|
 |
How Krashen will delay your fluency | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| gbarv Groupie Cocos (Keeling) Islands Joined 5435 days ago 49 posts - 60 votes  | Message 74 of 81 05 August 2009 at 6:02am | IP Logged | |||||
Edited by gbarv on 16 August 2009 at 3:07am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| dbh2ppa Diglot Groupie Costa Rica Joined 5486 days ago 44 posts - 74 votes Speaks: Spanish*, English Studies: Italian, Japanese, Sign Language | Message 75 of 81 05 August 2009 at 7:22am | IP Logged | |||||
|
the way i understood it, krashen separates language learning and language acquisition (language learning defined as a conscious knowledge of the rules of the language, an acquisition as the subconscious ability to understand the meaning of, and produce, correct utterances).
given that he makes no points against language learning, one could assume that within his theories, language learning is in fact seen as beneficial, since it makes new utterances comprehensible (after some conscious efford), which will turn them into i+1 input, thus helping that learned language become effordless acquired language more quickly. as for the op's comments, krashen in fact speaks in favour of output, he is only against forcing the output out of the students before they are ready (and merely because it would raise the affective filter, not because generating incorrect utterances would be problematic). he even states that output is beneficial because it encourages more comprehensible input (making other people speak, and informing them of one's level, so they can roughly adjust their language to one's needs). then again, we may never know whether the op has any kind of fluency in Spanish, so... i chose to believe in krashen's hypothesis because they work for me. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6501 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 76 of 81 05 August 2009 at 9:31am | IP Logged | |||||
You are perfectly correct (cfr p.10 in Krashen's book), and my formulation was wrong. Because I changed my formulation before its (next-but-)final version I wrote only 'learning' is learning, and that only 'learning' in his eyes is effective. but should have written 'learning' is 'learning', and that only 'acquisition' in his eyes is effective. Needless to say there are also topics whee I agree with Krashen, for instance in his warning against pressuring people to deliver output too early and have it scrutinized too severely, and his diagram demonstrating the total lack of relevance of modern Linguistic AND pedagogic theory for language learning is simply hilarious (p.5) Edited by Iversen on 05 August 2009 at 9:34am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Al-Irelandi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5333 days ago 111 posts - 177 votes Speaks: English* | Message 77 of 81 15 May 2012 at 6:01pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm going to respond to the thread starter here.
Krashen did not say that output plays no role in acquisition. Rather, he argued that input drives acquisition and output emerges from the comprehension of input. When he put forth his Monitor Model for second language acquisition back in 1982, he was in turn criticised for its constructs being vague and largely unoperationable. He never introduced a teaching 'method' but principles for how to better acquire a language. Of them, he spoke about providing learners with copious amounts of language that is slightly above their competence/level with acquisition following. This is part of his Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1982, 1985). A teaching method would be based on it, its called the Natural Method (Krashen and Terrel, 1983). Despite Krashen's shortcomings, further research stemming from his theory elicited further research and theories being devised, which led to shedding more light on the role of input and output in acquiring a second language (as in the interactionist paradigm and input processing theories). Of importance, is that input is the fundamental source of data for building up that implicit knowledge of language that underlies language use. Hence, both comprehension (reading and listening) and production (speaking and writing) draw upon that knowledge. Therefore speaking does not cause your knowledge of language/competence to grow, it accesses such knowledge and is the result of it. Output with a communicative intent (i.e. using language in real meaningful interaction where focus is on meaning as opposed to producing mindless repetition and vocalising drills) with others will be of use in automising language production and in an indirect sense provide more input from other interlocutors responses to one's output produced. Krashen was right in that input is the driving force behind acquisition, and did give output a role, if one uses language for real communication and not mechanical repetition and imitation as in drill practice. Whoever proposed on here that he said to leave off output or speaking has made a straw man argument. Krashen was against forcing learners to produce utterances before they feel ready to do so, as happens in many L2 classrooms where instructors believe it is good to get learners to speak in front of the class before they have even internalised the linguistic 'structure of the day'. If one wishes to mention Krashen, at least quotes his works or point to them so that the readers are better able to make a well founded judgement on what he actually wrote and said, not what others go around misconstruing. In sum of Krashen's IH and further SLA research, if you want to learn a language, which means building up an implicit knowledge which underlies language use, then one needs input and can do so without speaking a single word. Without input, i.e. exposure to hearing or reading