A Theoretical Basis for Teaching the Receptive Skills

A Theoretical Basis for Teaching the Receptive Skills

Stephen D. Krashen, University of Southern California

Tracy D. Terrell, University of California at Irvine

Madeline E. Ehrman, Foreign Service Institute

Martha Herzog, Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

Note: This paper is a result of discussions at the Symposium on Receptive Skills in which all authors participated as well as working papers written in preparation for the symposium. Certain par- ticipants took main responsibility for several of the subsections; however, Terrell was the author of “The Functions of the Receptive Skills in the Foreign Language Classroom,” Ehrman wrote “On Bringing About Change,” and Krashen wrote the Appendix, “Evidence Supporting the Input Hypothesis.” We thank H. Douglas Brown for his valuable comments.

A Theoretical Basis for Teaching the Receptive Skills

A widely discussed issue in language teaching is the difficulty of applying theory to practice; cur- Tent classroom methodology is little influenced by research and theory, practitioners and programs be- ing more influenced by tradition and by commercial materials than by the results of organized in- quiry. A major reason for this is that, until recently, there has simply been little research in appropriate areas. “Research” meant investigation into the for-

Foreign Language Annals, 17, No. 4, 1984 26 1

ma1 structure of language, not into how language was acquired and how it should be taught. Another reason for lack of application has been the apparent lack of consensus among professionals on the results of research, o n the data itself as well as on its interpretation. Real consensus, however, is often masked by scholarly debate; as is well known, scholars “write against” each other.

The purpose of this paper is t o attempt to deal with this second cause for the failure to apply theory by reporting on some areas of agreement. Our consensus is based on empirical research as well as a wide variety of professional experience. Our hope is that a statement of areas of accord will lead to more rapid application and testing of research results in classrooms, improvements in materials and methods, and a stronger relationship, as well as a shared sense of mission, between those involved in research and application.

The first section of this paper presents the points of accord, the consensus. The second section con- siders the practical implications of our position and presents specific recommendations for directions in teacher training and the development of language teaching materials.

262 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALl

The Consensus We present our consensus in the form of a series

of statements, contrasting our position with some current assumptions held by many practioners and laypersons. Table 1 summarizes these statements.

acquisition (Krashen, Scarcella, and Long, 17) research strongly suggests that there is no changl in the language acquisition process at pubert! (Krashen, 14). In addition, the experience of a sur prisingly large number of adults who have been suc

Table 1

A Consensus

1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

1.

Our Position

Adults can both acquire and learn second and foreign languages.

The major path to second language competence is implicit, subconscious acquisition via comprehensible input.

The ability to produce language is based primarily on comprehensible input, i.e. listening comprehension and reading.

Since proficiency is built up via comprehensible input, students should concentrate o n listening comprehension before speaking.

Communication activities lead to the development of proficiency and are essential from the beginning.

Reading can begin very early and provides input for general second language proficiency.

Variables such as student background, interests, and goals are of crucial importance.

Our position: Adults can both acquire and learn second and foreign languages.

Commonly held assumption: Adults cannot acquire languages.

The terms acquisition and learning are used in the following way: Acquisition is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring first languages, while learning is a conscious process that results in “knowing about” language (Krashen, 14, 15). The materials and methods most commonly in use implicitly assume that the ability to acquire language subconsciously disappears at puberty, a t the end of a critical period for language acquisition; while children can “pick up,” or acquire language, adult competence can only come from deliberate study. While there is good evidence that children tend to be superior, in general, to adults in terms of ultimate attainment in second language

Commonly Held Assumptions

Adults cannot acquire languages.

The major path, t o second language proficiency is conscious learning.

Speech and writing are independent of listening comprehension and reading.

Proficiency is equal to speaking ability, therefore students should be forced to speak from the beginning and should immediately apply the material they learn to their speech.

Communication must wait for accurate control of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.

Speech is a precondition for reading.

Student variables are less important than linguistic variables.

cessful in reaching near-native proficiency even in very “difficult” languages suggests that the acquisition process is intact in them. Thus, the foreign language classroom should make use of the adults‘ ability to acquire as well as their ability to learn.

2. Ourposition: The major path to second language competence is implicit, subconscious acquisition via comprehensible input.

Commonly held assumption: The major path to second language proficiency is explicit, conscious learning.

The research strongly suggests that acquisition in both the adult and the child is far more power. ful than conscious learning. It has been hypothesit ed that acquisition occurs via comprehensible in. put, by understanding messages encoded in the seo ond language (Krashen, 14; MacNamara, 20;

SEPTEMBER 1984 263

Winitz, 37). More specifically, we acquire new forms by understanding messages containing these forms, with the help of context and extra-linguistic knowledge. The caretaker provides context by limiting speech to the child to the “here and now.”

Commonly held assumption: Proficiency is equal to speaking ability, therefore students should be forced to speak from the beginning and should immediately apply the material they learn to their speech.

Analogously, the beginning language teacher provides context via visual aids (pictures and objects) and discussion of familiar topics.

To the layperson, proficiency is expressed in terms of how well one ‘‘speaks,, a language, This view is reinforced by the fact that many proficien-

3. Our position: The ability to produce language is based primarily o n comprehensible input, i.e. listening comprehension and reading. Other secondary but sometimes useful modes of production entail the use of consciously applied rules and memorized language.

Commonly held assumption: Speech and writing are independent of listening comprehension and reading.

According to the principles of Table 1, the ability to produce language is a result of acquisition, not its cause. Speech cannot be successfully taught directly but “emerges” on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. Similarly, it is likely that we acquire the written language, the “feel” for good writing, through large amounts of reading (for more discussion, see Appendix 1).

