Remarks on Language
Acquisition and Literacy: Language Acquisition and Teaching, Free Reading, "Test-Prep" and its Consequences,
The Use of the First Language, Writing, and the Great Native Speaker Teacher
Debate
Stephen
Krashen
Prepared
for the Roundtable Discussion on English Teaching in Hong Kong. Bring Me a
Book, Hong Kong, October 13, 2014
Some Fundamentals
I
present first what I consider to be the fundamentals of both language acquisition
and literacy development. (What follows in this section is presented in more
detail in a number of publications, i.e. Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985, 2003).
Language
and literacy can be"acquired" or "learned."
"Acquisition" occurs subconsciously: While it is happening, you are
not aware it is happening, and after it has happemed, the knowledge is
represented subconsiously in your brain. In contrast, "learning" is
conscious; it is "knowing about" the language. When we talk about
"rules" and "grammar" we are usually talking about
"Learning."
Acquired
competence plays a much larger role in language use than learned competence
does. Acquired competence provides our fluency and nearly all of our accuracy
when we speak or write in a second language. Learned competence makes only a
small contribution to our grammatical accuracy, and only when stringent
conditions are met: We must consciously know the rule, which is daunting
considering the complexity of the grammar of any language, we must have time to
apply the rule, which is not usually available in conversation, and we must be
thinking about correctness, or focussed on form.
This
is not to say that grammar teaching is bad and must be forbidden: The point is
that it is limited: Only a small part of the grammatical system of any language
can be consciously learned, it takes time and effort to retrieve grammatical
rules from our memory and apply them, and this can only happen when we are
thinking about formal correctness. These severe conditions are met on grammar
tests, and it is here where see clear evidence of the use of consciously
learned rules (Krashen, 1981). Consciously learned rules are also of some help
in editing, the final stage of the composing process.
Acquisition
of language and literacy takes place in only one way: When we understand what
we hear and read, that is, when we understand the message. "Learning"
takes place when we consciously study the rules of a language, or figure them
out, and they become "automatic" when we use them repeatedly in
speech or writing, Error correction, it
is hypothesized, helps us arrive at the right version of our consciously
learned rules. Error correciton only shows an effect when the conditions for
the use of conscious grammar are met, and the effect is typically weak, fragile,
and often not even present at all (Truscott, 1996, 2005, 2008), confirming the
limitations of grammar learning.
An
important corrollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis is that we do not acquire
language when we produce it, only when we understand it. The ability to speak
is the result of language acquisition, not the cause (see also remarks on
writing, below). Another corrollary is the claim that when acquirers obtain
sufficient comprehensible input, all the grammatical structures they are ready
to acquire are automatically present in the input (see especially Krashen, 2013a).
For
acquisition to happen, we must pay attention to what we read or what is said to
us. For this to happen, the input must be interesting to us. It may be the case
that optimal input is "compelling," so interesting that we are not
aware of what grammatical forms are being used in the input or sometimes what
language we are listening to or reading. This happens in enjoyable
conversations and when we are "lost in a book" or movie. Language
acquisition and literay development is the unexpected and sometimes even
unrecognized by-product of compelling comprehensible input (Krashen, 2011a).
Application
A
number of studies have shown that second and foreign language classes based on
the Comprehension Hypothesis are more
effective than those based on conscious learning (Krashen, 1982, 1991, 2003,
2014). These classes do not force
students to speak before they feel ready to speak, and errors are not
corrected.
An
early compehension-based method was Total Physical Response (TPR), developed by
James Asher, which relied largly on teachers giving students commands and the
students obeying the commands, which were made comprehensible by the teachers'
movements (e.g. Asher, 1966, 1969). This was followed by the Natural Approach,
developed by Tracy Terrell, which encorporated TPR as well as discussions,
games, and tasks (Krashen and Terrell, 1983).
A
recently developed comprehension-based method is Teaching Proficiency Through
Reading and Storytelling (TPRS), developed by Blane Ray. TPRS, as the name
indicates, includes reading and the co-creation of stories/drama involving the
teacher and the students.
Focal
Skills, as the name implies, focuses on one component at a time (eg Listening
and then Reading) with an emphasis on comprehensible input. Focal Skills was
developed by Ashley Hastings.
As
noted earlier, these methods have passed the empirical test: students in these
classes outperform those in traditional classes on a variety of tests that
involve communication, and do as well or better on traditional grammar tests.
Most important, when language study is voluntary, students in
comprehension-based classes are also are more likely to continue with language classes
the next term.
