Week 7 Dialogue Journal
**Notes: In week 7 we'll be
looking at how input and output play a role in L2 development - you'll see
there are two readings for each topic. Of the two for each topic, one is
relatively short, and the other is quite long. I suggest reading the articles in
the following way: read 01, skim 02 for clarification of things that may not be
clear in 01 and longer explanations of concepts (hypotheses). Read 03, then
skim (or peek into) 04 for more examples.
Most of Swain's output research was
done in French immersion schools so if you have a background in French, you
might find the examples particularly interesting.
We will choose new groups in
class tonight.
Comprehension Question 1:
ReplyDeleteWhat four categories of direct instruction (output) are discussed in the text, and are they considered to have a strong positive effect on students learning in the classroom?
Comprehension Question 2:
What are the two chief rivals of the comprehension hypothesis discussed in the text? Define them. Can you think of examples in your own experience as a teacher to backup these theories?
Comprehension Question 3:
The Comprehension Hypothesis has several different names and has had several different inventors. Krashen has also referred to it as the Input Hypothesis.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
Describe the process involved in Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Model to demonstrate your understanding.
Discussion Question:
Can we as humans really derive deep meaningful understanding of how language is acquired by examining how animals acquire ‘speech’. Given the complexity of the human language, can this animal analysis give us anything more than just a superficial correlation to our own learning behavior? Why do you think so?
The four direct instructions discussed in text are GRAMMAR,VOCABULARY,SPELLING AND PHONICS. Grammar I find beneficial,though it is correctly stated that the rules are generally learned with aim of appearing and scoring well in the tests.
DeleteI myself recalled some of the rules when I started teaching again.
So,grammar rules I would say stays in touch till they are practised.
Vocabulary enhances the word bank for an individual.Though the correct usage of this word bank depends upon correct application in syntax.
Spelling formation plays little role according to me.Since with my students it went with the sound system,the way ay student pronounced any word...in the similar phonology he used to write the spelling too.
Phonics can help in introducing the correct sound to students in initial stage,so I guess it helps in further comprehensions too.Once the sound system is clear to any student ,the pronunciation will be on an average accurate,which will also help in correct spelling formation
Ans 2) SKILL-BUILDING HYPOTHESIS and
DeleteCOMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS are two kinds of rivals stated in this chapter.
The skill building hypothesis comprise of step by step instructional teaching where grammar rules are taught ,language acquisition is based on vocabulary enhancement and phonic rules.For eg. when I began learning Korean language ,it was based on instructional teaching pattern.After getting introduced to phonics, I was taught grammar rules...while word bank went on side by side.
The comprehensible output hypothesis talks about....acquiring language through conversation.During conversation if the mispronounced word or wrong word is used,which the listener do not understand and we are stressed to speak up the correct word.
Ans. 3)
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvk
A quick video about input hypothesis...
* It was introduced in 1977.
* Hypothesis rotates around comprehensible input (CI) that other learners understand.
*Hypothesis relates only to 'Acquisition' and NOT 'Learning'
*Learner's language competency is promoted in a NATURAL ORDER when Ss receive 'INPUT' of L2, which is currently one step beyond the stage of his present knowledge .
For eg: Learner's stage = i
Level of knowledge
learner is exposed to= i+1
Summary:
DeleteChapter 4: The Comprehension Hypothesis Extended
Krashen starts by explaining The Comprehension Hypothesis and what it is, but this chapter isn't about proving the hypothesis right. It's about proving other hypotheses wrong, namely the Output Hypotheses of Skill-Building and Comprehensible Output. He cites numerous examples that demonstrate the futility of things like direct instruction, correction, and learning language rules, all the while extolling the virtues of reading. He then turns to the animal world to point out how birds and monkeys also follow his "speak"-then-understand idea. The article ends on a very weird note where he gives fleeting mention to magic mushrooms before citing Star Trek and data gathered from accounts of alleged alien abductions, and then he closes by confidently declaring that "research in this area has only begun."
Krashen Monitor Model
A large portion of this paper covers the technical side of Krashen's Input Hypothesis, a.k.a Comprehension Hypothesis, but it also goes over four other theories: Acquisition-Learning, Natural Order, Monitor, and Affective Filter.
