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