Krashen and Terrells Natural Approach

by Ken Romeo
Introduction
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
The Natural Order Hypothesis
The Monitor Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis
The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Curriculum Design
Conclusions
Bibliography

Return to Language and Literacy -> LAU top

Introduction

The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is

undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In
1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a
comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language
classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL
textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis,
1993). Krashens theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact
on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling
and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State
Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his influence can be seen most
prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in
language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the
pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same
terms used in Krashens Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 1998).
As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing who wouldnt want to learn
a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesnt think about what kind of
input to provide for students. However, upon closer examination of Krashens hypotheses
and Terrells methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system. In fact, within
the covers of The Natural Approach, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be
seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashens model. In addition to
reviewing what other authors have written about Krashens hypotheses, I will attempt to
directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today
by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of
language. Rather than use Krashens own label, which is to call his ideas simply second
language acquisition theory, I will adopt McLaughlins terminology (1987) and refer to
them collectively as the Monitor Model. This is distinct from the Monitor Hypothesis,
which is the fourth of Krashens five hypotheses.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between

acquisition, which he defines as developing competence by using language for real
communication and learning. which he defines as knowing about or formal
knowledge of a language (p.26). This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense:
Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early
1970s. He claims that Browns research on first language acquisition showed that
parents tend to correct the content of childrens speech rather than their grammar. He
compares it with several other authors distinction of implicit and explicit learning but
simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.
Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashens use of the Language Acquisition Device
(LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself. He intended
it simply as a construct to describe the childs initial state, which would therefore mean
that it cannot apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of learning
Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashens dogmatic insistence that learning can never
become acquisition is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized
some of the grammar they have consciously memorized. However, although it is not
explicitly stated, Krashens emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead
to fluent, native-like speech. Greggs account that his memorization of a verb conjugation
chart was error-free after a couple of days(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The
reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient
enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.
McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately
defines acquisition, learning, conscious and subconscious, and that without such
clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are learning
or acquiring language. This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in
attempting to utilize the Natural Approach. If the classroom situation is hopeless for
attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start. As we will see in an analysis of
the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for
acquisition is bound to be problematic.
Krashens conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and
teachers in monolingual countries immediately. In societies where there are few
bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language
at school, often unsuccessfully. They see people who live in other countries as just
having picked up their second language naturally in childhood. The effort spent in
studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease
that natural acquisition presents. This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a
theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students,
they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas
Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to
convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure
(acquisition). This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent
findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the
facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent
utterances (Paradis, 1998). However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the
somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that
grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b). As several
authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993,
for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how
grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative
method.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a

predictable order. Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done
by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers. These studies found striking
similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical
morphemes. Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group
of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a
second language also exhibited a natural order for grammatical morphemes which did
not differ between the two groups. A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further
research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic
hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.
Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes
from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of
other parallel streams of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules
out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple linear order of
acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual
differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.
McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burts 1974
study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32)
which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learners native
language. The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language
studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of
the relevance of this finding.
The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident. Having just
discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly
proposes that second language learners should follow the natural order of acquisition
for grammatical morphemes. The teacher is first instructed to create a natural
environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed
to base it on grammar. As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom
methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories
into practice is very problematic.
When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its
insufficiencies become even more apparent. Many of the studies of order of acquisition,
especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production. McLaughlin also
points out that correct usage is not monolithic even for grammatical morphemes,
correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33). In
this sense, the term acquisition becomes very unclear, even when not applying
Krashens definition. Is a structure acquired when there are no mistakes in
comprehension? Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in
production? First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development
of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as
children. Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who
are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the
order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two orders differ, it is not
clear how they would interact.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only
role that such learned competence can have is an editor on what is produced. Output
is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner
has gained through grammar study. The implication is that the use of this Monitor should
be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been
formed by acquisition. Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what
has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less
contrived. However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to
eliminate errors on easy rules. This hypothesis presents very little in the way of
supportive evidence: Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich
as confirming evidence (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of
confirming acquisition of grammar.
Perhaps Krashens recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward language
learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a
correct sentence, the worse it comes out. However, he seems to draw the lines around
it a bit too closely. Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to learned
grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory. Gregg also points out that the
restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension
(p.82). Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding
speech.
McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has
never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research. Even
the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at
a time failed to produce evidence of operation. Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26)
was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was
that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar. He goes on to
point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that
such conscious editing actually interferes with performance. But his most convincing
argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very
little contact with native speakers. These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of
U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.
The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in
forming sentences is far from clear. Watching intermediate students practice using
recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even
without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression
of their own ideas after several tries. However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just
what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory. In a later paper (Krashen
1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they
knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such
rules. He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to
communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the
rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point,
which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis.

