This is a great lecture I have been watching. There are several parts and here is the first. So simple yet so brilliant
Krashen, Krashen, Krashen.
No one ever remembers poor old Tracy Terrell.
[quote=“tomthorne”]Krashen, Krashen, Krashen.
No one ever remembers poor old Tracy Terrell.[/quote]I do. A thoughtful and insightful man. He took things on a bit further after The Natural Approach. Here are some bits from something I wrote once:[quote]However, once new vocabulary has been bound to some extent through input, it can be beneficial for learners to use it in meaningful speech and writing. Terrell (1986) described an experiment in which a group of students learned some commands through TPR. In the first session, the whole group learned the commands receptively; that is by hearing them and responding to them with the appropriate actions. In the second session, however, half of the group gave commands to the other half. Subsequently, students were tested individually on their ability to produce the command forms in speech. The students who had given the commands in the second session were able to recall and produce the new language more quickly than those who had only learned it receptively, through listening. So using already-acquired forms in meaningful communication may result in increased fluency. In addition, it seems that this kind of production can build students’ confidence in speaking the target language.[/quote][quote]Terrell (1986, 1991), and Lee and VanPatten (2003), have suggested that words, in whatever form, are acquired initially as whole forms rather than their constituent components. For example, the word “walking” is not stored as “walk” + “ing”, but as a whole word. It is only after many different “…ing” verb forms (e.g. “running”, “eating”, etc.) have been acquired that the brain begins to attach specific meaning to the “…ing” form. So this implies that even for the acquisition of grammar, it is very important to learn a good range of vocabulary.[/quote][quote]Learners can use the kind of metalinguistic knowledge described above to produce grammatically correct language in situations where they have the time and will to access it, for example written tests of discrete grammar points. They can also use this knowledge to edit language as they produce it, even in speech. This is what Stephen Krashen (1981 and elsewhere) calls the monitor function. People vary, however, in the degree of ease and the degree of skill with which they can monitor their output on the fly. Ultimately, monitoring is no substitute for the kind of spontaneous and confident production which only real acquisition can ensure. It can fill in small gaps in acquired competence but cannot replace that competence. However, monitoring may sometimes have an indirect effect on acquisition. The monitored output of a language learner may serve as useful input for others, and may even be acquired by the learner herself. Terrell (1991: 61) gave an example of a learner of Spanish who appeared to have acquired his own incorrect output and, “When confronted with the error he was astonished to learn that his output was incorrect, claiming to have heard [the incorrect form] many times.”[/quote]
I always thought he kind of put the method to Krashen’s brilliant approach, and he was a little less dogmatic than Krashen. He’s also less tarnished, perhaps by dying young, as Krashen has been with the Californian bilingual disaster and all the money he’s made as head of the cult of Krashen. I mean, say anything even remotely critical of Krashen’s ideas and his supporters go absolutely nuts.
You are nuts :raspberry:
Come on mate apart from the bi-lingual hispanic thing and the fact that he is old can you give me some decent criticisms. I’ve been waiting for some on this forum for a very long time. I know one is how to define the plus one. Another is that some of his assumptions are not backed by hard science but then again his field is social science. Can you give me some decent ones? I am quite willing to change my mind. I can’t see anything wrong with his traditional approach.
I am not interested in criticisms about him as a person just his methods and theory.
You are nuts :raspberry:
Come on mate apart from the bi-lingual hispanic thing and the fact that he is old can you give me some decent criticisms. I’ve been waiting for some on this forum for a very long time. I know one is how to define the plus one. Another is that some of his assumptions are not backed by hard science but then again his field is social science. Can you give me some decent ones? I am quite willing to change my mind. I can’t see anything wrong with his traditional approach.
I am not interested in criticisms about him as a person just his methods and theory.[/quote]
‘Krashen’s brilliant approach’.
Doesn’t sound like a particularly strong criticism to me. I’m not smart enough to give you a critique of the naturalistic approach - a theory I consider to be a work of genius - but if you want to look for critical reviews from experts in the field you could try for starters: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M., (2001) (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. London: Longman, or Gregg. K. (1984) Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor Applied Linguistics 5(2) pps. 79-100.
