, and since their approach focuses on teaching communicative
abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an example of a communicative
approach. The Natural Approach "is similar to other com municative
approaches being developed today" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They
reject earlier methods of language teaching, such as the Audiolingual Method,
which viewed grammar as the central component of language. According to Krashen
and Terrell, the major problem with these methods was that they were built not
around "actual theories of language acquisition, but theories of something
else; for example, the structure of language" (1983: 1). Unlike proponents
of Communicative Language Teaching, however, Krashen and Terrell give little
attention to a theory of language. Indeed, a recent critic of Krashen suggests
he has no theory of language at all (Gregg 1984). What Krashen and Terrell do
describe about the nature of language 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. Terrell quotes
Dwight Bolinger to support this view:
The quantity of information in the lexicon far outweighs that
in any other part of the language, and if there is anything to the notion of
redundancy it should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just words
than one containing just the syntactic relations. The significant fact is the
subordinate role of grammar. The most important thing is to get the words in.
(Bolinger, in Terrell 1977: 333).
Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meanings and
messages. Hence Krashen and Terrell state that "acquisition can take
place only when people understand messages in the target language (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 19). Yet despite their avowed communicative approach to language,
they view language learning, as do audiolingualists, as mastery of structures
by stages. "The input hypothesis states that in order for acquirers to
progress to the next stage in the acquisition of the target language, they need
to understand input language that includes a structure that is part of the next
stage" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32). Krashen refers to this with the
formula "I + 1" (i.e., input that contains structures slightly above
the learner's present level). We assume that Krashen means by structures
something at least in the tradition of what such linguists as Leonard
Bloomfield and Charles Fries meant by structures. The Natural Approach thus
assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters
through encounters with "input" containing structures at the "1
+ 1" level.
We are left then with a view of language that consists of
lexical items, structures, and messages. Obviously, there is no particular
novelty in this view as such, except that messages are considered of primary
importance in the Natural Approach. The lexicon for both perception and
production is considered critical in the construction and interpretation of
messages. Lexical items in messages arc necessarily grammatically structured,
and more complex messages involve more complex grammatical structure. Although
they acknowledge such grammatical structuring, Krashen and Terrell feel that
grammatical structure does not require explicit analysis or attention by the
language teacher, by the language learner, or in language teaching materials.
Theory of
learning
Krashen and Terrell make continuing reference to the
theoretical and research base claimed to underlie the Natural Approach and to
the fact that the method is unique in having such a base. "It is based on
an empirically grounded theory of second language acquisition, which has been
supported by a large number of scientific studies in a wide variety of language
acquisition and learning contexts" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 1). The
theory and research are grounded on Krashen's views of language acquisition,
which we will collectively refer to as Krashen's language acquisition theory.
Krashen's views have been presented and discussed extensively elsewhere (e.g.,
Krashen 1982), so we will not try to present or critique Krashen's arguments
here.
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis claims that there are two
distinctive ways of developing competence in a second or foreign language.
Acquisition is the "natural" way, paralleling first language
development in children. Acquisition refers to an unconscious process that
involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency through
understanding language and through using language for meaningful
communication. Learning, by contrast, refers to a process in which conscious
rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge about
the forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge. Formal
teaching is necessary for "learning" to occur, and correction of errors
helps with the development of learned rules. Learning, according to the theory,
cannot lead to acquisition.
The Monitor Hypothesis
The acquired linguistic system is said to initiate utterances
when we communicate in a second or foreign language. Conscious learning can
function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs the output of the
acquired system. I he Monitor Hypothesis claims that we may call upon learned
knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate, hut that conscious learning
(i.e., the learned system) has only this function. Three conditions limit the
successful use of the monitor:
1.Time.There must be sufficient time for a learner to choose
and apply a learned rule.
2.Focus on form. The language user must be focused on correctness
or on the form of the output.
3.Knowledge of rules. The performer must know the rules. The monitor does
best with rules that are simple in two
ways. They must be simple to describe and they must not require complex
movements and rearrangements.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
According to the Natural Order Hypothesis, the acquisition of
grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order. Research is said to
have shown that certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired
before others in first language acquisition of English, and a similar natural
order is found in second language acquisition. Errors are signs of naturalistic
developmental processes, and during acquisition (but not during learning),
similar developmental errors occur in learners no matter what their mother
tongue is.
