Kraut wrote:A Krashenite lecturing to language teachers and delivering an example of his craft.
What I hear is a lot of alarm bells.
He starts by repeating all the bold assertions of is, isn't, can and can't, and implicitly states that what a lot of language learners have actually done is impossible: learn a language with lots of practice and little input. In my case it was Corsican, which I didn't get to a high level with, and it wasn't my first Romance language, but while I could have readily understood it with little work, without the forced practice and self-output, I would not have been able to initiate or continue a conversation.
He mentions using yes/no questions to avoid having to use complicated language... but where does that leave a language that has no yes and no? Latin, Irish and Gaelic answer simple questions with an appropriately conjugated verb, so the technique immediately falls apart (Welsh is worse because the system is in an intermediate state of moving from conjugated verb to frozen forms, so there's a multiplicity of yeses and nos).
The fact that most textbooks included too many words is not an argument for input.
The fact that rote memorisation doesn't lead to fluency is not an argument for input.
Talking about "feeling" the language and speaking by feel... well a new language always feels wrong, and there are issues with case marking too: for me it's very easy to learn to "feel" a word in the case I most often encountered it in when I started -- the nouns and adjectives I've struggle most with declining in Gaelic are the ones I learnt before I was operating at a sophisticated level to be interacting with all the cases: the "feels right" form is always the nominative, and consciously overriding that incorrect feeling is sometimes necessary. I could not get der die das from feeling in German Duolingo, because the different cases just interfere with each other.
Reading and writing being a waste of time for beginners in Chinese, Japanese etc is not an argument for input.
He mentions Krashen's claim that learning meaning by reading is 10 times quicker than other vocab learning. This is the first time I've heard this claim as far as I'm aware. Either it's bullshit, or my TESOL lecturers weren't doing their jobs.
He doesn't like speaking, but he does speaking, and speaking isn't input, but it's not a waste of time. This is not an argument for input.
Then he talks about using high frequency vocab only -- not an argument for input.
Then his "sweet 16 verbs"... which as far as I can tell is just a specific example of high frequency vocabulary.
He uses TPR which has been criticised for focusing on imperatives at the expense of other tenses -- the imperative is the least useful conjugation in many ways.
Then TPRS...
...with collaborative input...
...which means students... ehmm... speak, right?
Lots of questions, many of which are yes/no (see above) but not all of which are.
He talks about making slow processors into fast processors is nonsensical -- turn a slow processor into a fast processor and then they become fluent? That's just a fancy way of saying "if you teach someone to do something, then they'll be able to do it" and yes, that means repetition... which is (again) not an argument for input!
Then he talks about a "special person" activity which seems to start with him talking a lot, but according to his demonstration leads to... the student speaking lots.
He then talks about vocabulary with images... doesn't pretty much every teacher use picture flashcards...? And it's not clear whether that relates to input or not.
He then starts talking about retelling stories and it's not really clear whether he does or not, because he says he does but doesn't but does. Very unclear. But what is clear is that there is some sort of retelling, which is output, not input.
He says there's no explicit grammar, and "instead" there is pop-up grammar... which by every definition I've seen
is explicit grammar, just in short chunks focused specifically to the task at hand. And again, that's not about input.
He claims Krashen's done a lot of research that says correction doesn't work. But it does. And Krashen was never known for his rigorous empirical methods.
He talks about not forcing output, then says that he only makes the strong ones speak, but then goes on to tell us that he knows who his slow processors are and only asks them simple questions so they have to say yes or no. So he makes everyone speak. Which I do too. I ask my lower level students simpler questions than the higher level ones. All good teachers do this. It is not an argument for input.
And then he winds things up with a strawman about how you wouldn't teach a baby their first language with classroom techniques. Which is quite right. And you wouldn't use
his classroom techniques to teach a baby either.
The talk is entitled "It's all about Input" when the talk is... not all about input.