Krashen's contradictions
In this post I am analyzing some of Krashen's claims regarding learning languages. I am providing some contradictions and giving my own opinion about them. Do not hesitate to comment or add your ideas if needed. These are the six claims I am going to comment:
1. Learners must acquire a second language in the same way children learn their first.
Actually, I would say that learners should acquire a second language in the same way children learn their first if they want to be proficient. This claim is quite idealized because this is not likely to happen, at least taking into account every student, just because we all have different capacities and ways of learning. Moreover, this is quite conflicting since Krashen himself states that adults are superior to children in grammar and structures, so they shouldn't acquire a second language in the same way, right?
2.We acquire a second language when we understand messages. The emphasis should be on meaningful interactions.
In this case, I would say we feel we have acquired a second language when we are able to understand messanges, but in fact, I think that this is just a little step in the process of learning. I mean, when we are able to undertand messages, our confidence towards language increases, so we are able to develop our skills quickly. I think it is a matter of motivation and development.
I completely agree with the statement by Krashen and Terrell which states that acquisition can take place only when people understand messages in the target language.
3. Getting the right level is crucial. Comprehensible input needs to be at the right level, which is 'i+1'.
Always the right level is crucial, but I think it depends on who we are referring to. This means that every student has different needs and learning styles. In this sense, this pattern may work for a proficient student, but it is not the suitable one for a beginner. Krashen also argues that it deals with acquisition because this occurs subconsciously attending to comprehensible input in spontaneous communication.
4. Acquistion decreases if we are under stress or experience anxiety. Children learn more easily because their anxiety rate is lower.
I need to say I agree with this statement. If the student feels stress or anxiety when learning, their experience of learning will be unlikely to happen. This means that the student will be blocked by this fear and it would be harder for them to acquire knowledge. However, children are unlikely to feel stress or anxiety because they react unconciously to language, so they sound more natural and they are not afraid of their mistakes. Thus, we need to encourage our students for failure because it would reduce this fear of stress or anxiety.
5. Grammar cannot be explained. Students can only notice grammar once they have internalized, the students draw upon a repertoire of acquired language.
Obviously, grammar can be explained and taught if the student is learning a language. In the acquired system, the student will apply the same rules they use in their mother tongue, which is a natural and unconcious process. However, if the student is learning a language, they will do it in a conscious manner related to instruction, so their teacher will explain them grammar, probably relating it to their mother tongue so it can be internalized easily.
6. The grammar and vocabulary of language can only be acquired in a natural way. Unless students are ready, they won't acquire them.
Similarly, we can relate this statement to the previous one. A student can acquire language when they are being taught. Acquisition is a natural process that you are not aware you are learning, whereas learning is a concious process that involves effort. In fact, both are necessary to learn language although they work independently from each other.
What do you think?
Cheers
1. Learners must acquire a second language in the same way children learn their first.
Actually, I would say that learners should acquire a second language in the same way children learn their first if they want to be proficient. This claim is quite idealized because this is not likely to happen, at least taking into account every student, just because we all have different capacities and ways of learning. Moreover, this is quite conflicting since Krashen himself states that adults are superior to children in grammar and structures, so they shouldn't acquire a second language in the same way, right?
2.We acquire a second language when we understand messages. The emphasis should be on meaningful interactions.
In this case, I would say we feel we have acquired a second language when we are able to understand messanges, but in fact, I think that this is just a little step in the process of learning. I mean, when we are able to undertand messages, our confidence towards language increases, so we are able to develop our skills quickly. I think it is a matter of motivation and development.
I completely agree with the statement by Krashen and Terrell which states that acquisition can take place only when people understand messages in the target language.
3. Getting the right level is crucial. Comprehensible input needs to be at the right level, which is 'i+1'.
Always the right level is crucial, but I think it depends on who we are referring to. This means that every student has different needs and learning styles. In this sense, this pattern may work for a proficient student, but it is not the suitable one for a beginner. Krashen also argues that it deals with acquisition because this occurs subconsciously attending to comprehensible input in spontaneous communication.
4. Acquistion decreases if we are under stress or experience anxiety. Children learn more easily because their anxiety rate is lower.
I need to say I agree with this statement. If the student feels stress or anxiety when learning, their experience of learning will be unlikely to happen. This means that the student will be blocked by this fear and it would be harder for them to acquire knowledge. However, children are unlikely to feel stress or anxiety because they react unconciously to language, so they sound more natural and they are not afraid of their mistakes. Thus, we need to encourage our students for failure because it would reduce this fear of stress or anxiety.
5. Grammar cannot be explained. Students can only notice grammar once they have internalized, the students draw upon a repertoire of acquired language.
Obviously, grammar can be explained and taught if the student is learning a language. In the acquired system, the student will apply the same rules they use in their mother tongue, which is a natural and unconcious process. However, if the student is learning a language, they will do it in a conscious manner related to instruction, so their teacher will explain them grammar, probably relating it to their mother tongue so it can be internalized easily.
6. The grammar and vocabulary of language can only be acquired in a natural way. Unless students are ready, they won't acquire them.
Similarly, we can relate this statement to the previous one. A student can acquire language when they are being taught. Acquisition is a natural process that you are not aware you are learning, whereas learning is a concious process that involves effort. In fact, both are necessary to learn language although they work independently from each other.
What do you think?
Cheers
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario