How to apply the Natural Approach in an unnatural setting 1

ABSTRACT:

Contrary to many language teachers’ assumption, the Natural Approach is an effective language
teaching method which can also be used in unnatural classroom settings. The underlying theory of
the method, with its practical implications, is discussed in the light of the results of research
conducted in Turkish High Schools.

The Natural Approach (NA) is a method which aims to implement the principles of natural
language acquisition in teaching second languages (L2s) in classroom environment. Many foreign
language teachers, however, think that NA is not applicable in the artificial environment of
classroom as there are no chances for genuine communication in L2 in their EFL (English as a
foreign language) context. This misunderstanding stems from a misinterpretation of the underlying
theory of the NA. In this paper, the basic hypotheses in NA theory will be discussed first and then
its applicability in L2 classes will be examined.

Before examining the issue in depth, an analogy will be made between swimming and
language acquisition: we as human beings are probably the only creatures who are capable of
drowning (!) This is not necessarily because of our heavy flesh: even elephants which are heavier
than man simply lay their bodies freely in water and almost never experience drowning. It seems
as if the more we flutter, the deeper we sink. It is as if man's conscious swimming attempts deprive
him off the natural swimming or floating capacity.

Interestingly, new born babies, who are free from fluttering in water, make the best use of
their natural swimming ability and do better than their elders. Another domain where infants
outsmart us is language acquisition. While babies pick up their mother tongue with ease, most
adults cannot learn a new language without much trouble. Even with their advanced cognitive
capacity and problem solving skills, they simply fall behind children's ultimate level of success.
Again it seems as if adults' conscious learning attempts deprive them of the natural language
acquisition capacity.

This is probably why a first step in teaching swimming is to make learners realize their
natural ability to float on the surface of the water. Similarly in NA the aim is to make students
rediscover their innate capacity to acquire a language. In fact, NA is not the only method which
tries to tap this natural capacity. What makes NA different from others, however, is its theory of
second language acquisition.

The Monitor Model

The learning theory underlying NA is called the Monitor Model. It was put forward by an
American applied linguist Stephen Krashen in mid-1970’s. There are five basic hypotheses in the
Monitor Model. The first and probably the most important one is the "acquisition-learning
distinction” hypothesis, according to which L2 learners have two distinct ways to develop
competence in a second language: learning and acquisition.

1
Ellidokuzoğlu, H. (2014) How to apply the Natural Approach in an unnatural setting. Military Inquiry (Stratiotiki
Epitheorisi - Στρατιωτική Επιθεώρηση) pp.88-97. (available at www.army.gr)
1
 Learning is the process of dealing with grammar in a conscious way. It is the common
practice experienced in most foreign language classrooms even today. Students consciously
examine the grammar structures and try to internalize them through extensive practice. In this
sense, learning a language is similar to any other kind of subject matter or skill learning like
learning math, learning how to type or drive. In all these, you first learn the rules consciously and
try to make them automatic through extensive practice. The product of learning process is also a
kind of conscious knowledge, which Krashen calls learned competence (LC). (Krashen,1982)

Acquisition, on the other hand, is a subconscious process. It is similar, if not identical, to the
way we pick up our mother tongue. Unlike a learner, an acquirer cannot feel the processes, the
changes happening in his brind (brain and/or mind). When he acquires a new rule, he does not
know what has happened because acquisition takes place below his level of awareness. The
product of acquisition, acquired competence (AC), is also subconscious. That is why native
speakers of a language do not know that they use their L1 grammar knowledge while speaking. In
fact, without grammar communication would be greatly damaged. The same is true for second
language speakers. While speaking fluently in another language, we have to use our
subconscious grammar knowledge provided automatically without any conscious effort.

The existence of conscious and subconscious knowledge in the minds of second language
learners is accepted by almost everyone. What is controversial, however, is the claim that
consciously learned rules cannot become subconsciously acquired through practice. This view
belongs to Krashen and reflected in his oft-criticised claim that "learning does not become
acquisition". According to Krashen, learned competence (LC) and acquired competence (AC)
represent two separate knowledge systems between which there is no seepage, no passage, no
interface. This view is known as Non-Interface (Non-IP) position (Krashen, 1985).

