Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Natural Approach....................................................................................................................................2
Theory of language..................................................................................................................................3
The acquisition/learning hypothesis............................................................................................................3
The input hypothesis...................................................................................................................................4
The affective filter hypothesis.....................................................................................................................4
Design..........................................................................................................................................................5
The syllabus.................................................................................................................................................5
Types of learning and teaching activities....................................................................................................6
Learner roles............................................................................................................................................7
Teacher roles...........................................................................................................................................7
The role of instructional materials...........................................................................................................8
Procedure....................................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................9

1|Page
Introduction
Language teaching came into its own as a profession in the twentieth century. The whole
foundation of contemporary language teaching was developed during the early part of the
twentieth century, as applied linguists and others sought to develop principles and procedures for
the design of teaching methods and materials, drawing on the developing fields of linguistics and
psychology to support a succession of proposals for what were thought to be more effective and
theoretically sound teaching methods. Language teaching in the twentieth century was
characterized by frequent change and innovation and by the development of sometimes
competing language teaching ideologies.
Toward the mid-nineteenth century several factors contributed to a questioning and rejection of
the Grammar-Translation Method. Increased opportunities for communication among Europeans
created a demand for oral proficiency in foreign languages. Initially this created a market for
conversation books and phrase books intended for private study, but language teaching
specialists also turned their attention to the way modern languages were being taught in
secondary schools. Increasingly, the public education system was seen to be failing in its
responsibilities.
Approach and method of Language Teaching and Learning
When linguists and language specialists sought to improve the quality of language teaching in
the late nineteenth century, they often did so by referring to general principles and theories
concerning how languages are learned, how knowledge of language is represented and organized
in memory, or how language itself is structured.

At least three different theoretical views of language and the nature of language proficiency
explicitly or implicitly inform current approaches and methods in language teaching. The first,
and the most traditional of the three, is the structural view, the view that language is a system of
structurally related elements for the coding of meaning. The target of language learning is seen to
be the mastery of elements of this system, which are generally defined in terms of phonological
units. The second view of language is the functional view, the view that language is a vehicle for
the expression of functional meaning. The third view of language can be called the interactional
view. It sees language as a vehicle for the realization of interpersonal relations and for the
performance of social transactions between individuals. Language is seen as a tool for the
creation and maintenance of social relations.

Natural Approach
In 1977, Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California, outlined “a proposal for a ‘new’
philosophy of language teaching which [he] called the Natural Approach” (Terrell 1977; 1982:
121). This was an attempt to develop a language teaching proposal that incorporated the
“naturalistic” principles researchers had identified in studies of second language acquisition.

2|Page
Stephen D. Krashen’s Monitor Model of second language development (1981) is an example of a
learning theory on which a method (the Natural Approach) has been built. Monitor theory
addresses both the process and the condition dimensions of learning. At the level of process,
Krashen distinguishes between acquisition and learning.
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. Krashen and Terrell noted that such “approaches have been called natural,
psychological, phonetic, new, reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth” (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 9).
In the Natural Approach there is an emphasis on exposure, or input, rather than practice;
optimizing emotional preparedness for learning; a prolonged period of attention to what the
language learners hear before they try to produce language; and a willingness to use written and
other materials as a source of comprehensible input.

Theory of language
Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary function of language, and since their
approach focuses on teaching communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an
example of a communicative approach. The Natural Approach “is similar to other
communicative approaches being developed today” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). 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.
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” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 19).

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.

3|Page
The input hypothesis
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. Krashen refers
to this with the formula “I + 1” (i.e., input that contains structures slightly above the learner’s
present level). The Input Hypothesis claims to explain the relationship between what the learner
is exposed to of a language (the input) and language acquisition. It involves four main issues.
First, the hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning. Second, people acquire language
best by understanding input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence: An acquirer
can “move” from a stage I (where I is the acquirer’s level of competence) to a stage I + 1 (where I + 1 is
the stage immediately following I along some natural order) by understanding language containing I + 1.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32) Clues based on the situation and the context, extra linguistic
information, and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible.
Third, the ability to speak fluently cannot be taught directly; rather, it “emerges” independently
in time, after the acquirer has built up linguistic competence by understanding input. Fourth, if
there is a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input, I + 1 will usually be provided
automatically. Comprehensible input refers to utterances that the learner understands based on
the context in which they are used as well as the language in which they are phrased. When a
speaker uses language so that the acquirer understands the message, the speaker “casts a net” of
structure around the acquirer’s current level of competence, and this will include many instances
of I + 1.

