Krashen's theory (1983) still up to date or outdated?

[guiguixx1]

Hi all!

I'm working on my MA dissertation concerning language learning and I found some research from Krashen back in 1983. He states that learning a language is much more a question of practising the language in real communicative situation than studying grammar. He thus claims that grammar is much less important. Here are some quotes that I took in my paper:

Throughout his history, man has learned to use languages other than his native tongue for communicating with members of their language groups and other cultures. It is unlikely that much use was made of formal grammar studies to aid in this task since it is doubtful that such studies or even such knowledge existed (7).

To acquire the ability to communicate in another language, one must use that language in a communicative situation. Communicative ability is usually acquired quite rapidly; grammatical accuracy, on the other hand, increases only slowly and after much experience using the language. The mistake the innovators have made is to assume that a conscious understanding of grammar is a prerequisite to acquiring communicative competence. […] Thus, any grammar-based method which purports to develop communication skills will fail with the majority of students. Only a few will be able to work their way through a grammar course […] finally to put themselves in communicative situations and acquire the competence they have been striving for. (16)

Even if the natural approach is not adopted in whole, we feel that any reduction of the dominance of grammar-based methodes will improve language teaching. All human beings can acquire additional languages, but they must have the desire or the need to acquire the language and the opportunity to use the language they study for real communicative purposes. (17)

Now here is my question: since this work was published 34 years ago, I was wondering if other theories had been made to contradict what he said. I'd like to keep these quotes in my work, I find this part interesting, but I'm just afraid it might be too outdated and I can't spend days or weeks making extensive research on the subject...

Thanks in advance!

[Elexi]

I assume you have read this as a pointer to critiques of Krashen?

https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LA ... proach.htm

[aokoye]

I agree with the suggestion of finding articles that are critical of Krashen, and perhaps equally importantly I'd also suggest try to find articles that back up what he's saying with regards to the natural approach method. I also think it might behove you to define what a "real communicative situation" is. What, more specifically, is your dissertation about if you don't mind me asking? Language learning is really broad so it doesn't really tell a whole lot.

[Cainntear]

Now here is my question: since this work was published 34 years ago, I was wondering if other theories had been made to contradict what he said. I'd like to keep these quotes in my work, I find this part interesting, but I'm just afraid it might be too outdated and I can't spend days or weeks making extensive research on the subject...

Wow... where to start?

Here's a blog post of mine having a bit of a go at Krashen, and with links to a couple of places that also have a go at him.

Merrill Swain was a very vocal opponent of Krashen's thinking. Any "cognitive" school of language learning is going to object to Krashen's idea that you can't "learn" -- maybe look at Pienneman's Teachability hypothesis. Then there's all the emerging stuff on the "multilingual turn" in SLA -- Stephen May and Lourdes Ortega are two names to start off with.

Jan-Arjen Mondria writes a bit about vocab and has no problem with the initial use of bilingual vocab lists (and I.S.P. Nation might say the same thing, I don't remember).

But all in all, Krashen seems like a bit of a hack with a very weakly supported argument.

[Voytek]

But all in all, Krashen seems like a bit of a hack with a very weakly supported argument.

Having no arguments or proofs doesn't necessarly mean that you're wrong.

Of course, I don't know much about his theory but I personally am using input only and I've never found "producing" hard. But I presume that using a language makes the progress faster.

[aokoye]

But all in all, Krashen seems like a bit of a hack with a very weakly supported argument.

Having no arguments or proofs doesn't necessarly mean that you're wrong.

Of course, I don't know much about his theory but I personally am using input only and I've never found "producing" hard. But I presume that using a language makes the progress faster.

As is often said, plural of anecdote isn't data.

[Cainntear]

Having no arguments or proofs doesn't necessarly mean that you're wrong.

No, but any success that Krashen can point to can be explained by various different hypotheses, not merely the ones he posits. (And the other ones actually have a heck of a lot more data supporting them.)

For example, you'll find that a lot of people who succeed in grammar-light classes do actually do grammar-heavy work outside of class. And a lot of successful learners will actually be composing language in their heads, subvocally, even if they never audibly produce the language.

This is something Krashen never addresses. So while I'd be happy for him to say "this is how my classes run, and this is the results I get", that's not what he does. He discusses the superficial details and then makes bold, unproven claims for what underlies them. It's just not science.

Krashen's reputation used to be built on the number of teachers who had gone through training when his ideas were fashionable. Now, though, Krashen's reputation is built on the number of people who cite his articles before disagreeing with them entirely. (Because unfortunately, the number of citations to your work is considered a measure of how important you are, even if the person citing you is saying your theories are overly simplistic.)

[sfuqua]

I did my MA in Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaii 1982-1986, so punching holes in Krashen was a main pastime in class.
As I remember, a main problem with Krashen is that his theory isn't actually a scientific theory. His i+1 idea and comprehensible input idea make it impossible to disprove his "theory". You had input and didn't acquire? You didn't get i+1 or you didn't get input that was comprehensible. Since neither of these terms are well defined, it is impossible to disprove the Input Hypothesis. If you can't disprove a hypothesis, it isn't science.
Some of the early, very effective shots at Krashen's Input Hypothesis were fired by Swain https://2010-soph-writing-nccu.wikispaces.com/file/view/05+Swain+(1993)+The+Output+Hypothesis.pdf

I think that Krashen's Input Hypothesis is true, but that it isn't science and that it is incomplete.
It is very cool , and I wish things were this simple

[zenmonkey]

It is absolutely still relevant in that a large number of learning tools focus on Krashen-like methods of teaching language with little to no focus on prescriptive education.

Relevant doesn't mean good - I agree with Cainntear and would suggest that many of Krashen-supported statements around the usefulness of structured grammatical learning are simplified over-statements, particularly for effective second+ language acquisition.

[Cainntear]

I don't have the name of the guy discussing it to hand, but I did see an interesting idea about a distinction between "similarity patterns" and "abstract rules" in grammar.

The basic gist is that some grammatical patterns can be seen on the surface, and are readily "acquirable" from exposure, but some grammatical rules just have too much going on beneath the surface, and you just need to know the rules. He was suggesting that even something as simple as third-person-s in English (eg he eats) is an abstract rule, because he considers it a long-distance dependency.

This, if correct, suggests that lots of the "successes" of minimally-guided language learning are down to the nature of the structures successfully acquired, and teachers fobbing off more complex rules as "more difficult" are missing the opportunity to actually teach the parts of the language that actually need taught.