Many teachers and methodologists on the other hand, believe that we first learn a grammar
rule and through practice it becomes automatic thus subconsciously acquired. This second view,
known as Interface position (IP), appeals to our intuitions whereas Non-IP is quite counter-
intuitive.

In scientific philosophizing intuitions are of undeniable importance but as long as they are
not contrary to research findings. And it is at his point that IP and empiric data are in conflict.
Research has been telling us, for more than three decades, that the development of AC and LC
are rather independent. It has been repeatedly found that second language "acquirers" pick up the
grammar rules of their target language in an unchangeable natural order even when the
teaching/learning order in class is different. (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Christison, 1979) Inother words,
the natural order that researchers have found does not necessarily match our teaching order.
Third person singular "s", for example, is an item that we teach at the very beginning of our
teaching program but our students seem to resist using this simple rule even at fairly advanced
stages of proficiency. In grammar exams where they can consult their LC there is no major
problem but while speaking fluently they simply ignore it as if they did not know the rule. (the
litmus test for acquisition is fluent conversation since it is only during such conversation that one
relies on his subconscious grammar (AC) only).

This apparent gap between “what students consciously know” and “what they can use
during fluent speech (subconsciously)” is an indication that conscious LC and subconscious AC
are two distinct knowledge systems and that acquisition is independent of conscious
learning/teaching attempts. In fact, some researchers have investigated whether the natural order
of acquisition can be altered or, in other words, whether they can interfere with the process of
acquisition. In two separate experiments carried out in 1989, Pienemann and Ellis deliberately
attempted to change the natural order through experimental manipulation. In their studies, they
focused on the acquisition order of three specific German grammar rules in a classroom setting.

2
They presented these rules in a reversed natural order. That is, if “A” is the first rule of German
acquisition then they presented it last and emphasized it the least: similarly they taught the last
acquired “C” rule the first and emphasized it the most. At the end of the teaching period they
analyzed their students' free conversation and found that again the students follow the natural
order, just like naturalistic acquirers: A, B and then C.

“A comparison of this sequence with that reported for naturalistic learners of German
revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced
and the degree of emphasis given to rules in the instruction differed from the naturalistic
order... The results of this study support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2
acquisition ... follow similar routes.” (Ellis, 1989, p.305)

“formal learners develop their language stepwise despite the scheduling of the teaching
[and], more importantly, in the same order as has been found for natural acquisition.”
(Pienemann, 1989, pp. 71-72).

These and many other similar research results confirmed the predictions of Krashen's Non-
IP. If learning became acquisition then it would be possible to change the natural order. Since
conscious learning and practice cannot change the order of acquisition, Krashen asserts that
acquisition and learning are two distinct processes and that learning does not become acquisition.
(This does not, however, mean that once you have learned a certain rule you can never acquire it;
you may add it into your subconscious storage (AC) through some other path which is explained
below).

If we cannot acquire through learning then how does acquisition take place? Krashen's
input hypothesis gives the answer. According to this hypothesis, we acquire any human language
in an "amazingly simple way": by understanding messages. Not through grammar practice nor
through speaking and writing practice, but by way of getting comprehensible input.

A cornerstone of Krashen's theory is that human beings are equipped with a language
acquisition device (LAD), which is triggered by comprehensible input. When we understand a
message, LAD automatically operates and picks up the new grammar rules in that input
subconsciously. That is, while we are focusing consciously on the meaning of a message, a
subconscious mechanism, LAD, focuses on the form or the grammar of the same message.