Obviously, there is no particular novelty in this view as such, except that messages are
considered of primary importance in the Natural Approach. 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.

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.

4|Page
The Affective Filter Hypothesis states that acquirers with a low affective filter seek and receive
more input, interact with confidence, and are more receptive to the input they receive. Anxious
acquirers have a high affective filter, which prevents acquisition from taking place. It is believed
that the affective filter (e.g., fear or embarrassment) rises in early adolescence, and this may
account for children’s apparent superiority to older acquirers of a second language.
These four hypotheses have obvious implications for language teaching. In sum, these are:
1. As much comprehensible input as possible must be presented.
2. Whatever helps comprehension is important. Visual aids are useful, as is exposure to
a wide range of vocabulary rather than study of syntactic structure.
3. The focus in the classroom should be on listening and reading; speaking should be
allowed to “emerge.”
4. In order to lower the affective filter, student work should center on meaningful
communication rather than on form; input should be interesting and so contribute to a
relaxed classroom atmosphere.

Design
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. 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 (reading, writing, listening, or
speaking) 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.

The syllabus
Krashen and Terrell (1983) approach course organization from two points of view.
1. 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:
1.1. Basic personal communication skills: oral (e.g., listening to
announcements in public places)
1.2. Basic personal communication skills: written (e.g., reading and writing
personal letters)
1.3. Academic learning skills: oral (e.g., listening to a lecture)
1.4. 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

5|Page
 proceed to order four pages of topics and situations “which are likely to be most useful to
beginning students” (1983: 67). The functions are not specified or suggested but are felt
to derive naturally from the topics and situations. This approach to syllabus design would
appear to derive to some extent from threshold level specifications.
2. The second point of view holds that “the purpose of a language course will vary
according to the needs of the students and their particular interests” (Krashen and
Terrell (1983: 65):

The goals of a Natural Approach class are based on an assessment of student needs. We
determine the situations in which they will use the target language and the sorts of topics they
will have to communicate information about. In setting communication goals, we do not
expect the students at the end of a particular course to have acquired a certain group of
structures or forms. Instead we expect them to deal with a particular set of topics in a given
situation. We do not organize the activities of the class about a grammatical syllabus.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71)

From this point of view, it is difficult to specify communicative goals that necessarily
fit the needs of all students. Thus, any list of topics and situations must be understood
as syllabus suggestions rather than as specifications.

As well as fitting the needs and interests of students, content selection should aim to
create a low affective filter by being interesting and fostering a friendly, relaxed
atmosphere, should provide a wide exposure to vocabulary that may be useful to basic
personal communication, and should resist any focus on grammatical structures, since if
input is provided “over a wider variety of topics while pursuing communicative goals, the
necessary grammatical structures are automatically provided in the input” (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 71)

Types of learning and teaching activities

From the beginning of a class taught according to the Natural Approach, emphasis is on
presenting comprehensible input in the target language. Teacher talk focuses on objects
in the classroom and on the content of pictures, as with the Direct Method. To minimize
stress, learners are not required to say anything until they feel ready, but they are
expected to respond to teacher commands and questions in other ways.

Techniques recommended by Krashen and Terrell are often borrowed from other
methods and adapted to meet the requirements of Natural Approach theory. These
include command-based activities from Total Physical Response; Direct Method
activities in which mime, gesture, and context are used to elicit questions and answers;
and even situation-based practice of structures and patterns. Group-work activities are

6|Page
 often identical to those used in Communicative Language Teaching, where sharing
information in order to complete a task is emphasized. There is nothing novel about the
procedures and techniques advocated for use with the Natural Approach. A casual
observer might not be aware of the philosophy underlying the classroom techniques he or
she observes. What characterizes the Natural Approach is the use of familiar techniques
within the framework of a method that focuses on providing comprehensible input and a
classroom environment that cues comprehension of input, minimizes learner anxiety, and
maximizes learner self-confidence.