The main criticisms seem to be that acquisition cannot be acquired through rich input alone, language learning doesn’t have to be almost totally comprehensible (there is a place for a learner’s tolerance of ambiguity), a learner’s language monitoring does not play a totally peripheral role in language acquisition, and there has been no empirical testing of Krashen’s theories.
My view is that the man’s a genius and any teacher adopting his approach to language acquisition will do better than a teacher adopting any other approach. However, I like to keep an open mind and accept that other approaches and methods also have value and can be added into the naturalistic approach. Similar to Bruce Lee with his approach to martial arts.
You are nuts :raspberry:
Come on mate apart from the bi-lingual hispanic thing and the fact that he is old can you give me some decent criticisms. I’ve been waiting for some on this forum for a very long time. I know one is how to define the plus one. Another is that some of his assumptions are not backed by hard science but then again his field is social science. Can you give me some decent ones? I am quite willing to change my mind. I can’t see anything wrong with his traditional approach.
I am not interested in criticisms about him as a person just his methods and theory.[/quote]
‘Krashen’s brilliant approach’.
Doesn’t sound like a particularly strong criticism to me. I’m not smart enough to give you a critique of the naturalistic approach - a theory I consider to be a work of genius - but if you want to look for critical reviews from experts in the field you could try for starters: Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M., (2001) (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. London: Longman, or Gregg. K. (1984) Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor Applied Linguistics 5(2) pps. 79-100.
The main criticisms seem to be that acquisition cannot be acquired through rich input alone, language learning doesn’t have to be almost totally comprehensible (there is a place for a learner’s tolerance of ambiguity), a learner’s language monitoring does not play a totally peripheral role in language acquisition, and there has been no empirical testing of Krashen’s theories.
My view is that the man’s a genius and any teacher adopting his approach to language acquisition will do better than a teacher adopting any other approach. However, I like to keep an open mind and accept that other approaches and methods also have value and can be added into the naturalistic approach. Similar to Bruce Lee with his approach to martial arts.[/quote]
Thanks for that. Just slightly off topic but what is your view on Chinese in the English language classroom (in Taiwan)? Do you ban it? Or allow some basic Chinese? Do you go for total English immersion or allow some conversing in their native language?
btw
Yes I admire Krashen a great deal but don’t take what he says as correct out of faith. I have seen rapid language learning through the use of his theories in the classroom. When I was introduced to Krashen’s theories my immediate reaction was “what a load of bullshit”. Then after about three weeks of picking holes in the theory (trying to) I realized just how right he was and just how wrong I was. However his theories are perhaps a bit limited when it comes to academic writing and such like which seems to require conscious learning.
I have mixed views about Mandarin in the classroom. If it helps to lower the learners’ affective filter it’s OK, and it certainly saves time explaining stuff. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, Taiwanese students invariably fall back on it. Friends of mine who teach adults tell me that often a third of class time is taken up with speaking Mandarin. They love it as they’re practising their Mandarin, but what use is that to the students?
I don’t ban it, I’m just quite firm about when it’s used, who uses it, and why. I may be wrong about this, though. Perhaps a total ban is better. What do you think? Certainly, Krashen would be pissed off about L1 coming up in a lesson. I think probably as a general rule of thumb it definitely should never be used, particularly with inexperienced teachers. In theory it should never be necessary if the teacher’s doing her/his job right, but life isn’t a theory.
EDIT: I bet I get into trouble for ‘explaining stuff’ 
. Shouldn’t need to ‘explain’ anything with implicit learning.
Yah for that reason.
I feel it can lower anxiety in complete beginners 
Not sure though. I will experiment on live subjects and find out ha ha :roflmao:
If you’re looking for more criticism (and praise) of Krashen, read the following post and comments on Scott Thornbury’s wonderful An A-Z of ELT blog:
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/k-is-for-krashen
Thornbury’s initial post is not all that interesting, but the following 40 comments include thoughts from Jeremy Harmer, Darren Elliott (one of the best known ELT bloggers), and even Krashen stops by to make a few responses.