Comprehension-based language classes at the intermediate level
are content-based, or "sheltered." In sheltered classes, second
language acquirers study content. If there is a test or project required, it is
based on the content of the class. When compared to intermediate foreign
language classes, students in sheltered classes acquire as much or more
language, and a great deal of subject matter. They also make progress acquiring
"academic language" (Krashen, 1991, Dupuy, 2000). I need to point out that sheltered subject
matter teaching is not the same thing as the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocal, or SIOP model (Krashen, 2013b).
Free voluntary reading
By
far the most powerful tool we have in language and literacy development is free
voluntary reading, reading because you want to. Study after study confirms that
free voluntary reading is the source of our reading ability, writing style,
vocabulary, spelling, and the ability to handle complex grammatical
constructions (Krashen, 2004; 2011b).
Free voluntary reading works because it is comprehensible input, and,
very often, it is compelling.
Not only do readers develop more competence in
literacy, they also know more: Those who read more know more about literature
(Ravitch and Finn, 1987; West, Stanovich, and Mitchell, 1983), about science
and social studies (Stanovich and Cunningham, 1993), and even have more
“practical knowledge” (Stanovich and Cunningham, 1993). Much of this occurs
when readers are reading what some consider to be "light" reading,
largely fiction.
Research
demonstrating the value of free voluntary reading includes studies of Sustained
Silent Reading (SSR), a program in which about ten to fifteen minutes each day
is taken from the language class each day, and students simply read whatever
they want to read. There is no accountability in the form of tests or book
reports, readers do not have to finish every book they start, and do not have
to even remember to bring their own book each time: SSR programs also include
access to classroom and school libraries.
SSR
studies using English have been done with first and second languages, with
children, teenagers and older readers, with consistently positive results
(Krashen, 2004, 2011; Pilgreen, 2000). For rccent evidence showing that in-school
self-selected reading works for Chinese as well, see Tse, Xiao, Ko, Lam, Hui,
and Ng (in press). Krashen (2011c) discusses some current conerns about
sustained silent reading, e.g. whether students are really reading during SSR
or just doing sustained silent page-turning, as some have claimed.
Case
histories confirm the value of free reading. This one shows the effect of
compelling reading on first language literay development:
Fink (1996)
studied twelve people, English speakers in the US, who had been classified as
dyslexic when they were young. Eleven learned to read between ages ten and
twelve and one did not learn to read until grade 12. All learned to read quite
well. In fact, nine published creative or scholarly works and one won a Nobel
Prize.
Compelling
comprehensible reading was the path for all of them: “As children, each had a
passionate personal interest, a burning desire to know more about a discipline
that required reading. Spurred by this passionate interest, all read
voraciously, seeking and reading everything they could get their hands on about
a single intriguing topic" (pp. 274-275).
Their goal, I
suggest, was not to "learn to read." Their goal was to find out more
about something that was interesting to them.
The Book Whisperer
A promising way
of combing sheltered subject matter teaching and free reading is to offer
sheltered literature classes. Donalyn Miller (2009) has developed an excellent
method that she uses in classes for native speakers that can easily be applied
to second and foreign language classes. Students are required to read works in
a variety of genres, and there is class discussion of the structure of genre.
But all reading is self-selected. If the assignment is to read two biographies,
a student can select ANY two, even Lady Gaga and Tiger Woods. This insures
reading that is compelling to each student, and insures that discussions will
be lively and insightful. Miller reports that her middle school students are
required to read about 40 books during the school year in this kind of program,
and that those who read the 40 books always read more.
Some Issues in Free Voluntary Reading
Isn't reading in decline?
We
always hear that "nobody likes to read these days" and there are
regular warnings from the media that reading is in a decline. A look at the
evidence shows this is not true at all (Krashen, 2011d). If it is not true, why
is this belief so common? Schatz, Panko, Pierce, and Krashen (2010) asked fourth
and fifth graders in the US how much they liked to read (a lot, kind of, not
very much) and asked them how much their friends and classmates liked to read.
The students consistently reported that they liked to read more than both other
groups. This, of course, cannot be true in the case of classmates because in
the studies all members of the same class took the survey.
Our
(Lee, Lao and Krashen, forthcoming) study found identical results for seventh
graders in Hefei, China. Our conclusion:
We underestmate how much others like to read and how much they read because we
don't see it happening. Reading is usually a private activity.
Will they stick with
easy reading?
