Krashen and "Krashenite"

General discussion about learning languages
Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3469
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8665
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Mon May 29, 2023 11:34 am

luke wrote:I was watching a video about Gen Z lingo. One of the "words" was iykyk. (if you know you know).

It made me wonder if hwotb exists. Perhaps it would be phonetically complex to pronounce.
Image

would you have preferred:

Parallel universe Twitter/TikTok Cainntear" wrote:Hah, you believe in KRASHEN?!? What are you, an idiot?!??!?


My biggest issue is that the world is getting more obsessed with labels and soundbites. I was responding to Sae and going into depth based on what he had said. To make a quick, pithy response that anyone could read without spending time thinking about it, it would have been superficial and therefore could not have resulted in mutual understanding.

So, what... am I supposed to abandon the idea of changing people's minds in a public discussion?
3 x

User avatar
Sae
Green Belt
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:27 pm
Location: UK
Languages: English (Native)
Vietnamese (Intermediate)
Mongolian (Beginner)
Tuvan (Beginner)
Toki Pona (Beginner)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18201
x 836

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Sae » Mon May 29, 2023 12:10 pm

Cainntear wrote:No, it is because your interpretation is highly literal and doesn't include any implications at all that you later go on to list as being implied by the definition.


You asked how I defined it. So I gave what I understood the meaning of those words displaced from any context means. But I keep context and any implied meanings to come from that separately.

But it's not implied. The term comprehensible input denotes a reified concept -- a "thing". It's a thing, so it's not dependant on context in most people's minds. When you say that material that acts as input and is understood is not "comprehensible input", that like using the term "person" and expecting people to realise you mean a person of a particular ethnicity and religion because it's "implied" by some feature of the context. "Comprehensible input" doesn't make any reference to the context, so you cannot presume that everyone is aware of the intended context.



But I also see people use "comprehensible input" as a term whilst deviating from Krashen's concept. So I've taken that into consideration in how I understand the term. And relating to what you say further down, I have also heard it said that as a criticism to Krashen that comprehensible input was already being used. So I end up thinking of the term applying to how the same basic thing has been used outside of Krashen's scope.

I wasn't saying that you were blaming, but that it results in blaming. What I should have said, though, was that it results in learners feeling blamed -- that's what I really meant. If you talk in a way that presumes you are understood, there are three groups of listeners: those that understand; those that misunderstand (i.e. think they've understood but haven't); and those the don't understand (and know they don't). The third group may well feel threatened by your implication that they should understand and experience a sense of "blame". The second group may well start to realise that they're in the third group when discussion focuses on what you actually mean, and then you've got the worse problem of "ego-defence" when they refuse to accept the actual meaning and start to defend their misunderstanding. I believe I've seen exactly this happening on this very forum, and I'm absolutely certain I've seen it on various places across the internet.


I feel this is kind of an ungenerous leap.

You asked if I felt people understand what I mean when I say it. And my answer was basically a "yes" and followed with "I figure people understand the same".

This is just because I hadn't ever felt misunderstood saying it nor have I felt I've misunderstood other people using it. But it's not something you're going to know until somebody says or does something that indicates they've misunderstood (or that you're misunderstood). But it's hard to accommodate for it until you know somebody has misunderstood.

And this just feels true for anything. If say, I was a teacher or trying to teach somebody something, then I would perhaps make extra steps to confirm and ensure students understand it. But in a conversation, to confirm people have understood would get patronising and I feel there would be an onus for a person to ask if they didn't understand or if there is a misunderstanding then people clarify, accept they happen, not be judgmental about it and move on.

...which brings me back to the fact that the term CI was invented by Krashen to assert ownership over something which teachers were already doing: giving out reading material "at the students' level" or "appropriate to the students' level". When I've said this before I've had people insisting that it's actually "slighty above the students' level" because the level is "n" and the CI is "n+1", so Krashen has been very successful in placing the idea that what everybody did before him was wrong and too simple, when in reality good teachers would do the right thing and make it just the right level of difficulty.


I know that other language methods already do/did what Krashen has coined a term for. It's why I said "Because as far as I see it, non-Krashenite methods still adopt a level of comprehensive input ".

And I have heard it said that comprehensible input already existed as a criticism to Krashen. To me, it's just a descriptive term and I don't carry the baggage of Krashen with it, because my exposure to it didn't come from watching and learning about Krashen, that's come later. I just want to use a term to describe what I mean, communicates it and not then be tied to the politics of language learning, and I didn't until I entered this thread.

It's someone who calls himself a Krashenite. I find it really helps identify pseudoscience when people who have a fundamental disagreement with the core philosophy still name themselves as following it.

How is "refold" different from the much-maligned grammar translation method?


I feel like their method employs elements of both grammar translation and comprehensible input. At least going by what I've read with their method and their recommendation of tools & how to use them. It sounds like they're employing elements of both.

Because as I see it, it was the lack of discussion of this deep point that leads to the "Krashen vs mainstream" opposition. It's at the heart of Krashen's thinking, but he leapt to the conclusion that meaningless learning was inherent to traditional teaching and he declared that "his way" was the only cure. If he had made a distinction between the problem and the proposed solution, he could have moved the whole sphere further forward. Or actually no, he probably couldn't, because it wouldn't have been an attention-grabbing, "sexy" claim. Because... guess what...? Lots of people talk about it but don't get attention, which means that it isn't even talked about by most teachers.


It's more that I am a "pick and chooser". Yes, there is some disillusionment on some of the traditional ways of learning if we're referring to how language is taught in schools, then that disillusionment comes from trying to order a hotdog without crispy onions in Germany. Maybe an oddly specific thing...but it was not long after I finished school and having spent 5 years learning German, getting good grades and having a good teacher for it IMO and I'm in Germany and I struggle to do this 1 simple thing clearly. Maybe in this respect, a shake up is needed and I understand that's what Krashen tried to, but maybe not in the right way or with all of the right answers and maybe not representing things correctly either.

But I don't discredit traditional learning methods, or mainstream ones because they obviously have merit if people are learning to speak a language with them, but I specifically think how it's taught in school sucks and it's no fault of the teacher IMO, well except in the case they do suck, which was true of some of my other teachers.

Nor am I somebody who thinks "mainstream = bad" because I generally find that crowd lacks critical thinking and I call them 'lazy skeptics'. But I do agree that problems with traditional methods can lead to accepting ideas that position themselves contrary to such things and when really both should be looked at with critical thinking.

To me the 'right' method is always the one that keeps you motivated, feels achieveable and gives results - it could be slower but if the faster method is at the compromise of motivation, then the a faster method will only last as long as willpower does. Everybody is different, so somebody could say "yes this is absolutely the right way" and then find it doesn't work for me and actually, this is one key point I find is a big problem with Krashen because he is very "this is the way". And if you came along and said "no it isn't, I find this works way better for me" I would say "then keep doing that".

However, I have insight to how I learn in general and I'd say my brain and thought processes are probably more chaotic that most people's to the point I question whether I should get tested for something like ADHD. So it has taken some level of experimentation to see what helps stick and what doesn't. Hence my "pick & choose". And it mostly ends up benefitting from methods that encompass "learn by doing" and reading, listening & watching as forms of comprehensive input are forms of 'doing' or well, using language. But I also learn by following writing prompts, by practicing conversation, by playing games etc. But if I hone in and focus on one way, it ends up being monotonous and thus unengaging. Most of my Vietnamese words have been learned by conversation practice with a tutor and those words are grouped by the topics of conversation and returning to topics helps & we also vary the sessions a bit, as we have reading exercises, writing exercises, watching/listening exercise and one in a while use a language game. But since deciding to do more, I take on the aforementioned approaches rather than solely rely on lessons.
0 x
Vietnamese Practicing conversation
Mongolian: Learning vocab
Tuvan: Building Decks & full study plan
Tuvan Song Progress (0/3): Learning Daglarym - Lyrics & Melody Learned
Language Fitness 1.5 hr exercise p/w

User avatar
tastyonions
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Languages: EN (N), FR, ES, DE, IT, PT, NL, EL
x 3867

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby tastyonions » Mon May 29, 2023 1:36 pm

Personally, I found Cainntear’s wall of text quite interesting.

I guess I’m not in agreement with Krashen, assuming he’s being represented accurately. I’m a big fan of glosses and short grammar notes to make my input fully “comprehensible” where it otherwise wouldn’t be. Just keep the ratio of English to TL content small. :-)
2 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Mon May 29, 2023 1:40 pm

Cainntear wrote:would you have preferred:

Parallel universe Twitter/TikTok Cainntear" wrote:Hah, you believe in KRASHEN?!? What are you, an idiot?!??!?

That's hilarious. Not because I agree or disagree, but because it makes me laugh.

Cainntear wrote:My biggest issue is that the world is getting more obsessed with labels and soundbites. To make a quick, pithy response that anyone could read without spending time thinking about it, it would have been superficial and therefore could not have resulted in mutual understanding.

So, what... am I supposed to abandon the idea of changing people's minds in a public discussion?

You're good. I was just joking. Thoughtful dialogue is the way to go. Humor is fun too. :)
3 x
: 124 / 124 Cien años de soledad 20x
: 5479 / 5500 5500 pages - Reading
: 51 / 55 FSI Basic Spanish 3x
: 309 / 506 Camino a Macondo

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3469
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8665
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Mon May 29, 2023 3:02 pm

Sae wrote:
Cainntear wrote:No, it is because your interpretation is highly literal and doesn't include any implications at all that you later go on to list as being implied by the definition.


You asked how I defined it. So I gave what I understood the meaning of those words displaced from any context means. But I keep context and any implied meanings to come from that separately.

But again: it seems to me pretty clear that it doesn't imply what you say it does. Now maybe that doesn't mean that it isn't clear implication to many, but simply that it isn't clear implication to everyone. My father's view as a teacher was that if one kid doesn't understand an explanation, he has to make it clearer. I've always had the view that it's my responsibility as a writer to spend more time on my writing to avoid being misinterpreted, and that if I have to say "that's not what I meant", that's me accepting culpability and not accusing the other for failing to understand. Now of course, given current circumstances, I'm likely to underexplain myself on some topics and repeat myself on others. I'm aware of that and try to take it into account. I'm not really saying that I have a problem with how you use it; just that I see the fact that you use it as a problem because it is something that I know can be misinterpreted.

But it's not implied. The term comprehensible input denotes a reified concept -- a "thing". It's a thing, so it's not dependant on context in most people's minds. When you say that material that acts as input and is understood is not "comprehensible input", that like using the term "person" and expecting people to realise you mean a person of a particular ethnicity and religion because it's "implied" by some feature of the context. "Comprehensible input" doesn't make any reference to the context, so you cannot presume that everyone is aware of the intended context.


But I also see people use "comprehensible input" as a term whilst deviating from Krashen's concept. So I've taken that into consideration in how I understand the term. And relating to what you say further down, I have also heard it said that as a criticism to Krashen that comprehensible input was already being used. So I end up thinking of the term applying to how the same basic thing has been used outside of Krashen's scope.

Well the problem is that people have misunderstood. Krashen invented the term. People say "Krashen didn't invent anything new" and people have taken that onboard as "*Krashen didn't invent comprehensible input"... he did. He invented the term to describe anything that fits into his framework and exclude everything that didn't. I repeatedly rail against the notion that he didn't invent the term, because you if you say something that is factually incorrect, you undermine your own argument -- anyone you argue against will fixate on the thing you're wrong about and conclude that the things you're actually right about are also wrong.[/strike]
Scratch that, I decided to prove my claim by searching Google Scholar for the term. I searched for uses up to an including 1984, and everything still referred to Krashen. I found the earliest Krashen reference being 1978 so looked for references up to and including that year.

Genuine references to it were pretty few and far between

No, strike that. An alledged 1968 reference links to a scanned paper published in 1992. 1955 is really 2004. 1957 is an ad for a 2016 conference. 1973 is what appears to be a PowerPoint presentation that mentions all of Krashen's main theories. Then we've got things that are incorrectly dated by a chapter number or a year. (Modern English wasn't spoken in 12 or in 7!) The term is not used nominally in a 1975 paper that says "the visual message clearly is the most comprehensible input in scenic quality determination" where not only is it "the input which is most comprehensible", but it's talking about visual perception of real places, not language.

I can't find a single source that used the term before Krashen to refer to reading material for language learners, or even for listening material. Krashen reified reading "at your level" by giving it a name, and he didn't stop there -- he deified it. Thou shalt not read grammar books. Thou shalt not use dictionaries. This is the word of the Comprehensible Input.

I wasn't saying that you were blaming, but that it results in blaming. What I should have said, though, was that it results in learners feeling blamed -- that's what I really meant. If you talk in a way that presumes you are understood, there are three groups of listeners: those that understand; those that misunderstand (i.e. think they've understood but haven't); and those the don't understand (and know they don't). The third group may well feel threatened by your implication that they should understand and experience a sense of "blame". The second group may well start to realise that they're in the third group when discussion focuses on what you actually mean, and then you've got the worse problem of "ego-defence" when they refuse to accept the actual meaning and start to defend their misunderstanding. I believe I've seen exactly this happening on this very forum, and I'm absolutely certain I've seen it on various places across the internet.


I feel this is kind of an ungenerous leap.

You asked if I felt people understand what I mean when I say it. And my answer was basically a "yes" and followed with "I figure people understand the same".

This is just because I hadn't ever felt misunderstood saying it nor have I felt I've misunderstood other people using it. But it's not something you're going to know until somebody says or does something that indicates they've misunderstood (or that you're misunderstood). But it's hard to accommodate for it until you know somebody has misunderstood.

I have personally witnessed people talking at cross-purposes because they have different unspoken preconceptions. They each don't know that the other person hasn't understood. Or if they do realise that, they say "that's not what I meant", shifting the responsibility for the misunderstanding to the recipient of the message rather than the author of it.

And this just feels true for anything. If say, I was a teacher or trying to teach somebody something, then I would perhaps make extra steps to confirm and ensure students understand it. But in a conversation, to confirm people have understood would get patronising and I feel there would be an onus for a person to ask if they didn't understand or if there is a misunderstanding then people clarify, accept they happen, not be judgmental about it and move on.

The thing is, in a real face-to-face conversation it happens organically and automatically. When we have an exchange of messages in a pub, we take brief turns and there's a rapid iteration towards mutual comprehension.

That doesn't work on the internet. If we were to exchange brief messages that weren't responded to for hours, we would lose our train of thought, because we wouldn't be in the same headspace. So we have to explain ourselves a bit more -- heck, I've had times here where I've disagreed with someone very knowledgeable and they've had a go at me for stating something they already know, and I've also had times here where someone else has had a go at me because they don't have enough background information to understand what I'm saying.
It's a tough line to manage -- how do you both keep the conversation comprehensible to the layperson while not offending the person you're responding to by seemingly talking down to them?

The logical conclusion of managing that is a polarising discussion manner -- stay shallow, and stop trying to convince people who don't agree with you. And why should you? Being wrong is the same as being bad! Wrong people must be stopped. But I would say that I'm a democrublican who wants to detroy the country.

...which brings me back to the fact that the term CI was invented by Krashen to assert ownership over something which teachers were already doing: giving out reading material "at the students' level" or "appropriate to the students' level". When I've said this before I've had people insisting that it's actually "slighty above the students' level" because the level is "n" and the CI is "n+1", so Krashen has been very successful in placing the idea that what everybody did before him was wrong and too simple, when in reality good teachers would do the right thing and make it just the right level of difficulty.


I know that other language methods already do/did what Krashen has coined a term for. It's why I said "Because as far as I see it, non-Krashenite methods still adopt a level of comprehensive input ".



And I have heard it said that comprehensible input already existed as a criticism to Krashen. To me, it's just a descriptive term and I don't carry the baggage of Krashen with it, because my exposure to it didn't come from watching and learning about Krashen, that's come later. I just want to use a term to describe what I mean, communicates it and not then be tied to the politics of language learning, and I didn't until I entered this thread.

It's someone who calls himself a Krashenite. I find it really helps identify pseudoscience when people who have a fundamental disagreement with the core philosophy still name themselves as following it.

How is "refold" different from the much-maligned grammar translation method?


I feel like their method employs elements of both grammar translation and comprehensible input. At least going by what I've read with their method and their recommendation of tools & how to use them. It sounds like they're employing elements of both.

Except the marketing tends to repeatedly refer to Krashen and then implies that they are innovating by improving on Krashen. I haven't seen references to other people in the SLA field or any recognition that they're simply reintroducing common practices that Krashen has dismissed.
Yes, there is some disillusionment on some of the traditional ways of learning if we're referring to how language is taught in schools,

The problem is that placing the blame on a core philosophy and then proposing an alternative ignores that good teachers do well with a philosophy that suits them, and bad teachers do badly regardless of the philosophy.

Maybe in this respect, a shake up is needed and I understand that's what Krashen tried to, but maybe not in the right way or with all of the right answers and maybe not representing things correctly either.

Do we give certain national leaders credit for trying to do the right thing, or do we hold them responsible for the harm their actions have caused...?

