Krashen's Natural approach
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Krashen's Natural approach
Can any well-read folks tell me about Krashen's Natural Approach in a nutshell and what's basically right or wrong with it? I've heard about it a lot, but I want someone's "impartial" opinion
Szwagier's Nutshell Approach 
Good - Conscious learning of a language is not the only, or even the most important, part of learning a language. Every coursebook in the last 20 years that even mentions a distinction between acquisition and learning owes a debt of thanks (however small) to Krashen. Acquisition takes place unconsciously, is a much slower process, and is not easily measured.
Bad - According to Krashen, learners acquire language when the input (language they receive) is one step more advanced than they are capable of producing. Krashen calls this i+1, where i is the level the student is at. This is pseudoscience. There is no mathematically or scientifically rigorous way of defining what "level" a student is at, never mind what a "level" is, so defining "comprehensible input" (which means "acquir(e)able input") as "a nothing + a nothing" gives us (politely) a nothing or (impolitely) a load of *******
. I should say that Krashen attempts a definition of "level" (which relies among other things on morpheme acquisition studies, such as they were, among L1 learners... morpheme acquisition studies are no longer, so far as I'm aware, acceptable evidence).
I recommend
Gregg, K. (1984) "Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor", Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100
as the perfect antidote to too much Krashenizing. It's one of those rare beasts, an academic paper that's fun to read.
Impartial I'm not, bring on the fireworks!
Good - Conscious learning of a language is not the only, or even the most important, part of learning a language. Every coursebook in the last 20 years that even mentions a distinction between acquisition and learning owes a debt of thanks (however small) to Krashen. Acquisition takes place unconsciously, is a much slower process, and is not easily measured.
Bad - According to Krashen, learners acquire language when the input (language they receive) is one step more advanced than they are capable of producing. Krashen calls this i+1, where i is the level the student is at. This is pseudoscience. There is no mathematically or scientifically rigorous way of defining what "level" a student is at, never mind what a "level" is, so defining "comprehensible input" (which means "acquir(e)able input") as "a nothing + a nothing" gives us (politely) a nothing or (impolitely) a load of *******
. I should say that Krashen attempts a definition of "level" (which relies among other things on morpheme acquisition studies, such as they were, among L1 learners... morpheme acquisition studies are no longer, so far as I'm aware, acceptable evidence).I recommend
Gregg, K. (1984) "Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor", Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100
as the perfect antidote to too much Krashenizing. It's one of those rare beasts, an academic paper that's fun to read.
Impartial I'm not, bring on the fireworks!
I tend to agree with you that distinguishing the "levels" is a little problematic. I guess it is a relic of the Grammar-translation Approach (e.g. "they haven't learned present perfect yet" or "they know present simple but they don't know present continuous yet" 
). But why then all these distinctions into "pre-intermediate", "intermediate", "upper-itermiediate" etc. exist? Isn't that a whole load of nonsence too?
). But why then all these distinctions into "pre-intermediate", "intermediate", "upper-itermiediate" etc. exist? Isn't that a whole load of nonsence too?
I just see some ideas that make sense for me. And I am against creating ideologies like "krashen-ism" and then fightuing with the other "-isms". Isms create schizms.When I first read about the i+1 level, I didn't have a problem with it. But, I agree it certainly is pseudoscience. I think an altogether better description is negotiated language input. For example, when talking to another teacher, I'd be quite relaxed about using all kinds of teacher jargon (e.g. case systems, inflections...), however, if I started talking to my non-teacher friends in the same way I'd be talking to myself after a short while. So I naturally select the appropriate language to converse with. This includes changing complexity of language, as well as removal or addition of special language (idioms, slang, jargon etc).szwagier wrote:Bad - According to Krashen, learners acquire language when the input (language they receive) is one step more advanced than they are capable of producing. Krashen calls this i+1, where i is the level the student is at. This is pseudoscience.
Iain
Yeah, I agree that negotiated input makes more sense. When adults talk to kids they would also use different words than talking among themselves. I guess that was Krashen's main idea. And this makes sense for me too. However, I have read somewhere that "research has cast some doubt on the identity of "negotiated input" in a classroom and the adult-children speak." Now, I don't know what exactly that research was, but whatever it was, can it possibly invalidate the value of the comprehensible input for the language acquisition? Is THIS not a pseudoscience just to use phrases like "researched has proved this" or "research has disproved that" as the missiles solely intended to destroy the "Krashen's camp"???
Last edited by Vytenis on Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not sure what you mean by cast doubt on the identity of NI.Vytenis wrote:However, I have read somewhere that "research has shed some doubt on the identity of "negotiated input" in a classroom and the adult-children speak."
Some things are patently obvious. I've studied enough languages to know that Comprehensible Input has value. I'd be amazed to encounter research that convinced me otherwise!Now, I don't know what exactly that research was, but whatever it was, can it possibly invalidate the value of the usefulness of comprehensible input for the language acquisition?
Iain
Last edited by dduck on Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Here is the quote in question:
Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.
The webpage is: http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/LAU/ICL ... proach.htm
Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.
The webpage is: http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/LAU/ICL ... proach.htm
Thanks for the link, Vytenis. I don't have a high opinion of this article. It's aim seems merely to subtract from Krashen's work and adds nothing to our understanding.
The article mentions, in passing, that some research has been done, but we aren't presented with any substance. I this kind of argument building is very weak.
As an aside, I googled the phrase "shed doubt", it turns out to be acceptable, but a less popular version of "cast doubt". I learn something new everyday!
Iain
The article mentions, in passing, that some research has been done, but we aren't presented with any substance. I this kind of argument building is very weak.
As an aside, I googled the phrase "shed doubt", it turns out to be acceptable, but a less popular version of "cast doubt". I learn something new everyday!
Iain
Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post.dduck wrote:I don't have a high opinion of this article. It's aim seems merely to subtract from Krashen's work and adds nothing to our understanding.
The article mentions, in passing, that some research has been done, but we aren't presented with any substance. I this kind of argument building is very weak.
What it basically argues is that for some learners it may be more difficult to pick up a language than for others. And this in itself is a perfectly valid assertion. Moreover, this might be the aspect which Krashen's approach (as well as many other approaches for that matter) might have overlooked. However, though this is no doubt an important thing to consider, I do not believe that this consideration should escalate into a "all-out war against krashenism":). After all, both types of students would certainly benefit from the implementation of certain ideas that Krashen propounded.dduck wrote:Thanks for the link, Vytenis. I don't have a high opinion of this article. It's aim seems merely to subtract from Krashen's work and adds nothing to our understanding.
The article disgusts me too much to reread - my understanding of the authors meaning is: we shouldn't rely on Krashen's methods, because they are not scientifically researched.
I agree with your latter comment, Vytenis, that students would benefit from a dose of Krashen. In general, I prefer teachers to discover what works and what doesn't work - not rely on some know-it-all proclaiming to have found the "one true method" - and perhaps, working collectively to encourage teacher development.
Iain
I agree with your latter comment, Vytenis, that students would benefit from a dose of Krashen. In general, I prefer teachers to discover what works and what doesn't work - not rely on some know-it-all proclaiming to have found the "one true method" - and perhaps, working collectively to encourage teacher development.
Iain
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The article is a perfectly reasonable description of Krashen's shortcomings.
Basically Krashen makes various claims based on either insufficient data or no data at all. It's pure charlatanism.
Now, some of the pedagogical ideas he proposes may be workable, but that is despite his theories, not because of them.
If Krashen had simply said that you should make sure that the input the student receives is not so difficult he can't understand it, that knowing the grammar "rule" is not the same thing as being able to use the expression, that grammar should be introduced in a staged manner, and that a learner's emotional attitude towards the target language, its culture, and the classroom environment will influence his rate of acquisition, then nobody would disagree. But of course, if he limited himself to saying that, he would never have got the audience he has now.
lLet me give you another example. In Sri Lanka before you build a house you go to the astrologer/Buddhist monk who tells you an auspicious time. This even applies to the Christians. Well my friend went to the monk with the best reputation and asked for an auspicious time to start. "Six o'clock on Monday morning" came the reply. Tje stars in Sri Lanka have this realy strange quality. They always indicate Monday morning at six as an auspicious time to start building a house unless Monday's a holiday, in which case they indicate Tuesday at the same time. I was going to start laying the foundations for my house this November, but was told that November was a most inauspicious time to build a house. I heeded the advice and saved myself a load of trouble because it poured with rain nearly every day, as in fact it nearly alwasy does in November. Now, the advice is great, it's correct and well worth paying for, but don't tell me that it's all based on an astrological chart. The astrology is there simply to make the punters think they're getting something special, and the same is true of Krashen's theories.
Basically Krashen makes various claims based on either insufficient data or no data at all. It's pure charlatanism.
Now, some of the pedagogical ideas he proposes may be workable, but that is despite his theories, not because of them.
If Krashen had simply said that you should make sure that the input the student receives is not so difficult he can't understand it, that knowing the grammar "rule" is not the same thing as being able to use the expression, that grammar should be introduced in a staged manner, and that a learner's emotional attitude towards the target language, its culture, and the classroom environment will influence his rate of acquisition, then nobody would disagree. But of course, if he limited himself to saying that, he would never have got the audience he has now.
lLet me give you another example. In Sri Lanka before you build a house you go to the astrologer/Buddhist monk who tells you an auspicious time. This even applies to the Christians. Well my friend went to the monk with the best reputation and asked for an auspicious time to start. "Six o'clock on Monday morning" came the reply. Tje stars in Sri Lanka have this realy strange quality. They always indicate Monday morning at six as an auspicious time to start building a house unless Monday's a holiday, in which case they indicate Tuesday at the same time. I was going to start laying the foundations for my house this November, but was told that November was a most inauspicious time to build a house. I heeded the advice and saved myself a load of trouble because it poured with rain nearly every day, as in fact it nearly alwasy does in November. Now, the advice is great, it's correct and well worth paying for, but don't tell me that it's all based on an astrological chart. The astrology is there simply to make the punters think they're getting something special, and the same is true of Krashen's theories.