1. Total Physical Response (TPR).
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a learning teaching methodology proposed by James Asher throughout the second half of the 1960s and 1970s. Its distinguishing feature was the linking of language learning with physical movement.
This approach was based on the belief that listening comprehension should be developed fully, and that skills can be more rapidly assimilated if the teacher appeals to the students' kinaesthetic-sensory system. This way, learners were asked to respond physically to commands given by the teacher; and learner output was not required until the learner feels he/she is ready and comfortable to do it.
Finally, it should be said that on this approach simple structures were usually selected and vocabulary was selected for its relevance to learners´ needs. Students were exposed to language that was based in the here-and-now and that was easily understood through mime and example.
2. The Natural Approach.
The Natural Approach was originally created in 1977 by Tracy Terrell. After the original formulation, Terrell worked with Steven Krashen to further develop the theoretical aspects of the method, and both published the results of their collaboration in their 1983 book The Natural Approach, which contains Krashen´s theoretical perspectives and Terells´s guidelines for their classroom application
The Natural Approach uniqueness lied on its model of learning. Krashen drew a distinction between conscious learning and acquisition, establishing that only language which is “acquired” is seen as being available for natural language use; while language which has been “learnt” can be used to monitor and correct output based on “acquired” learning, but that is all.
Moreover, For Terrell the key to comprehension and oral production was the acquisition of vocabulary, as he established that “with a large enough vocabulary, the student can comprehend and speak a great deal of the second language even if his/her knowledge of structure is for all practical purposes nonexistent”.
This way, it seemed that the goal of the Natural Approach was to set at an Intermediate (survival) proficiency in the second language, at least in oral/aural skills, which means that a primary emphasis on the teaching and practice of vocabulary was given, with little emphasis on structural accuracy.
Finally, it could be said that the Natural Approach classroom was one in which communication activities, contextualized acquisition opportunities, and humanistic learning techniques dominate; and where there was a role for corrective feedback in written work, although the study of grammatical principles and the correction of errors should be the student's responsibility.
Comments