But I don't discredit traditional learning methods, or mainstream ones because they obviously have merit if people are learning to speak a language with them, but I specifically think how it's taught in school sucks and it's no fault of the teacher IMO, well except in the case they do suck, which was true of some of my other teachers.

One of the big problems with methodology in schools is a "tick the boxes" philosophy. Krashen's comprehensible input was once the flavour of the month in schools. Good teachers would be criticised for doing stuff that actually worked rather than stuff the hierarchy claimed *would* work. This is the same today. "Why ar you doing things that actually interest your students? Don't you know that John Dow (1995) said that the sort of stuff you're doing wouldn't interest your students, and that they would be interested by the stuff we've bought that your students groan at instantly as soon as you pull the book out?"
To me the 'right' method is always the one that keeps you motivated, feels achieveable and gives results - it could be slower but if the faster method is at the compromise of motivation, then the a faster method will only last as long as willpower does.

Except that learning fast is intrinsically motivating -- fast learning means fast results. How can something be fast but not motivating? If it inspires frustration, it's forcing the learner to swim upstream -- yes, you develop big muscles, but you're doing unnecessary work.
However, I have insight to how I learn in general and I'd say my brain and thought processes are probably more chaotic that most people's to the point I question whether I should get tested for something like ADHD.

And here's the thing... it seems to me that the language learning community is far less neurotypical than many other pastimes. I hypothesise that this means the non-neurotypical types are being successful not because of the superficial methodology, but because of what they do to augment the methodology -- how they "fill the gaps". That's why I'm always trying to get through the superficial and ask folk what they *really* do. What is the successful Krashenite's brain doing when they're reading "comprehensible input"? Are they just absorbing the correct meaning or are the actively reasoning about what it could mean?

So it has taken some level of experimentation to see what helps stick and what doesn't. Hence my "pick & choose". And it mostly ends up benefitting from methods that encompass "learn by doing" and reading, listening & watching as forms of comprehensive input are forms of 'doing' or well, using language. But I also learn by following writing prompts, by practicing conversation, by playing games etc. But if I hone in and focus on one way, it ends up being monotonous and thus unengaging.

I.e. it's really complicated, and people who try to oversimplify get a nice simple message that is easy to understand and that makes them popular.
0 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3469
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8665
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Mon May 29, 2023 3:04 pm

luke wrote:
Cainntear wrote:would you have preferred:

Parallel universe Twitter/TikTok Cainntear" wrote:Hah, you believe in KRASHEN?!? What are you, an idiot?!??!?

That's hilarious. Not because I agree or disagree, but because it makes me laugh.

Cainntear wrote:My biggest issue is that the world is getting more obsessed with labels and soundbites. To make a quick, pithy response that anyone could read without spending time thinking about it, it would have been superficial and therefore could not have resulted in mutual understanding.

So, what... am I supposed to abandon the idea of changing people's minds in a public discussion?

You're good. I was just joking. Thoughtful dialogue is the way to go. Humor is fun too. :)

Yes, and I would have totally exploded at the wall of text thing if it hadn't been presented with a reference that young 'uns just wouldn't get. Kids today... get off my lawn, whippersnappers!!

;)
1 x

User avatar
Sae
Green Belt
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:27 pm
Location: UK
Languages: English (Native)
Vietnamese (Intermediate)
Mongolian (Beginner)
Tuvan (Beginner)
Toki Pona (Beginner)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18201
x 836

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Sae » Mon May 29, 2023 4:53 pm

Cainntear wrote:
Sae wrote:
Cainntear wrote:No, it is because your interpretation is highly literal and doesn't include any implications at all that you later go on to list as being implied by the definition.


You asked how I defined it. So I gave what I understood the meaning of those words displaced from any context means. But I keep context and any implied meanings to come from that separately.

But again: it seems to me pretty clear that it doesn't imply what you say it does. Now maybe that doesn't mean that it isn't clear implication to many, but simply that it isn't clear implication to everyone. My father's view as a teacher was that if one kid doesn't understand an explanation, he has to make it clearer. I've always had the view that it's my responsibility as a writer to spend more time on my writing to avoid being misinterpreted, and that if I have to say "that's not what I meant", that's me accepting culpability and not accusing the other for failing to understand. Now of course, given current circumstances, I'm likely to underexplain myself on some topics and repeat myself on others. I'm aware of that and try to take it into account. I'm not really saying that I have a problem with how you use it; just that I see the fact that you use it as a problem because it is something that I know can be misinterpreted.


