APPROACHES AND METHODS IN ELT

THE NATURAL APPROACH

Assist. Prof. Dr. Tuğba Elif Toprak, İzmir Bakırçay University, School of Foreign Languages,
[email protected]

Prompt Questions
1. What is the Natural Approach?
2. What are the basic principles of language learning and teaching according to the Natural Approach?
3. How does the Natural Approach view language and learning?
4. What is the difference between the Natural Approach and other language teaching methods and approaches?
5. How can a Natural Approach class be designed?

INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to provide fundamental information about the Natural Approach by (i)
elaborating on its historical background, goals, and relationships with the former methods and
approaches and (ii) discussing how the Natural Approach views languages and learning and
deals with language skills. Furthermore, the chapter includes a section which showcases how the
Natural Approach could be implemented in real classroom settings by providing details about
practical considerations such as the role of teachers and students, materials, syllabus, the use of
the native language (L1), and evaluation. The chapter concludes with discussing the
contributions that the Natural Approach has made to the field of language pedagogy, the
advantages it has offered, alongside the controversies surrounding the use of the Natural
Approach in language classrooms.

1. Historical Background

The Natural Approach, “a new philosophy of language teaching” (Terrell, 1977, p.121),
was first proposed by Tracy Terrell, an instructor of Spanish at University of California and
thrived as a result of joint efforts of Tracy Terrell and an applied linguist, Stephen Krashen.
Later, these efforts came into being as a book, The Natural Approach (1983), which featured
several theoretical parts penned by Krashen, and several practical sections by Terrell on how to
use the Natural Approach in language classrooms. The term natural, according to Terrell (1977),
indicates that his proposal is based on observations and second language acquisition studies that
were conducted in natural, i.e., non-academic situations. Although the term natural has been
used both in the Natural Approach and the Natural Method (a.k.a., the Direct Method), there are
distinctions between these two. Both the Natural Method and the Natural Approach put greater
emphasis on making foreign language learning experiences similar to first language learning in
children. However, while the Natural Method favors repetition, teacher monologues and accurate
production of target language-like forms, the Natural Approach attaches utmost importance to
input, exposure, comprehension, and preparedness of learners in lieu of practice (Richards &
Rodgers, 2000).

2. Relationships with the Former Methods

Krashen and Terrell (1983) identified the Natural Approach with the Communicative
Approach. They criticized earlier language teaching methods (e.g., the Audiolingual Method),
claiming that these teaching methods lacked actual theories of language acquisition. Moreover,
Krashen and Terrell (1983) made a distinction between traditional and non-traditional
Tuğba Elif Toprak

approaches to language teaching by situating the Natural Approach under the banner of
traditional approaches. A traditional approach, according to Krashen and Terrell (1983), is the
one that is based on the use of language in communicative situations without resorting to any
kind of drills or grammatical analysis. Such approaches have been called many names in the
history of language teaching, including direct, analytic, natural and psychological approaches.
Krashen and Terrell (1983) asserted that the Natural Approach bears resemblances to other
communicative approaches since it favors meaning over form, and authentic communication
over drills. Although the Natural Approach did not come up with any further claims that other
communicative approaches could not make (Terrell, 1982), its developers asserted that it would
perform better than the Audiolingual, grammar-translation and cognitive-based method in
equipping language learners with communicative competence.

The Natural Approach has received the tremendous attention of language teaching
specialists and researchers for it is based on Krashen’s influential and debated hypothesis on
second language acquisition (Krashen, 1981, 1982). These hypotheses are introduced briefly in
the following subsections.