The Input Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis claims to explain the relationship
between what the learner is exposed to of a language (the input) and language
acquisition. It involves four main issues.
-First, the
hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning.
-Second, people acquire language best by understanding input that is slightly
beyond their current level of competence: An acquirer can "move" from
a stage I (where I is the acquirer's level of competence) to a stage I +1
(where I + 1 is the stage immediately following I along some natural order) by
understanding language containing I + 1. (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32)
Clues based
on the situation and the context, extra linguistic information, and knowledge
of the world make comprehension possible.
-Third, the ability to speak fluently cannot be taught directly; rather, it
"emerges" independently in time, after the acquirer has built up
linguistic competence by understanding input.
-Fourth, if there is a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input, I + 1 will
usually be provided automatically. Comprehensible input refers to utterances
that the learner understands based on the context in which they are used as
well as the language in which they are phrased. When a speaker uses language so
that the acquirer understands the message, the speaker "casts a net"
of structure around the acquirer's current level of competence, and this will
include many instances of I + 1. Thus, input need not be finely tuned to a learner's
current level of linguistic competence, and in fact cannot be so finely tuned
in a language class, where learners will be at many different levels of
competence.
Just as child acquirers of a first language are provided with
samples of "caretaker speech," rough-tuned to their present level of
understanding, so adult acquirers of a second language are provided with
simple codes that facilitate second language comprehension. One such code is
"foreigner talk," which refers to the speech native speakers use to
simplify communication with foreigners. Foreigner talk is characterized by a
slower rate of speech, repetition, restating, use of Yes/No instead of Who-
questions, and other changes that make messages more comprehensible to persons
of limited language proficiency.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Krashen sees the learner's emotional state or attitudes as an
adjustable filter that freely passes, impedes, or blocks input necessary to
acquisition. A low affective filter is desirable, since it impedes or blocks less
of this necessary input. The hypothesis is built on research in second language
acquisition, which has identified three kinds of affective or attitudinal
variables related to second language acquisition.
1. Motivation. Learners with high motivation generally do
better.
2. Self-confidence. Learners with self-confidence and a good
self-image tend to be more successful.
3. Anxiety. Low personal anxiety and low classroom anxiety
are more conducive to second language acquisition.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis states that acquirers with a
low affective filter seek and receive more input, interact with confidence, and
are more receptive to the input they receive. Anxious acquirers have a high
affective filter, which prevents acquisition from taking place. It is believed
that the affective filter (e.g., fear or embarrassment) rises in early
adolescence, and this may account for children's apparent superiority to older
acquirers of a second language.
These five hypotheses have obvious implications for language
teaching. In sum, these are:
1. As much
comprehensible input as possible must be presented.
2. Whatever helps comprehension is important. Visual aids are useful, as is
exposure to a wide range of vocabulary rather than study of syntactic
structure.
3. The focus
in the classroom should be on listening and reading; speaking should be allowed
to "emerge."
4.In order
to lower the affective filter, student work should center on meaningful
communication rather than on form; input should be interesting and so
contribute to a relaxed classroom atmosphere.
Design
Objectives
The Natural Approach "is for beginners and is designed
to help them become intermediates." It has the expectation that students
will be able to function adequately in the target situation. They will
understand the speaker of the target language (perhaps with requests for
clarification), and will be able to convey (in a non-insulting manner) their
requests and ideas. They need not know every word in a particular semantic
domain, nor is it necessary that the syntax and vocabulary be flawless—but
their production does need to be understood. They should be able to make the
meaning clear but not necessarily be accurate in all details of grammar.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71)
However, since the Natural Approach is offered as a general
set of principles applicable to a wide variety of situations, as in
Communicative Language Teaching, specific objectives depend upon learner needs
and the skill (reading, writing, listening, or speaking) and level being
taught. Krashen and Terrell feel it is important to communicate to learners
what they can expect of a course as well as what they should not expect. They
offer as an example a possible goal and no goal statement for a beginning
Natural Approach Spanish class.
After 100-150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish, you will be
able to: "get around" in Spanish; you will be able to communicate
with a monolingual native speaker of Spanish without difficulty; read most
ordinary texts in Spanish with some use of a dictionary; know enough Spanish to
continue to improve on your own.
