Sorry Krashen, Thank you Long

         Dr. Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory argues that in second language acquisition, educators must emphasis input comprehension and downplay output communication. “As long as our students are exposed to sufficient linguistic input on topics of their interest and are encouraged to interact with each other to use the language for communication, speaking fluency will emerge,” Krashen. However, in my experience, academic background, and interpretation of life, I see his argument on “no output,” as insufficient in testability and contradictory in theory.

         The quote above, summarizes the basic idea of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory, which is that students do not need to practice output to acquire second language, rather observation and natural order of input comprehension will naturally occur, as in first language development. I agree with Krashen’s five principles of input, and see validity in how he approaches teaching through a psychological perception of student learning and teacher discretion, but I have yet to see evidence that interaction, or, output not being essential in student second language progression. In fact, in the quote referenced, I see that Krashen is acknowledging social interactions, output, is part of SLA process.

         As we have discussed in this module, there are many variables that should be considered when teaching students a new language, which Krashen would agree. It takes more than conscious and traditional learning method to be successful. I appreciate Krashen finding more peripheral, subconscious, means to language acquisition. I think Krashen’s main concern in downplaying output, is that, making students speak increases affective filter, which creates anxiety for students and interferes with learning. The affective filter, is a great example of identifying fears and pressures students may experience when in the classroom, or feel as if they must preform to succeed. However, I agree with Dr. Michael Long, in that students will have to experience social interaction, outside of the classroom. I see this as being just as intimidating, if a student is not practicing in a safe, monitored language-learning environment. If a student endures months of not speaking, due to teacher pressure, what would that mean for them when they are eventually expected to communicate socially or professionally outside of the classroom?

         In my experience, I have never witnessed a language class where “silent periods,” method is practiced. I also know from my own experience, that it would be very difficult for me to use a language socially, after month of observation and no practice. I would not expect my students to just catch on. Honestly, I believe that would set them up for failure.

         I do agree that a student’s educational drive and willingness to learn will positively effect their SLA. I think it is unrealistic to model an infant/child first language development for adults, or any age, past the formative languages years. Students who are consciously aware of what it means to learn and willing to comprehend information will feel more motivation and progress through participation and interaction. Age is a very important variable to consider in SLA. Student past the age of five are able to understand experiences, culture, relationships, and how the world works. In allowing interaction, monitoring, or editing of communication through two-way conversation, students will benefit in their SLA progress. Through this monitoring system, which Krashen advocates, students can create meaning-making, reasoning, and understanding through pictures, movies, or anything that they can relate too. That is why I think it is contradictory for Krashen to dismiss output.

         Furthermore, I work at a pre-school, I see three year olds who rarely speak, usually students who have older siblings speak for them. I have students at age three who communicate very fluently. I have yet to see a kid turn age three and begin conversing flawlessly. I do not even think the exercise question applies to this subject material of Input Hypothesis, because cases like emergence of language after long observation periods, only applies to first language acquisition. In second language acquisition, I will never assume that pure reading and writing is sufficient enough to account for total second language success, sorry Krashen, thank you Long.