Learner roles
The language acquirer is seen as a processor of comprehensible input. The acquirer is
challenged by input that is slightly beyond his or her current level of competence and is
able to assign meaning to this input through active use of context and extralinguistic
information.

Learners’ roles are seen to change according to their stage of linguistic development.
Central to these changing roles are learner decisions on when to speak, what to speak
about, and what linguistic expressions to use in speaking.

In the early-production stage, students respond to either-or questions, use single words
and short phrases, fill in charts, and use fixed conversational patterns (e.g., How are you?
What’s your name?). In the speech-emergent phase, students involve themselves in role
play and games, contribute personal information and opinions, and participate in group
problem solving.

Learners 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.

Teacher roles
The Natural Approach teacher has three central roles. First, the teacher is the primary
source of comprehensible input in the target language. “Class time is devoted primarily to
providing input for acquisition,” 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

7|Page
 many contemporary communicative methods.

Second, the Natural Approach teacher creates a classroom atmosphere that is interesting,
friendly, and in which there is a low affective filter for learning. This is achieved in part
through such Natural Approach techniques as not demanding speech from the students
before they are ready for it, not correcting student errors, and providing subject matter of
high interest to students.
Finally, the teacher must choose and orchestrate a rich mix of classroom activities,
involving a variety of group sizes, content, and contexts. The teacher is seen as
responsible for collecting materials and designing their use. These materials, according to
Krashen and Terrell, are based not just on teacher perceptions but on elicited student
needs and interests.

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” by relating classroom activities to the real world, and
by fostering real communication among the learners. Materials come from the world of
realia rather than from textbooks. The primary aim of materials is to promote
comprehension and communication. Pictures and other visual aids are essential, because
they supply the content for communication. They facilitate the acquisition of a large
vocabulary within the classroom. Other recommended materials include schedules,
brochures, advertisements, maps, and books at levels appropriate to the students, if a
reading component is included in the course.

Procedure
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.
A. Start with TPR [Total Physical Response] commands.
B. Use TPR to teach names of body parts and to introduce numbers and sequence.
C. Introduce classroom terms and props into commands.
D. Use names of physical characteristics and clothing to identify members of the class by
name.
E. Use visuals, typically magazine pictures,
F. Combine use of pictures with TPR.
G. Combine observations about the pictures with commands and conditionals.
H. Using several pictures, ask students to point to the picture being described.

8|Page
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” and that such an approach is, indeed, “the only learning
process which we know for certain will produce mastery of the language at a native level” (1968:
153). In the Natural Approach, a focus on comprehension and meaningful communication as
well as the provision of the right kinds of comprehensible input provide the necessary and
sufficient conditions for successful classroom second and foreign language acquisition. This has
led to a new rationale for the integration and adaptation of techniques drawn from a wide variety
of existing sources. Like Communicative Language Teaching, the Natural Approach is hence
evolutionary rather than revolutionary in its procedures. Its greatest claim to originality lies not
in the techniques it employs but in their use in a method that emphasizes comprehensible and
meaningful practice activities, rather than production of grammatically perfect utterances and
sentences.
Additionally, as with other nonorthodox 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. This type of approach is very
simple to learn second language and gain its competency in short period of time. However,
majorly it does not give suffice attention for accuracy of language rule (grammar) competence.

9|Page
 References
Baltra, A. 1992. On breaking with tradition: The significance of Terrell’s Natural Approach.
Canadian Modern Language Review 49(3): 565–593.
Berne, J. 1990. A comparison of teaching for proficiency with the natural approach: Procedure,
design and approach. Hispania 73(4): 147–153.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Newmark, L., and D. A. Reibel. 1968. Necessity and sufficiency in language learning.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 6(2): 145–164.
Terrell, T. D. 1981. The natural approach in bilingual education. MS. California Office of
Bilingual Education.

10 | P a g e