|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jun 10, 2015 10:23:12 GMT 5
Our first reading will be pp. 20-30 in Principles & Practice in Second Language Acquisition by Stephen KrashenIn Stage 1 training, we talked a lot about the need for comprehensible input. Some of you know that Stephen Krashen first wrote about this idea in the early 80's. Here's a wonderful video of Krashen, himself, demonstrating what he means by comprehensible input. Krashen has very generously released his early books on the internet. You can download the original text discussing the input hypothesis here. Download the book. If you don't have time to read the entire text right now, read pp 20-30 on the input hypothesis. Our discussion questions will focus on this section.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jun 27, 2015 14:33:23 GMT 5
Some of you may not know that my other specialty in ELT is in teaching academic and research writing. One of the things that I propose we do in this Reading Circle is encourage each other to develop ways of writing clearly and in an academic manner about our beliefs. To do that, I'll post readings and some questions to help you think about the source and respond in an academic way. For each reading, I'll post some ways you can try writing about whether you agree, partially agree, or disagree. Feel free to try whichever methods you feel fit your beliefs and needs.
Let's start with some ways of responding to Krashen. Try one or more to contribute to the discussion. Be sure to respond to the responses of others!
1) The "input hypothesis" is based on the idea that learners must understand the language they encounter. It says that "a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that the acquirer is focussed on the meaning and not the form of the message". What does "necessary (but not not sufficient)" mean in this passage? Do you agree that it is necessary, but not sufficient? If it's not sufficient, what else do you think is needed?
2) Do you agree, partly agree, or disagree with the input hypothesis? a) If you agree, give some example from your experience that illustrates why. b) If you only partially agree, tell us about the parts you question. c) If you disagree, tell us about some evidence from research that explains why you disagree.
3) Krashen puts forth the idea that learning and acquisition are different and he says that the "input hypothesis" describes acquisition. Do you think this is a necessary distinction for the hypothesis to be valid?
In other words, if you agree with the hypothesis, do you, necessarily, agree with the distinction between learning and acquisition? Do you think these these two beliefs are dependent upon one another or are they separate? Is it possible to agree with one, but not the other? Explain your answer.
|
|
margarita
New Member
" ONLY THOSE WHO RISK GOING TOO FAR CAN POSSIBLY FIND HOW FAR THEY CAN GO."
Posts: 8
|
Post by margarita on Jun 28, 2015 23:15:57 GMT 5
Thank you Dee for offering the questions, they were really helpful for analytical observation of the material (#1 Krashen's Input Hypothesis). Bellow is what I have understood and what I think about “input hypothesis”.
1 The essential step toward L1 or L2 acquisition is input. However, input differs depending on level and goal. A beginner student will never learn a new language by listening to a lecture of a science professor because the input will not be comprehensible for him. If, on the other hand, input is finely-tuned and does not introduce new vocabulary or new grammatical forms it is helpless as well. As to Krashen’s opinion and mine, comprehensible input is 100% necessary but at the same time it will never help any student to acquire a language if there is no development in language. For this reason, 100% comprehensible input by itself is not sufficient. To improve the level of students it is a must for a language to be introduces a little wider then a student already possesses. Krashen calls it +1.
2 I absolutely agree with input hypothesis. However, I strongly believe in noticing forms, particularly with adult learners. From my experience, looking at forms gives them better idea how to build a sentence of a certain type. Adult learners are more curious how the target language works, whereas young learners do not question any grammatical forms and happily begin using the phrases are offered.
3I agree with the idea that leaning and acquisition are different. Moreover, I would define acquisition as an unconscious process which means that a person does not try to memorize new vocabulary or grammatical forms or phonemes. He hears a language a lot and starts producing it when he feels ready to do so. Even not being corrected while output, eventually with more input his accuracy grows. As for leaning, I would define it as a conscious process. Student learns certain words or phrases on purpose. Such technique is often used for test preparation. Both acquisition and leaning are good for different purposes.
