Comprehensible Input In A Second Language Learning
Abstract
Comprehensible input is described in the following statement: “When students are learning a second language, they should be able to understand the essence of what is being said or presented to them.” Students learn more through comprehensible input than through the more common teaching methods of memorization and language immersion programs, which have students only hearing the second language without any meaningful or helpful information. It is important for educators to understand that learning a new language is not as simple as immersing a student completely in the new language, there must be actual comprehension before anything of meaning can be retained. Keywords: Comprehensible input, immersion programs, second language.
Comprehensible Input
Dr. Stephen Krashen developed a theory back in the1980s that brought about a new wave of possibilities and ideas for second language acquisition education. He argued that current teaching methods and models were not allowing for optimal learning environments and stated that a change in teaching instruction needed to be implemented. The theory he suggested was based on comprehensible input in second language acquisition, which he described in his book titled Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning: “Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in acquiring first and second languages.
It requires meaningful interaction in the target language, natural communication, in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.” To put it simply, this teaching method revolves around providing something comprehensible and meaningful for the students to relate to, such as real objects in the classroom or demonstrations that involve using tangible information. It does not need to stop here either, comprehensible input can involve reading texts or watching familiar television shows in the second language.
Many schools and educational institutions have already taken this theory to heart and use it as a practiced form of instruction. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Education stresses the importance of using comprehensible input in their paper titled Working with English Language Learners: “Most researchers agree that people learn a language through comprehensible input that they can connect to prior knowledge. Basically, comprehensible input is any message you can understand.” The paper goes on to list teaching methods that are helpful when applying comprehensible input, such as gestures, visuals, facial expressions, and building on what students already know.
Many other school districts across the United States of America have started using comprehensible input in their bilingual courses along side their already established sheltered language acquisition programs. Many have even done away with the older program in favor of these newer approaches to language education. However, even though there is wide acceptance and a positive view of Dr. Krashen’s theory, there are still some studies that have been conducted that bring a negative light on this new teaching method.
In the article titled COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND LEARNING OUTCOMES, the author describes some negative responses to comprehensible input: “…Ellis has suggested that comprehension does not necessarily lead to acquisition. His claim has been corroborated by several authors: Loschky believes that positing a simple linear relationship between comprehension and intake is not warranted. Likewise, Pica considers it difficult to find a direct relationship between comprehension of second language input and the internalization of second language forms.” These authors stress that comprehensible input does not have as large an impact in learning a second language as it is stated to hold.
Some researches and educators agree that there needs to be additional components added to the mix, such as comprehensible output with the addition of commonly practiced sheltered language education programs. These educators emphasize that comprehensible input cannot stand alone and could be more harmful than beneficial is used as the sole component in a classroom. It is stated that comprehensible input needs to go hand-in-hand with comprehensible output if there is to be any solid second language acquisition. Dr. Krashen provided a response to these negative views on this theory in various papers, articles, and lectures. He stated a response to comprehensible output is his article titled THE SCARCITY ARGUMENT that, “A problem all output hypotheses have is that output is surprisingly rare. In the case of comprehensible output, the problem is especially severe.”
Dr. Krashen throws back the acquisition that comprehensible input has little proof by stating that, “…studies show that subjects typically acquire small but significant amounts of new vocabulary knowledge from a single exposure to an unfamiliar word in a comprehensible text, enough to account for expected vocabulary growth, and similar results have been reported for second language development.” There is little second language output from students as there is, since during the beginning phase students are usually going through a “silent period” where they are absorbing what they can understand from the language instruction and say little to nothing in response. Actual utterances in the second language can take months to appear and it is therefore difficult to back up the claim that comprehensible output is a positive and necessary aspect to second language acquisition.
Dr. Krashen goes on to explain that comprehensible output can also be accused of having little proof to back up its claim, and that, “…there are numerous studies that confirm that we can develop extremely high levels of language and literacy competence without any language production at all.”A good example of a positive confirmation on the comprehensible input theory is actually evident in a lecture that Dr. Krashen has given since he discovered the positive effects of his theory. It involves two distinctly different lessons on the German language and provides some obvious truths to his theory. In the first lesson he speaks only in high level German and provides no tangible information. The listeners are expected to simply listen to the German language and learn from it what they can.