Provided that a message is understood, LAD can acquire the new grammar items in it in
accordance with the natural order. How does this gradual, piecemeal acquisition take place, then?.
Let's suppose that a learner-acquirer is at the level of "x" in terms of his current competence in his
second language. In order for him to move from “x” to “x+1”, that is, the next stage along the
natural order, he has to get a message (or messages) including structures at “x+1” level. One
cannot acquire an x+2 rule unless he is at the level x+1 even when the message is understood.
Technically speaking, one who is at the level of “x” is not psycholinguistically ready to acquire
“x+2” structures. That is why, understanding sentences with 3rd person singular "s" does not result
in the acquisition of that specific rule.

A common misconception among foreign language teachers is that when students are not
told the grammar rules directly, that is, when we make them discover the rules on their own in an
inductive way, they will be able to acquire them. However, research has repeatedly shown over the
last three plus decades that a structure cannot be acquired either through deduction or induction if
the learner is not psycholinguistically ready, namely, if he is not at the relevant stage at the natural
order.

3
 “35 years of research has not produced any substantial proof that making people aware of
formal features of the L2, whether by means of correction or explanation or both, has any
long-term effect.” (Sharwood Smith, 2008, p. 5)

Both deduction and induction are types of learning, not of acquisition. Both require a
conscious focus on grammar whereas acquisition necessitates a focus on meaning. But isn't there
any good of teaching grammar? Krashen does not recommend a total exclusion of grammar from
our language teaching program. For him, learned competence (LC) acts as a monitor or editor to
make corrections especially during writing (when one has the time to focus consciously on form).
Some amount of LC is also helpful in making adult L2 learners feel secure (solitary reliance on AC
development in classroom context may make learners feel insecure as they cannot feel the
development taking place in their subconscious). Another important role of LC, which is somewhat
underestimated in Krashen’s writings is that it enhance the comprehensibility of input for L2
learners. In an ESL (English as a second language) context, where native speaker teachers are
abundant and where learners can get ample amount of input in and outside the class,
underestimation of grammar might be justifiable. But in a scarcity-of-input EFL (English as a
foreign language) environment, where neither the teacher nor the environment can provide
sufficient amount of authentic input, grammar plays a far more important role. Alongside its
correction role in production, LC helps learners understand input better. With the help of some
conscious grammar knowledge, learners can decode those texts that are not decodable only with
AC. Especially in the field of reading, the amount of books that you can understand is doubled or
even trippled with the aid of some conscious grammar knowledge. The more you read, the faster
you acquire. So, conscious grammar knowledge (LC) helps acquisition by bettering
comprehension and by increasing the number of input avenues.

It should be emphasized, however, that the aim of teaching grammar is not to convert LC
into AC but to enable the students to understand better and to get more input. As shown above,
learning does not become acquisition but it aids acquisition by easing the way for better
comprehension.

The acceptance of the claim that learning does not become acquisition requires a tolerance
for grammar mistakes. That is, an NA teacher must be patient when his students make very simple
mistakes like the omission of third person singular "s". The question that comes to mind at this
point is “if a teacher does not correct grammar mistake, won't it be hard to eradicate them later
on?” In other words "How is the problem of fossilization handled in NA?" First of all, research have
repeatedly shown that error correction does not necessarily lead to the correction of errors. Error
correction might be a temporary solution which may work when students have time to consult their
conscious knowledge (as is the case in writing). But when they are speaking fluently without a
conscious focus on form, corrected errors may easily pop up in their utterances. The real cure for
errors (or for fossils) is to provide comprehensible input. Provided that the students get ample
amount of understandable messages, grammar mistakes will be eradicated gradually by LAD at a
subconscious level.

There are basically two types of errors that learners make in class: form-based errors and
meaning errors. The only type of mistake that needs to be corrected in NA is the one which
hinders communication, the one which causes a meaning problem. That is, if the grammar mistake
is so awful that the message is not understood then the teacher might ask the student to clarify his
message or to restate his sentence.

Correcting form-based grammar mistakes is not only useless but also harmful. Especially at
the beginning level, student production is full of mistakes. Dealing only with meaning errors is
enough intervention. If a teacher corrects both meaning and form errors then students will feel
offended and hesitate to speak in class. As a result, the classroom atmosphere will get tense.