PS If anybody has any comments do not hesitate to post them
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jun 29, 2015 15:26:56 GMT 5
"If, on the other hand, input is finely-tuned and does not introduce new vocabulary or new grammatical forms it is helpless as well. As to Krashen’s opinion and mine, comprehensible input is 100% necessary but at the same time it will never help any student to acquire a language if there is no development in language. For this reason, 100% comprehensible input by itself is not sufficient. To improve the level of students it is a must for a language to be introduces a little wider then a student already possesses. Krashen calls it +1. " Interesting answers, Margarita. Have you seen the part of this text where where Krashen says, "...The input hypothesis implies that such a deliberate attempt to provide i + 1 is not necessary. ...there are reasons to suspect that it may even be harmful"? I find that really interesting for materials design and it feels right, intuitively, but I don't know what evidence there is for it. Even so, it would allow materials designers to put a lot more energy into rich input than into syllabus design. What do you think? Anyone else have ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Anastasiya on Jun 29, 2015 19:24:27 GMT 5
Hello dear colleagues, please read my criticism of the Krashen’ Input Hypothesis. Hope it makes sense.
To begin with, I have to admit that I do like the idea of comprehensible input and find this component of Krashen’s Five Hypothesis to be one of the most successful. I like and agree with the idea that it is necessary to provide students with comprehensible input. I also agree with the idea that students acquire language through the input they get. However, there are a few ideas in the reading that I question and even disagree with. The first idea that I question is the theoretical basis and evidence of Krashen’s research. In the reading he provides the evidence for the input hypothesis through caretaker speech (adult to a child), teacher-talk (a teacher to a language student), and foreigner-talk (a sympathetic conversation partner to a language acquirer). However, these examples cannot serve as strong evidence because the interlocutors, to my mind, do not necessarily produce utterances that strictly follow the i+1 module and do not ensure the input which is appropriate for acquirers’ current stage of linguistic knowledge. How did caretakers, teachers, and foreigners measure their interlocutors’ current level? The second idea that I feel could be further developed is the fact that some of the acquirers inevitable go through the silent period. So called period is spent on getting the input and where the speaking ability naturally emerges and develops on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening/reading and understanding. This idea of only natural input, to my mind, allows teachers not to encourage students’ production for some time, which delays their output. The above mentioned brings me to an idea that the input hypothesis focuses strictly on input and neglects the importance of output. To my mind, the language acquisition and learning also depend on production. Through the production, that ideally should be encouraged from the very early stages of second language acquisition, the teachers, for instance, can identify the gaps in linguistic knowledge of the learners and apply these gained insights to their i+1 input. Looking forward for your feedback and comments.
|
|
|
Post by Anastasiya on Jun 29, 2015 19:31:40 GMT 5
Also, one more concern of mine is what Krashen refers to as extra-linguistic support (i.e., context) that helps acquirers to understand the i+1 utterance provided by their interlocutors. I think that these extra-linguistic features do not necessarily mean that the acquirers will get the proper input, but they rather make them rely on guessing. (Guessing is one of those things we discussed during the first phase of our training and we agreed that it is often times a misinterpretation and a wrong guess rather than something meaningful and crystal clear to the learners). So, the guessing, as a result, will not necessarily transform into language acquisition and acquirers are most definitely going to be left with no support or faulty guesses.
|
|
margarita
New Member
" ONLY THOSE WHO RISK GOING TOO FAR CAN POSSIBLY FIND HOW FAR THEY CAN GO."
Posts: 8
|
Post by margarita on Jun 30, 2015 1:20:17 GMT 5
I see very interesting thought on the topic. I would like to comment on the silent period and early output.
On one hand, I would agree with Anastasiya that there is lack of output on early stages according to input hypothesis, however, I would like to list advantages of the silent period and danger zones of early output according to my observations: 1 First of all, the silent period does not last for a long time. In fact, it stops when a learner starts producing a language as soon as he is capable of articulating one or two phrases. 2 If a beginner learner is encouraged to produce a language immediately after he hears it he will automatically say a phrase with his native accent neglecting English phonemes. If we, as teachers, would like our students to have better pronunciation we need to give them time to listen how the target language sounds, so they could develop the ability to pronounce it more or less accurately. 3 As teachers hurry their students to use L2, the second ones tend to translate everything directly from their first language. In 1982, Krashen, in Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, pointed out “According to a hypothesis first proposed by Newmark (1966), performers who are asked to produce before they are "ready" will fall back on first language rules, that is, they will use syntactic rules of their first language while speaking the second language.” I other words, to help acquirers to produce better structure, they need take their time to hear it several times. Therefore, being in the environment where a target language is constantly used will have greater effect on a learner.
