Introduction The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.

First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashens theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashens Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998). As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing who wouldnt want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesnt think about what kind of input to provide for students. However, upon closer examination of Krashens hypotheses and Terrells methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system. In fact, within the covers of The Natural Approach, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashens model. In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashens hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language. Rather than use Krashens own label, which is to call his ideas simply second language acquisition theory, I will adopt McLaughlins terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as the Monitor Model. This is distinct from the Monitor Hypothesis, which is the fourth of Krashens five hypotheses. Conclusions Krashen seemed to be on the right track with each of his hypotheses. Anyone who has learned a language, and especially those who have seen the grammartranslation method in action seems to have a gut level feeling that the road to proficiency runs somewhere outside of textbooks and classrooms. Indeed, in the literature, every reviewer makes a special effort to acknowledge the incredible contribution that Krashen had made to language education. Kramsch (1995) points out that the input metaphor may be a relic of the prestige of the physical sciences and electrical engineering, but that Krashens acquisition-learning dichotomy cuts at the heart of academic legitimation. She advocates a more productive discourse between applied linguists and foreign language teachers to explore and question the historical and social forces that have created the present context. Krashens conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: It is possible that no pain, no gain does not apply to language acquisition (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to comprehensible input we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an easy way philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment. This does not mean, however, that teachers should be sent to their classrooms with no direction, or worse yet, back to a grammar-based or audiolingual approach. The issue of exactly what and how to tell teachers to teach is one of the most complex and sensitive issues that policy has to implement. It is only through basic research into a wide variety of areas such as the role of exposure in comprehension and production that we can begin to develop the policies to create the best practices for the classroom. http://www.stanford.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm Welcome to the Natural Approach Web Site! The Natural Approach (NA) is a method of foreign language teaching which aims to apply the principles of natural language acquisition into classroom context. The language acquisition theory underlying NA suggests that we acquire any new language in an amazingly simple way: by "understanding messages" in the target language. So one need not to imitate all aspects of natural setting of language acquisition, but to provide crucial ingredient of naturalistic acquisition: comprehensible input (CI). Provided that learners are exposed to ample amount of CI, they can acquire a new language not only in the artificial context of classroom but even on Mars. Click on the links to see how to apply this simple and effective method in your own context. The Natural Approach: What Is It? by Vedat Kiymazarslan, 1995 0. INTRODUCTION The aim of this paper is to provide general -- but detailed -- information about one of the most recent and the most promising approaches to language teaching, the Natural Approach. Yet, I will not only introduce the very well-known facts about the approach but also strive to clarify the principles of the approach, which are often misinterpreted by language teachers and methodologists. Another important point is, of course, its applicability to foreign or second language classes. Accordingly, the application of the Natural Approach theory to language classes will be explained in detail.

I. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY The Natural Approach (NA) is a product of Stephen Krashen, an applied linguist at the University of Southern California and Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California. Krashen's work on second language acquisition and Terrell's teaching experiences form the bases of the Natural Approach. The principles and practices of this new approach have been published in "The Natural Approach" (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). The book contains theoretical sections prepared by Krashen and sections on implementation and classroom procedures prepared mostly by Terrell. The most striking proposal of the NA theory is that adults can still acquire second languages and that the ability to 'pick up' languages does not disappear at puberty. Thus, Krashen's contribution to Chomsky's LAD proposition is that adults follow the same principles of Universal Grammar. The theory behind the NA implies that adults can acquire all but the phonological aspect of any foreign language, by using their ever-active LAD. What makes adults different from children is their abstract problem solving skills that make them consciously process the grammar of a foreign language. Therefore, adults have two paths to follow: Acquisition and learning. However, children have only one: Acquisition.

In their book, Krashen and Terrell refer to their method of picking up ability in another language directly without instruction in its grammar as 'the traditional approach'. They consider their approach as a traditional one whereas many methodologists consider Grammar Translation Method as the traditional method. For Krashen, even Grammar Translation Method is not as old and traditional as the method of acquiring a language in its natural environment, a method which has been used for hundreds of thousands of years. The term 'natural' emphasizes that the principles behind the NA are believed to conform to the naturalistic principles found in successful second language acquisition. One may think that the Natural Approach and the Natural Method are similar. The Natural Method (or the Direct Method) and the Natural Approach differ in that the former lays more emphasis on teacher monologues, formal questions and answers, and error correction. Krashen and Terrell note that "the Natural Approach is in many ways the natural, direct method 'rediscovered'[and] it is similar to other communicative approaches being developed today". The Natural Approach, like TPR, is regarded as a comprehension-based approach because of its emphasis on initial delay(silent period) in the production of language. What is novel is that the NA focuses on exposure to input instead of grammar practice, and on emotional preparedness for acquisition to take place.

II. THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE NATURAL APPROACH II.1. Theory of Language Krashen regards 'communication' as the main function of language. The focus is on teaching communicative abilities. The superiority of 'meaning' is emphasized. Krashen and Terrell believe that a language is essentially its lexicon. They stress the importance of vocabulary and view language as a vehicle for 'communicating meanings' and 'messages'. According to Krashen, 'acquisition' can take place only when people comprehend messages in the TL. Briefly, the view of language that the Natural Approach presents consists of 'lexical items', 'structures' and 'messages'. The lexicon for both perception and production is considered critical in the organization and interpretation of messages. In Krashen's view, acquisition is the natural assimilation of language rules by using language for communication. This means that linguistic competence is achieved via 'input' containing structures at the 'interlanguage + 1' level (i +1); that is, via 'comprehensible input'.

II.2. Theory of Language Learning (1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Krashen, in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA)suggested that adults have two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and learning. "There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. 'Acquisition' is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, ... [and] 'learning' ..., [which is] a conscious process that results in 'knowing about' [the rules of] language" (Krashen 1985:1). Krashen believes that the result of learning, learned competence (LC) functions as a monitor or editor. That is, while AC is responsible for our fluent production of sentences, LC makes correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of conscious grammar correction, 'monitoring', occurs most typically in a grammar exam where the learner has enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar rules (LC) as an aid to 'acquired competence'. The way to develop learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the grammar rules consciously and practising them through exercises. But what Acquisition / Learning Distinction Hypothesis predicts is that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/second language does not result in subconscious acquisition. In other words, what you consciously learn does not necessarily become subconsciously acquired through conscious practice, grammar exercises and the like. Krashen formulates this idea in his well-known statement that "learning does not became acquisition". It is at this point where Krashen receives major criticism.

(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in SLA. The average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as an 'acquired' language is given below: -Ing -------- Aux --------- Irregular ------ Regular Past Plural -----> Article ----> Past ----------> 3rd Singular Copula -------------------------------- Possessive The implication of natural order is not that second or foreign language teaching materials should be arranged in accordance with this sequence but that acquisition is subconscious and free from conscious intervention (Ellidokuzoglu, 1992).

(3) The Input Hypothesis This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen claims that people acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that 'comprehensible input' (that is, i + 1) should be provided. The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'. The 'input' should also be in sufficient quantity as Richards pointed out:

".. child acquirers of a first language are provided with samples of 'caretaker' speech, rough - tuned to their present level of understanding, ..[and] adult acquirers of a second language [should be] provided with simple codes that facilitate second language comprehension." (Richards, J. 1986:133)

(4) The Monitor Hypothesis As is mentioned, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. The first is 'acquisition' which is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally

aware of their own process. The 'monitor' is an aspect of this second process. It edits and make alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Krashen believes that 'fluency' in second language performance is due to 'what we have acquired', not 'what we have learned': Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; (3) the learner must know the rule.

(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen, is just like an adjustable filter which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter receive more input and interact with confidence. The filter is 'affective' because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state.

III. APPLICATION OF THE FIVE HYPOTHESES TO FOREIGN / SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSES 1. Application of the Hypotheses: In this part, we will try to sift through the practical value of the approach for foreign or second language classes by taking its theoretical bases into consideration. i. The Acquisition-Learning Distinction The first and the most useful hypothesis, the acquisition-learning hypothesis tells us that we should balance class time between acquisition activities and learning exercises. It is important to realize that students or any human being cannot both learn and acquire at the same time because one can focus on only one thing at a time, either on form or on meaning. Therefore, there must be a separation between acquisition and learning activities in FL classes and the relative weight of acquisition classes should be over that of learning classes. The NA instructor does not expect students at the end of a particular course to have acquired a 'specific grammar point'. Instead s/he does expect them to display their comprehension. It is necessary and inevitable, as has been mentioned earlier, to employ two separated classes: Input and grammar classes (i.e., acquisition and learning classes). In input classes, students are given as much comprehensible input as possible. In grammar classes, however, grammar rules are presented deductively or inductively depending on the age of the students (also on whether they are field-independent or field-dependent). The role of grammar classes is to produce 'optimal monitor users' and to aid comprehension indirectly. Therefore, the core of the NA is acquisition activities which have a purpose other than conscious grammar exercises such as audiolingual drills and cognitive learning exercises. ii. The Monitor Hypothesis What is implied by the Monitor Hypothesis for FL classes is, therefore, to achieve optimal monitors. Students may monitor during written tasks (e.g., homework assignments)and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. Learned knowledge enables students to read and listen more so they acquire more. Especially in early stages, grammar instruction speeds up acquisition. This is one of the reasons why adults are faster than children in terms of the rate of achievement. However, the NA teacher wishes his students to use the monitor where appropriate. iii. The Input Hypothesis As for the application of the Input Hypothesis, the instructor should provide input that is roughly-tuned. The teacher should always send meaningful messages and 'must' create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures to understand and express meaning. For instance, the teacher can lay more emphasis on listening and reading comprehension activities. Extensive reading is often preferred because of ample amount of input provided. Outside reading is also helpful (e.g., graded readers, magazines and the like). iv. The Natural Order Hypothesis The Natural Approach teacher should be tolerant against errors. He uses a semantic syllabus for acquisition activities and grammatical syllabus for grammar lessons (i.e., for learning sessions). As is known "the grammatical syllabus assumes that we know the correct natural order of presentation and acquisition, we don't: what we have is information about a few structures in a few languages." (Krashen, 1983: 72). Therefore, the teacher will not organize the acquisition activities of the class about grammatical syllabi and only 'meaning' errors are to be corrected in a positive manner. v. The Affective Filter Hypothesis The application of this hypothesis would be that acquisition should be achieved in a low-anxiety environment. The teacher creates a comfortable atmosphere in the classroom by lowering the affective filter. There is no demand for early production speech and no radical concern for correctness in early stages of acquisition. This, of course, reduces the anxiety of students considerably. Our pedagogical goal in an FL class should, then, not only include providing comprehensible input but also creating an atmosphere that fosters a low affective filter. 2. The Syllabus The syllabus underlying the Natural Approach is topical and situational. It is a semantic, or notional syllabus, simply "a series of topics that students will find interesting and the teacher can discuss in a comprehensible way" (Krashen, 1985:55). The focus of each classroom activity is organized by topic, not grammatical structures. What is more interesting is that Krashen and Terrell have not specified or suggested the functions which are believed to derive naturally from the topics and situations. Therefore, basic communication goals (both written and oral) are achieved mainly through topics and situations; and each topic and situation includes various language functions that the students will acquire. As discussed earlier, a grammatical syllabus may be used in learning classes where learners are given conscious knowledge about the target language. Needless to say, the relative weight of acquisition activities is to be over that of learning activities. Similarly, practice of specific grammatical structures is not focused on in the above mentioned semantic syllabus.