After 100—150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish you will not
be able to: pass for a native speaker, use Spanish as easily as you use
English, understand native speakers when they talk to each other (you will
probably not be able to eavesdrop successfully); use Spanish on the telephone
with great comfort; participate easily in a conversation with several other
native speakers on unfamiliar topics. (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 74).
The Syllabus
Krashen and Terrell (1983) approach course organization from
two points of view. First, they list some typical goals for language courses
and suggest which of these goals are the ones at which the Natural Approach aims.
They list such goals under four areas:
1. Basic
personal communication skills: oral (e.g., listening to announcements in
public places)
2. Basic
personal communication skills: written (e.g., reading and writing personal
letters)
3. Academic
learning skills: oral (e.g., listening to a lecture)
4. Academic
learning skills: written (e.g., taking notes in class)
Of
these, they note that the Natural Approach is primarily "designed to
develop basic communication skills - both oral and written (1983: 67). They
then observe that communication goals "may be expressed in terms of
situations, functions and topics" and proceed to order four pages of
topics and situations "which are likely to be most useful to beginning students"
(1983: 67). The functions are not specified or suggested but are felt to
derive naturally from the topics and situations. This approach to syllabus
design would appear to derive to some extent from threshold level
specifications.
The second point of view holds that "the purpose of a
language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their
particular interests" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 65).
The goals of a Natural
Approach class are based on an assessment of student needs. We determine the
situations in which they will use the target language and the sorts of topics
they will have to communicate information about. In setting communication
goals, we do not expect the students at the end of a particular course to have
acquired a certain group of structures or forms. Instead we expect them to
deal with a particular set of topics in a given situation. We do not organize
the activities of the class about a grammatical syllabus. (Krashen and Terrell
1983:71)
From this point of view it is difficult to specify
communicative goals that necessarily fit the needs of all students. Thus any
list of topics and situations must be understood as syllabus suggestions rather
than as specifications.
As well as fitting the needs and interests of students,
content selection should aim to create a low affective filter by being
interesting and fostering a friendly, relaxed atmosphere, should provide a wide
exposure to vocabulary that may be useful to basic personal communication, and
should resist any focus on grammatical structures, since if input is provided
"over a wider variety of topics while pursuing communicative goals, the
necessary grammatical structures are automatically provided in the input"
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71).
Types of learning and teaching activities
From the beginning of a class taught according to the Natural
Approach, emphasis is on presenting comprehensible input in the target
language. Teacher talk focuses on objects in the classroom and on the content
of pictures, as with the Direct Method. To minimize stress, learners are not
required to say anything until they feel ready, but they are expected to
respond to teacher commands and questions in other ways.
When learners are ready to begin talking in the new language,
the teacher provides comprehensible language and simple response opportunities.
The teacher talks slowly and distinctly, asking questions and eliciting
one-word answers. There is a gradual progression from Yes/ No questions,
through either-or questions, to questions that students can answer using words
they have heard used by the teacher. Students are not expected to use a word
actively until they have heard it many times. Charts, pictures, advertisements,
and other realia serve as the focal point for questions, and when the students'
competence permits, talk moves to class members. "Acquisition
activities" - those that focus on meaningful communication rather than
language form - are emphasized. Pair or group work may be employed, followed
by whole-class discussion led by the teacher.
Techniques recommended by Krashen and Terrell are often
borrowed from other methods and adapted to meet the requirements of Natural
Approach theory. These include command-based activities from Total Physical
Response; Direct Method activities in which mime, gesture, and context are used
to elicit questions and answers; and even situation-based practice of
structures and patterns. Group-work activities are often identical to those
used in Communicative Language Teaching, where sharing information in order to
complete a task is emphasized. There is nothing novel about the procedures and
techniques advocated for use with the Natural Approach. A casual observer might
not be aware of the philosophy underlying the classroom techniques he or she
observes. What characterizes the Natural Approach is the use of familiar
techniques within the framework of a method that focuses on providing
comprehensible input and a classroom environment that cues comprehension of
input, minimizes learner anxiety, and maximizes learner self-confidence.
