Teaching English

as a Foreign Language
THE NATURAL APPROACH
 Heri Wahyudi
Raesa Savelia
Yolanda Andriani
Background
• Developed while the Audio-lingual and Grammar Translation Methods had a
strong influence on Second Language learning.
• Developed by Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen who combined their findings into
a comprehensive Second Language Acquisition Theory.
• In contrast with the Audio-lingual and GT methods, the NA makes distinction
between learning and acquisition.
• The Natural Approach’s emphasis being the target language should be learned
the same way a native learns his/her language—through communication and not
by learning the target language’s grammar rules.
Theory of language

• Krashen and Terrell view communication as the primary function of language, and
adhere to a communicative approach to language teaching, focusing on teaching
communicative abilities rather than sterile language structures.
• What really distinguishes the Natural approach from other methods and
approaches are its premises concerning the use of language and the importance
of vocabulary:
• Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meaning and messages.
• Vocabulary is of paramount importance as language is essentially its lexicon!
• This means that language acquisition cannot take place unless the acquirer
understands messages in the target language and has developed sufficient
vocabulary inventory.
The Approach
• The Theory of language is Communicative
• The Theory of language learning is Creative Construction Theory (developed by
Krashen)
This approach uses the communicative approach to language teaching as
opposed to audio-lingual or the GT which theory of language is structuralism.
Theory of Learning
Comprises of six core hypotheses:
1. Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
2. Monitor hypothesis
3. Natural Order hypothesis
4. Input hypothesis
5. Affective Filter hypothesis
6. The Reading Hypothesis
1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. There is a difference between
learning, which is purposeful and conscious, and acquisition which is
natural and subconscious.
(Markee 1997, pp. 25–26)
2. The monitor hypothesis. This hypothesis states that conscious learning
functions only as a monitor to edit and correct the output of the
acquired language.
(Markee 1997, pp. 25–26)
3. The input hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis states that students acquire
language when they need to understand input that is slightly beyond
their level of competence. “Krashen refers to this by the formula L +1
(where L+1 is the stage immediately following L along some natural
order.)” (taken from: http://www.myenglishpages.com/blog/natural-approach/)
(Markee 1997, pp. 25–26)
4. The natural order hypothesis. This hypothesis states that grammatical
structures are acquired in a predictable order just the same way that the
native speaker learned their native language.
(Markee 1997, pp. 25–26)
5. The affective filter hypothesis. This hypothesis states that emotional
factors can block or affect the process of acquisition.
 The main emotional attitude factors of motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety can
impede language acquisition.
 A students with high affective filter are less likely to learn.

 The teacher should promote a low anxiety, low stress environment.

(Markee 1997, pp. 25–26)
6. The Reading Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the more we read in
a SL the greater our vocabulary.
 “Language is best taught when it is being used to
transmit messages, not when it is explicitly taught
for conscious learning.”

(Krashen and Terrell, 1995)

Principles of the Natural Approach
• Class time is devoted primarily to providing input for
acquisition.
– Teachers speak only the target language.
– Students can respond in their native or target language.
• Errors are not corrected unless communication is seriously impaired.

(Taken from: http://www.fb06.uni-mainz.de/user/kiraly/English/gruppe2/Natural%20Approach.html )

Principles of the Natural Approach
• The production of speech, as a response of listening, is
developing over several stages:
– A nonverbal answer
– A one word answer
– A two or three word answer
– A short sentence answer
– A compound structure answer
(Taken from: http://www.fb06.uni-mainz.de/user/kiraly/English/gruppe2/Natural%20Approach.html)
Principles of the Natural Approach
• A lot of input must be provided:
– Input must be comprehensible
– Interesting/relevant
– Not grammatical sequences
– Affective filter level
– Tools for conversational management
• To help comprehension the teacher uses of visual aids.
• The focus is on listening, speaking emerges later.
(Taken from: http://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/alternative%20methods/natural_approach.htm)
How to Aid
Comprehension
• According to Hatch (1979) there are some aspects of simplified input which aid
comprehension. Some are:
1. “slower rate and clearer articulation, which helps acquirers to identify word
boundaries more easily, and allows more processing time”
2. “more use of high frequency vocabulary, less slang, fewer idioms”
3. “syntactic simplification, shorter sentences”
Techniques of Natural Approach
• The comprehensible input is always in the target language.

• The Natural Approach use of Total Physical Response (TPR).

• The Natural Approach lets the learners speak the target language whenever they
are ready.

• It is good to involve activities with meaningful communication.

Most use in Natural Approach
• Reading aloud
• Question and answer exercise
• Getting students to self-correct
• Conversation practice
• Filling-in-the-blank (no explicit grammar rule applied)
• Dictation
• Paragraph writing
Summary
The Natural Approach has been designed primarily for beginners. The main tenant
being that communication and not grammar is the means of acquisition of the
target language.
The Natural Approach concentrates in fitting all of the requirements for Learning
and Acquisition. This said, the Second Language Acquisition Theory does have a
weakness; that it rests on classroom activities, which means that some students
might find that the topics covered during class are not of their interest.
On the other hand, because the students are not pressured to “perform” or
“produce” unless they feel ready, the approach foments a low anxiety, low stress
environment giving way for the natural development of the target language
acquisition.
Thanks for your attention!

THE END
References
Markee, Numa (1997). Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Dhority, Lynn (1991). The ACT Approach: The Use of Suggestion for Integrative
Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Krashen S., Terrell T. (1995) The Natural Approach; Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Hertfordshire, Europe: Prentice Hall.
Krashen S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
University of Southern California.