Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Three Options: Non-targeted input, and two kinds of targeted input


S. Krashen
March, 2017

I propose here that there are three options for targeting of grammar and vocabulary: not targeting at all, and two types of targeting.    

Nontargeted input (NT):  I argued for this option in Krashen (2013).  It rests on a corollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis: Given enough comprehensible input, all the structures and vocabulary items the acquirer is ready to acquire are present in the input, and naturally reviewed. In other words, we don't have to aim at i+1; i+1 will be there.

NT asserts that aspects of grammar will be acquired in the predictable natural order as the result of exposure to comprehensible input.

Targeted Input
With nontargeted input, unfamiliar vocabulary and unacquired grammar are made comprehensible with the help of context, linguistic and non-linguistic. There are times, however, when targeting is useful – when acquirers are or will soon be faced with tasks that require knowledge of some specific vocabulary and/or grammar that they have not yet acquired and that will not be comprehensible without special attention.

We can distinguish two kinds of targeting: The first is consistent with the "skill-building" view of language development and the second is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis.
Targeting 1 (T1):
1.     The goal is full mastery of the rule or vocabulary in a short time, so complete that it can be easily retrieved and used in production.
2.     The source of the items to be targeted is external, from a syllabus made by others (not the teacher).  The teacher's job when doing T1 is to find a story or activity that will provide extra exposure to and use of the target items. Thus, Targeting 1 is a way of "contextualizing" grammar or vocabulary.
3.     T1 consists of "practice" in using the target items. "Practice" generally consists of skill-building, first consciously learning the new items, and then "automatizing" them by using them in output, and getting corrected to fine-tune conscious knowledge of the rule or meaning of the word. "Automatizing" means converting explicit, or consciously learned competence into implicit, or acquired competence.  It has been argued that T1 does not result in the automatization or acquisition of language (Krashen, 1982, VanPatten, 2016). The best we can hope for with T1 is highly monitored performance.


 Targeting 2 (T2):
1. Unlike T1, the goal of T2 is comprehension of the story or activity, not full mastery of the targeted item in a short time.  It can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. via visual content (e.g. pictures), translation.
3. The source of the items to be targeted is internal; e.g. the story.
4. This kind of targeting generally results in partial acquisition, enough to understand the text. Full acquisition of the targeted item develops gradually, when the item appears in the input again and again, in other stories or activities, assuming that the targeted item is at the students' i+1.

My previous arguments (Krashen, 2013) against targeting are arguments against Targeting 1, not Targeting 2.

Note that even when a great deal of Targeting 2 is used, language acquirers will receive non-targeted comprehensible/compelling input. This is probably not the case with targeting 1.


Table 1 The contrast between targeting 1 and targeting 2

source of target

expectation

assumption


external
Internal
rapid mastery
gradual
skill-building
Compr. Hyp.
T1
x

x

X

T2

X

x

x





Sources:

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Pratice in Second Language Acquisition.  Available at www.sdkrashen.com.
Krashen, S. 2013. The Case for Non-Targeted, Comprehensible Input. Journal of Bilingual Education Research & Instruction 15(1): 102-110. Available at www.sdkrashen.com, "language acquisition" section.
VanPatten, B. 2016. Why explicit knowledge cannot become implicit knowledge. Foreign Language Annals doi:10.1111/flan.12226.


Sunday, November 27, 2016

Turning kindergarten into a kinder grind won’t make kids love to read.

Published in the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 3, 2016

"Catch-up kids" (Nov. 27) sends the message that high standards will lead to hard work and real achievement.  But there is no evidence that tougher standards lead to more learning, and no evidence showing that the Common Core standards are better at preparing children for college and career than other standards or than no standards.

The core of any successful literacy programs is enjoying stories and helping children develop a pleasure reading habit.  Scientific studies show that children who hear lots of stories and are read to become enthusiastic readers, and develop more than satisfactory levels of literacy. This can happen at any age.

Forcing young children to study flashcards in the car and spell words during family outings in order to "master" 100 words is turning kindergarten into kindergrind.  Children who develop a love of reading will master thousands of words, without suffering.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: “Catch-up kids” November 27, page B1, B4

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The value of reading and our neglect of libraries

PUBLISHED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 3, 2016, as "Reading is a form of nutrition to the mind."
The WSJ left out the sentence about President Obama.
 
“The Need to Read” agrees with a great deal of research. Studies show that fiction readers develop the capacity to empathize with others and have a greater tolerance for vagueness. Dedicated readers also develop higher levels of literacy and have more knowledge of literature, social studies, science and even practical matters.
Studies consistently show that the quality of available libraries is associated with how much reading is done. Ironically, as our knowledge of the value of reading increases, support for school and public libraries and librarians has been decreasing. Isaac Asimov’s insight is still valid: “When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.”
Em. Prof. Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California
Los Angeles



Original version sent to the Wall St. Journal, November 26, 2016.

Will Schwalbe's insightful essay, "The need to read," (Nov. 25) agrees with a great deal of research: Studies show that fiction readers develop the capacity to empathize with others and have a greater tolerance for vagueness. Dedicated readers also develop higher levels of literacy and have more knowledge of literature, social studies, science and even practical matters.
In an interview in the Guardian (October 28, 2015), President Obama gave fiction the credit for his understanding that "the world is complicated and full of grays ... (and that) it's possible to connect with someone else even though they're very different from you."
Studies consistently show that library quality is associated with how much reading is done. Ironically, as our knowledge of the value of reading increases, support for school and public libraries and librarians has been decreasing.
Isaac Asimov was right in 1995 and his insight is still valid: "When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself."