4
 The affective filter hypothesis in Krashen's SLA theory predicts that in such a negative
atmosphere, acquisition process is greatly hampered. According to the theory, this filter gets
strengthened when a learner has high anxiety, low motivation and low self-esteem. Incoming input
cannot trigger LAD if the filter is strong. In short a teacher who is correcting form-based mistakes
is not only wasting his time and effort but also doing disservice to his students.

Practical implications:

Having covered the theoretical basis of NA so far, we now move on to its practical
implications in L2 classes by referring to NA applications in Turkish High Schools (Isik, 2000; Sari,
2013).

The most important implication of acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis is that form-

focused and meaning-based activities should be separated in our language instruction. Therefore,
we divided our English program into two unequal parts: input and grammar hours (i.e acquisition
and learning sections). About 75 % of the program is formed by input hours and grammar is
handled only in the remaining 25 %. A similar division was made in the test system. 80 % of a
common test includes meaning based questions whereas grammar questions formed 20 %. Such
a parallelism between what is done in class and what is tested in exams is necessary to avoid
negative backwash. That is, if tests were heavily grammar-oriented, then students would not pay
enough attention to meaning-based activities in class.

What kinds of meaning based activities are there in input hours? The majority of input hours
is filled with listening activities. Why listening? Because while listening students get input. Why not
reading? Because reading can be done outside with ease but not listening. You can make thirty or
so students listen to the same tape or CD/DVD in class but outside the class you need thirty or so
players (Mp3, discman, CD/DVD player or whatever) to attain the same efficiency. Therefore
listening activities form the core of the whole English program throughout the year.

Reading, on the other hand, is done extensively outside the class. How about intensive
reading? The reason why we prefer extensive reading over intensive reading is the ample amount
of input you can get in this way. For instance suppose that intensive reading of a one-page difficult
text takes an hour whereas you can read ten pages of simplified text within the same amount of
time (through extensive reading). One page on the one hand, ten pages on the other. From a cost-
efficiency point of view, therefore, intensive reading is held at a minimum in class. Instead students
are encouraged to read simplified novels and the number of books read by each student is over
60. This amounts to more than 3,000 pages of written input.

The students are also assigned some grammar outside the class as well but not
extensively. Grammar plays a minor role outside the class as it does inside. How is the grammar
taught in class? Through deduction or even through grammar translation. Why are such old-
fashioned techniques used? Because deduction is easier and faster than induction and it is no
less effective (especially for adults). Some methodologists suggest that inductively discovered
rules are retained better, but one should not forget that it takes quite a long time. What is more,
there is no guarantee that the inductively learned rules become acquired as has been emphasized
before. Both induction and deduction are instances of learning not of acquisition. If neither of them
results in acquisition, then why should we spend so much time for indirect teaching of grammar?
In our application, therefore we preferred direct, deductive teaching of grammar basically because
it is the shortest way of teaching grammar allowing us to give more time to acquisition activities. In
other words, our main concern is to allocate as much time as possible for input provision and this
forces us to give minimum time to grammar instruction.

5
 What is the relative weight of production-based activities as compared to comprehension-
oriented ones? Aren't speaking and writing as important as listening and reading? Sure, they are.
In fact, one of the most important aims in NA is to develop students' communicative skills in the
long run. But the way to develop them is different from other communicative methods. The NA
theory suggests that dwelling on receptive skills positively affects the productive ones as well.
Therefore in NA speaking and writing activities occupy a small portion of class time especially at
beginning to intermediate levels. Students are believed to develop all of the four skills provided
that they are exposed to ample amount of input.

During the first semester, students are not forced to speak or write. This practice is in line
with the concept of "Silent Period" mentioned in Krashen's theory. During this silent period
students are not passive but actively processing the input and developing their acquired
competence (AC). Forcing students to produce before they have enough subconscious grammar
knowledge (AC), enhances students' anxiety. This is against the principles of the Communicative
Approach, in which the students are required to speak from the very beginning. In NA, however,
early production practice is avoided in order not to strengthen the affective filter. If the filter is
strong, LAD cannot be triggered effectively. Therefore the only thing that NA students have to do
(especially during the first semester) is to display their comprehension one way or another. To
achieve this, they can use single or double-word answers, non-verbal means, body language, or
even mother tongue.