The Input Hypothesis

Here Krashen explains how successful acquisition occurs: by simply

understanding input that is a little beyond the learners present level he defined that
present level as i and the ideal level of input as i +1. In the development of oral fluency,
unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational
and discursive), rather than through direct instruction. Krashen has several areas which
he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis. One is the speech that parents use when
talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition
(p.34). He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students level,
and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in
order to communicate. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first
second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their
first language. However it is the results of methods such as Ashers Total Physical
Response that provide the most convincing evidence. This method was shown to be far
superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what
Krashen calls nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.
Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems
to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process
described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice
does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out
that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites
several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in
first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.
McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashens
model. He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing
that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the
perspective of the Input Hypothesis. The concept of a learners level is extremely
difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37). Further, there are many structures such
as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context. Also, there is
no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in
acquisition. Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce
are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially. Finally McLaughlin points
out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the
importance of producing language for interaction.
This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashens model for the
language learner as well as the teacher. He makes use of the gap between
comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant
benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level. One of Krashens cleverest catch-
alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently
provide this input. But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as
to how it works. In the classroom a teacher can see when the students dont understand
and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do. Krashen would have the
teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the
students are able to express themselves freely. However, Ellis (1992) points out that
even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that
demonstrated the Input Hypothesis. Over extended periods of time students do learn to
understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than
Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved. More
importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are,
the reader is given no indication of how to proceed. As shown above the Natural Order
Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses. In an
indication of a direction that should be explored, Elliss exploratory study (ibid.) showed
that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple
comprehension that fuels acquisition.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This concept receives the briefest treatment in The Natural Approach. Krashen
simply states that attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not
language learning. He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation
and self-image, arguing that an integrative motivation (the learner want to be like the
native speakers of a language) is necessary. He postulates an affective filter that acts
before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner
does not have such motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases
dramatically in strength.
Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well. Among others, Krashen
seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional
upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the
filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92). He
also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being
unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis neither is
the negative state of being unmotivated. Also, he questions how this filter would
selectively choose certain parts of a language to reject (p.94).
McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that
adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children
(p.29). He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in
acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashens.
Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the
obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation. However, Krashen seems to imply that
teaching children, who dont have this filter, is somehow easier, since given sufficient
exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages
(p.47). This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language
minority children in the U.S. every day. A simplification into a one page hypothesis gives
teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of
following this path. As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these
ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems.

Curriculum Design

The educational implications of Krashens theories become more apparent in the

remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use
of the Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrells earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but
have been expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat
by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it
fits into their classroom.
This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural
Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning
communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production
simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered
(p. 58-60) are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The
compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good,
broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or
audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its
departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its
allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.
Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty. Three
general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification,
experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical
background. The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the
beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way
that keeps students involved. It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and
self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice
(starting on p.101). However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have
gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question
production are left with conflicting advice.
Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out
onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions. These take the form of open-ended
sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84). These formats
necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the
Monitor Model. The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142),
despite Krashens promotion of Monitor-free production. Even if a teacher were to set
off in this direction and begin to introduce a structure of the day (p. 72), once again there
is no theoretical basis for what to choose. Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack
of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained
no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.
Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of
Krashens later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to
curriculum problems seems to be massive listening. However, as noted before, other
than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding
comprehension. Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious order
of acquisition, which is based on production anyway. Further, the link from exposure to
production targets is tenuous at best. Consider the dialog presented on p.87:

. . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run. The
instructor expands the answer. Yes, thats right, hes running.
The exchange is meant to illustrate how allowing for errors, while at the same time
providing corrected input can help students in acquisition. To the student, however, the
information in the instructors response is completely contained in the word
Yes. Krashen makes no comment on how, even if it is comprehended, the extra
information of Hes running enters the students production. If simple exposure is the
answer, then thats right is more likely to be acquired given its proximity to the carrier
of meaning Yes.
This issue is the subject of extensive psycholinguistic research in sentence
processing and bilingual lexical memory, and conclusive answers have not yet been
found. The length of the path from 1) understanding the above question to 2) giving a
one-word answer, to 3) being able to give a full sentence answer, and then 4) being able
to ask a similar question is quite unclear. Especially if the teacher is to rely on input alone,
it is very conceivable that the students could be working their way through the
intermediate steps for quite some time. Teachers would perhaps be better served by a
less dogmatic approach that informed them of not only single steps, but what exactly has
been found in current research. This of course includes hypotheses and findings that
have not been conclusively proven yet, but a more balanced approach than the present
one would allow teachers to use their valuable experience in the classroom to make
informed judgments about curriculum. In attempting to teach a subject whose process is
not clearly known, it seems obvious that a well-rounded awareness of the theoretical
issues involved is necessary. For this reason concurrent teacher education in language
education is essential to insure the needs of all students are met.

Conclusions

Krashen seemed to be on the right track with each of his hypotheses. Anyone who
has learned a language, and especially those who have seen the grammar-translation
method in action seems to have a gut level feeling that the road to proficiency runs
somewhere outside of textbooks and classrooms. Indeed, in the literature, every reviewer
makes a special effort to acknowledge the incredible contribution that Krashen had made
to language education. Kramsch (1995) points out that the input metaphor may be a relic
of the prestige of the physical sciences and electrical engineering, but that Krashens
acquisition-learning dichotomy cuts at the heart of academic legitimation. She advocates
a more productive discourse between applied linguists and foreign language teachers to
explore and question the historical and social forces that have created the present
context.
Krashens conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he
is trying to achieve: It is possible that no pain, no gain does not apply to language
acquisition (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it
is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the
majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no
matter how much exposure to comprehensible input we have had. And the particular
circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries
certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to
understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an easy way
philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher
guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To
institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to
understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the
pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative
that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very
complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no
comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
This does not mean, however, that teachers should be sent to their classrooms with
no direction, or worse yet, back to a grammar-based or audiolingual approach. The issue
of exactly what and how to tell teachers to teach is one of the most complex and sensitive
issues that policy has to implement. It is only through basic research into a wide variety
of areas such as the role of exposure in comprehension and production that we can begin
to develop the policies to create the best practices for the classroom.

Bibliography

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Home Page. Revised Knowledge and

Skill Areas Assessed on Tests 1-3 of the (Bilingual) Crosscultural, Language and
Academic Development (CLAD/BCLAD). 1998. California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing. 14 December 2000.
<http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/clad_bclad_revisions/clad_bclad_revisions.html>

Ellis, R. (1992). Comprehension and the acquisition of grammatical knowledge in a

second language. In Courchene, R.J. Comprehension-based second language
teaching. Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashens monitor and Occams razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Kramsch, C. (1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they talk
to each other? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,1. 1-16.

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition

theory. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (p.51-79).
California State Department of Education.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York,
Longman.

Krashen, S.D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In James E. Alatis

(ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 409-431.

Krashen, S.D. (1993a). Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction. Another educator
comments . . . . TESOL Quarterly, 26, No. 2. 409-411

Krashen, S.D. (1993b). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL
Quarterly, 26, No.3. 722-725.

Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.

Lightbown, P.M. & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashens

Teaching Issues: Formal grammar instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 26, No.3. 717-722.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Paradis, M. (1998). The other side of language: Pragmatic competence. Journal of

Neurolinguistics, 11, Nos. 1-2. 1-10.