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-need-to-read-1480083086

Sources

Interview with President Obama: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/28/president-obama-says-novels-taught-him-citizen-marilynne-robinson?CMP=share_btn_tw

Fiction and literacy development: Krashen, S 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann and Libraries Unlimited.  Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. 2014. Vocabulary from Adolescence to Middle Age. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London

Knowledge: Stanovich, K., and A. Cunningham. 1992. Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: the cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and Cognition 20(1): 51-68.
Stanovich, K. and A. Cunningham. 1993. Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2): 211-229. Stanovich, K., R. West, R., and M. Harrison. 1995. Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31(5): 811-826. Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. (2014). Vocabulary from adolescence to middle age. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London. West, R., and K. Stanovich. 1991. The incidental acquisition of information from reading. Psychological Science 2: 325-330. West, R., K. Stanovich, and H. Mitchell. 1993. Reading in the real world and its correlates. Reading Research QuCastano,arterly 28: 35-50.

The ability to empathize: Kidd, D. & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342 (6156), 377-380.
Library quality: Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36; Krashen (2004), op. cit. Studies by Keith Curry Lance and associates at http://www.lrs.org/impact.php).
Library support: Henderson, E. and Lonegran, J. 2011. Majority of states report decline in support for library services. Institute for Museum and Library Services. Kachel, D. 2015. School libraries are under attack. The New Republic, July 23.
Asimov Quote: Asimov, I. (1995) I, Asimov. Random House.



Friday, November 18, 2016

Compelling CI: ACTFL 2016



Input has to be interesting – otherwise nobody would pay attention to it. 
Conjecture: optimal input for second language should be not just interesting but compelling.

Compelling Comprehensible Input:  Case Histories
Paul: Cantonese & English speaker, acquired Mandarin from cartoons and lots of TV shows and movies, with no particular motivation to acquire Mandarin. Lao, C. and Krashen, S. 2014. Language acquisition without speaking and without study.  Journal of Bilingual Education Research and Instruction  16(1): 215-221.
Jack: Mandarin heritage language speaker: Stories of A Fanti led to improvement, but only when stories were available (Lao & Krashen, IJFLT, 2008).
Fink (1996/6): 12 people considered dyslexic. 9 published creative or scholarly works, one Nobel laureate. 11 learned to read between 10-12, one in 12th grade.   “As children, each had a passionate personal interest, a burning desire to know more about a discipline that required reading … all read voraciously, seeking and reading everything they could get their hands on about a single intriguing topic."
Explanation: Input was compelling, so interesting that acquirer is not aware of the language, sense of time, self diminishes = Flow (Csíkszentmihályi) = the end of motivation
In the case histories: language acquisition never the goal, but a by-product. It was the story. No "motivation" to acquire language or learn to reading = by-product of compelling comprehensible input
Academic literacy: My case

Language education and compelling input
A brief history of foreign language pedagogy – steady increase in compellingness
ALM, Grammar Translation > TPR > natural approach > TPRS.

How to be compelling
Compelling: meets your social needs (M. Lieberman, Social) and/or your cognitive needs (finding your path).
The power of social cognition: the default mode, the reality of social pain
Nonsocial cognition = problem-solving: Finding your path. "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away.” Pablo Picasso
Specialize: Don't go to your left
Path is long, but pleasant: not "harrowing challenges, but rather tasks we find natural and interesting, tasks we were apparently born to perform"  (Vonnegut, 1997, p. 148).
When you know you are on the path: FLOW = awareness of self, time diminish, concerns of everyday life disappear = only the activity matters.
Work = the ultimate seduction.

Social needs and TPRS: "You are going to love this class. We all know each other and like each other." (Reaction to Bryce Hedstrom's class, K. Rowen, "Personalization" in Ray & Seely (2015).
TPRS methodology:  = Personalizaton: valuing each student makes input compelling and lowers social stratification
1.     Co-created stories: students as characters, their interests and hobbies, real background: Don't just go to a restaurant, go to Denny's on 20th and Pico.
2.     Special person interview (Bryce Hedstrom): "Each student is made to feel good about the interview process, Very little output is required. Focus on what is unique about the person.
A quiz after interview five students. 
If the student plays the guitar .... how many years have you played the guitar? Where is your guitar from? Do ou take lessons? Do you play any other instruments?
And "going deeper" – What do you do that you want to get good at? How would you like to be remembered? What are some things in our life that you are most proud of?
What is your superpower? (K. Rowan; see http://www.grantboulanger.com/a-superhero-generator/). Grant's friend Tim: origin, power, weakness

Free voluntary reading – social and nonsocial cognition
Guaranteed personalized if self-selected
Nonsocial
1.     Acquisition of literacy competence; FVR > reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, writing style. Self-selection > more acquisition. (Lee, SY. 2007. Revelations from Three Consecutive Studies on Extensive Reading. RELC Journal , 38 (2), 150-170.).
2.     builds knowledge (literature, history, science, practical knowledge),
3.     Makes harder reading more comprehensible: A bridge to "academic"/specialized reading
4.     School success: Ben Carson, Elizabeth Murray, G. Canada.
5.     Helps you find your path - Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln:  Simonton (1988) concluded that "omnivorous reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult success" (p. 11).
Social: The importance of fiction
1.    In the Guardian (October 28, 2015), President Obama credits fiction for his understanding that "the world is complicated and full of grays ... (and that) it's possible to connect with someone else even though they're very different from you."
2.    Reading fiction develops an expanded "theory of mind," defined as "the capacity to identify and understand others’ subjective states" (Kidd & Castano, 2013). 
3.    Fiction readers have more tolerance for vagueness, that is, they are better able to deal with uncertainty, which is important for problem-solving (Djikic, M., Oatley, K. and Moldoveanu, M. 2013).

My case revisited: Baseball stories: Social cognition. Science fiction: both

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.