Answering T/F or wh-questions, drawing charts while listening are other means of
displaying comprehension. If students spend most of their class-time by just listening, doesn't it
mean that NA teachers are doing the speaking all the time? Isn't this too much burden on the
shoulders of our teachers? When you examine the demonstration videos on NA application, you
would notice that there is a heavy burden of teacher as he or she is the main source of input in
class. This observation naturally urges many EFL teachers to conclude that NA is not easily
applicable in their context. After all, in our EFL setting, majority of teachers are non-native and
being the only source of input in class is even hard for the natives, let alone non-natives. The
solution that we have found to this problem is to use recorded listening texts from the ELT market
in addition to the audio and video materials in our course-books.

If the main source of input is recorded materials, then what is the role of teacher? The basic
responsibilities of our teachers are to

- provide an input-rich environment both in and out of class

- enhance the comprehensibility and pleasurability of input as much as possible and

- check students' comprehension.

This is far easier than being the main source of input in class or being a communicative
teacher.

Interestingly, however, this easy method of language teaching is not necessarily less
effective than others. One can even suggest that it is one of the most effective methods. To test
the efficacy of our application in Turkish high schools, a standard test (KET) comprising listening,
reading, writing components plus a separate grammar test is used toward the end of prep year.
The same test was also given to a control group who followed the normal curriculum using the
same textbook but with a grammar-focus. Following the tenets of integrated skills approach, the
teachers in the control group tried to implement all four skills (listening, reading, speaking and
writing) from the very beginning, while the experimental group focused primarily on receptive skills
(listening and reading) only especially at the beginning-to-intermediate levels. The test results
indicated that treatment group is 25 % better off in reading, 40 % in listening. Their better

6
performance might be considered as a natural, expected outcome of the heavy emphasis on
receptive skills.

What is more interesting, however, are the writing and grammar results. treatment group
performed 18 % better in grammar and 30 % in writing though these two language skills have not
been emphasized in our program. Even if there were no differences in success between treatment
and control groups in productive skills, NA would still be considered more successful due to their
superiority in overall-proficiency. In short, research results have confirmed the hypothesis that
getting great quantities of input develops not only the receptive skills but also the productive ones.

The result on grammar is also interesting in the sense that the main emphasis in the control
group has been on grammar exercises while form-focused activities were reduced to a minimum in
experimental group’s program. Nonetheless, the subjects in the latter group outperformed the
former group even in the grammar test. This lends further support to Krashen’s prediction that the
real grammatical development takes place at a subconscious level via exposure to input. In other
words, students in NA classes are not ignoring grammar (as some language teachers might
assume) but they are in fact doing the best thing to improve it.

Conclusion:

NA, in its somewhat modified version, seems to be an appropriate method applicable in an

EFL setting like Turkey. It is a reality that the number of native or true-bilingual teachers is low in
our country as is the case in many EFL countries. But even under such restricted conditions, the
application of NA at Turkish High Schools has shown that students attain high levels of proficiency
when exposed to ample amount of input. To sum up, NA seems to be a method of fostering both
productive and receptive skills plus grammar by just relying on input, a method of killing many
birds with one stone.

References

Christison, M. (1979). Natural sequencing in adult second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly
13:122-127

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language
Learning 24:37-53

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11:305-328

Işık, A. (2000) The role of input in second language acquisition: more comprehensible input
supported by grammar instruction or more grammar instruction? ITL Review of Applied Linguistic
129: 225-274.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is Language Teachable? Applied Linguistics. 10: 52-79.

Sarı, R. (2013). Is it possible to improve writing without writing practice. International Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching. 8/1:6-10

7
Sharwood, S. (2008). Revisiting the role of consciousness with MOGUL. In. Z.Han (ed)
Understanding second language process. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20