|
|
|
Post by dilafruz on Jun 30, 2015 3:55:33 GMT 5
Hi all, It was somehow challenging for me to express my position toward this theory. However, the concept I got from the readings allows me to agree with it. Reading the theory of input Hypothesis by Krashen I came to some conclusion: • Input Hypothesis in other words comprehensible input is very effective in teaching language for communicative purposes- because it requires using target language to build and create language acquisition atmosphere in the classroom (as I understood). • Each input should include nearly 90% of acquainted material and the rest should be something new for learners to discover (to build the condition to move from stage i to stage i+1). • Learners’ progress in language learning should be continuously including some elements of new material to make process more effective for them. • Learning process is based on acquisition not learning (discourse level but not the sentence). 1. I support the idea that the condition to move from stage i to stage i+1 is necessary but not sufficient. I my point of view a word “necessary” means that comprehensible input (including characteristics from stage i to stage i+1) is important, but not enough. To improve the language there should be something like a task, for example linked with the input i+1 to practice. As for the question: “…The input hypothesis implies that such a deliberate attempt to provide i + 1 is not necessary. ...there are reasons to suspect that it may even be harmful"? I can say that input should not make a sense of introducing or teaching material, going through the syllabus covered its content as we did in our task designing (using deductive approach). As Krashen stated, chosen input must contain i+1 to be useful for language acquisition but not for content teaching. If the learner is able to get the meaning of the input, i+1 will be understandable for them automatically. 2. I totally agree with input hypothesis if the aim of language teaching and learning is communication. Because if we intended to learn language in gaining communicative competence, the most important part of it will be comprehension rather than comparing and discussing specific language forms (Language should be treated in discourse level rather than in sentence). 3. I am of the same idea with the author’s comparison of acquisition with inductive and deductive ways of learning (in presenting grammar, for example). Acquisition and learning is used conceptually to define certain condition to name the process. In my opinion language acquisition is one of the steps in learning. The hypothesis focuses on language acquisition as unconscious learning: learners learn the language not understanding the notion of it-just like a baby learns the language. In comparison, learning itself is the process of conscious learning, where content of the language studied. The link given below get me more clear understanding of the Krashen’s input hypothesis concept. www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-input-hypothesis-definition-and-criticism/#q7hxW2cijXz5FrtQ.99; www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/krashen.htmlI hope I am not lonely in me consideration Regards, Dilafruz.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jul 1, 2015 10:30:32 GMT 5
The first idea that I question is the theoretical basis and evidence of Krashen’s research. In the reading he provides the evidence for the input hypothesis through caretaker speech (adult to a child), teacher-talk (a teacher to a language student), and foreigner-talk (a sympathetic conversation partner to a language acquirer). The above mentioned brings me to an idea that the input hypothesis focuses strictly on input and neglects the importance of output. To my mind, the language acquisition and learning also depend on production. Through the production, that ideally should be encouraged from the very early stages of second language acquisition, the teachers, for instance, can identify the gaps in linguistic knowledge of the learners and apply these gained insights to their i+1 input. Looking forward for your feedback and comments. Krashen was originally criticized for the lack of evidence, but this was back in the early 80s when his idea was brand new. Perhaps you may want to look for more research that has been done since then. Regarding output, it sounds like you may be interested in the idea of "comprehensible output". If you check out these areas, come back and tell us about them.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jul 1, 2015 10:34:46 GMT 5
I see very interesting thought on the topic. I would like to comment on the silent period and early output. On one hand, I would agree with Anastasiya that there is lack of output on early stages according to input hypothesis, however, I would like to list advantages of the silent period and danger zones of early output according to my observations: 1 First of all, the silent period does not last for a long time. In fact, it stops when a learner starts producing a language as soon as he is capable of articulating one or two phrases. I think this is a very crucial point. I have wondered myself if there is a fundamental difference between the way we need to teach true beginners and the way we teach those who already understand the language to some degree. On the one hand, it would seem counter-intuitive for there to be a difference, but, on the other, it seems to me that once the learner understands a minimal amount of what s/he hears around him, then the learner begins to bring new factors to the process of learning that were not that before. I've not heard of research in this area, but it would be worth exploring.
