Krashen crashes his future (makes mistakes in Spanish)

[Saim]

It is possible to pass for a native from a different region, or to be slightly foreign but not enough to make natives stop to think about it instead of just carrying on. And it is possible even without living in the country and with one's studies being partially traditional. It is hard, even though not impossible, and I cannot imagine how is not learning the grammar supposed to help.

Just to clarify: I totally agree with you here! I meant the "probability" of most L2 speakers passing as natives given their current accent, not the probability that someone who really wanted to could acquire a near-native accent given the right methods. I was responding to the poster on Reddit's appraisal of the Arabic learner in the video's current (in)ability to pass as a native.

[Cavesa]

It is possible to pass for a native from a different region, or to be slightly foreign but not enough to make natives stop to think about it instead of just carrying on. And it is possible even without living in the country and with one's studies being partially traditional. It is hard, even though not impossible, and I cannot imagine how is not learning the grammar supposed to help.

Just to clarify: I totally agree with you here! I meant the "probability" of most L2 speakers passing as natives given their current accent, not the probability that someone who really wanted to could acquire a near-native accent given the right methods. I was responding to the poster on Reddit's appraisal of the Arabic learner in the video's current (in)ability to pass as a native.

Ah, sorry, glad to be corrected.

Yes, I agree it is unfortunate that people are judged so much by the pronunciation by fellow learners, especially when judged rather harshly. The pronunciation is certainly important, nothing to dispute about that, but it is still just one part of successful language learning. I don't understand, why there is so much grammar bashing and so little praise for it's mastery. Speaking accurately, with little nuances, that requires a solid grammar base and is extremely valuable in the real life. Yet, so many pretend that grammar is worthless and pronunciation is everything. I don't get it. Are the grammar exercises at school such a traumatic experience for so many people?

[Saim]

Yes, I agree it is unfortunate that people are judged so much by the pronunciation by fellow learners, especially when judged rather harshly. The pronunciation is certainly important, nothing to dispute about that, but it is still just one part of successful language learning. I don't understand, why there is so much grammar bashing and so little praise for it's mastery. Speaking accurately, with little nuances, that requires a solid grammar base and is extremely valuable in the real life. Yet, so many pretend that grammar is worthless and pronunciation is everything. I don't get it.

I don't think the argument made by proponents of the input approach is that grammar is worthless (or maybe some do, but I don't think that's what Krashen at least is trying to get at in the video), but that grammar drills don't directly trigger acquisition of grammar. I think there is a difference between acquiring correct grammar and conscious knowledge of grammar rules.

In the video Krashen argues that conscious knowledge of grammar rules can help us produce more correct language once some sort of acquisition has already occurred ("I've already acquired a lot of French so it's easy"). Krashen generally differentiates active "learning" (which can help in what he calls "noticing" and "monitoring") and "acquisition" (which according to him happens through comprehensible input).

Are the grammar exercises at school such a traumatic experience for so many people?

I mean, yes. I think for many people explicit grammar instruction is very confusing and they would be better served with a more inductive, examples>rules (rather than rules>examples) approach. At least in the early stages.

Regarding pronunciation vs. grammar, I think the fact people on the internet emphasise pronunciation and trash grammar is a well-meaning overcorrection for the fact that in the average classroom the balance is out of whack in the opposite direction (next-to-no instruction on pronunciation, lots of explicit grammar instruction). You said it yourself: native-like accents can be acquired, but most people aren't given the tools and knowledge to even try.

[Random Review]

I watched that video a couple of weeks ago I think and was quite impressed and took some really good ideas from it that I will use.

The trouble I have with some of the CI crowd is not that what they are doing is wrong; it's that some of them trash what everyone else is doing. Impressed though I was with the guy, the time commitment he put in was incredible. The way he was describing two hours a night literally as "nothing" had me in stitches. And he just nonchalantly passes off being able to afford to pay private tutors and having the time and money to take a 2- or 3- (I forget exactly) month holiday in Egypt as the most normal thing in the world.

I still thought it was really interesting and useful and he is quite impressive. Still, for me, I prefer guys like Bakunin on here that detail this kind of approach without dismissing other approaches.