Dr. Krashen states that this method of instruction is very difficult for students to pick up on and takes a long time to provide any actual results. His second lesson involves him using simple German as well as gestures and facial expressions. He motions to his face, eyes, and hands and uses the German words for them, providing something that the listeners can relate to. When he poses the question of which lesson is better suited for second language acquisition, it is usually a unanimous vote that the second lesson provides for a better learning environment. This alone provides a very sturdy base for the theory of comprehensible input and explains the reasoning in why there needs to be a change in second language learning techniques.
The common approach of sheltered and strict second language use does not allow for students to absorb the language as many research and teachers seem to believe. The students need to have something they can relate with and understand before that can show any progress in their second language acquisition. A hypothesis that Dr. Krashen developed that has been widely accepted as a major component to second language acquisition is his acquisition-learning hypothesis. Dr. Krashen explains that when learning a second language there are two key components that lead to acquiring the new language: acquisition and actual learning.
Acquisition is something that happens subconsciously, such as when acquiring a native language during the ages of 0-3 years. A person generally does not know that they are acquiring any new information. On the other hand, learning is a conscious process, and is what a person would experience in a typical school setting. This usually involves learning the language forms and rules of grammar, as well as involving error correction given through formal instruction. This hypothesis is often claimed to be Dr. Krashen’s most impacting and meaningful addition to second language acquisition theories and practices. Many new theories and studies have sprouted from this one hypothesis alone. A very positively viewed form of conscious learning can be accomplished through free, voluntary reading.
Dr. Krashen describes this as being, “…an effective way of increasing literacy and language development, with a strong impact on reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and writing,” and provides a solution to, “…making the transition from the elementary level to authentic language use, and from “conversational” language ability to “academic” language ability.” The most important aspect of free reading, however, is the fact that it is a low stress form of comprehensible input. Students can read at their own pace and at their own leisure, looking up new vocabulary terms and grammar rules as they read through a text.
Although there are a few problems associated with this form of learning, such as the lack of “learning books” which provided simple yet challenging stories, solutions do exist and have been implemented. Higher level students create “handcrafted books” for lower level students to read until they become high enough level to do the same. Dr. Krashen concludes his paper on this theory with the following statement: “There is overwhelming evidence for recreational reading as a means of increasing second-language competence. In fact, it is now perhaps the most thoroughly investigated and best-supported technique we have in the field of second-language pedagogy. Only one aspect of recreational reading remains uninvestigated: Why isn’t it used more frequently in second-language programs?”
Dr. Krashen has provided countless educational practices and teaching methods as well as theories and hypotheses to second language acquisition. His additions to this educational field have brought about completely new and innovative forms of instruction that are proving to be a much more fruitful form of teaching a second language than the common and old practiced styles. His theory on comprehensible input has brought a wave of fresh ideas that has educators rethinking their current forms of sheltered language acquisition programs and has branched out into countless new theories and hypotheses. Even with all of the attempts to disprove the theory, it is becoming more and more prominent that comprehensible input is the most effective form of second language acquisition education.
References:
- Driscoll, D. P. (2005). Working with English Language Learners: A Resource Document for After-School Providers. Retrieved from www.doe.mass.edu/21cclc/ta/ell.doc
- Krashen, S. D. (1998). Comprehensible Output. System, (26), 175-182. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/comprehensible_output/all.html
- Krashen, S. D. (2002). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.(Original work published 1981) Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html
- Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Retrieved from http://books.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E00554/chapter2.pdf
- Krashen, S. D. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. (Original work published 1982) Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf
- Salazar, P. COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND LEARNING OUTCOMES. Jornades de Foment de la Investigació. Retrieved from http://www.uji.es/bin/publ/edicions/jfi2/compren.pdf