|
|
|
Post by ninaev on Jul 3, 2015 0:11:04 GMT 5
Hi everyone
It seems to me that the input theory is perfectly true for development speaking ability that as Krashen says “the only way to teach speaking is simply to provide comprehensible input”. I agree with the statement but the creation the comprehensible model of speaking is not an easy matter. I work at the private kindergarten and teaching speaking is a challenge to me.
there are children withlittle schooling skills. Nina
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jul 3, 2015 10:39:41 GMT 5
Hi everyone It seems to me that the input theory is perfectly true for development speaking ability that as Krashen says “the only way to teach speaking is simply to provide comprehensible input”. I agree with the statement but the creation the comprehensible model of speaking is not an easy matter. I work at the private kindergarten and teaching speaking is a challenge to me. there are children withlittle schooling skills. Nina Hi, Nina - If you speak English to young children, they will very quickly begin to speak it back to you. Do you have time set aside to speak English, perhaps to read a story to them, showing them the pictures, interacting with them as you tell the story? Or perhaps show them how to do a new simple task or play a game, only speaking English as you do it? They will then talk about that task in English. You don't need to translate, generally, with such young children, just speak simple English showing them what you mean. Does that work for you?
|
|
|
Post by Dee Broughton on Jul 3, 2015 11:00:51 GMT 5
3. I am of the same idea with the author’s comparison of acquisition with inductive and deductive ways of learning (in presenting grammar, for example). Acquisition and learning is used conceptually to define certain condition to name the process. In my opinion language acquisition is one of the steps in learning. The hypothesis focuses on language acquisition as unconscious learning: learners learn the language not understanding the notion of it-just like a baby learns the language. In comparison, learning itself is the process of conscious learning, where content of the language studied. This is a good idea. You may be interested in a more specific definition. Later in the readings, I post some of Bill VanPatten's work. VanPatten describes the view of linguists (and of all second language acquisition theories) that humans create an implicit linguistic system in their minds. The system is something like a map of connections between lexical and grammatical items in language. In order to use a language for communication, the learner must both access the system and develop mechanisms for using it. In other words, we need both a map and a car in order to drive somewhere. The word "acquisition," in my opinion, is best used to talk about the way a learner builds this linguistic system. "Learning," in this context, is generally used to mean the learners acceptance of those things that are directly and explicitly taught, such as prescribed grammar rules. There's good evidence from 40 years of research that this type of "learning" does not help very much in creating the implicit linguistic system. It's my understanding that this is why the field of SLA has chosen to differentiate "acquisition" from "learning." It is an awkward nomenclature, though, as are many terms in education. Perhaps others have written, or will write, articles attempting to provide more intuitive terms for these concepts. If anyone finds such articles, please let us know.
|
|
|
Post by saodat on Jul 3, 2015 16:07:59 GMT 5
Hello dears,
After reading Krashen’s input hypotheesis I’ve understood that
learners must understand the language they encounter; the acquirer is
focused on meaning and not the form of the message. As Krashen stated
context or our extra-linguistic information help us understand
language directed at us.
I understood “necessary” as a comprehensible input which can lead to
further learning. It’s not sufficient because learners must do some
tasks in order to learn another language, they need that necessary
comprehensible input to do their tasks. I think learners need more
practice for producing the language.
I agree that learning and acquisition are dependent upon one another;
necessary, right comprehensible input and sufficient practice can
lead to production of the language.
I agree with Dilafruz that language acquisition is one of the steps in
learning.When learners acquire the language they will be able to
produce the language.
I also, like Anastasiya think that the language acquisition and
learning depend on production. From production we can know the weakest
and strongest sides of our learners and can give the right
comprehensible input for the new tasks.
Regards,
Saodat
|
|
|
Post by ninaev on Jul 4, 2015 22:36:56 GMT 5
Hi everyone. I like the book by Krashen very much. There are some statements that I would like to discuss.
Actually the book by Krashen explains some of my struggles when I learned English language. At the elementary level I was always asking myself I learned so many words, but I could not speak fluently. Other words it is very useful to know about existing the “silent period” (Krashen P. 26-27). That is why I agree that there are two processes at studying the second language the acquisition and learning. Also the book opens another interesting point in studying foreign languages - “speech will come later and early speech is not grammatically accurate ”. I am sure that anyone can tell about the difficulties with the second language acquisition especially with speaking.
|
|