14 The Natural Approach

Introduction

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” (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.

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 input.

The Natural Approach grew out of Terrell’s. experiences of teaching Spanish classes,

although it has also been used in elementary to advanced-level classes and with several

other languages. At the same time, he 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 understanding of the findings of the emerging

field 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. At the time the Natural Approach attracted a wide interest because of the

accessibility of the principles on which it was based, the ease with which it confirmed many

teachers’ common sense understandings of second language learning, the fact it appeared

to be supported by state-of-the-art theory and research, and the fact that Krashen himself

is a charismatic presenter and persuasive advocate of his own views — as is evident from

the numerous examples of his presentations available on the Internet. 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 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
a particular theory of grammar. Hence, traditional approaches, as defined by Krashen and

Terrell, have much in common with the Direct Method (Chapter 1). Krashen and Terrell

noted that such “approaches have been called natural, psychological, phonetic, new, reform,

direct, analytic, imitative and so forth” (1983: 9). The fact that the authors of the Natural

261

262 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods

Approach relate their approach to the Natural Method, a precursor of the Direct Method

has led some people to assume that 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 (see Chapter 1) is another term for what by 1900 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”):

In its extreme form the method consisted of a series of monologues by the teacher

interspersed with exchanges of question and answer between the instructor and the

pupil — all in the foreign language ... A great deal of pantomime accompanied the talk.

With the aid of this gesticulation, by attentive listening and by dint of much repetition,

the learner came to associate certain acts and objects with certain combinations of

the sounds and finally reached the point of reproducing the foreign words or phrase ...

Not until a considerable familiarity with the spoken word was attained was the scholar

allowed to see the foreign language in print. The study of grammar was reserved for

a still later period.

(Cole 1931: 58)

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. It is, in fact, an example of a cognitive

approach to language learning, as described in Chapter 2. Language learning is believed to

emerge naturally given appropriate exposure and conditions - a result of the innate properties of
the human mind (see below). The emphasis on the central role of comprehension

in the Natural Approach links it to other comprehension-based approaches in language

teaching, such as the Lexical Approach (see Chapter 11),

Approach

Theory of language

The Natural Approach is primarily developed from a theory of language learning rather

than a theory of language - something it has in common with Task-Based Language

Teaching and which distinguishes it from methods such as Text-Based Instruction, which

are based primarily around a theory of language. Krashen and Terrell see communication as the
primary function of Janguage, and since their approach focuses on teaching

14 The Natural Approach 263

communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an example of a communicative

approach. The Natural Approach “is similar to other communicative approaches

being developed today” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They reject earlier methods of

language teaching, such as the Audiolingual Method (Chapter 4), 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 (Chapter 5),

however, Krashen and Terrell give little attention to a theory of language. Indeed, a critic

of Krashen suggested that 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, where the term message refers essentially to
what the speaker intends to communicate. 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 stated that “acquisition can take place only when people understand

messages in the target language” (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” (ie., 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 Charles Fries meant by structures. For

Fries, grammar or “structure” referred to the basic sentence patterns of a language, and oral

drilling formed the core of language teaching (see Chapter 4). The Natural Approach thus

assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through encounters with
“input” containing structures at the “i + 1” level.

We are left, then, with a view of language that consists of lexical items, structures,

and messages, or the communicative goal. 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

264 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods

construction and interpretation of messages. Lexical items in messages are 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

In order to understand the origins of the theoretical assumptions underlying the

Natural Approach, it is necessary to go back to the emergence of cognitive approaches

to language and language learning that were prompted by Chomsky’s claim that the

potential to learn a language was an innate property of the human mind - a theory that

later was phrased in terms of universal grammar (Chapter 2). All that was needed was

exposure to language and the need to communicate, and the brain would take care of

the rest. The psychologist Roger Brown investigated how this process occurred in first

language learning in his influential book A First Language (1973), which documented

the common stages of development evidenced in children’s initial learning of their

first language. Prompted by this research, applied linguists turned their attention to

second language acquisition and sought to demonstrate that second language development could
not be explained by behaviorist learning theory. It was not dependent

upon imitation and repetition of utterances the learner was exposed to but ~ as with

first language learning - was dependent upon universal principles of learning. These

accounted for the common patterns of development that were observed in second

language learners and that could not be explained simply through interference from

the first language. Krashen argued that there was a natural sequence of development

for many features of English (Bailey, Madden, and Krashen 1974), and this theory was

elaborated as part of a more comprehensive account of second language learning in a

book that echoes the title of Brown’s book ~ Language Two (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen

1982). The Natural Approach can be seen as an attempt to develop a pedagogical application of
the theory Krashen and other researchers were developing in their applied

linguistics research in the 1970s and 1980s.