The criticism that learners can tolerate ambiguity is of course true – but the point is that we are teaching in an environment that is not natural (it is artificially shortened and condensed being a class, and we are teaching older humans who have other responsibilities and who have different cognitive needs than younger kids). If you try teaching through comprehensible input, you will find that keeping it 100% comprehensible for beginners, while difficult for the teacher while s/he is learning how, is well worth it in the accelerated acquisition by the students.
One way to keep input comprehensible is through translation, either by the teacher (on the board or orally) or by students in response to a “What did I just say?” comprehension check. This translation (use of the L1, if there is a common L1) is kept short and sweet, and 90% or more (more, in the case of experienced teachers) of the class is conducted in the target language. If your administrator can understand what’s going on in your class, you aren’t using enough target language. 
[quote=“tatterdemalion”]If you’re looking for more criticism (and praise) of Krashen, read the following post and comments on Scott Thornbury’s wonderful An A-Z of ELT blog:
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/k-is-for-krashen
Thornbury’s initial post is not all that interesting, but the following 40 comments include thoughts from Jeremy Harmer, Darren Elliott (one of the best known ELT bloggers), and even Krashen stops by to make a few responses.[/quote]
wow thanks very much that was a great thread. Cool how the old master himself appears as out of nowhere! Interesting posts and all so civilized unlike most of us Forumosans (myself included ha)
[quote=“ironlady”]The criticism that learners can tolerate ambiguity is of course true – but the point is that we are teaching in an environment that is not natural (it is artificially shortened and condensed being a class, and we are teaching older humans who have other responsibilities and who have different cognitive needs than younger kids). If you try teaching through comprehensible input, you will find that keeping it 100% comprehensible for beginners, while difficult for the teacher while s/he is learning how, is well worth it in the accelerated acquisition by the students.
One way to keep input comprehensible is through translation, either by the teacher (on the board or orally) or by students in response to a “What did I just say?” comprehension check. This translation (use of the L1, if there is a common L1) is kept short and sweet, and 90% or more (more, in the case of experienced teachers) of the class is conducted in the target language. If your administrator can understand what’s going on in your class, you aren’t using enough target language. [/quote]
. I always ask students to ask each other “do you understand what the teacher is talking about”? If they say no then the students try to use English to explain to each other what I just said (social interaction) and then if that fails I explain it again using more simple words and body language.
Wouldn’t it be really cool if he popped up on here.
I have to go and cover for a class of uni students this pm, global warming to ‘teach’ the 1st Conditional. 5 bleedin’ pages of bookwork in 90 minutes. For Krashen’s sake!
And you know what will happen if I don’t get through all the bookwork. Complaints to boss: “Cover teacher, he no finish.”
No, it wouldn’t be all that surprising - he’s got an image to protect., and he does his best to manage his own brand. He’s also come to Taipei several times, most recently last year, I believe.
I mean Jesus Christ, he’s not Jesus Christ.
No, it wouldn’t be all that surprising - he’s got an image to protect., and he does his best to manage his own brand. He’s also come to Taipei several times, most recently last year, I believe.
I mean Jesus Christ, he’s not Jesus Christ.[/quote]
No he’s not, but he is a really nice guy. His website makes many of his books available for free
sdkrashen.com/
and his more recent books, like The Power of Reading, are just plain common sense.
He has also responded to Jill Stewart’s criticism, some of which you can find reproduced here.
texasedequity.blogspot.com/2005/ … warts.html
wow. the 70’s must have been great.
[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“ironlady”]The criticism that learners can tolerate ambiguity is of course true – but the point is that we are teaching in an environment that is not natural (it is artificially shortened and condensed being a class, and we are teaching older humans who have other responsibilities and who have different cognitive needs than younger kids). If you try teaching through comprehensible input, you will find that keeping it 100% comprehensible for beginners, while difficult for the teacher while s/he is learning how, is well worth it in the accelerated acquisition by the students.
One way to keep input comprehensible is through translation, either by the teacher (on the board or orally) or by students in response to a “What did I just say?” comprehension check. This translation (use of the L1, if there is a common L1) is kept short and sweet, and 90% or more (more, in the case of experienced teachers) of the class is conducted in the target language. If your administrator can understand what’s going on in your class, you aren’t using enough target language. [/quote]
The problem being, of course, that the question “do you understand?” is often meaningless. If the student does understand, fine – but you have only his own stated belief that he does to go on, no real feedback. Often someone believes he does understand, but what he understood is not the meaning that was conveyed in the original sentence. If the student does not understand, he is relying on another learner to explain. If (and that is a big if) the 2nd learner did understand, he can explain, but how good is the language he will be explaining with? This is the input the first – confused – student has to deal with. What the confused student needs is more comprehensible input that is reliably correct and which is aimed specifically at him and his comprehension.
I am utterly against group work for the sake of group work – by which I mean group work without good input. Having students “work together” for conversation looks great, but all it is doing is reinforcing errors and stacking up questions. Reading, maybe – at least they are working from a correct text. But students do not learn correct language from other students who do not know correct language.
. I always ask students to ask each other “do you understand what the teacher is talking about”? If they say no then the students try to use English to explain to each other what I just said (social interaction) and then if that fails I explain it again using more simple words and body language.[/quote]
[quote=“ironlady”][quote=“fenlander”][quote=“ironlady”]The criticism that learners can tolerate ambiguity is of course true – but the point is that we are teaching in an environment that is not natural (it is artificially shortened and condensed being a class, and we are teaching older humans who have other responsibilities and who have different cognitive needs than younger kids). If you try teaching through comprehensible input, you will find that keeping it 100% comprehensible for beginners, while difficult for the teacher while s/he is learning how, is well worth it in the accelerated acquisition by the students.
One way to keep input comprehensible is through translation, either by the teacher (on the board or orally) or by students in response to a “What did I just say?” comprehension check. This translation (use of the L1, if there is a common L1) is kept short and sweet, and 90% or more (more, in the case of experienced teachers) of the class is conducted in the target language. If your administrator can understand what’s going on in your class, you aren’t using enough target language. [/quote]
The problem being, of course, that the question “do you understand?” is often meaningless. If the student does understand, fine – but you have only his own stated belief that he does to go on, no real feedback. Often someone believes he does understand, but what he understood is not the meaning that was conveyed in the original sentence. If the student does not understand, he is relying on another learner to explain. If (and that is a big if) the 2nd learner did understand, he can explain, but how good is the language he will be explaining with? This is the input the first – confused – student has to deal with. What the confused student needs is more comprehensible input that is reliably correct and which is aimed specifically at him and his comprehension.
I am utterly against group work for the sake of group work – by which I mean group work without good input. Having students “work together” for conversation looks great, but all it is doing is reinforcing errors and stacking up questions. Reading, maybe – at least they are working from a correct text. But students do not learn correct language from other students who do not know correct language.
. I always ask students to ask each other “do you understand what the teacher is talking about”? If they say no then the students try to use English to explain to each other what I just said (social interaction) and then if that fails I explain it again using more simple words and body language.[/quote][/quote]
I see what you are saying and you are making very valid points. When i ask students to ask each other if they understand it is in a small group class when I am constantly paying attention to what they are saying. After they have finished explaining to each other I then explain again to make sure there was no mis-understanding (try to anyway). Students communicating with each other can result in increased comprehensible input because a good cram school will only place students of a similar level together in one class. Although each student will be at a similar level they will all know some words or phrases that the other does not therefore providing some comprehensible input to each other while using communicative language. This allows for learning through communication with ones peers (social interaction). Therefore they are getting comprehensible input from the teacher in the “correct” form and comprehensible input form the peers (sometimes correct and sometimes “incorrect”).
Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for communication purposes. Talking to your peer in a group situation is very much a social interaction and from what I have observed very much less stressful (bar the first class) than when talking with the teacher.
I suppose if you’re following a ‘strong’ version of Krashen’s theories then all the input should come from the native English speaking teacher, with no group work. I don’t. When learning an L1 kids play together, without ‘rich’ input from an already fluent adult.