User:Slk333/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Natural approach

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose the Natural Approach article because my school district's World Language curriculum is based on the natural approach and I am expected to implement it in all of my lessons. This also matters because while the Natural Approach was developed over 50 years ago, it is still seen as controversial when compared to more traditional language-learning methodologies that are still used today. My preliminary impression of the Natural Approach was that it works, but only under certain conditions. I am not confident that it is the best method to use in any/all educational environments and would like to learn more.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article is adequate, concise and informative. It lets the reader know who developed the Natural Approach, when it was developed, what it entails, examples of implementation, and how it is different from other language-acquisition methodologies. However, a reader is not able to completely identify the topic simply from reading the first sentence. The first sentence mentions that it is a "method of language teaching", but that is rather vague. The first sentence primarily focuses on attributing credit to founders Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell. For a more detailed overview, readers must read the entire first paragraph of the lead section. Overall, the introductory content provided in the lead is relevant and can be found throughout the rest of the article multiple times.  

The content throughout the entire article following the lead section is consistently relevant to the topic while also referencing/mentioning related topics and articles (such as the “Monitor Model”, also known as the “Input Hypothesis”, or the “Direct Method”). These connections allow readers to deepen their understanding of Stephen Krashen’s theories while also making meaningful connections to the original article and topic of the Natural Approach. The content of the article also provides reference to topics and articles that are related to the Natural Approach, but are opposite approaches (such as the “audio-lingual method”).

The tone of the article provided a neutral point of view and does not attempt to persuade the reader to believe that the Natural Approach is the ideal approach when it comes to the World Language classroom. The article simply explains what the Natural Approach is, what it looks like in the classroom, and what is most important to remember when implementing this approach in lessons. The article is concise and does not overrepresent or underrepresent any themes throughout the article. The article was collaboratively well-written, and is easy to read regardless of the reader’s knowledge level of the topic. The article was also broken down into sections that facilitate the reader’s comprehension of the article and the Natural Approach (Background, Outline, Theory, Syllabus, Reception, References, and Bibliography). The section that could use more contributions would be the “Reception” section, detailing how the Natural Approach has been received by language teachers in the past and especially in the present. The article also only mentions that the Natural Approach is popular among Spanish teachers, but does not reference the response to the approach from teachers of languages other than English (LOTE). This is an area in need of improvement.

The article does not offer any images or media for the readers to view, but does contain many links that lead readers to relevant topics, such as the “Total Physical Response” (TPR). The article’s Talk Page is lacking and hardly shows any communication between contributors of the article. This is another area in need of improvement.

While the origins of the Natural Approach date back to the late 1970’s, in this article it appears that there are not many up-to-date sources and references with newer research to confirm the approach’s validity in the modern-day language classroom. The majority of sources cited in the article, while valid, are from 1991-2001. This ten year period provides the majority of research for five out of the six sources, with only one source dating back to 2011. Furthermore, the majority of sources were published in the United States, specifically in the Northeast, with only one source published overseas in London. This does not make for a very diverse selection of sources. As a reader in 2024, it is necessary to include research that references research found in the most recent decade in education (2014-2024). Ideally, there should be sources cited from the past five years of education (2019-2024), especially since so much has rapidly changed in recent years due to Virtual Learning/Distance Learning. What does the Natural Approach look like in the virtual classroom? This is yet another area in need of improvement.

Overall, the Natural Approach article on Wikipedia is rated in the “C-class” and is of interest in both the Education and Linguistics areas of WikiProjects. This article has few sources, but all sources are from quality publications. However, all sources are more than 10 years old and are in need of newer research to back up the statements made throughout the article. There is no bias detected in this article. This article could potentially offer more recent research of the Natural Approach, as well as ways to apply it in the modern-day World Language classroom. The article is well-written, professional and is a good starting point for the novice language teacher who is contemplating what the best practices may be for their language learners. All information stated in the article is factual and valid.