The importance of acquisition does not mean that there is no role a t all for conscious learning. Learning can provide ways for adults to produce language without waiting for acquisition. For example, adult acquirers can “fall back” on the first language and use first language syntactic patterns along with second language vocabulary, repairing their errors using conscious grammar rules (the “Monitor”). This is an awkward and inefficient system with serious limitations, but, it can also be used for communication and to invite input (conversation). Effective “Monitor-users,” however, may be able to supplement their acquired competence with learning and improve the accuracy of their output a modest amount without interfering with communication. In addition, older acquirers can use memorized phrases and sentences to communicate. While it has not been demonstrated that these modes of production lead to high levels of competence or true acquisition, they may be of practical value in situations requiring early speech or when accurate production is demanded after only short training periods, as in certain U.S. government programs.

4. Our position: Since proficiency is built up via comprehensible input, students should concentrate on listening comprehension before speaking.

cy tests focus on the speaking skill. This emphasis on speaking naturally leads to the assumption that we learn to speak by speaking and that speaking should therefore be encouraged in the second and foreign language classroom. We do, of course, wish to encourage students to actualize their competence by speaking in the target language. The research shows, however, that material assimilated first in the receptive modes will be acquired more rapidly than if students are forced to understand and produce new forms simultaneously.

5 . Our position: Communication activities lead to the development of proficiency and are essential from the beginning.

Commonly held assumplion: Communication must wait for accurate control of vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.

A common assumption in foreign and second language teaching is that accuracy comes from the “bottom up,” that control over subparts needs to precede control over larger units. For this reason, students are urged “not to practice their errors,” and exercises and drills are required to provide a “foundation” before real language use is allow- ed. The principles in Table 1 imply, however, just the opposite: real communication needs to be at- tempted and achieved from the very beginning, since only real communication can provide the comprehensible input that ultimately results in fluency and high levels of automatic accuracy.

There is a second, related reason for providing communicative activities from the beginning. Com- prehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but it is not sufficient. The acquirer needs to be “open” to the input. Researchers (Dulay and Burt, 9) have posited the existence of an “Affective Filter,” a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition. When the Affective Filter is “up,” acquirers may understand what is heard and read, but the input will not reach the “language acquisition device.” This occurs when acquirers are unmotivated, lacking in self-confidence, or anx- ious, when “on the defensive” (Stevick, 30), when they consider the language class to be a place where

SEPTEMBER 1984 265

ly beyond the student’s level. As we noted, students are capable of far greater comprehension than simply i + I , especially if the contextual cues are increased and if they concentrate on global comprehension of main ideas with little or no supporting detail.

The teaching of receptive comprehension strategies in which students learn to comprehend main ideas from “advanced” or “authentic” oral and written texts is important, since it allows them to interact with native speakers in situations far beyond their present acquired competence. In addition there is a certain amount of satisfaction in the use of authentic texts. However, theory predicts that this sort of interaction with texts, a t perhaps an i + 20 level, is not greatly helpful for acquisition. 1

The use of authentic texts in the foreign language classroom is not new. Authentic written texts have been used (and abused) from the beginning of foreign language instruction in the United States. Indeed, for many foreign language instructors, only the use of authentic texts is acceptable. Authentic oral texts have not been as popular, perhaps because of the relative difficulty in obtaining them as well as technical problems using them in the classroom. Authentic oral texts can be brought to the class via audiotape recordings or videotape recordings. (Live broadcasts, while appropriate in some circumstances, are difficult to work with in terms of planning and follow-up.) Written authentic texts can be in the form of pictures of signs and other written materials, newspapers, magazines, books, realia such as money, tickets, adver- tisements, and so forth.

Our conclusion is that we must provide for both sorts of activities with receptive texts, i.e. texts a t i t I primarily for acquisition purposes and texts at higher levels (authentic texts) for the development of “coping” skills. In the following sections specific suggestions are made for appropriate activities for the development of these skills.

To illustrate the sorts of classroom activities proposed, we will describe activities for input for acquisition and the use o f authentic texts a t three levels: beginning, intermediate, and advanced.

recordings/television, and textbook materials (texts and readers). By far the most important source of comprehensible input for acquisition is aural “teacher-talk.” Written input plays a secondary but important role for beginners and will be discussed briefly at the end of this section.

Teacher-talk is one of a group of “simple codes” which includes “caretaker speech” and “foreigner- talk.” Each of these codes has been studied by researchers, and the characteristics of each are fair- ly well known. They include, for example, a slower rate of speech, more careful articulation, use of more frequent lexical items, attempts to insure comprehension, and so forth. There are three possible problems with the use of instructor-generated input in the foreign language classroom: 1) the instructor is not proficient enough in the foreign language to produce good comprehensible input at i + I , 2 ) so much time is spent on learning activities (grammar explanation, drills, and exercises), that the quantity of comprehensible input is extremely low, and 3) the instructor does not know how to produce comprehensible input for low-level students.

The remedies for the first two are obvious, but often not easy to achieve. Low-level skills continue to plague the foreign language profession. Perhaps access to foreign language television broadcasts on videotape will provide larger quantities of comprehensible input for advanced students and instructors. Greater possibilities for travel may improve communication skills. The solution to the second problem is to achieve a better balance of acquisition and learning skills in the classroom. The reliance o n learning activities is in many cases related to the belief that learning “becomes” acquisition, or at least plays a major role in acquisition. Whether true or not, the overwhelming reliance on learning activities in foreign classrooms results in low listening comprehension levels; for whether learning aids speaking skills or not, it cer- tainly plays a minor role in the development of listening comprehension skills.

Many of the techniques described in the following sections are found in Terrell (33, 34) and Krashen and Terrell (18).

Teacher-Talk in Stage I: Comprehension Beginning Level The most important strategy for a beginner who A. Comprehensible Input for Acquisition wants or needs to understand messages in the target

In the foreign language classroom there are six language is to concentrate on global meaning, i.e. possible sources of comprehensible input for ac- getting the main idea. Indeed one of the goals of quisition: teacher-talk, student-talk (interlanguage listening comprehension training for beginners input),2 audiotape recordings/radio and videotape must be to develop a tolerance for hearing words

266 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

and utterances in the target language which are not understood. They need to learn to focus on key words in the input and by using these key vocabulary items (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and sometimes adverbs) along with contextual cues, understand messages. (This is true of course whether the input is a t i + I for acquisition or a t any other i, say i + n.) Methodologies in which students focus first on the production of a limited number of structures and vocabulary items, often encourage “bad” listening habits, since the students only hear what they can produce and only hear words they know. In effect they “understand” utterances because they “understand” all of the com- ponents of the utterance, i.e. they hear only i.

In several recent approaches and methodologies (such as Natural Approach, and Total Physical Response [TPR], Asher, 2) students are explicitly given a “prespeech” period in which they concentrate on developing listening strategies. During this “Comprehension” period (Stage I), which may last from one to twenty hours (depending on target language and background of the students), the input contains enough lexical items in context to demonstrate to the students that they will be successful with language acquisition. Indeed students should not be encouraged to attempt more than minimum levels of speech until they are relatively comfortable in comprehending the instructor’s speech in the target language.

The techniques for providing input at i + I during Stage I include: 1) Total Physical Response activities, 2 ) descriptions of students and classroom objects, and 3) descriptions of pictures (cut from ordinary magazines). TPR is now well known to researchers in second language acquisition and to many (perhaps most) English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors. This extremely useful technique for developing listening comprehension skills and for introducing vocabulary in context is, unfor- tunately, not yet as well known or used among foreign language instructors. However, T P R is limited, not theoretically, but in variety. Also important is a teacher-talk mode in which narrative is interspersed with questions. The most obvious basis for content is the students themselves. In order to avoid requiring speech production during initial input of new vocabulary items, questions may be phrased so that only the name of the student or a simple yes/no is required in the answer. The following is an example of teacher-talk input (at i + I ) during the first hour of class.

What is your name? (Lisa.) Look at Lisa, class. Lisa has blond hair. (Point or touch hair.) Hair, blond hair. Look at my hair. Is my hair blond?

(No.) No, my hair is brown. Look at my eyes. (Touch eyes.) Are my eyes brown? (No.) Are they blue? (Yes.) Yes, I have blue eyes. Does Lisa have blue eyes? Look a t Lisa’s eyes. Are they blue? (No.) Are they brown? (Yes.) OK, what is the name then of the student in this class who has blond hair and brown eyes? (Lisa.)

Such a sequence, although not really “natural” in the sense that it does not correspond to a real conversation between native speakers, can “seem” like natural conversation to the students who are beginning the acquisition of listening comprehension skills.

However, even oral input which is based on the students and classroom objects is limited. Listen- ing comprehension for beginners is heavily depen- dent on context, and in order to expand possible messages in the input we are forced to use visuals. Our suggestion is to use pictures cut from magazines, since they are readily accessible and in- expensive. The following is an example of comprehensible input based on a picture.

Look at this picture, class. Is there a man in this picture? (Yes.) Does the man have brown hair? (No.) Does he have black hair? (Yes.) Is there a woman in this picture? (Yes.) So, there is a man and a woman in the picture. What is the man doing? Is he running? (No.) Is he walking? (No.) Is he skiing? (Yes.) Is the woman skiing too? (Yes.) So, there is a man and a woman, and they are both skiing. Is it cold? (Yes.) What is this called in English? (Pointing to the snow ....) Snow. This is snow. We ski on the snow.

Using these imput techniques it is relatively simple for the students to develop basic listening comprehension skills, especially if little or no speech is required. Indeed, one can recognize the meaning of many more words in context, if speech is not r e q ~ i r e d . ~ In addition the variety of syntax and morphology can be much greater since neither syntax nor morphology is much used by beginners to comprehend but both are required for speech.

1

Teacher-Talk in Stage Two: Early Speech Speech begins to emerge as acquisition takes

place through comprehensible input at i + I . This happens most naturally in the form of a single word or short phrases as responses to comments or questions. The words the students produce are of course those they have heard often enough in the input to acquire. During the initial period of speech pro duction, the instructor continues to concentrateon listening comprehension skills by focusing on the acquisition of more and more key lexical items. The input must produce a sort of spiraling effect in

SEPTEMBER 1984 267

which some of the lexical items introduced today in the input are those we expect the students to begin using several days from now, while those they actually produce today are those they have already heard in past input. This implies a rejection of cognitive techniques in which the students are given a new form, i.e. explanation, required to practice that form, i.e. drill, and then asked t o use the form immediately in communication. The following is an example of teacher-talk after about 5 hours of instruction. The example is based on a picture.

What do you see in this picture, class? (woman) Yes, there’s a woman. Can you describe her? (dress) Yes, she’s wearing a dress. What color is the dress? (blue) That’s right, it’s blue. Is there anyone else in the picture? (man) Yes, there’s also a man. What is he wearing? (suit) Yes, he’s wearing a suit. Is it a blue suit or a gray suit? (gray) Yes, it’s a gray suit. What are they doing? (walk) Yes, they’re walking. Where are they walking? (?) On the beach. This is a beach. Do you know what a beach is? (Point to sand and water.) A beach has sand and water. What is the name of a beach you know?

The new words in this sequence are beach, sand, and water. They will be available for production in some later class period.

Many sorts of activities lend themselves for teacher-generated input during the early speech stage. They include questions about charts, maps, and tables, especially tables of personal information about the students themselves, for example, achart of the classes the students are taking in addition to the language class, or a list of the jobs of the students in the class (Krashen and Terrell, 18).

Teacher-Talk in Stage Three: Speech Emerges As the i + I increases in the input, so does the

ability of beginning students to put words together coherently and generate sentences and even discourse. Most instructors have little trouble giv- ing i t I input to students who are advanced beginners or intermediates, and most recent textbooks do a relatively good job suggesting acquisition/communication activities for students who can produce complete sentences. There are essentially four types of activities for this stage which will result in good i + I level input: 1) games, 2) content activities (culture, geography, history, music, art, etc.), 3) problem-solving activities (i.e. maps, graphs, timetables, situations), and 4) affective- humanistic activities (opinions, discussions, panels, oral presentations, skits, etc.).

B. Authentic Texts f o r Beginners Beginners cannot, of course, understand much

of recorded conversations between native speakers, but they can deal in limited ways with broadcast media, i.e. radio and television. For example, one can record short segments of different types of radio broadcasts, such as news, commercials, an- nouncements, introductions of pop songs, call-in’s, or contests. During the play-back in class students may be asked to identify only the type of broadcast, i.e. this is a news broadcast. Other requests can include telling anything at all they understand including isolated words. Videotape recordings of foreign language television program segments of- fer the advantage of strong visual cues. Beginning level students can be asked to talk about what they see and comment on anything they understood in the target language.

Beginners can work quite extensively with authentic written texts. Especially useful are scanning activities in which the students look for specific information in such items as a T V log, a menu, a page from a telephone book, adver- tisements, train and airline timetables, and so forth. The central goal of these activities is that the student learn not to be overwhelmed by the amount of target language they d o not understand, but rather to work with what they can understand using contextual cues and the knowledge they do have of the target language.

It should be noted that while acquisition is not a primary part of the authentic text as input, the teacher-talk preparation and follow-up should indeed be at the i + / level and should serve for acquisition purposes. In addition, exposure to authentic texts may lay the groundwork for future acquisition of such parameters as intonation, rhythm, and phonology in general. In the following example, students are looking at an advertisement for various movies. Although unable to read the entire text, as the following interaction shows, they can utilize the text searching out the requested information. The teacher-talk is, of course, at i + I .

Suppose we want to see a movie. What time does the earliest movie start? (3:30 p.m.) Do we want to go that early? (No.) So let’s choose another one. Is there a film which starts at about 7:30? (Yes.) Which one? (Students try to pronounce name.) Yes, Breaking Away. What is the latest hour we can see Breaking Away? etc.

Intermediate The “intermediate” student can profitably take

subject matter classes in the target language, and this level includes third- and fourth-year secondary


students to second- and third-year college level students, Classroom activities for intermediates should, to a large extent, be “content” activities in which the students are focused on learning new content through the medium of the target language. Traditionally this content has been the literature, history, culture, art, and music of the target language, but grammar, phonetics, and other areas of linguistics are also legitimate areas of study. In addition one could take courses in other content areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, mathematics, and so forth, as a way of increasing proficiency in the target language.

Receptive skills a t the intermediate level, while usually good, are far from native levels. Students normally understand the instructor and other students during the oral activities in class and also can at least “cope with” conversations with native speakers. The input from the instructor is usually at i + I and serves to further acquisition, while the input from a native speaker may still be a t a much higher level where the student is forced to use global comprehension strategies that entail missing much of the detail. Thus the classroom continues to be a good source for acquisitional input, but interactions with native speakers play an in- creasingly important role whenever they are available.

Extra sources of oral input can be made available to the students via audio and video recordings of authentic texts from native radio and television broadcasts.‘ Even at this level, authentic audio and video texts are still somewhat above the students’ i + I , and therefore the task must still focus on global understanding with perhaps some accompanying detail. These sorts of activities con- stitute “pleasure listening,” i.e trying to understand as much as possible without becoming frustrated at what is not comprehended.

Written input at this level should consist of all levels of difficulty from the students’ current i (i.e. reading in which almost every word is recognized) to authentic texts which are read for global comprehension with little supporting detail. Easy readings at the students’ current i level are also useful to improve reading techniques, i.e. improved speed, reading in larger chunks, focus on content. Most of the reading will be done at i + I since this fosters acquisition. Reading activities at i + I also provide opportunities for using context to induce the meaning of new words, a key skill to be developed at this level. Finally, authentic texts which support the content areas, for example, literature and history, can be read by the student provided the instructor does not demand attention to detail.

Advanced Advanced students are comfortable interacting

in the target language but have not yet reached native speaker levels of proficiency. Advanced foreign language majors or those who have received an FSI 3 would fit this category. Normally language training for advanced students falls under certain specializations depending on what the student will do with the target language. Students who will work for the U.S. Government monitoring radio broadcasts in Russian, for example, have different training needs than a general foreign language major who will teach first- and second-year language at the secondary level or the same major who plans to do doctoral level research in the literature of the target language. In any case, advanced training in the receptive skills, both listening and reading by the definition given here of “advanced level,” must make almost exclusive use of authentic texts.

Thus the materials for advanced students are ap- proximately the same as those for intermediates, but both the proportion of authentic texts and the expected level of comprehension are higher. Video recordings of television broadcasts (news programs, comedy and variety shows, movies) are especially helpful in broadening the students’ receptive skills to areas not normally encountered in the classroom. In addition, one of the most difficult comprehension tasks even for advanced students is comprehension of native speakers when they converse with each other. The students’ ability to comprehend in such situations is greatly improved through experiences watching television dramas, soap operas, situation comedies, and films. The advantage of videotaped materials is that visual and contextual cues are present to support comprehension and in addition to a particular text may be listened to and reviewed as often as necessary.

Reading at the advanced stages should be used as an important source of comprehensible input for acquisition. Much has been written about the dif. ferent kinds of reading skills necessary for advanced students in a literate society. What is important to keep in mind is that even at an advanced level we read different sorts of materials for different purposes and therefore use somewhat different reading strategies. One should at least distinguish extensive reading, intensive reading, scanning, and skimming skills.

Conclusions There is indeed a great deal we can do to improve

the teaching of receptive skills in the foreign language classroom. The important point is that the teaching of the receptive skills is motivated in two ways: I) students must be given the means to

SEPTEMBER 1984 26s

work with oral and written authentic texts that are beyond their current level of competence, and 2) the receptive skills are the basis for the acquisition process itself.

On Bringing About Change

Note: This section is addressed to teacher trainers and to teachers themselves.

Any new approach generally arouses various forms of resistance from teachers and students alike. In most fields, people tend to be protective of investments in knowledge and skill, and language teaching is no exception. In addition, most teachers sincerely believe in what they do, and even when feeling dissatisfied, they quite rightly want to be convinced that the difficulties involved in making sweeping changes in approach and methodology are worthwhile.

A point of view as radical as that expressed in the principles in Table 1 requires examining, and possibly abandoning, ground rules that almost everyone takes for granted. It requires a degree of “retooling” and formation of new habits-a prospect that is as anxiety-provoking as the prospect of taking a language is to many people. This is a source of conscious resistance. Another source of resistance lies with students, who, for the most part, tend to be products of the intensive academic conditioning they have received during years and years of schooling. Teachers are part of the same conditioning.

The result is that when either party enters the classroom, all sorts of expectations and automatic reactions are triggered. These deeply ingrained expectations are associated with both student and teacher roles, and it is sometimes necessary t o “deprogram” very well conditioned products of the education system as well as make “retooling” palatable if not attractive.

Most of us hold certain assumptions about what a proper language class is like. We come to a classroom expecting to elicit performance or to perform. Teachers and students expect to give and receive information in more or less measurable, linearly organized doses. Quality of achievement isgenerally measurable in terms of the desired end performance, which in our case is language competence as demonstrated by speaking. Few teachers or students regularly think in terms of interim goals (e.g. stages in adult language development).

The principles proposed here as foundations for successful language teaching and acquisition require some changes in these assumptions. Students

will still perform in a variety of ways, and teachers can expect to structure their teaching as to elicit performance. The point is, however, that the kinds of performance are likely to be rather different from the usual ones especially in the earlier stages of the course. Competence may have to be measured on the basis of non-verbal or at least non- oral signals. In Total Physical Response, for example, competence (comprehension) is measured by physical performances.

When productive language emerges and for some time thereafter in an acquisitionally oriented course, accuracy and complexity of utterance may be much less than that demanded in traditional classes. Thus both teachers and students need to accept interim goals that are less than perfection or complete mastery of specific points, in the ex- pectation that given time, low affective barriers, and suitable comprehensible input, acquisition will take place and ultimate speaking competence will be broader, more accurate, and more accessible (fluent) than it would have been in a conventional course. In a sense, both teachers and students have to defer the kind of gratification both expect and perhaps change its source for the interim, though the ultimate goal remains the same: competence as close to native as possible.

Another area that will require a change is the “structuring” of a course. Students often expect material to be organized for them; they want mileposts and a clear, linear progression of grammar topics. One of the corollaries of the principles in this paper (and of the Input Hypothesis and other teaching methods such as Community Language Learning and Natural Approach) is that efforts to force grammar into a linear mold in the language classroom are likely to fail.

Teachers’ expectations about the format of a course (“structured,” clear linear presentation of grammar), differ little from that of students, for they are products of the same educational pro- cesses. Changing over to the other side of the desk is not a guarantee of freedom from 16-20 + years of intensive conditioning.

While both students and teachers are products of the same conditioning process, the teacher is in control of the classroom and therefore bears the responsibility for initiating changes and for deprogramming students. A capable, confident teacher who believes in and applies the principles in Table 1 with good judgment and with a clear understanding of the role of conscious learning and production will communicate credibility to most students, even in a radically innovative curriculum. This is the single most important thing a teacher

SEPTEMBER 1984 27 1

prehensible input, while younger acquirers d o better in the long run because of their lower affective filters.

Older acquirers obtain more comprehensible input in several ways. Their greater experience and knowledge of the world helps make the input they hear and read more comprehensible. Also, older acquirers can participate in conversations earlier than younger acquirers can by utilizing the strategy of falling back o n first language syntactic rules, supplemented with second language vocabulary and repaired by the application of conscious rules (the Monitor). This strategy, a way of outperforming one’s competence, has serious drawbacks, but it does allow early production, early participation in conversation, and more input.