that language one cannot acquire a language. Such input also needs to be directed to the learner and pitched to their level so it is comprehensible, so learners can extract meaning and as a result acquire form. Output/speaking has no role in this. It is important in building up automisation of utterances and retrieval skills, yet one can still acquire a language (for comprehension) without doing so. On the other hand, one cannot acquire language by producing it (as in drill practice) if they receive no input. Input and output have different roles in SLA. Input comes first and output/speaking emerges (within communicative and meaningful settings) as a result of internalising input. Hence, in response to the title, Krashen cannot delay your fluency, neither does he have the power to. Furthermore what do we mean by fluency? Speaking abilities, comprehension skills, something else? Edited by Al-Irelandi on 15 May 2012 at 7:12pm 7 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Al-Irelandi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5333 days ago 111 posts - 177 votes Speaks: English* | Message 78 of 81 15 May 2012 at 8:47pm | IP Logged | |||||
Iversen, it appears that you have mixed up what type of process for gaining knowledge that Krashen values here. In his Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (1982, 1985) he dichotomised between language that has been 'acquired' and 'learned': the former is a process where language knowledge is gained in a manner not dissimilar to how children acquire the L1 and the latter ('learning') is knowledge gained by way of learning about language as an object of study, i.e. consciously learning and knowing rules and the like. Moving onto your commment, you said that according to Krashen, "only 'learning' is learning, and that only 'learning' in his eyes is effective.", however never has he said this. Rather Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985) has always maintained that 'acquisition' (a process like L1 natural acquisition) is necessary for acquiring a language, not 'learning' (a conscious and intentional effort undertaken to study a language). Krashen has always been adamant that only 'acquisition' is important for developing knowledge for language use. Krashen holds that 'learned' language knowledge can only be used as a monitor, i.e. for editing language that has been already acquired under certain limited conditions (where there is 'sufficient' time and a focus on form/accuracy) and hence, according to Krashen, is of little use for real everday spontaneous language use. This acquisition-learning dichotomy has been a topic of much debate and Krashen was criticised over it back in the 1980s, particulary for its unoperationable nature - how does one determine whether a learner has 'acquired' some aspect of a language or has instead 'learned' it, and how does one know if he/she is drawing upon one or the other in spontaneous language use? This is a general problem with Krashen's overall theory its vagueness and lack of direct evidence, not to mention its early pedagogical implementation before it was researched and analysed. Krashen's Monitor Model, none the less, has been highly influential in generating further research in second language acquisition and despite its shortcomings (and there are many) without out it, we would not be where we are today in terms of the direction research has taken and the empirical evidence that has been found as a result. Edited by Al-Irelandi on 15 May 2012 at 8:50pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Al-Irelandi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5333 days ago 111 posts - 177 votes Speaks: English* | Message 79 of 81 15 May 2012 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | |||||
Oops, didn't realise you 'recanted' here, lol. But on the last point, it is hardly 'modern' any longer: both SLA/ALs and Teaching pedahogy have changed significantly since then. Back then people were starting to realise the problems with Audiolingualism (which Krashen criticised frequently for its meaningless drilling and un-natural approach) and Paulston's 'traditional' instruction. Today there has been a shift towards applying aspects of ALs/SLA to teaching theory and teachers using that which has filtered through to their domain, especially in grammar and skill-based activities. But there are still pedagogical materials based on redundant audiolingual 'methods' being released. The situation is somewhat a mismatch between practice, theory and what instructors feel that works, but not as bad as before. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6501 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 80 of 81 16 May 2012 at 2:22am | IP Logged | |||||
There are points where I agree with Krashen - in addition to those mentioned in my messages above I would like to mention the notion of 'comprehensible input'. The main problem with Krashen is his acquisition-learning dichotomi and especially the tendency to downgrade the learning part to some control function or even less. For me the most efficient learning method for an adult language learner with previous language learning experience and limited access to native speakers is to gain knowledge through 'learning' methods (including grammars, dictionaries, bilingual texts etc.) and then use 'acquisition' to make that knowledge operative. In fact I don't use his terms 'learning' and 'acquisition', but not as much because of problems in separating them as because of the basic meaning of those words in ordinary language: 'learning' is for me an essential part of the acquisition of a language. Instead I prefer speaking about extensive and intensive methods, which in practice to a large extent coincide with Krashen's acquisition and learning. 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