Merrill Swain: The Output Hypothesis
This chapter discusses Output Hypothesis in detail and illustrates its merit with examples written in French. I wish Swain had provided translation for the French passages because, as one who doesn't know a single word of French beyond "hors d'oeuvres," there isn't enough "comprehensible input" for me to "negotiate meaning" from the passages.
Comprehension Question 1:
DeleteWhat four categories of direct instruction (output) are discussed in the text, and are they considered to have a strong positive effect on students learning in the classroom?
According to Krashen, the four categories of direct instruction - grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and phonics - are apparently not all that important! Well, they're important, but attempting to "learn" these skills in a classroom is more difficult and less productive than learning subconsciously with (i+1).
Comprehension Question 2:
What are the two chief rivals of the comprehension hypothesis discussed in the text? Define them. Can you think of examples in your own experience as a teacher to backup these theories?
One rival is the Skill-Building Hypothesis which Krashen goes to great lengths to discredit. A significant portion of the chapter is devoted to arguing against the idea of acquiring language through conscious learning, and conscious learning is the cornerstone of Skill-Building.
The other rival theory is the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis where one conversation partner fails to understand the other, and the two speakers try again until they "arrive at the correct version of the rule."
I think most of us can cite examples of the Skill-Building Hypothesis at work, both as teachers and as students. Material is taught, students are tested, and they retain what they retain. I don't think Krashen's argument is that Skill-Building DOESN'T work; he's just saying that it's not as great as everyone thinks it is because other methods have been proven to be far more effective.
As for Comprehensible Output, the conversation classes I used to teach were more or less based on that idea (I think)… the idea that speaking English would make the students better at it. Since I didn't do any measuring of progress (they were non-credit classes) it's hard to know if students actually improved or not. My guess is that they learned some new words and maybe a new grammar structure here and there, and maybe their confidence improved, but their actual ability to speak English probably didn't change much. Maybe that was because most of their speaking time was with other Korean students? In other words, as far as "conversational" practice went, they didn't have the right input to cause changes in their output?
Comprehension Question 3:
DeleteThe Comprehension Hypothesis has several different names and has had several different inventors. Krashen has also referred to it as the Input Hypothesis.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
Describe the process involved in Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Model to demonstrate your understanding.
Krashen's Comprehension/Input Hypothesis holds that language acquisition happens subconsciously, and it happens when we understand what we hear and read. It requires us to understand language that is slightly beyond our current level of understanding (i + 1), and when we successfully communicate using that structure the meaning will be automatically understood. The final act is where production ability emerges and we have learned something that has not been explicitly taught to us.
Discussion Question:
Can we as humans really derive deep meaningful understanding of how language is acquired by examining how animals acquire ‘speech’. Given the complexity of the human language, can this animal analysis give us anything more than just a superficial correlation to our own learning behavior? Why do you think so?
For the purposes of understanding first language acquisition I think there's some value in studying animals, especially primates. That kind of study could help us to understand the tendencies of babies or other living things that can't communicate with human speech. But "deep, meaningful understanding"? I don't think so. Animals don't read or write, and the range of ideas they need to express to each other is hilariously small compared to the range that humans require. At least I think that's the case… I'd be very surprised if the screams of chimpanzees were actually about global warming or that one chimp's insensitive treatment of other jungle animals. If the only things humans needed to do was establish social hierarchies and warn each other of predators, then animal behaviour would be a veritable gold mine of indispensable wisdom. Unfortunately, our communication needs are bigger than that.
Ans. 3) Since I am not very clear about non -human language pattern.I tried reading E.O Wilson,but the pearls wisdom are still vague to me.So,I would discuss Michael's point further.
DeleteHuman language is need based,they have more options for communication,more or less dependent upon verbal communication.
Whereas animals have limited requirement of communication.According to ornitho language researchers no non human language pattern can compete with human over 2.5 years.
They state that language is a complex structure ,which depends upon cognitive abilities and retention period of learned symbols.
However the similarity between human and non human language is better drawn between humans and birds rather then chips.
They both learn structures not just meaning of call.Both learn from adults and have critical period...
Huffff !!!!!!!
Read the above as discussion question and not answer number 3.