There
is a fear that children, if allowed to select their own reading, will stick
with easy books and they will never make progress in literacy development. In
fact, the US Common Core language arts standards requires that children read at
their reading level or above, never below (Krashen, 2013c). We (Krashen, Lee
and Lao, forthcoming) obtained titles and samples of books that children took
out of the library at an elementary school in Hefei, and asked both teachers
and some students to rate the books in terms of difficulty of language and
content. The judges agreed: There is of course variation, but children tend to
choose harder and more complex books as they matured. They don't stick to easy reading.
The Bridge Hypothesis
Self-selected
free voluntary reading alone will generally not bring readers to the highest
levels of literacy. It serves as a bridge, building the competence, both
linguistic and cognitive, that will make very demanding reading more
comprehensible. Simonton's findings
confirm this: Simonton (1988) concluded that "omnivorous
reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult
success." (p. 11).
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) is a good example. Faraday
came from a poor family, left school before he was 13, and worked for seven
years as an apprentice bookbinder. This meant he had lots of access to books.
His employer “was a sympathetic and helpful individual who did much to
encourage his apprentices’ interests” (Howe, 1999 p. 266). According to Howe,
Faraday “read voraciously” and also attended lectures and classes on his own.
Faraday clearly never studied, never prepared for
examinations. He did a great deal of wide reading when he was a teen-ager,
including The Arabian Nights and novels. Howe speculates that Faraday's
interest in science grew gradually, becoming firm when he was around 18 (p.
88).
Working as an assistant to a famous chemist, Humphrey
Davy, Faraday immediately took advantage of the facilities available to him and
"plunged into research of his own" (Howe, p. 102) at age 21, and published
his first paper at age 25, leading to his stunning career as one of the
greatest scientists of all time.
Thus, compelling self-selected reading, in addition to
providing us with literacy and knowledge, helps us discover our interests and
our strengths.
Libraries
For reading to happen, we must have access to books.
Given access to interesting reading and time to read, nearly all young people
will read (Krashen, 2004), but without access, no reading will take place.
A major source of reading material is the library –
and for those living in poverty, it is often the only source. There is an
impressive body of research showing that access to a quality school library
results in better literacy development (especially the work of Keith Curry Lance,
available online at http://www.lrs.org/impact.php).
We (Krashen, Lee, and McQuillan, 2012) analyzed of
data from the PIRLS examination, a reading test given to 10 year-old children
in over 40 countries in their own language. We found that the strongest
predictor of reading achievement was SES, socio-economic class, defined here as
a combination of education, life expectancy and wealth in each country. In
agreement with many other studies, we found that lower SES meant lower
performance.
Access to a school library with at least 500 books was
the second strongest predictor of reading achievement. As was the case in another
study (Achterman, 2008) the library predictor was nearly as strong a positive
predictor as social class was a negative predictor, which suggests that access
to books via a library can balance the negative effect of poverty.
The predictor "hours per week devoted to reading
instruction" did not do well. In
fact, according to our analysis, the effect of instruction was modest and
negative, that is, more instruction tended to be related to lower performance
on the reading test. It may be the case that a little reading instruction is
beneficial, but after a point it is ineffective and counterproductive.
It makes sense to predict that libraries will have
their strongest impact in less SES advanced countries, situations in which
children have few or no other sources of books. Elley (1992) has reported just
that (p. 67).
A
matter of concern.
PIRLS also supplies data on what percentage of ten
year-olds and their parents like to read. It can be argued that this kind of
data is the most important: If young people like to read, and they have access
to books and time to read, they will do well only any examination, and continue
to read and grow in language and literacy for years after our programs end.
Data from some high SES countries confirms this. Ten year olds in the countries
listed in table 1 also have high PIRLS scores.
Table 1: High SES, High PIRLS, and they like to read
|
n = 7
|
HDI
|
parent likes
|
child likes
|
|
New Zealand
|
0.91
|
51
|
32
|
|
Australia
|
0.93
|
48
|
30
|
|
Canada
|
0.90
|
41
|
35
|
|
Germany
|
0.91
|
37
|
34
|
|
Israel
|
0.89
|
41
|
32
|
|
Ireland
|
0.91
|
48
|
37
|
|
Austria
|
0.89
|
40
|
31
|
|
MEAN
|
.91 (.01)
|
43.7 (5.2)
|
33 (2.5)
|
Data
from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.