A third way older acquirers gain more comprehensible input is via their superior skills in conversational management. As Scarcella and Higa (26) have shown, younger children actually receive what looks like simpler input, input with less complex grammar, more frequent vocabulary, more tied to the “here and now,” etc. Older acquirers, however, are better able to “regulate” the input: they work harder in encouraging more language from their conversational partner, indicate more when they have not understood, and are better at keeping conversations going.

Differences in ultimate attainment may be due to differences in the strength of the “Affective Filter.” Krashen (15) has hypothesized that the Af- fective Filter gains dramatically in strength at around puberty, a time considered to be a turning point for language acquisition (e.g. Seliger, Krashen, and Ladefoged, 27), and may never go “all the way down” again. While the filter may exist for the child second language acquirer, it rarely, in natural informal language acquisition situations, is high enough to prevent native-like levels of attainment. For the adult, it rarely goes low enough to allow native-like attainment.

The Effect of Instruction The Input Hypothesis helps to settle another ap-

parent contradiction in the research literature. Some studies indicate that formal instruction helps second language acquisition, while others seem to indicate that informal environments are superior or just as good. Krashen (14) has reviewed this research and concludes that it is consistent with the hypothesis that language classes help when they are the primary source of comprehensible input. This is especially true for beginners, who often find “real world” input too complex to understand. Language classes are less helpful when 1) the

students are already advanced enough to understand some input from the outside world, and 2) this input is available to them. This explanation predicts, for example, why advanced ESL courses to international students in North American univer- sities are not effective (Upshur, 35; Mason, 21). The students are competent enough in English to get their comprehensible input elsewhere, i.e. certain subject matter classes and in social situations.

The Effect of Exposure Several studies conclude that more exposure to

a second language results in increased proficiency, while other studies show little or no relationship between exposure and proficiency. Krashen (14) reviewed these studies and argues that in cases where “exposure” really entails comprehensible input, as in some school situations, we see a relationship. Where exposure does not entail comprehensible input, e.g. an immigrant in a situation in which he can continue to use his first language and uses the second language very little, we see a much weaker or no relationship.

Lack of Access to Comprehensible Input Long (1 9) has reviewed the research on cases in

which comprehensible input was unavailable to acquirers. In these cases, acquisition was severely delayed, as the Input Hypothesis would predict. Hearing children of deaf parents with little exposure to comprehensible input (only adult-adult speech on television), show severe delay but typically catch up with other children when comprehensible input was made available to them (i.e. adult- child speech). Cases of hearing children of deaf parents who had more interactions with hearing adults d o not show this kind of delay.

Method Comparison Research Research comparing the efficacy of different

language teaching methods has revealed little dif- ference between grammar-based and drill-based methods. The reason for this according to the In- put Hypothesis, is that neither of these kinds of methods provides the student with much comprehensible input.

More recent method comparison research shows that certain types of methods appear to be clearly superior to both grammar-based and drill-based methods. Studies dating back to 1966 show Asher’s Total Physical Response method to be far better than more traditional approaches (Asher, 2; Wolfe and Jones, 38). Other methods that have been com- pared to traditional approaches and that have been demonstrated to be significantly and clearly better


are Terrell’s Natural Approach (Krashen and Ter- rell, 18; Voge, 36) and Lozanov’s Suggestopedia (Bushman and Madsen, 4). These methods have one major characteristic in common: they provide a great deal of comprehensible input in the second language in the classroom and aim for a low- anxiety environment. While they do not reject grammar study entirely, it is not the main focus of the class. (For more detail, see Krashen, 14, chapter five, and Krashen and Terrell, 18.)

Experiments have shown, in addition, that delay- ing oral production has no negative effect on developing second language competence (Gary, 12; Postovsky, 24). When combined with an approach emphasizing comprehension, it results in better acquisition (Swaffar and Woodruff, 3 l), better reten- tion (Postovsky, 25), and very positive student at- titudes (Postovsky, 25; Swaffar and Woodruff, 31). (For additional discussion of comprehension approaches, see Gary and Gary, 13.)

Immersion and Sheltered Language Teaching The tremendous success of Canadian immersion

language programs provides additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Immersion programs, as have been described in many places (Swain and Lapkin, 32), are public school programs in which majority language students study in a minority language (e.g. French in Canada, Spanish in the United States). Typically, in immersion programs, native speakers of the second language are not in- cluded in the program (in fact, immersion students often have no interaction with native speakers of their target language in school or out), and exposure to the second language comes primarily from the classroom teacher and materials.

While there are many types of immersion programs, they have all succeeded in encouraging very high levels of second language proficiency. Immer- sion students do not usually achieve full native competence in the second language while they are in the program; they typically have a n “accent” and make some grammatical errors when they speak. They are, nevertheless, very competent.

Immersion “works” because, like other good methods, it provides students with a great deal of comprehensible input-subject matter material is made comprehensible to immersion students in several ways-the exclusion of native speakers helps ensure that teachers will speak at a language level that is comprehensible to the non-native speaker, and texts and materials are supplemented and adapted to the immersion students’ level.

What immersion has taught us is that comprehensible subject matter teaching is language

teaching-the subject matter class is a language class if it is made comprehensible. The Input Hypothesis thus asserts that it is the comprehensible input factor that is responsible for the success of immersion, not simply the fact that immersion students are exposed to a great deal of the second language.