Learner roles
There is a basic assumption in the Natural Approach that
learners should not try to learn a language in the usual sense. The extent to
which they can lose themselves in activities involving meaningful communication
will determine the amount and kind of acquisition they will experience and the
fluency they will ultimately demonstrate. The language acquirer is seen as a
processor of comprehensible input. The acquirer is challenged by input that is
slightly beyond his or her current level of competence and is able to assign
meaning to this input through active use of context and extralinguistic
information.
Learners' roles are seen to change according to their stage
of linguistic development. Central to these changing roles are learner
decisions on when to speak, what to speak about, and what linguistic
expressions to use in speaking.
In the pre-production stage students "participate in the
language activity without having to respond in the target language"
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 76). For example, students can act out physical
commands, identify student colleagues from teacher description, point to
pictures, and so forth.
In the early-production stage, students respond to either-or
questions, use single words and short phrases, fill in charts, and use fixed
conversational patterns (e.g., How are you? What's your name?).
In the speech-emergent phase, students involve themselves in
role play and games, contribute personal information and opinions, and
participate in group problem solving.
Learners have four kinds of responsibilities in the Natural
Approach classroom:
1. Provide information about their specific
goals so that acquisition activities can focus on the topics and situations
most relevant to their needs.
2. Take an
active role in ensuring comprehensible input. They should learn and use
conversational management techniques to regulate input.
3. Decide when to start producing speech and
when to upgrade it.
4. Where
learning exercises (i.e., grammar study) are to be a part of the program, decide
with the teacher the relative amount of time to be devoted to them and perhaps
even complete and correct them independently.
Learners are expected to participate in communication
activities with other learners. Although communication activities are seen to
provide naturalistic practice and to create a sense of camaraderie, which
lowers the affective filter, they may fail to provide learners with well-formed
and comprehensible input at the I + 1 level. Krashen and Terrell warn of these
shortcomings but do not suggest means for their amelioration.
Teacher roles
The Natural Approach teacher has three central roles. First,
the teacher is the primary source of comprehensible input in the target
language. "Class time is devoted primarily to providing input for
acquisition," arid the teacher is the primary generator of that input. In
this role the teacher is required to generate a constant flow of language input
while providing a multiplicity of nonlinguistic clues to assist students in
interpreting the input. The Natural Approach demands a much more center-stage
role for the teacher than do many contemporary communicative methods.
Second, the Natural Approach teacher creates a classroom
atmosphere that is interesting, friendly, and in which there is a low affective
filter for learning. This is achieved in part through such Natural Approach
techniques as not demanding speech from the students before they are ready for
it, not correcting student errors, and providing subject matter of high
interest to students.
Finally, the teacher must choose and orchestrate a rich mix
of classroom activities, involving a variety of group sizes, content, and
contexts. The teacher is seen as responsible for collecting materials and
designing their use. These materials, according to Krashen and Terrell, are
based not just on teacher perceptions but on elicited student needs and
interests.
As with other non-orthodox teaching systems, the Natural
Approach teacher has a particular responsibility to communicate clearly and
compellingly to students the assumptions, organization, and expectations of the
method, since in many cases these will violate student views of what language
learning and teaching are supposed to be.
The role of instructional materials
The primary goal of materials in the Natural Approach is to
make classroom activities as meaningful as possible by supplying "the
extra-linguistic context that helps the acquirer to understand and thereby to
acquire" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 55), by relating classroom activities
to the real world, and by fostering real communication among the learners.
Materials come from the world of realia rather than from textbooks. The primary
aim of materials is to promote comprehension and communication. Pictures and
other visual aids are essential, because they supply the content for
communication. They facilitate the acquisition of a large vocabulary within the
classroom. Other recommended materials include schedules, brochures,
advertisements, maps, and books at levels appropriate to the students, if a
reading component is included in the course. Games, in general, are seen as
useful classroom materials, since "games by their very nature, focus the
student on what it is they are doing and use the language as a tool for
reaching the goal rather than as a goal in itself" (Terrell 1982: 121).
The selection, reproduction, and collection of materials places a considerable
burden on the Natural Approach teacher. Since Krashen and Terrell suggest a
syllabus of topics and situations, it is likely that at some point collections
of materials to supplement teacher presentations will be published, built
around the "syllabus" of topics
and situations recommended
by the Natural Approach.