Anything can be misinterpreted or misunderstood, even when we feel that we are being clear or are making the effort to be clear.

Well the problem is that people have misunderstood. Krashen invented the term. People say "Krashen didn't invent anything new" and people have taken that onboard as "*Krashen didn't invent comprehensible input"... he did. He invented the term to describe anything that fits into his framework and exclude everything that didn't. I repeatedly rail against the notion that he didn't invent the term, because you if you say something that is factually incorrect, you undermine your own argument -- anyone you argue against will fixate on the thing you're wrong about and conclude that the things you're actually right about are also wrong


He coined the term and used it to label his framework. And people use it to describe the thing the term refers to and what it refers to is not something he invented, which you say yourself, teachers were already doing it.

And his whole hypothesis is his, but his hypothesis is describing something people already did.

The thing is, in a real face-to-face conversation it happens organically and automatically. When we have an exchange of messages in a pub, we take brief turns and there's a rapid iteration towards mutual comprehension.

That doesn't work on the internet. If we were to exchange brief messages that weren't responded to for hours, we would lose our train of thought, because we wouldn't be in the same headspace. So we have to explain ourselves a bit more -- heck, I've had times here where I've disagreed with someone very knowledgeable and they've had a go at me for stating something they already know, and I've also had times here where someone else has had a go at me because they don't have enough background information to understand what I'm saying.
It's a tough line to manage -- how do you both keep the conversation comprehensible to the layperson while not offending the person you're responding to by seemingly talking down to them?


Being honest, you must surely see how big these posts get and the time it takes to be careful. And I feel like I do have to try to be careful when we do not see eye-to-eye on a topic, because you often take the less favourable interpretations of what I say, so then I have to explain myself more, think more about how I write what I write. And we end up more bogged down in detail and going over more minute details.
Like how I can be like
"Yeah, I think people understand me when I say this" and it turns into a back and forth to combat an interpretation where my expectation of people understanding me is more imperative and how that leads to blame on the student or some such when I've made no such imperative meaning. I just haven't experienced people misunderstanding me when saying it, so I think people understand me.

And honestly, I think it does impede on the flow of discussion.

The problem is that placing the blame on a core philosophy and then proposing an alternative ignores that good teachers do well with a philosophy that suits them, and bad teachers do badly regardless of the philosophy.


The system needs to be better. I don't think Krashen was right in his approach here, but he is right in that there is a problem. Whenever I talk to people who have had to learn languages in school, unless they're from a country who does it well, is that it's inadequate and generally it sucked. And this aligns with my experience and it also shows in that despite a mandatory 5 years of learning a foreign language that so many people remain unable to speak a second language. And I don't think it'd be fair to say it's because of the students or teachers. I think it's a systemic issue in how we approach language learning in schools.

Do we give certain national leaders credit for trying to do the right thing, or do we hold them responsible for the harm their actions have caused...?


Both. Credit should be given where credit is due, even when you don't like the guy. And with it, accountability is important to, even when you like the guy. And people often aren't held to account. I don't think you fairly can have one without the other.

One of the big problems with methodology in schools is a "tick the boxes" philosophy. Krashen's comprehensible input was once the flavour of the month in schools. Good teachers would be criticised for doing stuff that actually worked rather than stuff the hierarchy claimed *would* work. This is the same today. "Why ar you doing things that actually interest your students? Don't you know that John Dow (1995) said that the sort of stuff you're doing wouldn't interest your students, and that they would be interested by the stuff we've bought that your students groan at instantly as soon as you pull the book out?"


And I agree, this is wrong. Absolutely valid criticism on Krashen's approach. Good teachers should be celebrated and empowered.

Except that learning fast is intrinsically motivating -- fast learning means fast results. How can something be fast but not motivating? If it inspires frustration, it's forcing the learner to swim upstream -- yes, you develop big muscles, but you're doing unnecessary work.


I said "faster/slower" not "fast/slow". Both could be fast, both could be slow and anywhere in between. And even in 'fast' it's probably going to be motivating for a chunk of it, but people can burn out, can lose motivation once the novelty goes, find themselves bored or less engaged and so on...it doesn't mean they will but if the student finds that they are with the methods they're using, then they're better off changing their method, even if it means getting to their destination slower, because it's no use if they stick at the faster method and find they lack motivation to keep going.