We have noted, however, that in some places, SES and
PIRLS scores are high, but neither children nor their parents say they like to
read (Loh and Krashen, forthcoming). We call this group the
"test-prep" group, for reasons that will become clear below.
Table 3: The Test-Prep group
|
n = 4
|
HDI
|
parent likes
|
child likes
|
|
Hong Kong
|
0.90
|
14
|
21
|
|
Taiwan
|
0.88
|
17
|
23
|
|
Italy
|
0.87
|
24
|
23
|
|
Singapore
|
0.87
|
21
|
22
|
|
MEANS
|
.88 (.01)
|
19 (4.4)
|
22.3 (.96)
|
Data from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.
Table 3 compares the groups in tables 1 and 2 with
overall results from 41 countries:
Table 3: Comparisons
|
Group
|
N
|
HDI
|
parent likes
|
child likes
|
PIRLS
|
|
|
Baseline
|
7
|
.91 (.01)
|
43.7 (5.2)
|
33 (2.5)
|
538.4 (9.7)
|
|
|
Test Prep
|
4
|
.88
(.01)
|
19 (4.4)
|
22.3 (.96)
|
558 (13.7)
|
|
|
overall
|
41
|
.83 (.07)
|
31.2 (11.3)
|
28.1 (6.5)
|
509.7 (56)
|
Data from: Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Drucker, 2012.
For the countries in table 2, children are not
enthusiastic about reading but score well on the PIRLS anyway. It seems that they have taken an alternate
route to a high score on PIRLS, known as test-preparation, classtime dedicated
to making students familiar with the exam, as well as teaching test-taking
strategies, techniques that will result in higher scores but not because of
better reading ability, e.g. eliminating obvious distractors on multiple-choice
tests, reading the question before reading the passage, etc.. Test-preparation
alone, however, is probably not enough to achieve the high scores these
students get. Most likely these students are also fed a heavy dose of assigned,
difficult reading.
If this analysis is correct, children in the
"test-prep" areas pay a heavy price for their high PIRLS scores. The
lack of interest in reading of their parents suggests that test-prep plus
uninteresting reading can result in a permanent lack of interest in reading,
which has very negative consequences.
Bilingual
education: The use of the first language
Bilingual education is hotly debated all over the
world. My interpretation is that it is a very good thing. Effective bilingual
programs use the child's first language in ways that accelerate second language
development. This can happen in two ways:
- A
good education in the child's first language means more subject matter
knowledge and more knowledge of the world, which means that what the child
reads and hears is more comprehensible.
- Developing
literacy in the child's first language is a short-cut to developing literacy in
the second language: If we learn to read by understanding text, as proposed by
Goodman (Flurkey
and Xu, 2003) and Smith (2004), a concept related to the
Comprehension Hypothesis, it is easier to learn to read in a language you
already know: It is more comprehensible. The transfer of reading ability across
languages occurs even when the writing sytems are very different (Cummins, 1991;
Krashen, 1996): Once you have learned to read in any language, you have learned
to read. Correlations between reading scores in the first and second language
are generally positive, given the chance to acquire the second language (e.g.
Loh and Tse, 2009).
Good bilingual programs provide cmprehensible subject
matter instruction without translation in the first language, develop literacy
in the first language, and provide second language classes based on the
comprehension approach. Scientific studies done in the US consistently
show that language minority students in well-designed bilingual programs
outperform similar students enrolled in English-only programs on tests of
English reading (McField and McField, 2014), and similar results have been
obtained from studies done in other countries with other languages (Krashen,
1999; Lao and Krashen, 1998).
Continuing development
of the first language
Early
use of the first language in school will, as discussed just above, lead to
better acquisition of the second language. There are good arguments for
continuing first language development to high levels: Better communication with
the older generation, which means access to wisdom not available elsewhere,
practical, economic advantages, and greater cognitive development (Krashen,
Tse, and McQuillan, 1998).
There
is, in fact, recent research showing that regular use more than one language in
daily life can slow the onset of dementia (Bialystok, Craik and Freedman, 2007). Bialystok, Craik, Klein,
and Viswanathan (2004) explain why: they found that older bilinguals show less of
a decline with age than monolinguals in tasks that require keeping information
in mind and ignoring distractors. Apparently, the regular use of two languages
helps maintain this ability.
What about writing?
Despite
assertions that we that we “learn to write by writing,” the research is consistent
with the view that writing itself does not contribute directly to language
acquisition. The competence required to
write with an effective and acceptable writing style comes from reading, as
does nearly all our mastery of the "conventions of writing" (Krashen,
2004, Lee 2005).