3. Theory of Language

Krashen and Terrell (1983) maintained that the Natural Approach is based on the notion of
communicative competence, which, in view of Terrell (1977), means that a language learner can
grasp the essentials of what a native speaker speaks to him in genuine communicative contexts
and can respond to the native speaker in such a fashion that the message is efficiently and
correctly interpretable. Thus, if the chief goal is communicative competence, morphology can be
overlooked by the beginners and syntactic differences may be attended to only if there are drastic
differences between L1 and L2. Albeit not explicit, the theory of language existing in the Natural
Approach consists of an extensive lexicon, messages, and very general grammar rules (Terrell,
1977). In other words, the primary emphasis is on the meaning and the lexicon, through which
the meaning is conveyed.

4. Theory of Learning

Although the Natural Approach does not have an explicit theory of language, it seems to
have a more visible and profound theory of learning. Krashen and Terrell (1983) claimed that the
Natural Approach depends on an empirically supported SLA theory which has emerged as a
result of a significant number of SLA studies conducted in a wide variety of settings. This theory
reflects the tenets of Krashen’s theory of language acquisition (1982) which is composed of i)
the acquisition/learning hypothesis, ii) the natural order hypothesis, iii) the monitor hypothesis,
iv) the input hypothesis and v) the affective filter hypothesis. The tenets of these hypotheses are
discussed below.

4.1. The acquisition/learning hypothesis

The acquisition/learning hypothesis claims that second/foreign language competence

stems from two sources, acquisition and learning. Acquisition is the unconscious process during
which language proficiency develops in a natural way and is akin to first language development
in children. On the other hand, learning refers to a conscious process during which language
rules are absorbed through studying and intellectual analysis. Krashen and Terrell (1983)
proposed that most of the classroom time should be spent on activities which trigger acquisition
since the impact of learning activities may be peripheral.
 The Natural Approach

4.2. The natural order hypothesis

The natural order hypothesis claims that grammatical structures are acquired in a
predictable order, meaning that some structures are acquired before others. Thus, learners are not
expected to use late acquired structures in the early phases of language acquisition. Moreover,
errors are viewed as natural outcomes of the language development process. It is claimed that
these errors would be similar even when learners’ native languages are different.

4.3. The monitor hypothesis

According to the monitor hypothesis, conscious learning can function as a monitor which
controls, changes and corrects the output. While the Natural Approach favors the optimal use of
the monitor, this can be achieved when learners have sufficient time and knowledge about the
rule and when the focus is on the form. However, the monitor may delay the acquisition and
hinder the communication process as well.

4.4. The input hypothesis

The input hypothesis elaborates on the links between what a learner is exposed to (the
input) and language acquisition. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that learners acquire a language
best if the input is slightly above their current level of competence. This is generally represented
by the equation i+1, where (i) refers to comprehensible input, and (1) refers to the input that is a
little bit challenging and slightly above the current level of language competence. Krashen and
Terrell (1983) claimed that if comprehensible input is in sufficient quantity, i+1 will readily be
provided.

4.5. The affective filter hypothesis

According to the affective filter hypothesis, learners’ affective or emotional states may
function as a filter impeding or blocking input that is crucial for acquisition. The Natural
Approach aims to lower the affective filter because when the affective filter is lowered, it
becomes possible to receive more input and to process this input confidently. Thus, an anxiety-
free and fostering classroom atmosphere, in which language learners are allowed to make their
own decisions and speak when they feel that they are ready, is needed.

5. The aim of the Method and Prioritized Skills

According to Krashen and Terrell (1983), the primary aim of the Natural Approach is to
foster communication skills, and a broader goal is to be able to communicate with native
speakers of the target language. While the main focus is on conveying messages by using the
target language effectively, this does not mean that grammatical accuracy will not receive any
attention at all. It is believed that if learners are exposed to comprehensible input both in
language classes and outside the class, they will be more likely to speak with accuracy in the
long term.
In this section, relevant information about the historical background, goals and basic
principles and assumptions of the Natural Approach have been covered. The next section
illustrates how the Natural Approach could be implemented in real classroom settings by giving
details about the practical considerations such as the role of teachers and students, materials,
syllabus, the use of the native language (L1), and evaluation.
Tuğba Elif Toprak

