The Natural Approach (Krashen)
The Zibda on this approach is that according to Stephen Krashen we should teach the target language in a natural way, the way children learn languages, which means it is clearly associated with Innatism. This means that our classrooms should focus on active, fun language activities that put the emphasis on giving the students comprehensible input. This includes, games, role plays, natural conversations, for example. If it is fun, interesting, and comprehensible, then it should work in the Natural classroom. This comprehensible input is defined as (i+1), which means that we want to give the students language input that is just above the students' level. The key here is JUST above: If the language is too high or too low for the students, the input will not be effective. Being overwhelmed by input would have a negative impact on the acquisition of the target language. The Natural Approach has several parts and they are as follows:
1. The Input Hypothesis: This means that all students need to acquire a language is comprehensible input. The rest will be taken care of by our innate ability to acquire languages. Wow! What a simple idea. So as teachers, we need to create ways and take advantage of student interests to help create opportunities for interesting input.
2. The Monitor Hypothesis: This means that we teachers need to make sure that we are aware of the tension, or struggle, between accuracy and fluency. In a natural learning environment, accuracy is not the focus -- natural communication is the focus. If we focus too much on accuracy, students might be discouraged to engage in the language and communicate for fear of being corrected all the time. As language teachers in the UAE schools, we want to emphasize fluency.
3. The Affective Filter Hypothesis: This means we want our students to be in a learning atmosphere that is relaxing and stress free. The idea, according to Krashen, is if the filter is too high, the input will not be processed. Remember how in class we say 5 dirhams in and 500 out? Well, continuing with this metaphor, this would mean the the money never made it to the bank because it was filtered out; therefore, it can not magically increase! Remember, if the filter is high, learning is negatively impacted.
4. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: This means that Krashen sees a very big difference between the processes of learning a language and acquiring a language. Acquiring means that students pick it up through natural and fun activities that give comprehensible input and keep the affective filter low and the monitor low. Learning requires awareness while acquiring requires no awareness. Acquiring simply requires the students to be focused on communicating authentically. One important point to make here is that Krashen takes the view that both children AND adults have access to the LAD and can therefore acquire languages. Although he takes this view, he does recognize that children have MORE access to the innate language process. Either way, adults can learn through a natural approach that places listening (input) before speaking (output).
5. The Natural Order Hypothesis: The zibda on this is that the type of grammar that is acquired is generally determined by nature. This means that when children make an "error" it is because they are developing the grammatical structures of the English language as they receive input. For example, if a students say "Yesterday, I goed to the store", this is not really a mistake; it is a stepping stone to a "correct" grammar. How will the corrections be made? It will be made naturally by receiving and processing more (i+1) so their minds can naturally shift the grammar to what we call the correct form. As a result, the idea of teaching grammar to students, according to Krashen, is not necessary because they will figure it out on their own.
6. The Reading Hypothesis: This concept was added on to his ideas to account for reading as a form of academic input. As you know, reading is not a natural process: We must be taught to read. However, Krashen basically argues that the best way to learn vocabulary is by receiving input through reading. Many people disagree of course, but most recognize that he does have a strong point: Through reading students acquire vocabulary just the way students acquire speaking skills through listening. Reading and listening are both forms of input and therefore highly valuable as a form of comprehensible input. This means that the (i+1) concept applies: Students must be reading texts JUST above their levels. If the book is too hard, it will not be beneficial. Explicitly teaching vocabulary can be very difficult; it might be best to let student engage in reading to improve vocabulary. As a teacher, I find this to be a very important idea.
Resources on Krashen
http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/krashen.htm
https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm
https://wlteacher.wordpress.com/tag/krashen/
http://www.robwaring.org/papers/various/waring_120304.pdf