Krashen and Terrell hence 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 in 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 his arguments here. (For a detailed critical review,

see Gregg 1984 and McLaughlin 1978.) It is necessary, however, to outline the principal

tenets of the theory, since it is on these that the design and procedures in the Natural

Approach are based.

14 The Natural Approach 265

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, as will be explained below.

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. The Monitor Hypothesis claims that we may

call upon learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate, but 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 native

language 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.

1. The hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning.

2. As mentioned earlier, 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

266

Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods

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, extralinguistic information, and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible.

3. 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.
4. 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 Wh-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 the apparent ease with which children acquire new

languages compared to older acquirers of a second language.

14 The Natural Approach 267

These five hypotheses have obvious implications for language teaching. In sum, these

are as follows:

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 on learner needs and the skill (listening, speaking, reading, or writing) and level being
taught. Krashen and Terrell believe that 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 non-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 monolinguai 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)

268 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods

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” (ibid.). The order in which the functions are presented are not

specified or suggested but are felt to derive naturally from the topics and situations.
This approach to syllabus design would appear to reflect Threshold Level specifications

(see Chapter 5).

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).

14 The Natural Approach 269

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 (Chapter 15); Direct

Method activities in which mime, gesture, and context are used to elicit questions

and answers (Chapter 1); and even situation-based practice of structures and patterns

(Chapter 3). Group-work activities are often identical to those used in Communicative

Language Teaching (Chapter 5), 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 Natural

Approach learning and teaching activities is the use of familiar techniques within the

framework of a method that focuses on providing comprehensible input and a classroom

environment that provides 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. When the acquirer is

challenged by input that is slightly beyond his or her current level of competence, he or

she is able to assign meaning to this input through active use of context and extralinguistic
information.

twentieth-century approaches and methods

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 problemsolving.

Learners have four kinds of responsibilities in the Natural Approach classroom:

1. To provide information about their specific goals so that acquisition activities can focus

on the topics and situations most relevant to their needs.

2. To take an active role in ensuring comprehensible input. They should learn and use

conversational management techniques to regulate input.

3. To 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, to 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 roijies

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” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 35) and 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 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.

14 The Natural Approach 271

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 unconventional 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 extralinguistic 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.

As the pictures prompt the teacher to provide the vocabulary necessary to describe

what is contained in them, 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 students 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 place a considerable burden on

the Natural Approach teacher.

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 (Chapter 3), 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. The first steps rely on the Total

Physical Response (TPR) method (Chapter 15), which attempts to teach language through

physical or motor activity.

272 Alternative

twentieth-century approaches and methods

around. Raise your right hand,” »

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 Fight three imes”. and. so forth.

Introduce classroom terms: and: props inte commands. “Pick up.a pencil and put it:

{ nder 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 > Lary Pick up: the soap and take it to the woman

wearing the green blouse , 4

40 Use names of Tess & characteristics ce

brown | hair?" (Barbara). ‘Questions such a as. s“What is ‘hen name of the woman ‘with the.
short blond | hair?” or “What is the name: of the nee siting next to the man with |

Se: Use visuals, ‘ypleally magazine pictures, to introduce new i cable and ue continue

ae activities requiring ‘only student names as response, ‘The instructor introduces

a sion” ands so oforth. The instructor wil ask questions i like “Who has the e picture with the.

a. sailboat? Does Susan or ‘Tom have the Ae of the eople on the beach?” Again sre.

is Saba in your pic

pita right shoulder.”

9. * Picture 1, “There are several peopie i in this picture, One appears to be. a father, the other

a daughter. What are. they doing? Cooking. They are ‘cooking a hamburger.” Pictu i

“There are two meniin this picture. They are young. They are boxing.” A Picture 3.

Krashen and Terrell 1983: 5-7).

14

The Natural Approach 273

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 nonformal 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” (even if, in practice, there is

generally an intuitive attempt on the part of the teacher to provide a basic order) 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 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 comprehensible and

meaningful practice activities, rather than production of grammatically perfect utterances

and sentences.

The Natural Approach is very much a product of the 1980s and attracted a great deal

of interest at that time. It was particularly influential in Krashen’s home state of California
where it helped frame an approach to the teaching of language minority students (Krashen

1981). Krashen himself for many years has been a powerful advocate for bilingual education

in the face of growing pressure to limit its role in Californian schools. However, numerous

articles as well as full-length books since that time have been devoted to rejecting both the

theory and research Krashen used in support of the principles of the Natural Approach

(e.g., Gregg 1984; McLaughlin 1978) as weil as its practical applications. In California at

least, policy changes in recent years have made the Natural Approach largely irrelevant to

the needs of teachers in public schools. As with public education in many other countries,

teachers are now required to teach to standards (Chapter 8) that specify the language skills

learners need to develop at different stages in the school curriculum. However, the Natural

Approach still has its advocates elsewhere. A leading language institute in Thailand (AUA),

for example, offers a Natural Approach course for the learning of Thai as an option students can
choose when studying Thai. As a general approach in other contexts, the Natural

Approach is unlikely to prove attractive to many teachers today. Although, as noted earlier

in this chapter, the principles on which it is based, such as exposing learners to extensive

input slightly above their level before production is required, seem to confirm what many

people would describe as common sense - whether or not they are supported by current

274 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods

research — practical limitations would not make the Natural Approach an option for many

teachers. In particular:

e There are no published materials or coursebooks to support the approach.

e It requires a high level of training and language proficiency for its implementation.

English may be assigned as little as three or four hours a week in some countries, requiring an
accelerated rather than a gradual approach to English teaching.

The English curriculum may be linked to national standards and tests, giving teachers

little choice over what to teach.

Although Krashen and Terrell published the Natural Approach several decades ago, the

principles behind the approach continue to be debated today, in particular the value of a

considerable amount of comprehensible input. More recently, Krashen has been an advocate of
extensive reading, an approach advocating free reading for pleasure, which bears
much in common with his earlier research.

14 The Natural Approach Introduction 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” (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. 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 input. The Natural Approach grew out of Terrell’s. experiences
of teaching Spanish classes, although it has also been used in elementary to advanced-level classes
and with several other languages. At the same time, he 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 understanding of the findings of the emerging field 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. At the time the Natural Approach attracted a wide interest because of the accessibility of
the principles on which it was based, the ease with which it confirmed many teachers’ common
sense understandings of second language learning, the fact it appeared to be supported by state-
of-the-art theory and research, and the fact that Krashen himself is a charismatic presenter and
persuasive advocate of his own views — as is evident from the numerous examples of his
presentations available on the Internet. 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 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 a particular theory of
grammar. Hence, traditional approaches, as defined by Krashen and Terrell, have much in common
with the Direct Method (Chapter 1). Krashen and Terrell noted that such “approaches have been
called natural, psychological, phonetic, new, reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth” (1983:
9). The fact that the authors of the Natural 261 262 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and
methods Approach relate their approach to the Natural Method, a precursor of the Direct Method
has led some people to assume that 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 (see Chapter 1) is another term for what by 1900 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”):
In its extreme form the method consisted of a series of monologues by the teacher interspersed
with exchanges of question and answer between the instructor and the pupil — all in the foreign
language ... A great deal of pantomime accompanied the talk. With the aid of this gesticulation, by
attentive listening and by dint of much repetition, the learner came to associate certain acts and
objects with certain combinations of the sounds and finally reached the point of reproducing the
foreign words or phrase ... Not until a considerable familiarity with the spoken word was attained
was the scholar allowed to see the foreign language in print. The study of grammar was reserved
for a still later period. (Cole 1931: 58) 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. It is, in fact, an example of a cognitive
approach to language learning, as described in Chapter 2. Language learning is believed to emerge
naturally given appropriate exposure and conditions - a result of the innate properties of the
human mind (see below). The emphasis on the central role of comprehension in the Natural
Approach links it to other comprehension-based approaches in language teaching, such as the
Lexical Approach (see Chapter 11), Approach Theory of language The Natural Approach is primarily
developed from a theory of language learning rather than a theory of language - something it has
in common with Task-Based Language Teaching and which distinguishes it from methods such as
Text-Based Instruction, which are based primarily around a theory of language. Krashen and
Terrell see communication as the primary function of Janguage, and since their approach focuses
on teaching 14 The Natural Approach 263 communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural
Approach as an example of a communicative approach. The Natural Approach “is similar to other
communicative approaches being developed today” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They reject
earlier methods of language teaching, such as the Audiolingual Method (Chapter 4), 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 (Chapter 5), however, Krashen and
Terrell give little attention to a theory of language. Indeed, a critic of Krashen suggested that 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,
where the term message refers essentially to what the speaker intends to communicate. 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 stated that
“acquisition can take place only when people understand messages in the target language” (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” (ie., 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 Charles Fries meant by
structures. For Fries, grammar or “structure” referred to the basic sentence patterns of a
language, and oral drilling formed the core of language teaching (see Chapter 4). The Natural
Approach thus assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through
encounters with “input” containing structures at the “i + 1” level. We are left, then, with a view of
language that consists of lexical items, structures, and messages, or the communicative goal.
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 264 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods construction
and interpretation of messages. Lexical items in messages are 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 In order to understand the origins of
the theoretical assumptions underlying the Natural Approach, it is necessary to go back to the
emergence of cognitive approaches to language and language learning that were prompted by
Chomsky’s claim that the potential to learn a language was an innate property of the human mind
- a theory that later was phrased in terms of universal grammar (Chapter 2). All that was needed
was exposure to language and the need to communicate, and the brain would take care of the
rest. The psychologist Roger Brown investigated how this process occurred in first language
learning in his influential book A First Language (1973), which documented the common stages of
development evidenced in children’s initial learning of their first language. Prompted by this
research, applied linguists turned their attention to second language acquisition and sought to
demonstrate that second language development could not be explained by behaviorist learning
theory. It was not dependent upon imitation and repetition of utterances the learner was exposed
to but ~ as with first language learning - was dependent upon universal principles of learning.
These accounted for the common patterns of development that were observed in second
language learners and that could not be explained simply through interference from the first
language. Krashen argued that there was a natural sequence of development for many features of
English (Bailey, Madden, and Krashen 1974), and this theory was elaborated as part of a more
comprehensive account of second language learning in a book that echoes the title of Brown’s
book ~ Language Two (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982). The Natural Approach can be seen as an
attempt to develop a pedagogical application of the theory Krashen and other researchers were
developing in their applied linguistics research in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen and Terrell hence
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 in 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 his arguments here. (For a detailed critical review, see Gregg
1984 and McLaughlin 1978.) It is necessary, however, to outline the principal tenets of the theory,
since it is on these that the design and procedures in the Natural Approach are based. 14 The
Natural Approach 265 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, as will be explained below. 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. The Monitor Hypothesis claims that we may call upon
learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate, but 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 native
language 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. 1. The hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning. 2. As mentioned earlier,
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 266 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods
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, extralinguistic
information, and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible. 3. 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. 4. 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 Wh-
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 the apparent ease with which
children acquire new languages compared to older acquirers of a second language. 14 The Natural
Approach 267 These five hypotheses have obvious implications for language teaching. In sum,
these are as follows: 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 on
learner needs and the skill (listening, speaking, reading, or writing) and level being taught. Krashen
and Terrell believe that 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 non-
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 monolinguai 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) 268 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods
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” (ibid.).
The order in which the functions are presented are not specified or suggested but are felt to
derive naturally from the topics and situations. This approach to syllabus design would appear to
reflect Threshold Level specifications (see Chapter 5). 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). 14 The Natural Approach 269 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 (Chapter 15); Direct Method activities in which mime, gesture, and context are
used to elicit questions and answers (Chapter 1); and even situation-based practice of structures
and patterns (Chapter 3). Group-work activities are often identical to those used in Communicative
Language Teaching (Chapter 5), 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 Natural Approach learning and
teaching activities is the use of familiar techniques within the framework of a method that focuses
on providing comprehensible input and a classroom environment that provides 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. When the acquirer is challenged by input that is slightly beyond his or her
current level of competence, he or she is able to assign meaning to this input through active use of
context and extralinguistic information. 270. «©6Alternative twentieth-century approaches and
methods 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 problemsolving. Learners have four kinds of responsibilities in the Natural
Approach classroom: 1. To provide information about their specific goals so that acquisition
activities can focus on the topics and situations most relevant to their needs. 2. To take an active
role in ensuring comprehensible input. They should learn and use conversational management
techniques to regulate input. 3. To 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, to 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 roijies 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” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 35) and 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
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. 7 14 The Natural Approach 271 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 unconventional 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 extralinguistic 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. As the pictures prompt the teacher to provide the vocabulary necessary to
describe what is contained in them, 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 students 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 place a considerable burden on the Natural Approach teacher. 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 (Chapter 3), 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. The first
steps rely on the Total Physical Response (TPR) method (Chapter 15), which attempts to teach
language through physical or motor activity. 272 Alternative twentieth-century approaches and
methods around. Raise your right hand,” » 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 Fight three imes”. and. so forth. Introduce
classroom terms: and: props inte commands. “Pick up.a pencil and put it: { nder 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 > Lary
Pick up: the soap and take it to the woman wearing the green blouse , 4 40 Use names of Tess &
characteristics ce brown | hair?" (Barbara). ‘Questions such a as. s“What is ‘hen name of the
woman ‘with the. short blond | hair?” or “What is the name: of the nee siting next to the man
with | Se: Use visuals, ‘ypleally magazine pictures, to introduce new i cable and ue continue ae
activities requiring ‘only student names as response, ‘The instructor introduces a sion” ands so
oforth. The instructor wil ask questions i like “Who has the e picture with the. a. sailboat? Does
Susan or ‘Tom have the Ae of the eople on the beach?” Again sre. is Saba in your pic pita right
shoulder.” 9. * Picture 1, “There are several peopie i in this picture, One appears to be. a father,
the other a daughter. What are. they doing? Cooking. They are ‘cooking a hamburger.” Pictu i
“There are two meniin this picture. They are young. They are boxing.” A Picture 3. Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 5-7). 14 The Natural Approach 273 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 nonformal 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” (even if, in practice, there is generally an intuitive attempt on the part of the
teacher to provide a basic order) 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
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 comprehensible and
meaningful practice activities, rather than production of grammatically perfect utterances and
sentences. The Natural Approach is very much a product of the 1980s and attracted a great deal of
interest at that time. It was particularly influential in Krashen’s home state of California where it
helped frame an approach to the teaching of language minority students (Krashen 1981). Krashen
himself for many years has been a powerful advocate for bilingual education in the face of growing
pressure to limit its role in Californian schools. However, numerous articles as well as full-length
books since that time have been devoted to rejecting both the theory and research Krashen used
in support of the principles of the Natural Approach (e.g., Gregg 1984; McLaughlin 1978) as weil as
its practical applications. In California at least, policy changes in recent years have made the
Natural Approach largely irrelevant to the needs of teachers in public schools. As with public
education in many other countries, teachers are now required to teach to standards (Chapter 8)
that specify the language skills learners need to develop at different stages in the school
