Plenary "Controversies and issues in language teaching..." by Stephen Krashen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 кві 2015
- Dr. Stephen Krashen
Stephen Krashen is is best known for developing the first comprehensive theory of second language acquisition, introducing the concept of sheltered subject matter teaching, and as the co-inventor of the Natural Approach to foreign language teaching. He has also contributed to theory and application in the area of bilingual education, and has done important work in the area of reading. He holds a PhD in Linguistics from UCLA, was the 1977 Incline Bench Press champion of Venice Beach and holds a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. His recent papers can be found at www.sdkrashen.com (free download).
my left ear, loved it
My colleagues are off to an English Teaching Conference this week. Instead of that I watched this plenary and saved myself the whole weekend and $500.
i am doing what he says and i found his hypothesis are really working and extremely good.
he has changed my life
he has given me the right direction.
he is my exampler.
His English is quite comprehensible, his method of explanation is also very lucid. An ideal speaker of international fame.
He has a great sense of humor, but it took his audience almost half an hour to figure it out. Great presentation!
What a brilliant lecture! Every word is worth it! Thank you, Doctor
I know each words don't enough to thank you About this incredible presention.. I feel a proud to myself because as one of your students to study and read your different hypothesises Dr. Stephen krashen Thanks alot our shining professor.
💙🌏
Good video! Thanks to the author for his good work! I'd like to recommend Yuri Ivantsiv's practice book Polyglot's Notes: Practical Tips for Learning a Foreign Language. This book has many useful methods for learning a foreign language, how to develop your memory, how to memorize words, learn grammar, quickly learn to speak, read and write. All recommend this excellent book! Good luck to everyone in learning a foreign language!
I am learning so much from him...wow. Awesome.
Awesome. Life changing. Thank you.
Hey, it sounds like he is taking about writing. I clicked on the link because it says Controversies and Issues in Language Teaching. Hmm. Anyway, I am happy I did. I am still learning something valuable.
OMG. I so enjoy your lectures, and keep you in my prayers I (we) want you to be around dor a long, long time because we need you! God bless you and keep you with us healthy and strong!!
I think he sets up a straw man when he discusses grammar. Personally I enjoy grammar and use it in language learning. He characterises grammar as the real-time processing of rules, which we can all agree is impractical. But surely the useful way to use grammar is to use it to identify useful and reusable patterns and play with them with writing and speech till they become automatic. No-one would argue that this is a substitute for massive input, but I find that it can accelerate the internalisation of the basic communicative patterns - patterns that would be much slower to develop through pure induction.
I have a question, how deaf people get comprehensible input? How they learn the language?
If it's a sign language, they watch. If not, they probably focused on writing. (You can learn new grammar entirely from writting - if you're comfortable using emojis then you already have)
Deaf people can learn speach + lip reading but it's a pain in the butt and definitely not ideal for a first language
This means they might think in sign - odd, but nowhere near the oddest things the brain can do
Grammar is like music theory... You can totally learn to jam without it, but if you want to explain what you are doing and why, then you need it. But, let's be honest, most folks just speak and couldn't care less the theory behind why they say what they do. I might go so far as to say that grammar isn't really there to help you speak but to show you how much smarter your teacher is than you are...
31:20 Grammar
what does this have to do with language acquisition?
Comments by Lewis made sense. One needs to know the rules of grammar as well as reading to acquire any languages well. Dr Krashen is pursuing his thesis that comprehensive input is all important - a lopsided view.
Mr. Krashen, I'm NOT well read and I know, with zero trouble, the difference between it's and its; what say you good sir?
He might reply that capitalising the word 'not,' leaving an extra space between 'I' and 'know', and not putting a comma after 'you' might highlight the fact that you need to read more.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about - full of hot air. It should be obvious to anyone that grammar rules are needed to be able to speak correctly from the very start and that, like anything we learn, whether it be how to swim or how to cook, the more often we repeat an action or say something, the less we have to think about the rule. Do you really think that Michael Phelps won dozens of Olympic gold medals by thinking about each and every movement his body was amking in the pool? No, it just becomes automatic after a while and you no longer need to think about it. Resorting to the rule when you make a mistake is too late - it's far easier to ensure that a student starts off on the right foot than to correct engrained mistakes. If people learn to speak languages proficiently as he suggests they do, migrants all over the world would become fluent L2 speakers because they are continually exposed to L2, but we all know that is far from the truth. Making an active effort to understnad the mechanics of whatever we're leaning can help us make progress more quickly.
I wonder if after a year you still think this.
Relating language learning to swimming is a straw man.
Refining muscle control is a very different task than language learning.
Grammar is a set of rules about how a language is used by people. It is a description of how the language is used, it is not responsible for creating the language. Though sometimes people of power can force a grammar rule into the language.
If you were to compare language to any skill I think art would get much closer. As in art, unlike a motor skill, you have to express an idea. And, like language, some of the best artist have a lot of time spent on getting good input.
As a final point of interest, there are schools in Taiwan that teach with only comprehensible input. They do not pick up a textbook. I have not a notion of how efficient they are in learning, but that is a case of language learning with no grammar study required.
I think your analogy doesn't quite track properly, so I'll try to amend it:
Comprehensible input is the swimming, and "thinking about each and every movement (of) his body in the pool" is explicit grammar instruction.
There is a world of difference between actually learning grammar versus listening to someone's explanation of grammar rules, and there is very little evidence that the latter can become the former. What is clear, though, is that people develop a functional understanding of grammar just from being exposed to comprehensible input - the same way you learned your first language.
As you implied in your comment, we actually don't resort to grammar rules when we speak or write; on the contrary, we know these patterns intuitively and subconsciously. But just as Michael Phelps' intuitive understanding of how his muscles operate in the water is something completely different from an abstract linguistic 'explanation' of body mechanics, our understanding of deep language grammar is something completely different from a language teacher or textbook's crude, abstract 'explanation' of grammar forms. And the latter does not 'become' the former through practice. Michael Phelps didn't "practice" abstract explanations of body mechanics - he practiced moving his muscles through the water. His intuitive understanding of how his muscles feel and work is not the same thing as a physiologist's abstract linguistic 'representation' of how those muscles work.
Now, Michael Phelps is a smart guy and an extremely high level swimmer (obviously)... so he has likely developed a lot of 'meta' information about his body and muscles such that he is quickly able to translate a physiologist's abstract explanation into the reality of how his muscles move and feel. In somewhat the same way - and in my personal opinion as a language instructor - grammar explanations can be very useful to non-beginner language learners... IF they are directed toward helping a student comprehend some particular meaning from something they're listening to or reading.
But explaining abstract grammar rules purely with the goal of having people "understand" the grammar of a language from those explanations... that is like sitting a swimmer down in a classroom and explaining body mechanics to them for days on end before they're ever allowed to touch the water. When they finally get in the water, do you think they'll be a better swimmer than someone who spent all that time swimming?
Now, some will say that the analogy of swimming is bad in the first place and that there are problems with conceiving of a language as a 'skill' to be practiced. I think that's true (see @Collin Ames excellent post above, about how "grammar rules" aren't REALLY how language is created/conceived). But I also think that the analogy CAN track... as long as we realize that 'practicing' a language really means "understanding the meaning of the language we read and hear", rather than "speaking and writing".
@@alfred0231 Great post!