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

As for Krashen, I was never impressed by his pronunciation skills in German; but unless I misunderstand him, his main form of CI is extensive reading, so I think criticising his pronunciation is a bit unfair.

I think he's a bit overrated by the EFL industry and overstates his case at times, but he's not a charlatan.
He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

[Saim]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

[Brun Ugle]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

I think if you do it by having someone describe pictures to you, it could be difficult. You either need a patient friend with a whole lot of free time, or you have to pay a tutor. However, you can do CI on your own by watching easy TV shows, shows you’ve already seen before in another language or by doing LR.

[Random Review]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

Yes, mate, there are third, fourth, fifth.... 78th options. This forum is full of people learning languages on a budget. I should clarify that as someone that has to use it in my job, I am decidedly not a fan of the communicative method. Most of my students could afford to do what this guy does (or rather their parents could) and they would receive better results IMO. It saddens me very greatly to say that, because it's my job; but yes, I definitely agree with you. Myself as an independent learner, I couldn't afford this guy's method (and nor could most of the people I know). That was all I meant. I will definitely use some of his more accessible ideas and I may even use his full method for short periods of a few weeks at strategic times (more would be beyond what I could afford). Even that will be beyond the budget of many people (I washed dishes for a living for many years and no way could I have afforded this or found the time even for a single week).

As for an example of good error correction, anything that elicits self-correction and doesn't give the student the answer is better than useless if used judiciously. Decent teachers have many ways of doing that. Anything that elicits self-correction via understanding of the meaning of the utterance and makes students build the structure themselves from that meaning is even better and I would consider it good correction. I've never taught (indeed can't speak French), so I don't know what good correction would look like for something like the above error. I sometimes find myself asking "when" and "who" questions to students who fail to conjugate verbs in English (though you have to vary things and try to trick them after a while, because they start to guess... good correction is an art form and not one I claim to have mastered yet). An example of what I personally consider good error correction would be Michel Thomas.

At any rate, I agree with Krashen that a lot of what passes for error correction in the classroom is pointless and even counterproductive. Even good error correction techniques have to be used strategically and cannot, in a communicative classroom, be used all the time. As I say, he's not a charlatan. However I think Krashen himself definitely knows that there are good, bad and mediocre teachers and to use examples that only a very bad teacher would actually do is a bit of a straw man IMO. I do think that.

[Random Review]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

I think if you do it by having someone describe pictures to you, it could be difficult. You either need a patient friend with a whole lot of free time, or you have to pay a tutor. However, you can do CI on your own by watching easy TV shows, shows you’ve already seen before in another language or by doing LR.

And I do all of those things already, dude. It took me a year and a half to reach a point where I could do that in Chinese, though. The real power of CI IMO comes if you can do it first like this guy. However that's a whole other debate.

[Random Review]

Regarding pronunciation vs. grammar, I think the fact people on the internet emphasise pronunciation and trash grammar is a well-meaning overcorrection for the fact that in the average classroom the balance is out of whack in the opposite direction (next-to-no instruction on pronunciation, lots of explicit grammar instruction). You said it yourself: native-like accents can be acquired, but most people aren't given the tools and knowledge to even try.

I think a lot of this is institutional. As an EFL teacher, I do as much work on pronunciation as I dare. More would see me told to stop.

My experience in EFL is that grammar is taught incredibly badly FWIW. It's shameful really. Sometimes I wonder who writes the courses I have to teach.

[Brun Ugle]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

I think if you do it by having someone describe pictures to you, it could be difficult. You either need a patient friend with a whole lot of free time, or you have to pay a tutor. However, you can do CI on your own by watching easy TV shows, shows you’ve already seen before in another language or by doing LR.

And I do all of those things already, dude. It took me a year and a half to reach a point where I could do that in Chinese, though. The real power of CI IMO comes if you can do it first like this guy. However that's a whole other debate.

I was talking about doing CI from the beginning. You just have to find something easy enough, like Peppa Pig, to watch. Or you can use LR. It’s actually meant to be used from the beginning. I prefer to mix CI and traditional methods like a textbook or a good FSI course, but you could do CI first and then use a textbook to get a better understanding of the grammar.