EXPERIENCE

While the teacher guides us through the corridor to the class to be observed, she tells us a
bit about her teaching philosophy and the kinds of practices that take place in her classes. She
maintains that in line with the current English language curriculum, the goal is to foster students'
interest in learning English and enable students to use the language for real-life purposes.
Students mainly engage in games, arts and crafts, role-playing while the primary focus is on
speaking and listening skills. Reading and writing skills, on the other hand, are limited to the
sentence level. The teacher tells us that they will be studying daily routines and time during two
lesson hours. She adds that the students learned about these topics at the fourth grade, but they
still need refreshment on their previous knowledge. We thank the teacher and she moves to the
teachers' room to pick up her classroom materials.

As we enter the classroom, we meet approximately twenty 5th graders aged around ten
waiting for their English teacher impatiently. The classroom seems very vibrant and colorful,
and we spot numerous pictures and arts-and-crafts work produced by the students themselves
hanging on the wall. During this waiting time, while some students chatter, chirp, hum the
chants they have learned in their music class and some energetic ones even chase each other,
some students are busy with lining their colorful crayons, an absolute favorite in English classes,
on their desk. The teacher enters the classroom holding many pictures in her arms. She greets the
students in English and asks them how they are doing. The students reply, and they ask the
teacher the same question. After exchanging some small talk, the teacher holds up a picture
showing a famous cartoon character Elsa sleeping in her bed.

On the top of the picture to the right, there is also a clock showing 10 p.m. The teacher
says "What do you see in this picture? Do you see a girl or a boy? (A girl, some students respond
while some say Elsa) Yes, there is a girl in this picture, and her name is Elsa, right. What does
Elsa do? Does Elsa eat dinner? (The teacher mimes eating and the class responds no) No, she
does not eat dinner. Does she sleep? (She mimes sleeping, and the class responds yes) Yes, Elsa
sleeps in her bed. Look at the time please, what time is it? (The students say ten, while a few of
them provide the answer in Turkish, their native language) That is right. Is it ten o'clock in the
morning or the evening? (They respond, in the evening)”. After this introduction, the teacher
handles a sheet to every student, which includes a timetable showing the daily routine of Elsa
and small scattered pictures illustrating these routines. Then, the teacher asks the students “What
time does Elsa get out of the bed?” A student replies seven. “Seven or eight? Let us check again
(The teacher shows eight with her fingers) At eight. She gets out of the bed at eight o’clock. And
when does she eat her breakfast? Does she have her breakfast at half past eight? (Yes, they all
reply)”.

The teacher goes through Elsa's routines one by one. These daily routines are typical ones
such as brushing one's teeth, leaving home, arriving at school, doing homework, etc. The teacher
provides ample teacher talk for each routine and helps the students understand each routine by
using mimes and gestures. She frequently asks clarification questions to make sure that the
students comprehend the actions and repeats key vocabulary several times. While teacher talk is
abundant, the students often provide single-word or short-phrase utterances. After they finish
reviewing Elsa's timetable, the teacher asks the students to put the jumbled pictures into a time
order by using numbers. The students work in pairs and put the pictures into the correct order.
Then, the teacher asks "Which picture is number one? What does Elsa first do in the morning?".
While the students point to the picture depicting Elsa getting out of the bed, the teacher confirms
this answer by saying "Yes, this is picture one. It is eight o'clock in the morning, and Elsa gets
 The Natural Approach

out of her bed." This procedure continues until the students point to the picture eight, in which
Elsa sleeps in her bed at 10 pm. Then, the students and the teacher take a break.

In the second hour, the students continue to work on daily routines and hours. As the first
activity, the teacher wants the students to form pairs and interview their partners about their
daily routines. She gives the interview in the matrix form in which the students are only required
to supply the necessary information.

