The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in

the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting, and to
this end it emphasis communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and
explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as
possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after
students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.
The natural approach has become closely associated with Krashen's monitor model, and it is often seen as an
application of the theory to language teaching. Despite this perception, there are some differences, particularly
Terrell's view that some degree of conscious grammar study can be beneficial. The syllabus focuses on
activities which Terrell sees as promoting subconscious language acquisition. He divides these activities into
four main areas: content activities, such as learning a new subject in the target language; activities which focus
on personalizing language, such as students sharing their favorite music; games; and problem-solving
activities.

Background
The natural approach was originally created in 1977 by Terrell, a Spanish teacher in California, who wished to
develop a style of teaching based on the findings of naturalistic studies of second-language
acquisition.[1][2] After the original formulation, Terrell worked with Krashen to further develop the theoretical
aspects of the method. Terrell and Krashen published the results of their collaboration in the 1983 book The
Natural Approach.[1] he aim of the natural approach is to develop communicative skills,[6] and it is
primarily intended to be used with beginning learners.[7] It is presented as a set of principles that can
apply to a wide range of learners and teaching situations, and concrete objectives depend on the
specific context in which it is used.[7] Terrell outlines three basic principles of the approach:

"Focus of instruction is on communication rather than its form."[8]

"Speech production comes slowly and is never forced."[8]
"Early speech goes through natural stages (yes or no response, one- word answers, lists of
words, short phrases, complete sentences.)"[8]
These principles result in classrooms where the teacher emphasizes interesting, comprehensible
input and low-anxiety situations.[6] Lessons in the natural approach focus on understanding
messages in the foreign language, and place little or no importance on error correction, drilling or on
conscious learning of grammar rules.[6][2][9] They also emphasize learning of a wide vocabulary base
over learning new grammatical structures.[2] In addition, teachers using the natural approach aim to
create situations in the classroom that are intrinsically motivating for students.[6]
Terrell sees learners going through three stages in their acquisition of speech: comprehension, early
speech, and speech emergence.[10] In the comprehension stage Terrell focuses on students'
vocabulary knowledge. His aim is to make the vocabulary stick in students' long term memory, a
process which he calls binding.[11] Terrell sees some techniques as more binding than others; for
example, the use of gestures or actions, such as in Total Physical Response, is seen to be
more binding than the use of translation.[11]
According to Terrell, students' speech will only emerge after enough language has
been bound through communicative input.[11] When this occurs, the learners enter the early speech
stage. In this stage, students answer simple questions, use single words and set phrases, and fill in
simple charts in the foreign language.[12] In the speech emergence stage, students take part in
activities requiring more advanced language, such as role-plays and problem-solving activities.[12]

Theory[edit]
Although Terrell originally created the natural approach without relying on a particular theoretical
model, his subsequent collaboration with Krashen has meant that the method is often seen as an
application to language teaching of Krashen's monitor model.[4] Krashen outlined five hypotheses in
his model:

1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. This states that there is a strict separation between
conscious learning of language and subconscious acquisition of language, and that
only acquisition can lead to fluent language use.[4]
2. The monitor hypothesis. This states that language knowledge that is consciously learned can
only be used to monitor output, not to generate new language. Monitoring output requires
learners to be focused on the rule and to have time to apply it.[4]
3. The input hypothesis. This states that language is acquired by exposure to comprehensible
input at a level a little higher than that the learner can already understand. Krashen names
this kind of input "i+1".[4]
4. The natural order hypothesis. This states that learners acquire the grammatical features of a
language in a fixed order, and that this is not affected by instruction.[4]
5. The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners must be relaxed and open to learning
in order for language to be acquired. Learners who are nervous or distressed may not learn
features in the input that more relaxed learners would pick up with little effort.[4]
Despite its basis in Krashen's theory, the natural approach does not adhere to the theory strictly. In
particular, Terrell perceives a greater role for the conscious learning of grammar than Krashen.
Krashen's monitor hypothesis contends that conscious learning has no effect on learners' ability to
generate new language, whereas Terrell believes that some conscious learning of grammar rules
can be beneficial.[6]

The natural approach was strikingly different from the mainstream approach in the United States in the 1970s
and early 1980s, the audio-lingual method. While the audio-lingual method prized drilling and error correction,
these things disappeared almost entirely from the natural approach.[3] Terrell and Krashen themselves
characterized the natural approach as a "traditional" method[1] and contrasted it with grammar-based
approaches, which they characterized as new inventions that had "misled" teachers.[4]
The natural approach shares many features with the direct method (itself also known as the "natural method"),
which was formulated around 1900 and was also a reaction to grammar-translation.[5] Both the natural
approach and the direct method are based on the idea of enabling naturalistic language acquisition in the
language classroom; they differ in that the natural approach puts less emphasis on practice and more on
exposure to language input and on reducing learners' anxiety.[5]

He claims of the natural approach is to develop communicative skills,[6] and it is primarily intended to be used
with beginning learners. It is presented as a set of principles that can apply to a wide range of learners and
teaching situations, and concrete objectives depend on the specific context in which it is used.[7] Terrell outlines
three basic principles of the approach:

"Focus of instruction is on communication rather than its form."[8]

"Speech production comes slowly and is never forced."[8]
"Early speech goes through natural stages (yes or no response, one- word answers, lists of words, short
phrases, and complete sentences.)"[8]
These principles result in classrooms where the teacher emphasizes interesting, comprehensible input and low-
anxiety situations.[6] Lessons in the natural approach focus on understanding messages in the foreign language,
and place little or no importance on error correction, drilling or on conscious learning of grammar
rules.[6][2][9] They also emphasize learning of a wide vocabulary base over learning new grammatical
structures.[2] In addition, teachers using the natural approach aim to create situations in the classroom that are
intrinsically motivating for students.[6]
Terrell sees learners going through three stages in their acquisition of speech: comprehension, early speech,
and speech emergence.[10] In the comprehension stage Terrell focuses on students' vocabulary knowledge. His
aim is to make the vocabulary stick in students' long term memory, a process which he calls binding.[11] Terrell
sees some techniques as more binding than others; for example, the use of gestures or actions, such as in Total
Physical Response, is seen to be more binding than the use of translation.[11]
According to Terrell, students' speech will only emerge after enough language has been bound through
communicative input.[11] When this occurs, the learners enter the early speech stage. In this stage, students
answer simple questions, use single words and set phrases, and fill in simple charts in the foreign
language.[12] In the speech emergence stage, students take part in activities requiring more advanced language,
such as role-plays and problem-solving activities.[12]

Theory
Although Terrell originally created the natural approach without relying on a particular theoretical model, his
subsequent collaboration with Krashen has meant that the method is often seen as an application to language
teaching of Krashen's monitor model.[4] Krashen outlined five hypotheses in his model:

1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. This states that there is a strict separation between
conscious learning of language and subconscious acquisition of language, and that
only acquisition can lead to fluent language use.[4]
2. The monitor hypothesis. This states that language knowledge that is consciously learned can only be
used to monitor output, not to generate new language. Monitoring output requires learners to be
focused on the rule and to have time to apply it.[4]
3. The input hypothesis. This states that language is acquired by exposure to comprehensible input at a
level a little higher than that the learner can already understand. Krashen names this kind of input
"i+1".[4]
4. The natural order hypothesis. This states that learners acquire the grammatical features of a language
in a fixed order, and that this is not affected by instruction.[4]
5. The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners must be relaxed and open to learning in order
for language to be acquired. Learners who are nervous or distressed may not learn features in the
input that more relaxed learners would pick up with little effort.[4]
Despite its basis in Krashen's theory, the natural approach does not adhere to the theory strictly. In particular,
Terrell perceives a greater role for the conscious learning of grammar than Krashen. Krashen's monitor
hypothesis contends that conscious learning has no effect on learners' ability to generate new language,
whereas Terrell believes that some conscious learning of grammar rules can be beneficial.[6]

Prepared by Richard Jesson Ondoy