DeleteComprehension Question 1:
DeleteThe 4 categories of direct instruction discussed in the text are grammar, vocabulary, spelling and phonics. I do consider vocabulary to have a strong positive effect on Ss learning in the classroom since it will enlarge and expand the spectrum of their listening, reading, speaking and writing.
Comprehension Question 2:
Skill-Building Hypothesis – one develops his or her language through conscious learning of grammar, vocabularies, and phonics. Through output, it will help one to use the language more smoothly and become better at it.
Comprehensible Output Hypothesis – one develops his or her language skills through conversation. In other words, if the partners doesn’t understand, one will try to re-speak using the correct language, words.
Comprehension Question 3:
Krashen’s Input hypothesis insists that we acquire language and develop literacy when we understand what we read or hear, what we input, and it happens subconsciously. The hypothesis insists that one’s language competence is stretched when they are able to understand little more than their knowledge. (i+1).
Discussion Question:
I agree with Michael and don’t think animal analysis can give us anything more than a superficial correlation to our own learning behavior because animals can’t write, read or speak. Human’s language is way more complicated than animals. We, humans, also imply deeper meaning to our speech and a lot of times we have to infer to truly understand it. But it will be hard to imagine animals would communicate in such a similar way as we do so the analysis won’t help humans to derive deep meaningful understanding of language acquisition.
I am an applier for this week, and I couldn’t really make an activity or exercise from the reading. However thought of a couple of suggestions for Ts.
Delete1) The Output Hypothesis insists, ”T should allow Ss to push themselves to perform their competence, to analyze and consolidate second language knowledge that they have previously acquired.”
So, instead of using one of the CI techniques we learned from Meth class, error correction, T needs to allow and encourage Ss to do self-correction.
(A lot of time I can’t help stop myself from correcting Ss’ error directly or by pointing it out believing it’s better way to help Ss.)
2) As Krashen’s Input Hypothesis insists, we acquire language and develop literacy when we understand what we read or hear, what we input, and it happens subconsciously. So, T could prepare adequate level of reading and listening materials, rather short, relevant to the course curriculum and constantly ‘input’ them to Ss. I think this could be non-academic material but more fun such as song lyrics or magazine articles.
Highlighting Points
DeleteArticle 1- Krashen
1) SKILL BUILDING HYPOTHESIS- Similar to formal education system, where step by step rule based learning takes place. The process is of conscious practice.
2) COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS - Whenn we are forced to acknowledge the gap between our language competencies. The language development takes place through application of correct language rule.
3)COMPLEXITY ARGUMENT- States that language is a complex process of too many vocabulary as well as spelling rules.Which is having different difficulty level according to age and competency status.
4)SCARCITY ARGUMENT- States that we listen more than we speak,thus the comprehension rules stated by Krashen are not always fulfilled.
Thus,the use of vocabulary is more in listening then speaking.
5) READ AND REST STUDIES- Maintain that we learn more vocabulary while reading alone.
6)WEEK VERSION 1 OF COMPREHENSION HYPOTHESIS- Comprehension alone is not enough to enhance the language learning,though its importance can not be denied.
7) WEEK VERSION 2 OF COMPREHENSION HYPOTHESIS- Language acquisition is a slow process which speeds up after formal teaching.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear Swati, Young, Michael and I are working together this week. Please go through the assigned week 7 reading and then answer my comprehension and discussion questions.
ReplyDeleteAs you were absent Swati, let me remind you that you were assigned the role of ‘highlighter’. Go through sugar sync – SLA – week 7 and read the documents including ‘Academic Reading Circles’ to see what your role as HL entails as well as answering the blog questions. Good Luck.
Thanks for overloading Justin. Anyways, joined elementary school at Uijeongbu from today.Plz mail me about ICC too.Evan updated me bout meth...
DeleteFor Greg and Andrew:
ReplyDelete1. What are the three main hypotheses that are compared in the first reading? Define them each with one sentence.
2. What evidence supports the comprehension hypothesis? Summarize two pieces of evidence.
3. What are two ways in which language output helps language acquisition? (the third reading discusses four ways).
Discussion: Given that animals only acquire one "language" (with the exception of gorillas and human sign language) is comparing human and animal language learning models beneficial for second language acquisition or even relevant for supporting SLA hypotheses?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteApologies for how late this is, as I put this up on Saturday morning. No excuse, but awful time-management. But I hope it's still useful.