Procedure
We have seen that the Natural Approach adopts techniques and
activities freely from various method sources and can be regarded as innovative
only with respect to the purposes for which they are recommended and the ways
they are used. Krashen and Terrell (1983) provide suggestions for the use of a
wide range of activities, all of which are familiar components of Situational
Language Teaching, Communicative Language Teaching, and other methods discussed
in this book. To illustrate procedural aspects of the Natural Approach, we
will cite examples of how such activities are to be used in the Natural
Approach classroom to provide comprehensible input, without requiring
production of responses or minimal responses in the target language.
1. Start with TPR [Total Physical Response] commands. At
first the commands are quite simple: "Stand up. Turn around. Raise your
right hand."
2. Use TPR to teach names of body parts and to introduce
numbers and sequence. "Lay your right hand on your head, put both hands
on your shoulder, first touch your nose, then stand up and turn to the right
three times" and so forth.
3. Introduce classroom terms and props into commands. "Pick
up a pencil and put it under the book, touch a wall, go to the door and knock
three times." Any item which can be brought to the class can be
incorporated. "Pick up the record and place it in the tray. Take the green
blanket to Larry. Pick up the soap and take it to the woman wearing the green
blouse."
4. Use names of physical characteristics and clothing to
identify members of the class by name. The instructor uses context and the
items themselves to make the meanings of the key words clear: hair, long,
short, etc. Then a student is described. "What is your name?"
(selecting a student). "Class. Look at Barbara. She has long brown hair.
Her hair is long and brown. Her hair is not short. It is long." (Using
mime, pointing and context to ensure comprehension). "What's the name of
the student with long brown hair?" (Barbara). Questions such as "What
is the name of the woman with the short blond hair?" or "What is the
name of the student sitting next to the man with short brown hair and
glasses?" are very simple to understand by attending to key words,
gestures and context. And they require the students only to remember and
produce the name of a fellow student. The same can be done with articles of
clothing and colors. "Who is wearing a yellow shirt? Who is wearing a
brown dress?"
5. Use visuals,
typically magazine pictures, to introduce new vocabulary and to continue with
activities requiring only student names as response, The instructor introduces
the pictures to the entire class one at a time focusing usually on one single
item or activity in the picture. He may introduce one to five new words while
talking about the picture. He then passes the picture to a particular student
in the class. The students' task is to remember the name of the student with a
particular picture. For example, "Tom has the picture of the sailboat.
Joan has the picture of the family watching television" and so forth. The
instructor will ask questions like "Who has the picture with the sailboat?
Does Susan or Tom have the picture of the people on the beach?" Again the
students need only produce a name in response.
6. Combine use of
pictures with TPR. "Jim, find the picture of the little girl with her dog
and give it to the woman with the pink blouse."
7. Combine
observations about the pictures with commands and conditionals. "If there
is a woman in your picture, stand up. If there is something blue in your
picture, touch your right shoulder."
8. Using several
pictures, ask students to point to the picture being described. Picture 1.
"There are several people in this picture. One appears to be a father, the
other a daughter. What are they doing? Cooking. They are cooking a
hamburger." Picture 2. "There are two men in this picture. They are
young. They are boxing." Picture 3 ...(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 75-7)
In all these activities, the instructor maintains a constant
flow of "comprehensible input," using key vocabulary items,
appropriate gestures, context, repetition, and paraphrase to ensure the
comprehensibility of the input.
Conclusion
The Natural Approach belongs to a tradition of language
teaching methods based on observation and interpretation of how learners
acquire both first and second languages in non-formal settings. Such methods
reject the formal (grammatical) organization of language as a prerequisite to
teaching. They hold with Newmark and Reibel that "an adult can effectively
be taught by grammatically unordered materials" and that such an approach
is, indeed, "the only learning process which we know for certain will
produce mastery of the language at a native level" (1968: 153). In the
Natural Approach, a focus on comprehension and meaningful communication as well
as the provision of the right kinds of comprehensible input provide the
necessary and sufficient conditions for successful classroom second and foreign
language acquisition. This has led to a new rationale for the integration and
adaptation of techniques drawn from a wide variety of existing sources. Like
Communicative Language Teaching, the Natural Approach is hence evolutionary rather
than revolutionary in its procedures. Its greatest claim to originality lies
not in the techniques it employs but in their use in a method that emphasizes
and meaningful practice activities, rather than production of grammatically
perfect utterances and sentences.
ttempt�R|!dvx