But
writing, in addition to communicating our ideas, makes profound contributions.
Writing is a powerful means of helping us solve problems: Writing, in other
words, makes us smarter.
The
field of language arts has made great progress in the last few decades in
revealing strategies good writers use to do this, i.e. the composing process (Krashen,
2014; Lee and Krashen, 2003). An example
is revision: Good writers realize that as they go from draft to draft, they
come up with better and clearer ideas. As Peter Elbow has noted, in writing, "Meaning
is not what you start with, but what you end up
with" (Elbow, 1973, p. 15).
Thus,
acquisition of the special language of writing comes from reading, but our
ability to use writing to solve problems comes from knowledge of the composing
process.
A controversy that is
easily settled: Native speaker teachers
The requirements
I
think it is obvious that a competent second language teacher should meet the
following requirements:
1.
a knowledge of how language is acquired.
2.
a knowledge of pedagogy (e.g. if the
Comprehension Hypothesis is correct, this means familiarity with TPRS, sheltered
subject matter teaching, popular literature of interest to second language
students)
3.
a high level of competence in the second
language.
The
point of stating these three requirements is that number 3 alone is not enough.
This runs counter to the practice in some countries of hiring native speakers
just because they are native speakers.
A misunderstanding over
"immersion"
I
tried to make the three points presented above in a letter published in the
South China Morning Post (June 19, 2014), in which I stated: "Local teachers who can
help students find comprehensible and interesting listening and reading material,
and who can teach them about the process of second language acquisition are far
preferable to native speakers whose only advantage is an accent."
In my view, my letter should have been greeted warmly
by native speakers of English teaching in Hong Kong (the NET group). It
highlighted the necessity of understanding language acquisition and pedagogy,
of professionalism, not just being a native speaker.
Instead, the letter resulted in a storm of protest
from native speaker English teachers in Hong Kong, accusing me of seeking to
"end the NET scheme."
The problem, in my opinion, was the headline/leader to
my letter, which was written by the editorial staff of the newspaper: Students need immersion, not NET (Native
English Teachers). The headline was
wrong on two counts:
1. "Immersion"
is an ambiguous word with two, totally opposite meanings: For language
education professionals, it means content-based or sheltered subject matter
teaching, discussed earlier, and is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis.
But for civilians, non language-educators, it means "submersion,"
doing nothing, simply plunging the language acquirer into a second language
environment full of mostly incomprehensible input. This is, of course, inconsistent with the
Comprehension Hypothesis. I suggest that professionals stop using this term.
2. I
did not say "not NET." I said that being a native speaker of English
alone is not enough. The other two requirements are very important. In a
subsequent letter (July 5, 2014) I stated: "we should not prefer
native speakers only because they are native speakers. A qualified local English teacher who
understands pedagogy is preferable to a non-qualified native speaker." I
also pointed out the confusion caused by the headline. But the headline to this
letter was also confusing: "Qualified local teachers preferable." I asked the editor to change this to
"Qualified local teachers preferable to unqualifed native speakers of
English." The editor declined to make this change.
AccentAll things equal, should we prefer a native speaker because of accent? Is having a native accent really an advantage? I think not, if the local teacher speaks English extremely well.
In fact, it is not clear that students automatically pick up the accent of their teacher: sociolinguistic studies indicate that we get our accents from our peers, not our teachers. Our accents represent the "club" we have joined or want to join (Beebe, 1985). Models other than the teacher may be members of the group the student wants to be associated with.
References
Achterman, D. 2008. Haves, Halves, and Have-Nots:
School Libraries and Student Achievement in California. PhD dissertation,
University of North Texas. http://
digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-9800:1
Asher, J. 1966. The learning strategy of the total
physical response: a review. Modern
Language Journal 50: 79-84.
Asher, J. 1969. The total physical response approach
to second language learning. Modern
Language Journal 53: 3-17.
Beebe, L. 1985. Input: Choosing the right stuff. In Gass, S. and
Madden. C. (Eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury
House. pp. 404-414.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., and Viswanathan, 2004.
Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology
and Aging, 19(2): 290-303.
Bialystok E, Craik FI, and Freedman M. 2007.
Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia.
Neuropsychologia, 45(2):459-64
Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language
development in promoting educational success for language minority students.
In: California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and
Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Evaluation,
Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Dupuy, B. 2000. Content-based instruction: Can it help
ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33(2):
205-223.
Elbow, P. 1973. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford
Press.
Elley, W. 1992. How in the World
Do Students Read? Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement.
Fink, R. 1995/96. Successful dyslexics: A
constructivist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 39 (4): 268-80.
Flurkey,
A., and Xu, J.. Eds. 2003. On the
Revolution in Reading: The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Howe, M. 1999. Genius Explained.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. 1991. Sheltered subject matter teaching.
Cross Currents 18: 183-188. Reprinted in J. Oller (Ed.) Methods That Work.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Pp: 143-148.
Krashen,
S. 1996. Does Chinese literacy transfer to English? CAAPE (California
Association of Asian Pacific American Education) Newsletter, Spring, 1996: 3-5.
Krashen, S. 1999. Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against
Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Co.
Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Language Use:
The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Krashen,
S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Westport: Libraries Unlimited and Portsmouth:
Heinemann. Second edition.
Krashen, S. 2011a. The compelling (not just interesting)
input hypothesis. The
English Connection (KOTESOL). 15, 3: 1
Krashen, S. 2011b. Free Voluntary Reading. Westport:
Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. 2011c. Nonengagement in sustained silent
reading: How extensive is it?
What can it teach us? Colorado Reading Council Journal 22:
5-10.
Krashen, S. 2011d. Why We Should Stop Scolding
Teenagers and Their Schools: Frequency of Leisure Reading
. Language Magazine 11 (4): 18-21,
Krashen,
S. 2013a. The Case for Non-Targeted, Comprehensible Input Journal of Bilingual
Education Research & Instruction 15(1): 102-110.
Krashen, S. 2013b. Does SIOP
research support SIOP claims? International Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching. 8,1: 11-24.
Krashen,
S. 2013c. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and
tests. English Journal 103(2): 21-39.
Krashen,
S. 2014. Comprehensible input-based methods versus traditional methods. http://skrashen.blogspot.hk/2014/08/comprensible-input-based-methods-vs.html
Krashen,
S. and Terrell, T. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. New York: Prentice-Hall. Translated into Japanese by K. Fujimori,
published in Japan by Taishukan Publishing Co.,
Krashen,
S. Tse, L. and J. McQuillan, J. (Eds.)
1988. Heritage Language Development. Culver City: Language Education
Associates. Heritage language development: Some practical arguments.
Krashen, S., Lee, SY. 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.
Lee,
S.Y. 2005. Facilitating and inhibiting factors on EFL writing: A model testing
with SEM. Language Learning, 55(2): 335-374.
Lee, S.Y. and Krashen, S. (2003). Writer’s block in a
Chinese sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills 97: 537-542.
Lao, C.Y. and Krashen, S. 1998. Implementation
of mother-tongue teaching in Hong Kong secondary schools:
some recent
reports. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, US Dept. of Education.
Loh, EKY and Tse, SK 2009. The
relationship between motivation to read Chinese and English and its impact on
the Chinese and English reading performance of Chinese students. Chinese
Education and Society 42(3): 66-90.
Loh, EKY and Krashen, S. Patterns in PIRLS performance:
The importance of liking to read, SES, and the effect of test-prep. Submitted
for publication.
McField, G. and McField,
D. 2014. The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis
of meta-analyses. In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The Miseducation of English
Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.
Miller, D. 2009. The Book Whisperer:
Awakening the Inner Reader in Every Child. Jossey-Bass.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Drucker K. 2012. PIRLS 2011
International Results in Reading. Amsterdam: IEA (International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).
Pilgreen, J. 2000. The SSR Handbook: How to Organize and Manage
a Sustained Silent Reading Program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ravitch, D., and C. Finn. 1987. What do our 17-year-olds know? New York:
Harper and Row.
Schatz,
A., Panko, A., Pierce, K. and Krashen, S. 2010. Children underestimate how much
their friends and classmates read. Knowledge Quest, 38 (5): 70-71.
Simonton, D. K. 1988. Scientific
Genius. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith,
F. 2004. Understanding Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sixth Edition.
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.
Truscott, J.
(1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. 2005. The continuing problems of oral grammar correction.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 2: 17-22.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability
to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (4), 255-272.
Tse, S. K., Xiao, X. Y., Ko, H. W., Lam, J. W. I., Hui, S. Y.,
& Ng, H. W. (in press). Do reading practices make a difference? The
analysis of PIRLS data for Hong Kong and Taiwan fourth-grade students. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education.
West, R., K. Stanovich, and H. Mitchell. 1993. Reading in the real world
and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 35-50.