Interviewer: What time do you get up in the morning? Interviewee: ---

Interviewer: When do you brush your teeth? Interviewee: ----
Interviewer: When do you get dressed in the morning? Interviewee: ------

The teacher explains the activity to the students by modeling it first herself with a student.
Then, she asks the students to work in pairs and tell what they learn about their partners in class.
When students finish conducting the interviews, the teacher asks if there is a volunteer among
them to talk about the daily routine of their partner. Five or six students volunteer to talk about
their partner's daily routines. While they talk, the students sometimes check their notes about the
time or simply ask their partner if the information they provided is correct.

When reporting is over, we have another 15 minutes of the lesson and the students seem to
be a little bit bored. The teacher comes to the middle of the classroom and tells the students that
they will play a game together. She wants the students to act out what she tells them. Then, she
says "It is early in the morning, it is seven o'clock. The sun is rising. Wake up (she also acts out).
Wake up (the students act out as well). Stretch and rub your eyes (the teacher stretches and rubs
her eyes) Stretch and rub your eyes (students act out as well). Go to the bathroom and wash your
face (the teacher acts out) Go to the bathroom and wash your face (the students act out as well).
It is half past seven, eat your breakfast. Go to the bathroom and brush your teeth. It is eight
o'clock, get dressed. It is half past eight, say goodbye to your mom and leave the house…” This
cycle continues with other daily routines such as eating lunch, playing with friends, doing
homework, reading a book, eating dinner, drinking tea, watching the TV, brushing one's teeth,
wearing pajamas and sleeping. Each time the teacher gives the instruction, she and the students
act out. Then, the teacher asks if there are any volunteers to give commands to their friends. Four
volunteers come to the blackboard one by one and give commands to their classmates by acting
out.

When the bell rings, we thank the teacher for inviting us to her class. She also thanks us
and wants us to have a look at the lesson plan that she has prepared for the third hour of the
class. The lesson plan features a warm-up TPR activity, which is led by one or two of the
students. The students will come to the blackboard and give instructions to their friends by
indicating time, as they did in the previous class. Then, the teacher plans to use a technique
called series, which include photographs or pictures to make a story. The students are expected
to narrate what happens in these pictures sequentially by focusing on the daily routines and
expressing the time. The series is to include 15 different pictures which depict a different routine
in a person’s daily life. The use of series would be useful in that teacher can provide the teacher
talk which is a major source of comprehensible input. This talk may precede students’ narration
as in this case: “What do you see in picture one? Do you see a man? Where is he? What does this
young man do in picture one? (He gets on the bus). What time is it, can you tell?” After finishing
these exercises, the teacher plans to give the students an assignment for which they are asked to
prepare a poster about their daily lives and present it in the classroom to their classmates.
Tuğba Elif Toprak

PRINCIPLES

1. Goal

The goal of the approach is to foster communication in the target language, create real
meaning and develop communication skills. Krashen and Terrell (1983) maintained that the
Natural Approach is mainly for beginners and can be designed to help them become
intermediates. Since one of the principles of the Natural Approach denotes that comprehension
outpaces production, the fundamental aim is to ensure that comprehension takes place. During
our observations, the teacher mainly relied on teacher talk, repetition and acting out. The teacher
tried to make sure that what she communicated was understood by each student rather than
focusing merely on the accuracy of language forms.

2. Theory of Learning

The Natural Approach has a profound theory of learning which is based on Krashen’s five-
faceted theory of language acquisition. Accordingly, the Natural Approach assumes that
foreign/second language learning should develop in a natural way that is very similar to first
language acquisition while errors are regarded as natural outcomes of language development
process. Moreover, it is assumed that learners acquire a language best if the input is slightly
above their current level of competence. Finally, it is believed that language learners should be
provided with an anxiety-free and fostering classroom atmosphere in which they can use the
target language when they feel that they are ready. In our particular case, the practices of the
teacher we observed were in great conformity with the principles of the Natural Approach. For
instance, the teacher selected tasks that were meaningful, focusing on conveying the meaning in
the target language and quite similar to those that students engaged with in real life (i.e., telling
the time and talking about their daily routines). Besides trying to build the lesson on the students'
previous experiences, the teacher also provided the students with ample modeling and guidance
by using teacher talk. In this sense, teacher talk was the major source of comprehensible input.
The teacher adjusted the level of her talk to the cognitive level of the students by using gestures,
mimes, and repetition of the keywords.

Furthermore, in line with the principles of the Natural Approach, she frequently invited
volunteers rather than calling on names to engage students in the activities. This situation helped
create a less anxiety-provoking environment. Consequently, the students felt ready and secure to
give their answers. According to the Natural Approach, during earlier phases of the language
learning process, the focus should be on comprehension rather than production. It is assumed
that production will later emerge naturally (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Nevertheless, this does not
mean that students should not be encouraged to use the language. In our particular case, the
students engaged in the activities that focused mainly on comprehension and required minimum
production.

3. Theory of language

The main aim of the Natural Approach is fostering the communicative competence.
Accordingly, its theory of language includes a large lexicon, messages to be conveyed and rather
broad grammar rules. During our observations, we concluded that the teacher paid more
attention to the lexicon that carries the meaning and communication. She did not explicitly and
extensively deal with grammar whereas she emphasized key vocabulary with acting out, mimes,
gestures, and realia.
 The Natural Approach

4. Student and teacher roles

The Natural Approach challenges the traditional role of teachers that requires a great degree
of control in explanation, practice, and application in the classrooms. Terrell (1977) claimed that
when teachers take full responsibility for these three aspects, there is little room left for
communication. Therefore, the Natural Approach suggests that a teacher may act as a guide,
input provider, and facilitator. A teacher is expected to generate the comprehensible input that
facilitates language acquisition; create an interesting, motivating, learner-friendly and anxiety-
free atmosphere in which affective filter is low; and orchestrate a wide range of activities across
different groups and contexts. However, the primary responsibility for language acquisition
belongs to learners themselves. Learners need to determine where and when to improve their
speech by using what they have already learned. During our two-hour observations, we did not
collect sufficient evidence related to learner autonomy in the classroom. However, the teacher
guided the students into activities and facilitated their language acquisition and use.

5. Interaction in the classroom and students’ feelings

Interaction is placed at the heart of the Natural Approach classroom. Krashen and Terrell
(1983) emphasized that the main goal of the Natural Approach is fostering communicative
competence and personal communication skills. It is no wonder that the nature of the interaction
taking place in a Natural Approach classroom would reflect the ideas behind these goals.
Accordingly, when a language course is structured for beginners, it includes three stages. These
stages are personal identification stage, experiences and opinions which aim at lowering the
affective filter and creating a learner-friendly and relaxed atmosphere. During personal
identification stage, learners can describe themselves, their families and friends and learn about
their classmates. At experiences stage, learners can reveal more personal features by talking
about their childhood, sad and happy experiences and journeys. At opinions stage, they can talk
about issues such as family, civil rights or something that is concerning to them.

Another issue that shapes the interaction taking place in the Natural Approach classroom is
affective filter. Since one of the most prominent goals of the Natural Approach is to lower
affective filter, it is significant that teachers pay specific attention to boost the confidence of
learners in expressing themselves in the target language, communicate with their peers and
develop positive attitudes to a new language. In our particular case, the teacher seemed to care
about how the students felt. For instance, she frequently used TPR activities to engage them in
the action and prevent them from getting bored. She also employed pair-work activities to help
the students engage in conversations and obtain personal information about their classmates.