Terrell, T.D. (1977). "A natural approach to the acquisition and learning of a
language". Modern Language Journal, 61. 325-336.

https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm

The Natural Approach | Methods and Approaches of Language Teaching

1. 1. Compiled & Adapted byAjaan Rob Hatfield, M.Ed. Revised 06-2013
2. 2. IntroductionNatural Approach:Stephen Krashen and TracyTerrell developed the
"NaturalApproach" in the early eighties(Krashen and Terrell, 1983),based on Krashens
theories aboutsecond language acquisition.2
3. 3. This acquisition-focused approachsees communicative competenceprogressing through
three stages:(a) Aural comprehension,(b) Early speech production, and(c) Speech activities,
all fostering "natural"language acquisition, much as a childwould learn his/her native tongue.
3
4. 4. Following an initial "silent period",comprehension should precedeproduction in speech, as
the lattershould be allowed to emerge in naturalstages or progressions.4
5. 5. Background Historical Context70 was a fruitful era in secondlanguage research.Noam
Chomsky explained a newtheory of language (Acquisition andLearning).5
6. 6. Background Historical ContextInnovate methods for language teaching:Community
Language Learning Charles Currant (1972)Suggestopedia Lozanov (1979)The Silent Way
Caleb Gattegno (1972)Total Physical Response James Asher (1977)The Natural Approach
Krashen and Terrell. (1983)6
7. 7. OverviewIn the Natural Approach theteacher speaks only the targetlanguage and class
time iscommitted to providing input foracquisition.7
8. 8. Students may use either thelanguage being taught or their firstlanguage. Errors in speech
are notcorrected; however homework mayinclude grammar exercises that willbe corrected.8
9. 9. Goals for the class emphasizethe students being able use thelanguage "to talk about
ideas,perform tasks, and solve problems."This approach aims to fulfill therequirements for
learning andacquisition, and does a great job indoing it.9
10. 10. Its main weakness is that allclassroom teaching is to somedegree limited in its ability to
beinteresting and relevant to allstudents.10
11. 11. L2 AcquisitionTheory CurriculumThe Natural
ApproachCombinesLearningProcessSpokenProductionDuringFocused on11
12. 12. Krashens theories of second languageacquisition, and his five hypotheses.Acquisition
requiresmeaningful interaction in thetarget language - naturalcommunication - in
whichspeakers are concerned notwith the form of theirutterances but with themessages they
are conveyingand understanding.Stephen Krashen12
13. 13. The Acquisition/Learning HypothesisLanguage acquisition (anunconscious
processdeveloped through usinglanguage meaningfully) isdifferent from languagelearning
(consciouslylearning or discoveringrules about a language)and language acquisition isthe
only way competencein a second language candevelop. 13
14. 14. A learning theory shouldrespond to these two questions:What are the
psycholinguisticand cognitive processes involved inlanguage teaching?What are the
conditions thatneed to be met in order for theselearning processes to be activated?14
15. 15. Stephen Krashens MonitorTheory, which is based on The NaturalApproach, answers
both questions bydistinguishing between the acquisitionand learning processes, and
bydescribing the type of input thelearners receive, which should be attheir level, interest, of
sufficientquantity, and in low-anxiety contexts,and these are the conditions.15
16. 16. Tracy D. Terrell (Natural Approach),and James Asher (Total PhysicalResponse) are
examples ofmethods based on this learningtheory.16
17. 17. Charles A. Currans CounselingLearning and Caleb Gattegnos SilentWay also focus on
this learning theory,but they focus primarily on theconditions more than in the
processes.Their concern is directed to theatmosphere of the classroom, and theyseek for
motivation, confidence andsecurity within the students.17
18. 18. Theory of LanguageThe essence of language is meaning.Vocabulary not grammar is the
heart oflanguage.It emphasized Comprehensible Input,distinguishing between acquisition
anatural subconscious process, and learning a conscious process. It is argued
thatlearning cannot lead to acquisition. Thefocus is on meaning, not form
(structure,grammar).18
19. 19. The best methods are therefore those that supplycomprehensible input in low
anxietysituations, containing messages thatstudents really want to hear.These methods do
not forceearly production in the secondlanguage, but allow students toproduce when they
are ready,recognizing that improvementcomes from supplyingcommunicative and
comprehensibleinput, and not from forcing andcorrecting production." StephenKrashen19
20. 20. Theory of LanguageThe Natural Approach:Reflecting the cognitive psychologyand
humanistic approach prominent in thefield of education at that time, the NaturalApproach