Reports in the research literature on other programs confirm that language students can gain in second language competence via comprehensible subject matter teaching. (See especially Stern eta/., 29, for an examination of the effects of adding subject matter immersion classes to regular language classes; Buch and de Bagheera, 3, who combined comprehensible subject matter teaching with ESL teacher training; Bye, 5 , a report of a program for limited English proficient children in California; Edwards, Wesche, Krashen, Clement, and Krudinier, 10, an examination of the effect of comprehensible subject matter teaching for second language students a t the university level.)

Immersion-style comprehensible subject matter teaching (termed “sheltered” classes) may turn out to be an important supplement to second language programs. Such classes may serve as a bridge from the language class to the mainstream (Krashen, 14).

The Success of Bilingual Programs The Input Hypothesis also provides an explana-

tion for the success of certain bilingual education programs, and the failure of others. Bilingual programs that succeed in teaching English as a second language provide solid subject matter teaching in the first language, along with comprehensible input in English. Solid subject matter teaching in the first language provides the child with “cognitive academic language proficiency” (CALP), the ability to utilize language to learn and discuss abstract ideas (Cummins, 7). This ability, Cummins argues, can be developed via any language and transfers to any other; once a person can use language “in- tellectually,” this ability can be utilized in a n y other language the person subsequently acquires.

A good education in the first language also provides the child with subject matter information, This information, along with the child’s CALP, can be of great help in making English input more com. prehensible. The child of limited English proficiency who knows subject matter has a far better chance of understanding subject matter instruction in English than the limited English child who is behind in subject matter. The former child will get more comprehensible input and thus more English.

Research confirms these predictions. Programs that provide good instruction in the first language

SEPTEMBER 1984 27 3

along with comprehensible input in English succeed in teaching English as well as, and often better than, all-day English programs. (For reviews of this research, see Cummins, 6, 8.)

Properly designed immersion programs and bilingual programs, according t o this analysis, work for the same reason-they both supply comprehensible input. Insights f rom both can be effectively combined-“sheltered classes” in English to supply comprehensible input directly, and solid subject matter teaching in the first language to supply the background information that will help make English input comprehensible.

The Reading Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis may also apply to the ac-

quisition of writing style. A number of research studies show a relationship between reading and writing. Good writers, it has been found, have done more reading for their o w n interest and pleasure than poor writers, and programs that get students “hooked on books” help develop writing skills. (For a review of this research, see Krashen, 16.) Krashen (16) and Smith (28) have hypothesized that writing competence comes only from large amounts of self-motivated reading for pleasure and/or interest. It is reading that gives the writer the “feel” for the look and texture of good writing.

In addition to studies showing that good writers have read more, there are other arguments in support of the “reading hypothesis.” The complexity of the written language, and the fact that so little of it has been described, make it unlikely that it can be taught deliberately. We are only now beginning to discover the often subtle grammatical and discourse differences between speaking and writing, and between good and poor writing. Instruction can only illuminate the most obvious aspects of the written language. This is confirmed by the failure of research to show any clear relationship between the study of grammar and the ability t o write (see, e.g. Elley et af., 11).

Conclusion Thus the theoretical basis set for th in this arti-

cle and its emphasis on receptive skills has a body of data already available t o support the Input Hypothesis. Classroom practice and methodology has benefited in this instance from the influence of research and theory.

NOTES ‘In fact, continued use of these strategies, i.e. atten-

tion only to main ideas with little or no attention to detail, may indeed lead to a sort of “pseudo” competence with little true acquisition. Students who stick with these strategies too long appear to understand a great deal until they are questioned more closely. I f acquirers are able to “cope” with input at relatively high levels, this could lead to a sort of “communicative ability” with actual low levels of acquisition and probably fossilization.

‘In any method in which the students talk, their speech will serve as input to each other. In many cases the input will be at i, or even below i for some students. But average or below average students may hear i + I from slightly more advanced students. In any case students do hear each other’s speech, and it seems reasonable that a certain amount of acquisition will result from listening to interlanguage. (It is also possible that a certain amount of incorrect acquisition may result from hearing interlanguage over a long period of time, for example, in immersion programs; however, we have not noticed major problems in foreign language classrooms where the amount of interlanguage input is quite limited.)

3An informal experiment teaching Modern Greek to native speakers of Spanish and/or English, resulted in five times as many lexical items used in the input with NA activities as in a “direct” method lesson which required immediate production.

4Spanish materials are easily obtainable. Most cities in the Southwest as well as Chicago, New York, and Miami have radio stations in Spanish. A short visit with a radio and tape recorder to any of them will provide large quantities of audio materials. The Spanish International Network (SIN) broadcasts television programs in many cities across the U.S. Colleagues with video recorders in these areas would be happy to record materials for those outside the broadcast areas. French materials are more difficult to obtain; however, any area of Canada which is on “cable” will receive French television program- ming. (Note that most television in Canada is broadcast in standard French.) German materials are less available since the different television broadcast system in Europe requires a special video unit to play back tapes recorded there. Numerous commercial packages of authentic Ger- man video and audio texts are available through the Goethe Institute.

REFERENCES Adams, S. “Scripts and the Recognition of Un- familiar Vocabulary: Enhancing Second Language Reading Skills.” The Modern Language Journal 66 (1982): 155-59.

Asher, J . Learning Another Language Through Ac- tions: The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions, 1982.

Buch, G. and I . de Bagheera. “An Immersion Pro- gram for the Professional Improvement of Non- Native Teachers of ESL,” pp. 106-17 in On TESOL ’78. Washington, DC: TESOL, 1979.


4,

5.

6 .

7.

8.

9 .

10.

1 1 .

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Bushman, R. and H . Madsen. “A Description and Evaluation of Suggestopedia-A New Teaching Methodology,” pp. 29-38 in J . Fanselow and R. Crymes, eds. On TESOL ‘76. Washington, DC: TESOL, 1976.