Delete1. What are the three main hypotheses that are compared in the first reading? Define them each with one sentence.
Comprehension Hypotheses states that we develop our language and literacy skills when we understand what we hear and what we read.
The Skill-Building Hypotheses dictates that knowledge of phonics is central to learning how to read, and knowledge of grammar and vocabulary are integral to acquiring language.
The Comprehensible Output Hypotheses claims that language acquisition happens when mistakes and gaps in verbal communication prompts one to self-correct and improve competency.
2. What evidence supports the comprehension hypothesis? Summarize two pieces of evidence.
Krashen discusses multiple studies (and even cites himself). One study showed that students in reading-intensive classes performed better than students in classes that had significantly less reading. A gent named Lee did a study in Taiwan that showed free-reading was a much better predictor of writing performance than free-writing.
3. What are two ways in which language output helps language acquisition? (the third reading discusses four ways).
Swain discusses different ways in which output is beneficial for LA. One way is that it pushes the learner to switch their focus from processing semantics to syntax. This lends the learner a more general understanding of their ability instead of focusing too narrowly on individual functions. Another interesting way output helps is through hypothesis testing. This gives the student a testing-ground for trying out new expressions and questioning if they work or not. The teacher should not provide feedback, but instead encourage the learner question him or herself. While it was frustrating and challenging, it’s useful in that the learner comes to the answer by him or herself, which helps them absorb it more efficiently.
Discussion: I found the section discussing song-birds pretty fascinating and how their elders tutor them. The early babbling, imitation and modeling are all reminiscent of how humans learn language as infants and young children. Not mentioned in the article, but I find grey parrots to be especially interesting in the way they mimic and even comprehend to a small extent, human speech. They model their language and behavior on us! My uncle, a vetenarian had an African grey parrot that would greet regular clients individually (eg: identifying Mrs Johnson as Mrs Johnson and not mistaking her as Ms Smith, which demonstrates cognitive recognition). Maybe I’m getting off on a tangent here, but yes, I do think certain animal models can be useful for supporting SLA hypotheses.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. According to Krashen what does picking-up a language mean and which of his hypotheses would demonstrate this best (hint I skimmed the 2nd article)?
ReplyDelete2. According to Swain learners need to be pushed. Why and how should they be pushed?
3. Would Mr. Krashen agree with Swain's suggestions, how could/does he fit them into his own ideas?
Discussion: At the end of Krashen's article there is a subsection called "Aliens". It is suggested 'hallucinations', telepathy and Star Trek can all support his comprehension hypothesis to a certain extent. Krashen leaves us with the thought that the research has only begun. What do you think about the three types of alien communications proposed? Do you think more research could be useful in any of these areas, specifically for the advancement of SLA theory? Which of these theoretical forms of 'non-human' communication would you like to help Krashen explore? Any others of interest not mentioned by him (divine, supernatural etc.)?
This was sent to my group earlier in the week. I can share them with anyone who wants them. I took my job literally and I can send you a highlighted pdf that goes along with these definitions if you need/ would like them
DeleteWeek 7 Reading Circles
Highlighter-Dave Ziller
01 Krashen The Comprehension Hypothesis Extended
Page 2
Comprhension Hypothesis- language is acquired (subconsciously) when we understand the input (from reading or listening) – related to Krashen’s previous theory of acquisition (input +1)
Weak Forms of Comprehension Hypothesis
(1) Weak version 1: Comprehension is necessary but not sufficient.
Without formal teaching and/or comprehensible output, the acquirer
will not reach the highest levels of competence.
(2) Weak version 2: Acquisition is slow. Conscious learning and/or
output can speed up the acquisition process.
Language Acquisition Device- the acquirer
Learner – the object consciously knowing about the rules and be able to talk about them.
Affective filter – like a shield – when raised blocks language acquisition
Output Hypotheses
- Skill-Building Hypothesis –language is acquired through conscious learning of the rules.
- Comprehensible Output Hypothesis- language is acquired when the conversational partner cannot understand the output, forcing the acquirer to re-evaluate their “rules”
Page 3
Total Physical Response - first, that language is learned primarily by listening; second, that language learning must engage the right hemisphere of the brain; and third, that learning language should not involve any stress.
Natural Approach- emphasises communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input
02 Krashen Monitor Model
Monitor Hypothesis – That learning only affects output after it has been produced by the acquired system – it doesn’t produce output, merely edits the produced output.
03 Swain The output Hypothesis
Page 2
The output hypothesis – acquisition of language may occur by producing (spoken, writing)
Comprehension Questions
Delete1) Implicit learning, informal learning, and natural learning are all terms that Krashen uses to describe “picking-up” languages. This is one of two ways that adults can develop confidence in a second language according to his acquisition-learning hypothesis. His idea of picking-up a language is different from the 2nd half of the hypothesis in that it is language that is able to be produced without conscious study.
2) Swain argues that learners need to be pushed to produce language because it provides practice of the skills, increasing the automaticity of their use. It means they can access their knowledge more easily, like clearing a path through a forest. The first few times down that path are slow, but it gets easier the more it is used.
He has 4 reasons why this is so:
1) Increases fluency (instead of accuracy)
2) It demonstrates to the learner what they do not know and what they only partially know
3) They can try out a (inter-language) rule [pretty closely related to #2]
4) The listener may give them more information
3) I think Krashen MAY agree with Swain, because I think that Swain has taken Krashen’s idea into account when crafting his hypothesis. Krashen’s idea is that a student can only produce what has been acquired and posits that attempting to force a student to produce prior to their readiness may actually create a bad (inter-language) rule that needs to be removed. Swain notes that activities and tasks need to be carefully planned, I would assume this to be to account for a class’ ability to comprehend (i+1). Swain also notes the importance of collaborative tasks, which in a properly leveled class would mean that students are relatively similar in proficiency, decreasing the likelihood of a student producing something beyond comprehension of the other students. So while when we say that Swain wants students to be "pushed" it does NOT mean to force them to produce before they are ready, rather they are being "pushed" to be active participants in their L2 learning process.
Discussion
I’m not sure that he does imply that “magic mushrooms” and telepathy support his comprehension hypothesis. I suppose in this scenario I would like to work on the Star-Trek universal translator. I think that we are more likely to see something similar to that in our lifetimes. While horribly inaccurate now, Google translate, can operate on a very basic level, and it has only been around for about 5 years. I think that before a universal translator can be created the holy grail of SLA / linguistics would need to be discovered. The actual laws of all language, if they do indeed exist, would allow a computer to be taught to acquire languages…I can’t speak for everyone but that sounds pretty interesting to me.
Dave plz forward me that colorful PDF...
DeleteThank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I agree talking to yourself and thinking others talked to you is a questionable definition of communication. Although doctors do prescribe drugs to children to help them 'focus' and learn better. Maybe one day there will be better medical science to help us learn
DeleteAs for computer devices, AI and CALL (computer assisted langauge learning) definitely has a future. Chat bots will pass the touring test one day, etc.
Lol! I like your choice topic for the discussion question. First of all, I must say that I do not believe in aliens therefore it makes it difficult for me to say that further research in this field would help support Krashen's comprehension hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI guess if I had to choose one of the theoretical forms I would choose 'hallucinations'. I can kind of understand that if a person takes these psilocybin mushrooms that alters their state of mind they probably feel like they are speaking some kind of alien language. They must feel like they can only be understood by another person who has taken these 'magic' mushrooms. This kind of study would be very interesting in term of watching the subjects interact among themselves.
1) The acquisition-learning distinction is his hypothesis that describes picking-up a language as a method of acquiring a language. What he means by 'picking-up' language is that people learn language subconsciously.Like children people are not aware of the acquisition of language is happening.
ReplyDelete2) Learners need to be pushed so as to use all of their knowledge of a language to the fullest extent. Speaking and reading are not enough they need to be able to evaluate their output and correct their mistakes when necessary.
This can be accomplished through teacher-fronted interactions that encourage students to review their output. Also they can use what is called collaboratively structured sessions meaning group work. This promotes more speaking and more analyzing of output.
3) While Krashen stresses that input needs to be comprehensible for language learners to be able to acquire a new language. One important aspect of his hypothesis is that input should not be grammatically sequenced for learners to be able to acquire it with ease. Consequently,according to Swain, feedback given to learners can make input and output more comprehensible. Therefore both theories somewhat complement each other. A good learning environment will help students motivation to acquire a language. Feedback plays an important role as well as correct production, interesting and meaningful materials which can also challenge and motivate learners.
I think we are on the same page in terms of answers to the comprehension questions.
DeleteAs for the discussion. I also don't believe any human has ever communicated with an alien. Although perhaps one day it will happen and it's worth thinking about. I think technology will help out a lot by then and chances are any aliens we find will be bacteria or other life that is not really worth communicating with.
The basic component in Krashen's comprehension hypothesis states that we learn language when we understand messages, when we understand what people are saying and what we are reading therefore having comprehensible input is key for acquiring language. Krashen also strongly believes that reading is one of the best sources for acquiring a language.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher, making sure that your input is comprehensible to your level of teaching is key. One possible way of including this in our teaching would be to start a free reading program where students can read books for fun. I did some research and I found a great article on The Krashen website that suggests implementing a reading program that would start at the age of 8 or 10 and would go all the way until the student reaches university. Here is the link: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/
His reading program has six stages:
Stage 1: Natural Approach and Graded Readers
Level 2: Light Reading
Level 3: Popular Literature
Level 4: Contemporary Serious Literature.
Level 5: The Classics
Level 6: Comparative Literature
Of course this can only happen if you have a library filled with interesting readings.
If you are not satisfied with Krashen's model you can also add some components of the output hypothesis. You can include collaborative learning and then you end with with something similar to our reading circle.
The sustained silent reading (SSR) worked with my students, in place of group/pair reading.I guess every student have his/her own reading pase...sometimes they want to re read the previous sentence for better understanding .
DeleteI'm the highlighter in Evan and Andrew's group. Here are some definitions and some notes.
ReplyDeleteNotes on Article one:
The Skill-Building Hypothesis maintains that we acquire language when we consciously learn rules of grammar and vocabulary, and we learn to read by first consciously learning the rules of phonics. Output helps us by making our knowledge more ‘automatic’ through practice and by providing a domain for error correction, which helps us arrive at a better version of our rule. This approach is also known as ‘direct teaching’ or formal instruction.
The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis says that language acquisition occurs when we say something and our conversational partner does not understand, forcing us to notice a gap in our language ability. We then try again until we arrive at the correct version of the language rule. Krashen says the research strongly supports the Comprehension Hypothesis for both literacy and language development, and the evidence for both is similar.
For second language acquisition at beginning stages, comprehensible input based methods such as Total Physical Response and Natural Approach have been shown to be more effective than skill-building based methods (see above explanation).
Asher's Total Physical Response Method is an input method that emphasizes physical movement and responding to commands--though response does not necessarily mean speech, but could instead mean physical action.
Terrell's Natural Approach: A method of teaching that believes the following:
Focus of instruction is on communication rather than its form.
Speech production comes slowly and is never forced.
Early speech goes through natural stages (yes or no response, one- word answers, lists of words, short phrases, complete sentences.)
In terms of evidence for the comprehensible input hypothesis, students in beginning classes in which more real reading is done outperform those in beginning classes in which less reading is done (Krashen, 2002a). The results at the intermediate level. In both first and second language development, students who participate in classes that include in-school self-selected reading programmes (known as sustained silent reading) typically outperform comparison students, especially when the duration of treatment is longer than an academic year (reviews include Krashen, 2003, 2004, 2005).
ReplyDeleteAnother key definition: the complexity argument
The complexity argument says it isn't necessary to consciously learn rules of language or writing. There are too many vocabulary items to be learned one at a time; researchers estimate that the adult vocabulary size in the first language range from about 40,000 to over 150,000 words (Krashen, 2004; Smith, 1988). Also, word meanings are often subtle and complex, for example, the difference between ‘vagrant’ and ‘homeless’ (Finegan, 1999), and word knowledge often requires knowledge of grammatical properties (e.g. whether a verb is transitive or intransitive). Spelling and phonics rules also too complex to learn he says.