shifted the culture of thelanguage classroom 180 degrees andbrought a sense of community
to thestudents by their sharing of the experienceof learning the same language together.20
21. 21. Theory of LearningLanguageacquisition does notrequire extensiveuse of
consciousgrammatical rules,and does notrequire tediousdrill.Stephen Krashen 21
22. 22. The Natural Order HypothesisGrammaticalstructures areacquired in apredictable
orderand it does littlegood to try to learnthem in anotherorder.22
23. 23. Input HypothesisPeople acquirelanguage bestfrom messagesthat are justslightly
beyondtheir currentcompetence: i+123
24. 24. The Monitor HypothesisConscious learningoperates only as amonitor or editorthat
checks orrepairs the output ofwhat has beenacquired.24
25. 25. The Affective Filter HypothesisThe learnersemotional state canact as a filter thatimpedes
or blocksinput necessary forlanguage acquisition.25
26. 26. Design: ObjectivesObjectivesDesigned to givebeginners/ intermediatelearner
communicativeskills.Four broad areas; basicpersonal communicativeskills
(speaking/listening);academic learning skills(oral/written)26
27. 27. Design: SyllabusSyllabusThe syllabus forthe Natural Approachis a
communicativesyllabus.Based on a selectionof communicativeactivities and topicsderived
from learnerneeds.27
28. 28. Types of learning techniques and activitiesComprehensibleinput is presentedin the
targetlanguage, usingtechniques suchas TPR, mime andgesture.Group techniquesare
similar toCommunicativeLanguage Teaching.Learners start to talkwhen they are ready.28
29. 29. Learner roles:Focused on meaningful and vocabularyShould not try andlearn a language
inthe usual sense, butshould try and losethemselves inactivities
involvingmeaningfulcommunication.Meaningful Vocabulary29
30. 30. Teacher roles:Teachers should provide "comprehensible input (i+1)The teacher is
theprimary source ofcomprehensibleinput. Must createpositive low-anxietyclimate. Must
chooseand orchestrate arich mixture ofclassroom activities.30
31. 31. Roles of materialsThe world of relia ratherthan text books. Visual aids areessential like
schedules,brochures, advertisement,maps, books of a levelappropriate to the learners.31
32. 32. ProcedurePresentation of a situation or contextthrough a brief dialogue or several mini-
dialogues, preceded by a motivationalactivity relating the dialogue to learnersexperiences
and interest.These are the steps to follow inplanning a lesson using thecommunicative or the
Natural approachto second-language teaching:32
33. 33. ProcedureThis includes a discussion ofthe functional and situational roles,settings, topics
at the level offormality or informality that functionor situation demands.33
34. 34. Procedure / ProcessBrainstorming ordiscussion to establishthe vocabulary
andexpressions to be used toaccomplish thecommunicative intent.Includes a framework
ormeans of structuring aconversation or exchangeto achieve the purpose ofthe
speakers.Questions and answersbased on the dialoguetopic and situation:Inverted, wh-
questions,yes/no, either/or andopen-ended questions.34
35. 35. Procedure / ProcessStudy of the basiccommunicativeexpressions in thedialogue or one
ofthe structures thatexemplifies thefunction, usingpictures, real objects,or dramatization
toclarify the meaning.Learner discovery ofgeneralizations or rulesunderlying the
functionalexpression or structure,with model examples onthe whiteboard,underlining the
importantfeatures, using arrows orreferents where feasible.35
36. 36. Procedure / ProcessOral recognitionand interpretativeactivities includingoral
productionproceeding fromguided to freercommunicationactivities.Oral evaluation oflearning
with guideduse of language andquestions/answers,e.g. "How would youask your friend
to________________?And how would youask me to_________?"36
37. 37. Procedure / ProcessReading and/orcopying of thedialogues withvariations
forreading/writingpractice.To complete thelesson cycle, provideopportunities to applythe
language learnedthe day before innovel situations forthe same or a relatedpurpose.37
38. 38. ConclusionThe Natural Approach adopts techniquesand activities from different sources
butuses them to provide comprehensibleinput.Language AcquisitionLanguage Processing 38
39. 39. The use of the term NaturalApproach rather than Methodhighlights the development of
a moveaway from method which implies aparticular set of features to be followed,almost as
to approach which startsfrom some basic principles developed inthe design and practice in
teaching andlearning.39
40. 40. It is now widely recognized thatthe diversity of contexts requiresan informed, eclectic
approach.40
41. 41. It has been realized thatthere never was and probablynever will be a method for all,
andthe focus in recent years has beenon the development of classroomtasks and activities
which areconsonant with what we knowabout second language acquisition,and which are
also in keeping withthe dynamics of the classroomitself (Nunan 1991: 228).To quote
Nunan:41
42. 42. Summary of The Natural
MethodCurriculumTeacherMotivationClassroomLearningEnvironmentInstructionalStrategies
Acquisition42
43. 43. Theory of languageThe Communicative view of languageis the focus behind The Natural
Approach.Particular emphasis is laid on language as aset of messages that can be
understood.43
44. 44. Theory of languageLanguage is a vehicle forcommunicating meanings and
messagesCommunicative approachThe focus on meaning not formVocabulary is stressed
(Lexicon)Formula i + 144
45. 45. Theory of learning - The Natural Approachis based on the following tenets:Language
acquisition (an unconsciousprocess developed through using languagemeaningfully) is
different from languagelearning (consciously learning or discoveringrules about a language)
and languageacquisition is the only way competence in asecond language occurs.(The
Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis)45
46. 46. Grammatical structures areacquired in a predictable order and itdoes little good to try to
learn them inanother order.(The Natural Order Hypothesis)People acquire language best
frommessages that are just slightly beyondtheir current competence:i+1 (The Input
hypothesis)46
47. 47. Conscious learning operates only asa monitor or editor that checks or repairsthe output
of what has been acquired.(The Monitor Hypothesis)The learners emotional state canact as
a filter that impedes or blocksinput necessary for languageacquisition.(The Affective Filter
Hypothesis)47
48. 48. 48Objectives:Design: Specific objectives depend onlearners needs, skills and
level.Syllabus:Typical goals for language courses orparticular needs and interest ofstudents
topics and situations.
49. 49. 49Learners Roles:Processor of comprehensible input.Pre-production stageEarly
production stageSpeech emergent phaseLearner to learner interactionencourage in pair &
small groupGuesser - Immerser
50. 50. 50Teachers Roles:Primary source of comprehensive inputCreates atmosphere - learner
centeredFacilitator - Orchestrate classroomactivitiesEdu-actor props user
51. 51. 51Types of learning techniques and activities:Comprehensible input is presented in
thetarget language, using techniques suchas TPR, mime and gesture.Group techniques are
similar toCommunicative Language Teaching.Learners start to talk when they areready.
52. 52. 52ProcedureThe Natural Approach adoptstechniques and activities from differentsources
but uses them to providecomprehensible input.Language is a tool for
communicationLanguage function over Linguistic formComprehension before production -
task
53. 53. 53AssessmentCommunicative effectiveness.Fluency over accuracy.Task based
oriented.No error correction unless errorsinterfere with communication
54. 54. References: Cook, V. websitehttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D.
(1983), The Natural Approach, Pergamon Nunan, David (ed) 2003 Practical English
 LanguageTeachingMcGraw Hill. Nunan, David 1989 Designing Tasks for the
CommunicativeClassroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Richards, J., &
Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods inlanguage Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress. http://www.tprstories.com/ijflt/55

https://www.slideshare.net/AjaanRobCMU/the-natual-approach-teaching-methodology-
presentation

https://sites.google.com/site/teachingtoteenangers/II--methods-in-elt/9--natural-
approach

Comprehensible input is language input that can be understood by listeners despite

them not understanding all the words and structures in it. It is described as one level
above that of the learners if it can only just be understood. According to Krashen's
theory of language acquisition, giving learners this kind of input helps them acquire
language naturally, rather than learn it consciously.
 Example
The teacher selects a reading text for upper-intermediate level learners that is from a
lower advanced level course book. Based on what the teacher knows about the
learners, the teacher believes that this will give them 'comprehensible input' to help
them acquire more language.

In the classroom
Trying to understand language slightly above their level encourages learners to use
natural learning strategies such as guessing words from context and inferring meaning.
As the example suggests, a teacher needs to know the level of the learners very well in
order to select comprehensible input, and in a large class of mixed ability, different
learners will need different texts.

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/comprehensible-input

preproduction

prprdkSHn/
noun
noun: pre-production
1. work done on a product, especially a film or broadcast program, before full-scale
production begins.
"the preproduction script"