Bye, T. Content-Based ESL: A Report on a Sheltered fmmersion Program. [Paper presented a t TESOL Conference, Toronto: 1983.1

Cummins, J . Examination of the Experience of Educators and Researchers in Various Aspects of the Heritage Languages Program. Ontario: Ministry of Education, 1983.

. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children.” Review of Educational Research 49 (1979): 222-5 1.

. “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Success for Language Minority Students,” pp. 3-49 in Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education, ed .’Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assess- ment Center, California State University, 1981.

Dulay, H. and M. Burt. “Remarks on Creativity in Second Language Acquisition,” pp. 95-126 in M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finochiaro, eds. Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents, 1977.

Edwards, H., M. Wesche, S. Krashen, R. Clement, and B. Kruidenier. “Second Language Acquisition through Subject-Matter Learning: A Study of Sheltered Psychology Classes at the University of Ottawa.” [Forthcoming.]

Elley, W., I. Barham, H. Lamb, and M. Wyllie. “The Role of Grammar in a Secondary School Cur- riculum.” Research in the Teaching of English 10 (1976): 5-21.

Gary, J . “Delayed Oral Practice in Initial Stages of Second Language Learning,” pp. 89-95 in M. Burt and H. Dulay, eds. On TESOL 75: New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Bi- IingualEducation. Washington, DC: TESOL, 1975.

and N. Gary. “Comprehension-Based Language Instruction: Theory,” pp. 332-42 in H. Winitz, ed. Native Languageand Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1981.

Krashen, S. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press, 1982.

. Second Language Acquisition and Sec- ond Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.

. Writing: Research, Theory, and Ap- plicafion. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1984.

17. , M. Long, and R. Scarcella. “Age,

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Rate, and Eventual Attainment in Second Language Acquisition,” pp. 161-72 in S. Krashen, R. Scarcella, and M. Long, eds. Child-Adult Differences in See. ond Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1982.

and T. Terrell. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. San Fran- cisco: Alemany Press, and London: Pergarnon Press, 1983. Long, M. “Native Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom,” pp. 207-25 in On TESOL. Washington, DC TESOL, 1983.

MacNamara, J . “Nurseries, Streets and Classrooms: Some Comparisons and Deductions.” The Modern Language Journal 57 (1973): 250-55.

Mason, C. “The Relevance of Intensive Training in English as a Foreign Language for University Students.” Language Learning 21 (1971): 197-204.

Newmark, L. “How Not to Interfere with Languagr Learning.” Language Learning. The Individual and the Process. International Journalof American Linguistics 40 (1966): 77-83.

Omaggio, A. “Pictures and Second Language Corn. prehension: Do They Help?” Foreign Language An. nals 12 (1979): 107-16.

Postovsky, V. “Effects of Delay in Oral Practice at the Beginning of Second Language Learning.” The Modern Language Journal 58 (1974): 229-39.

. “The Priority of Aural Comprehension in the Language Acquisition Process,” pp. 170-86 in H. Winitz, ed. The Comprehension A p p r ~ ~ c ~ ~ o Foreign Language Instruction. Rowley, M A Newbury House, 1981.

Scarcella, R. and C. Higa. “Input and Age Dif. ferences in Second Language Acquisition,” pp. 175-201 in S. Krashen, R. Scarcella, and M . Long, eds. Child-Adult Differences in Second Languagt Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1982.

Seliger, H. , S. Krashen, and P . Ladefoged. “Maturational Constraints in the Acquisition of Second Language,” pp. 13-19 in S. Krashen, R. Scarcella, and M. Long, eds. Child-Adult D$ ferences in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1982.

Smith, F. “Reading Like a Writer.” LanguageArb 60 (1983): 558-67.

Stern, H.H. , M. Swain, L. McLean, R. Friedman, B. Harley, and S. Lapkin. Three Approachesfo Teaching French. Toronto: Ministry of Education, 1976.

Stevick, E. Memory, Meaning, and Method. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1976.

Swaffar, J . and M. Woodruff. “Language for Corn

SEPTEMBER 1984 275

prehension: Focus on Reading.” The Modern tween Foreign Language Teaching and Learning.” Language Journal 6 (1978): 27-32. Language Learning 18 ( 1968): 1 1 1-24.

32. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1982.

33. Terrell, T. “A Natural Approach to the Acquisition and Learning of a Language.” The Modern Language Journal 61 (1977): 121-31.

34. . “The Natural Approach to Language Teaching: An Update.” The Modern Language Journal 66 (1982): 121-31.

35. Upshur, J. “Four Experiments on the Relation Be-

36. Voge, W. Testing the Validity of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. [Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Lund, Sweden: 1981 .]

37. Winitz, H . “Nonlinear Learning and Language Teaching,” pp. 1-14 in H. Winitz, ed. The Corn- prehension Approach to Foreign Language Instruc- tion. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1981.

38. Wolfe, D. and G. Jones. “Integrating Total Physical Response Strategy in a Level I Spanish Class.” Foreign Language Annals 14 (1982): 273-80.

ACTFL Announces the

1984 ACTFL/AATF/AATG JOINT ANNUAL MEETING

Theme: Making Foreign Language Study Count

Chicago Marriott Hotel Chicago, IL

ACTFL/AATF/AATG Workshops-November 16, 1984 Annual Meeting-November 16- 1 8, 1984

Post Conference Workshops-November 18-20, 1984

Documents

A Theoretical Basis for Teaching the Receptive Skills