6. Materials

Materials used in the Natural Approach classes need to be meaningful, related to real life and
fostering genuine interaction among language learners. Pictures, visual aids, charts, maps,
advertisements, magazines would prove useful for the focus is on promoting comprehension and
communication. Picture stories, arts and crafts, cartoons, puppets may be used especially with
the younger learners. During our observations, the teacher made use of several materials such as
pictures and timetables. In the Natural Approach, teachers are advised to either prepare or adapt
authentic materials from the real world rather than sticking to a single course book. Thus,
developing, selecting and adapting materials to be used in the classroom may place a burden on a
teacher applying the Natural Approach.
Tuğba Elif Toprak

7. Syllabus

Although there is not a prescribed syllabus to be implemented in Natural Approach classes,

Krashen and Terrell (1983) shared plenty of useful suggestions and tips for course organization
in their seminal book on the Natural Approach. The goals of the Natural Approach class are
determined by taking the communicative needs of language learners into consideration. Krashen
and Terrell (1983) initially specified goals under four categories which are basic personal
communication skills/oral, basic personal communication skills/written, academic learning
skills/oral and academic learning skills/written. Among these, Krashen and Terrell (1983)
specified communication goals regarding situations (e.g., job interviews, shopping), functions
(requesting information, describing objects) and topics (e.g., names, family, numbers).

8. Role of L1

In a classroom where the Natural Approach is followed, the use of L1 is not forbidden or
discouraged. However, communication takes place in English as much as possible. Especially in
the earlier phases of language learning, students are allowed to use their native language.
Learners are not punished or reprimanded for using their native language for this is accepted as a
natural process. In the class we observed, on few occasions where Turkish was used, the teacher
went on to provide comprehensible input in English without making any negative comments and
distorting or breaking the communication process.

9. Evaluation

Terrell (1977) claimed that if the chief aim is communication, students must be assessed
based on their ability to communicate rather than their competence in grammar. Accordingly, he
proposed that language tests must be oral and must target communicative competence. Although
this raises suspicions regarding the subjectivity of the evaluation, Terrell (1977) maintained that
language teachers need to be equipped with knowledge and skills to undertake such tasks.

10. Error Correction

Terrell (1977) asserted that error correction, especially in speech, is not only useless to
language acquisition but also is negative concerning motivation and attitude. Therefore, he
suggested that error correction should be made only in written assignments which focus
particularly on form. According to Terrell (1977), error correction should not be made during
oral communication activities. In our particular case, the teacher did not explicitly correct
students' mistakes. She asked questions to check whether the information provided by a student
was correct or not. She employed a positive and collaborative approach to error correction in
order not to demotivate the students.

TECHNIQUES

Techniques that are used in the Natural Approach are usually borrowed from the other
methods. For instance, TPR activities which entail bodily movements (Asher, 1969); miming
usually used in the Direct Method (Boswell, 1972), and group work activities of Communicative
Language Teaching which require the exchange of meaningful information in a group
(Thompson, 1996) are usually employed in the Natural Approach. Although the Natural
Approach has many commonalities with several methods and approaches, it proves different in
 The Natural Approach

that it capitalizes on the notion of comprehensible input and creating an anxiety-free classroom
environment in which the affective filter is lowered.

Krashen and Terrell (1983) specified a wide range of techniques and activities which can
be used in the Natural Approach classrooms. Among these, there are affective-humanistic
techniques and activities (completing dialogues, conducting interviews, visualization, creating
and filling personal charts and tables), problem solving activities (using series, charts, graphs
and advertisements), games and group activities (roleplaying, restructuring, small and large
groups) and techniques borrowed from the TPR (using commands to direct behavior and action
sequences).

In the classroom we observed, the teacher made the use of several of these techniques
and activities. These were:

1) using pictures and timetables to answer short questions

2) putting jumbled pictures into correct order/sequencing pictures to make a story
3) conducting interviews to learn about the daily routines of their partner (using an
interview form) and
4) using commands to direct behavior and action sequences.

Especially, the last two techniques were borrowed from the TPR. The teacher gave
commands to the students in the context of daily routines, and the students acted out based on
these commands. Later, the teacher invited a few volunteer students to give these commands to
their classmates as well. When these commands are related to each other and define a series of
events occurring in order, they are called action sequences. The commands employed by the
teacher were in sequences. Although the complexity of these commands matched the current
linguistic and cognitive level of the students to a considerable extent, it should be noted that TPR
activities lend themselves to the Natural Approach and can be used at any proficiency level if
properly adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

The Natural Approach, according to Krashen and Terrell (1983), is an evolutionary

approach to language learning and teaching that is based on a theory of how people learn
languages. The theory lying at the heart of the approach is that language acquisition occurs only
when people hear, read and understand messages. Put differently, language learning is expected
to take place when students receive comprehensible input. Consequently, the Natural Approach
defines the primary function of language classrooms and teachers as the providers of
comprehensible input. The basic principles of the Natural Approach can be summarized as
follows: i) the main goal of language learning is communication, ii) language comprehension
precedes production, iii) language production emerges naturally, iv) affective filter needs to be
lowered, v) all learners can acquire languages and vi) repeating language forms or drilling does
not lead to acquisition.

The Natural Approach has attracted the attention of both language researchers and
practitioners since it is based on a solid theory of language learning. This theory makes a
distinction between learning and acquisition, suggests that all individuals can be acquirers,
comes up with the notion of “the monitor” and suggests that language learning is influenced by
Tuğba Elif Toprak

affective factors in addition to cognitive ones. Although the Natural Approach does not offer
anything different than any other communicative approach would offer, embracing such a theory
would render itself as an eye-opener to most teachers and learners. Moreover, the Natural
Approach provides language teachers with the flexibility to borrow various kinds of techniques
and activities from other methods, as long as these techniques are compatible with the principles
of the Natural Approach.

On the other hand, two main criticisms that are directed at the Natural Approach appertain
to the notion of delay of production, in which learners are not expected to speak until speech
emerges, and the notion of comprehensible input. To be more specific, the questions "What
happens if speech never emerges?" "How can a teacher manage a class in which all students
have different speech emergence time?" remain daunting (Brown, 2001). Moreover, what
comprehensible input is and how it can be adjusted in real classes are also open questions. On
the bright side, however, it should be noted that the Natural Approach, alongside the
Communicative Language Teaching, is original in that it emphasizes the centrality of meaning
and communication to language teaching rather than heavily focusing on grammatical accuracy.

PROS
1. The Natural Approach is based on a solid theory of language learning.
2. The Natural Approach underscores the significance of affective factors besides cognitive factors.
3. It places meaning, comprehension, and communication at the center of language learning and teaching.
4. Since it is eclectic and allows for borrowing techniques which foster meaning and communication from
other methods, it proves to be flexible.

CONS
1. It prioritizes receptive language skills (reading and listening) rather than productive language skills
(writing and speaking)
2. It was essentially designed for beginners, and it may not prove useful for learners at higher levels of
language proficiency.
3. “What is comprehensible input and how can it be tuned?” remains an open question.

Biodata: Dr. Tuğba Elif Toprak is an Assistant Professor at İzmir Bakırçay University, School of Foreign Languages.
She obtained her Ph.D. degree from Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, with a concentration on
language testing and assessment. She received 2015 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Graduate
Student Award from the AERA's Cognition and Assessment Special Interest Group. Her primary research interests
include cognitive diagnosis modeling, second language reading, and natural language processing.

REFERENCES

Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language
Journal, 53(1), 3-17.
Boswell, R. E. (1972). Toward a new eclecticism in modern‐language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 6(2), 237-
246.
 The Natural Approach

Brown, D. (2001). H. 2001. Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains,
NY: Pearson Education.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2000). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edn). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. The Modern Language Journal,
61(7), 325-337.
Terrell, T. D. (1982). The natural approach to language teaching: An update. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2),
121-132.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9-15.