The Combination Hypotheses
There are two weak forms of the Comprehension Hypothesis have been discussed, or assumed: (1) Weak version 1: Comprehension is necessary but not suffi cient. Without formal teaching and/or comprehensible output, the acquirer will not reach the highest levels of competence. Weak version #2: Output can speed up the acquisition process. Kr ashen says no evidence for this.
Notes and definitions from Article Two:
ReplyDeleteRough-tuning: Adults naturally and unconsciously make their speech more complex as a child becomes more linguistically advanced.
Caretaker speech: The speech of someone while they are looking after a child. So roughly-tuned caretaker speech naturally handles i+ 1 but deliberate attempts to hit i + 1 might miss! QUESTION: How does this fit in with the creation and recommendation of graded readers? I thought Krashen said they were good?
"Here and now": The tendency to talk about things in the immediate environment and time when talking to young children.
The silent period: Children acquiring a second language in a natural, informal linguistic environment may say very little for several months following their first exposure to the second language.
Terrell's Natural Approach: A method of teaching that believes the following:
Focus of instruction is on communication rather than its form.
Speech production comes slowly and is never forced.
Early speech goes through natural stages (yes or no response, one- word answers, lists of words, short phrases, complete sentences.)
Notes on Article Three
ReplyDeleteThe output hypothesis proposes that through producing language, either spoken or written, language acquisition/learning may occur (Swain, 1985). There are four main points:
One, fluency is built through repeated practice.
Two, it may force the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing (from meaning to grammar). This may sound counter-intuitive at first, but Krashen (1982) has suggested: "In many cases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding-we often get the message with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus extra-linguistic information" (p. 66). Other researchers say that outside of the most advanced levels, you can ignore a lot of grammatical and semantic functions and still make yourself generally understood. Therefore without making the learner specifically focus on grammar, comprehension- based approaches to learning language only forces learners to partially recognize what they do or do not know.
Third, it lets learned try out language to see if it works. They can try something and see what the response is, or try something and then ask people, "Can I say it that way?"
Finally, it can generate feedback from other speakers that let's them evaluate the comprehensibility or well-formedness of their language.
Honestly there doesn't seem to be a big distinction between the third and final points. If anyone could enlighten me, please do.
Hey Greg, I am going to attempt to sound intelligent here so please lower your expectations for the quality of this comment.
DeleteI agree that there's an area of overlap between #3 and #4, and that would be corrective feedback. I believe the "hypothesis testing" in #3 is something that doesn't necessarily have to be a blunt self-confirmation check, ie: "did I say that right?" I think it could also include any method of actively testing yourself, like just blurting out random phrases to random people to see if they respond in the way one would normally expect, or more likely just engaging in everyday conversation with whoever is around, all the while quietly tallying what "landed" and what didn't.
#4 seems to be all about feedback but not necessarily corrective feedback. If someone asks you what day today is, and you reply "it is humping day" because you believe you're using the correct colloquialism for "Wednesday", that's not a hypothetical check; you just said something incorrectly with the belief that it was right. The cackling laughter or indignant slap across the face, however, would qualify as the feedback of #4.
Self-correction: the area of overlap is just feedback, not corrective feedback specifically, not that it has anything to do with the difference between #3 and #4
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteApplier:
I think the reading is useful in that it presents the foundation for some in-class activities. I enjoyed reading about Output Hypothesis, even if Krashen clearly takes issue with it. The Hypotheses testing that Swain talks about (having students question their own expressions, instead of the teacher giving corrective feedback) could be applied in the classroom with the teacher taking a hands-off approach and observing, rather than interfering. The self-esteem of the students is reinforced if they can find the answers on their own, and they have a better chance of acquiring the language. This can be observed through student-to-student interactions. The teacher should quietly monitor the amount of times the learner self-corrects or questions flawed language and then see if they improve their syntax over time. Conversely, Krashen’s observations concerning Comprehension Hypotheses reinforce the importance of reading in order to activate SLA. I think reading coupled with personalization and discussion questions is an effective method and the student subconsciously and naturally develops. Krashen is a critic of direct instruction (direct spelling, vocabulary, etc) and thinks the less anxious environment of passive acquisition through free-reading yields better results. Lastly, just because Krashen and Swain disagree with each other, doesn’t mean you have to discard one in favor of the other. Both of their studies and arguments have educational merits that can be applied in the classroom.