Tag Archives: krashen

4 Keys to learning English: input, input, input, noticing

by

insideheadI’ve written a lot about Krashen’s ideas on this blog. Fundamentally because they focus so well on what is “essential” in language learning. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly and I’m glad about that.

I was going over his online articles and especially his seminal work – Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. I kept coming back to the feeling I had as a teacher – that comprehensible input was what students needed – needed to be engaged, on task and effectively learning a language. Not memorizing, not manipulating words, not learning grammar rules, not translating, not x or Y or z but only input, input, input – at a comprehensible level.

This is why extensive reading is so powerful in helping students acquire a language – but extensive listening is just as powerful yet so seldom done effectively. We need more of that – I’m trying my best at EnglishCentral to make this happen through authentic (but leveled/supported) content.

However, input really isn’t all that must happen when a student receives language. They also have to “notice” the language in their conscious mind. That’s when the learning happens and language “sticks”.

Krashen has a nice little article where he calls this “The Din in the head” hypothesis (and yes, yet another hypothesis). It is kind of like the ghost inside the machine. Meaning, when language is received, there is a “din” that goes off which links the input to something “there”. Scaffolding is achieved and the language rooted when the language is put into a context. What is this “din”?

Essentially it is the student’s bell/brain sparking and going off. An involuntary mental rehearsal of the language. Students notice language. They are no longer fish in water but fish that know they are in water! They take the received and convert it to something and somewhere that it can be produced. It may be relating the incoming language to a known form or L1. It may be repeating it. It may be thinking a thought of something it relates to. It may be a lot of things this din – but it is important. Everything isn’t just input – there has to be some ghost in the machine doing its thing.

Here’s what Krashen says,

“The Din in the Head hypothesis claims that the din is the result of stimulation of the language acquisition device, a sign that language acquisition is taking place (Krashen, 1983).I noted that the Din experience correlates with less reluctance to speak the language, but did not make any hypothesis about a sudden “critical stage” that leads to a “sudden and massive restructuring” as de Bos claims (p. 173). ”

So what does this mean for the working Joe teacher?

I think it means that we have to create curriculum that is contextualized strongly and thus offers “comprehensibility”. I think it means we have to think more about the input that happens in our classes and how we can create regularity of it. I think we have to think about how we might get our students to do some metacognitive activities and start practicing “thinking about language”.

I know it is a long shot but maybe we can try to get this “din” activating more often in our students?

To end. Here’s a screencast I made of the new EnglishCentral “hidden task” feature. Basically a listening cloze activity. I think this kind of activity can support our efforts to activate this “din inside the head”.

Know – Do / Learn – Acquire

by

teach me

As a teacher trainer, there is one “theoretical” thing I really want all new teachers to believe and understand. It is the difference between “knowing” a language and “doing” a language. Further, the implications that suggests for our classroom practices.

In general speak, we use the word “learn” quite liberally. It is a fuzzy word and covers a lot of territory. It can mean what is supposed to happen at school, which might be just the act of sitting in a classroom, “I’m at school, I’m learning.”  It might mean the ability to recall facts and information. “Today, I learned that E=MC2″  It might mean that you can apply knowledge and have “learned” to do something. “Look, I’m driving! I’ve learned to drive.”

However, “learning”  is much  fuzzier than these examples make it appear. Why? Well, learning is something we do all the time. There is no off button for human experience. To live is to learn and most of the above examples represent a specific  subjective pigeon-holing of what learning means. A cultural  and institutional definition, if you will.

A kid plays plays a video game – he is learning. A woman bakes a cake she has made a thousand times – she is learning. I am writing this, I am learning.  We are ALWAYS learning.  So when a teacher tells me – “My students aren’t learning.”  I really have to suggest that yes they are learning, just not what the teacher intended!

In TESOL though, learning has a much narrower definition (thank god!).  It is this that teachers should be well aware of - Learning vs Acquiring a language.

Stephen Krashen popularized this ancient distinction between “knowing” and “understanding” with his Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. He states,

“Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language – natural communication – in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”

Krashen believes we can’t learn a language. Learning is only “having knowledge of” a language. For example, we all can think of a student who “knows” a lot of English and has an amazing TOEIC score yet can’t meaningfully communicate his/her thoughts. For Krashen, they have “learned” English but they haven’t “acquired” English. Think of it like the distinction between “hear” and “listen”. I can hear someone but I don’t necessarily need to listen. Listening, like acquiring, requires a whole new kind of brain activity, something much fuller and deeper.

I hate the word – acquire. It is beyond me why academia must couch all their terms in such stiff, mechanical and scientific language (when it is anything but more precise). I prefer “do” a language. We can “know” a language but when we are fluent, we can “do” a language. And unlike Krashen, I believe there is a gradient between the two. There isn’t as he later developed in his Natural Approach, a dark space between the two.

We do “monitor” language, but this can also lead to acquisition. There are many ways to get to fluency and teachers know this – many academics don’t. We do what works, they suggest what doesn’t. I won’t pontificate any longer – if you are interested in a critique of Krashen’s Acquisition hypothesis, no better place than Timothy Mason’s great post.

So, what are the implications for us teachers?

Well, we have to mix it up. Students need authentic models and communication in order to “do” language. They need the “real” and as teachers, we should constantly try to bring reality into the testing ground that is our classroom. Students need A Lot of tasks and activities where they must communicate real meaning. In a nutshell – the main course is CLT (Communicative Language Teaching). However, that doesn’t mean we can’t fortify this meal with grammar lessons, testing, conscious “learning” of a language. We can and we must. It too has a role. Without the “knowing” – we can’t ever get to “doing”. For example – beginning students have to memorize language!!!!! You can’t skip this. As a teacher, I stand by this claim. If not, you’ll only go from nothing to nothing.

But as teachers – we need to remember this vital distinction between “knowing” and “doing” language. It is the steering wheel that should guide us through the “learning” course.