curriculum. However, the Natural Approach still has its advocates elsewhere. A leading language
institute in Thailand (AUA), for example, offers a Natural Approach course for the learning of Thai
as an option students can choose when studying Thai. As a general approach in other contexts, the
Natural Approach is unlikely to prove attractive to many teachers today. Although, as noted earlier
in this chapter, the principles on which it is based, such as exposing learners to extensive input
slightly above their level before production is required, seem to confirm what many people would
describe as common sense - whether or not they are supported by current 274 Alternative
twentieth-century approaches and methods research — practical limitations would not make the
Natural Approach an option for many teachers. In particular: e There are no published materials or
coursebooks to support the approach. e It requires a high level of training and language
proficiency for its implementation. English may be assigned as little as three or four hours a week
in some countries, requiring an accelerated rather than a gradual approach to English teaching.
The English curriculum may be linked to national standards and tests, giving teachers little choice
over what to teach. Although Krashen and Terrell published the Natural Approach several decades
ago, the principles behind the approach continue to be debated today, in particular the value of a
considerable amount of comprehensible input. More recently, Krashen has been an advocate of
extensive reading, an approach advocating free reading for pleasure, which bears much in
common with his earlier research. Discussion questions 1. 2. Explain to a colleague what the word
natural in the Natural Approach refers to. The Natural Approach makes a distinction between
acquisition and learning of a second language. Explain to a colleague how these are different and
how this impacts the way an L2 is taught. “Learning, according to the theory, cannot lead to
acquisition” (p. 265). What is your view on this? Can you think of examples (perhaps from your
own learning or teaching) where learning did lead to acquisition? The Monitor Hypothesis states
that learners can only call upon learned knowledge if they (a) have sufficient time, (b) are focused
on form, and (c) have knowledge of the rules, Can you think of examples of real-world language
tasks that meet these requirements? “Input need not be finely tuned to a learner’s current level of
linguistic competence” (p. 266). What characteristics does input need to have according to the
Natural Approach? “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” (p. 266). What can teachers do to lower students’ affective filter? Talk to a colleague and
exchange techniques you both use with students. Now review the five basic principles of the
Natural Approach again: The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the
Natural Order Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, and the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Which of
these areas do you think are most important? Do you use any of these principles in your own
teaching? The Natural Approach does not prescribe a well-defined syllabus or order in which
topics or structures need to be presented. How do you think teachers using this approach decide
on course content and sequencing? 9. 10. lL. 14 The Natural Approach 275 The Natural Approach
makes considerable use of realia as source for comprehensible input. Can you think of downsides
to the use of realia to this degree? Below are some of the key characteristics of the Natural
Approach. Work with a colleague and do the following: 1) Select (a) one conversational skill (e.g.,
interrupting someone), and (b) one grammatical structure (e.g., the passive). 2) Create a classroom
activity using the principles below. 3) Find an example from a textbook you are familiar with. 4)
Complete the table and compare your activities with those from the textbook. How are they
different? Which do you think would be more successful for your learners and why? Does either
your activity or the textbook activity work better for either the conversational skill or the grammar
point? Why? Natural Approach Textbook Conversational skill Input ‘Practice Emotiona!
preparation Opportunities to listen | Grammar point Input Practice Emotional preparation
Opportunities to listen “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” (p. 270). How does this compare
with your own classes? Can you think of (a) some advantages, and (b) some drawbacks to not
specifying when learners will speak nor telling them which linguistic expressions to use? 276
Alternative twentieth-century approaches and methods References and further reading Bailey, N.,
C. Madden, and S. Krashen. 1974. Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning?
Language Learning 21: 235-43. Baltra, A. 1992. On breaking with tradition: the significance of
Terrell’s Natural Approach. Canadian Modern Language Review 49(3): 565-93. Berne, J. 1990. A
comparison of teaching for proficiency with the natural approach: procedure, design and
approach. Hispania 73(4): 147-53. Brown, J. M., and A. Palmer. 1988. Listening Approach: Methods
and Materials for Applying Krashen'’s Input Hypothesis. Harlow, UK: Longman. Brown, R. 1973. A
First Language: The Early Stages. Boston: Harvard University Press. Cole, R. 1931. Modern Foreign
Languages and Their Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S.
Krashen. Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gregg, K. 1984. Krashen'’s monitor and Occam's
razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2): 79-100. Hashemipor, P., R. Maldonado, and M. van Naerssen (eds.).
1995. Studies in Language Learning and Spanish Linguistics: Festschrift in Honor of Tracy D. Terrell.
New York: McGraw-Hill. Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.
London: Longman. Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional
evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73(4): 440-64. Krashen, S. 1992.
Fundamentals of Language Education. Beverley Hills, CA: Laredo. Krashen, S. 1993. The case for
free voluntary reading. Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1): 72-82. Krashen, S. 1996a. The
case for narrow listening. System 24(1): 97~100. Krashen, S. 1996b, Principles of English as a
foreign language. English Teachers’ Journal (Israel) 49: 11-19. Krashen, S. 1997. The
comprehension hypothesis: recent evidence, English Teachers’ Journal (Israel) Si: 17-29. Krashen,
§., and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford:
Pergamon. McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor Model: some methodological considerations.
Language Learning 28(2): 309~32. Newmark, L., and D. A. Reibel. 1968. Necessity and sufficiency in
language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6(2): 145-64. Rivers, W. 1981.
Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Skehan, P. 1998.
A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevick, E. W. 1976.
Memory, Meaning and Method: Some Psychological Perspectives on Language Learning. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House. Terrell, T. D. 1977. A natural approach to second language acquisition and
learning. Modern Language Journal 61: 325-36. Terrell, T. D. 1981. The natural approach in
bilingual education. Ms. California Office of Bilingual Education. Terrell, T. D. 1982, The natural
approach to language teaching: an update. Modern Language Journal 66: 121~32.