And here's the thing... it seems to me that the language learning community is far less neurotypical than many other pastimes. I hypothesise that this means the non-neurotypical types are being successful not because of the superficial methodology, but because of what they do to augment the methodology -- how they "fill the gaps". That's why I'm always trying to get through the superficial and ask folk what they *really* do. What is the successful Krashenite's brain doing when they're reading "comprehensible input"? Are they just absorbing the correct meaning or are the actively reasoning about what it could mean?


I figure somebody like Matt vs Japan is somebody to ask, because he claims to be a Krashenite and that it works for him and has great fluency in his language. My impression is that he's not a pure Krashenite, so he employed other ideas but still found value in Krashen. And that may well be the way to go with Krashenism, I guess. But I cannot say from experience, because it's not how I've learned Vietnamese, just I make comphensible input a part of what I do, but it's muddied compared to what Krashen asserts.

I.e. it's really complicated, and people who try to oversimplify get a nice simple message that is easy to understand and that makes them popular.


Actually, I am kind of curious, maybe taking into account some of things I said about my own learning, what would your perspective be as a teacher? What approach(es) would seem the most sensible to you?
2 x
Vietnamese Practicing conversation
Mongolian: Learning vocab
Tuvan: Building Decks & full study plan
Tuvan Song Progress (0/3): Learning Daglarym - Lyrics & Melody Learned
Language Fitness 1.5 hr exercise p/w

User avatar
tastyonions
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Languages: EN (N), FR, ES, DE, IT, PT, NL, EL
x 3867

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby tastyonions » Mon May 29, 2023 5:29 pm

Matt vs Japan is typical of the Internet gurus claiming to implement Krashen’s ideas in that he studied Japanese for years at university and lived in Japan, then claimed that comprehensible input was the “real” key to his fluency. Was it? Who knows, but it’s far from the only thing he did before reaching his high level of Japanese.
4 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Mon May 29, 2023 7:12 pm

Sae wrote:I figure somebody like Matt vs Japan is somebody to ask, because he claims to be a Krashenite and that it works for him and has great fluency in his language. My impression is that he's not a pure Krashenite, so he employed other ideas but still found value in Krashen. And that may well be the way to go with Krashenism, I guess. But I cannot say from experience, because it's not how I've learned Vietnamese, just I make comphensible input a part of what I do, but it's muddied compared to what Krashen asserts.
tastyonions wrote:Matt vs Japan is typical of the Internet gurus claiming to implement Krashen’s ideas in that he studied Japanese for years at university and lived in Japan, then claimed that comprehensible input was the “real” key to his fluency. Was it? Who knows, but it’s far from the only thing he did before reaching his high level of Japanese.

These are interesting observations.

I saw an app on an advertisement recently. It had a slide bar that let the customer vary the monthly payment by changing the down payment. Below is a simpler example of the idea. It's not a slide bar, but it shows that a bigger down payment makes for a lower monthly payment:
down_payment_blues.png

It makes me wonder if perhaps these theories may work a bit like a down payment (say, some sort of grammar focused method) versus monthly payment (comprehensible input) over time. (One could choose whether "grammar focus" or "comprehensible input" is the down payment, based upon which one the student focuses on in the beginning).

A variation from the down payment analogy would be changing the number of payments. E.G., pay over the course of 7 years versus 4 years. Generally, with a longer payment period, the total of payments will be higher (hours invested). But, if one cannot afford a high monthly payment (can't stomach a grammar focused method), perhaps the most pain free way to get a vehicle (learn a language) is to focus on comprehensible input.

Just to be clear, one can switch what one thinks of as being the analogous parts. In doing that, it would help others understand what they think is important. To help make this clearer when applied to language learning:

down payment = that which is focused on early in the process.
monthly payment = the sustaining focus.
duration of payments = how one thinks changing the method or mix of methods will change the amount of time to reach the goal (pay off the vehicle = learn the language to the desired level).

If the interest rate were 0% and inflation was also 0%, then the longer payment cycle doesn't affect the overall cost.

One thing I like about this analogy is that one gets to drive the vehicle in the meantime. :o
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
3 x
: 124 / 124 Cien años de soledad 20x
: 5479 / 5500 5500 pages - Reading
: 51 / 55 FSI Basic Spanish 3x
: 309 / 506 Camino a Macondo


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests