actfl plenary 2016

Stephen Krashen  www.sdkrashen.com, skrashen (twitter)

The comprehension hypothesis: We acquire language when we understand what we hear or read: "skills" (grammar, vocabulary) are the RESULT.  (win-win)

Rival: Skill-building hypothesis: we first learn rules consciously, practice them in ouput, get correction. Rules become automatic; someday we can use the language. (lose-lose)

Evidence for the Comprehension Hypothesis

Method comparisons:

1 beginning foreign language: 17 studies published in IRAL, MLJ, FLAnnals, Hipania

2 sheltered: 5 studies, in TESL Canada, CMLR, Language Learning, SSLA

3 sustained silent reading

Comprehensible input-based methods versus traditional methods.

http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2014/08/comprensible-input-based-methods-vs.html

Meta-analysis:Sustained Silent Reading: second language acquisition

Jeon & Day, 2014: For vocabulary (17 studies), d = .47; RC =  (46 studies), d = .54

Jeon, E-Y., and Day, R. 2016. The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A meta-analysis. Reading in a Foreign Language 28(2): 246-265. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/

Evidence: Correlational studies

Predictors of performance on the Spanish subjunctive by English speakers

Predictor	beta	p-value
Study	0.0052	0.72
Residence	0.051	0.73
Reading	0.32	0.034
subjunctive study	0.045	0.76

Stokes, Krashen & Kartchner, 1998 Factors in the acquisition of the present subjunctive in Spanish: The role of reading and study. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 121-122:19-25. http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=6

Predictors of TOEFL scores: multiple regression (EFL)

Predictor	Beta
extracurricular reading	0.53
native speaker teacher	0.43
total instruction	-0.21
extracurricular speaking	-0.2

Gradman, H. and Hanania, E. (1991) Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal 75, 39-51.

Predictors of TOEFL scores: multiple regression (ESL);

Predictor	Beta
free reading/books read	0.41
English study/home	0.48
Length of residence US	0.42

From; Constantino, Lee, Cho & Krashen, 1997. Free voluntary reading as a predictor of TOEFL scores. Applied Language Learning 8: 111-118.

Lee, 2005: Amount of reading predicts scores on writing test, college EFL amount of writing does not. (Lee, S. Y. 2005. Facilitating and inhibiting factors on EFL writing: A model testing with SEM. Language Learning 55 (2), 335-374)

Beniko Mason: 1.0 = .6: one hour of reading > .6 gain on the TOEIC: 250 > 950 in 1220 hrs

(Mason, B. M. & Krashen, S. 2015. Can second language acquirers reach high levels of proficiency through self-selected reading?  IJFLT 10(2)

Summary of correlational studies

study	measure	FVR	Study	Output
Stokes et al	Subjunctive	Yes	No
Gradman & Hannania	TOEFL	Yes	No	No
Constantino et al	TOEFL	Yes	Yes
SY Lee	Writing	Yes		No
Mason	TOEIC	Yes	No

Case Histories: Vaupes River, Armando, Lomb Kato (Krashen, S. 2014. Case Histories and the Comprehension Hypothesis. TESOL Journal (www.tesol-journal.com), June, 2014)

Explains best use of the first language: When it makes input more comprehensible; eg success of bilingual programs.  (McField, G. & McField, D. 2014.  The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In G. McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.)

RIVAL HYPOTHESES

Grammar instruction: Strict limits on the learning, use of grammar: Know the rule, think about correctness, time: (Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, www. sdkrashen.com).

Studies claiming effect of grammar obey these conditions. (Krashen, S. 1999. Foreign Language Annals 32(2): 245-257; Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.)

Error correction: obvioius effect only when conditions for grammar are met: focus on simple rule,  thinking about correctness, tme. (exclude revision studies, immediate response)

{Truscott, 2007 The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 235-272. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.)

Ootput

1.     No correlation between amout of spealing, writing and competence 

2.     Not enough output (Krashen, S. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages  Academic Press. pp. 45-77.)

3.     Comprehensible output? Krashen, 2003, Explorations (Heinemann): not enough, no expirical stupport; acquisition happens without it, pushed output is uncomfortable

4.     Adding writing to reading does not increase the effect (Mason, B. 2004 The effect of adding supplementary writing to an extensive reading program. IJFLT 1(1), 2-16

5.     What writing is for.