3. Learning/Teaching Activities Learners remain silent during the first stage. This does not mean they are inactive. What they do in this stage is to understand the teacher talk that focuses on objects in the classroom or on the content of pictures. Students are only expected to respond to teacher commands without having to say anything. The purpose of the beginning stage is not to make students perfect but to help them proceed to the next stage. When students feel ready to produce speech, the teacher asks questions and elicit one word answers. This is the second stage where the teacher asks yes/no questions, either- or questions, and wh-questions that require single word utterances. Students are not expected to use a word actively until they have heard it many times. Pictures, charts, advertisements are utilized to proceed to the third stage where acquisition activities are emphasized (e.g., group work and whole class discussion). The NA instructor uses techniques that are borrowed from other methods and adapted to meet the requirements of the NA theory. Among these techniques are TPR activities of Asher, Direct Method activities in which gesture and context are used to elicit questions and answers, and group work activities that are often used in Communicative Language Teaching. But, what makes the NA different is that every specific technique has a theoretical rationale. That is, the Natural Approach theory is so strong that within its framework classroom activities can be accounted for. This feature of the NA makes it superior to other methods like Communicative Language Teaching which lacks a sound theory of language learning. 4. Teacher Roles We may speak of three crucial roles for the NA teacher. Firstly, the teacher is the primary source of input that is understandable to the learner. It is the teacher that attempts to maintain a constant flow of comprehensible input. If s/he maintains students' attention on key lexical items or uses context to help them, the students will 'naturally' be successful. Secondly, the teacher creates a friendly classroom atmosphere where there is a low affective affective filter. Thirdly, the teacher chooses the most effective materials and employs a rich mix of classroom activities. 5. Learner Roles The language acquirer is regarded as a processor of comprehensible input. S/he is challenged by input that is a little beyond her/his present level of competence. S/he is expected to be able to assign meaning to this input through dynamic use of context and extralinguistic information. Acquirers' roles, in fact, vary according to their stage of linguistic development. Some of their roles are to make their own decisions on when to speak, what to speak about, and what linguistic expressions to use while speaking. IV. CONCLUSION We are on the eve of a new paradigm shift in foreign language teaching methodology. The Communicative Approach or 'PPP' is no longer a dogmatically accepted best method. Its impact is about to fade away. Methodologists are in search of a successor of the CA. The Natural Approach with its strong learning theory and easily applicable techniques is the strongest nominee for the most common method of the 21st century. Using our reasoning faculty, we can speed up the process of reaching the conclusion that the NA or comprehension-based methods are more efficient than grammarbased ones. Otherwise, we have to follow the footsteps of old-fashioned ELT literature which is preconditioned against the NA. Such a literature will most probably seek the successor of the Communicative Approach among production-based methods. If we are to follow this literature, then we are to accept losing another decade before arriving at comprehension-based methods. http://naturalway.awardspace.com/articles/article002.htm The Natural Approach is a method for beginners based on observation and interpretation on how a person acquires his first language. It emphasizes on communication rather than on grammar. One of the things which is very important and conclusive when learning is that the input has to be comprehensible. That is at least what Krashen has always said. Teach with a lot of comprehensible input that will allow the student to activate the acquisition process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTVbdstastI