Author(s): |
Krashen, Stephen |
Source: |
Applied Language Learning, v22 n1-2 p81-83 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
English (Second Language); Phrase Structure; Verbs; Grammar; Teaching Methods; Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; Linguistic Input; Comparative Analysis; Linguistic Theory
Abstract:
In previous reviews of studies comparing explicit and implicit instruction (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1999, 2003), the author argued that explicit instruction will show a positive effect only when the following conditions for the use of the conscious Monitor are met: (1) the acquirer consciously knows the rule or the meaning of the item--that is, has studied it; (2) the acquirer is thinking about correctness or focused on form; (3) the acquirer has time to apply the consciously learned knowledge. He also concluded that, even when these conditions are met, the impact of explicit instruction is, at best, modest and that the implicit condition consists of what can only be described as impoverished comprehensible input. These conclusions hold for a comparison of explicit and implicit instruction done by Magnusson and Graham (2012). Subjects in their study were adult (mean age 25) students of English as a foreign language, taking classes in an English program at an American university. The researchers did not collect data on their subjects' previous exposure to English, but it is safe to assume that subjects had studied English in their own countries and were well-educated, which means that they were experienced language students and were used to explicit instruction. Magnusson and Graham's results are of interest. They are consistent with the view that explicit instruction is limited, producing an effect only when severe conditions are met, and that this effect is modest. They are also consistent with the hypothesis that language acquisition requires that input be interesting and contain items that the acquirer is ready to acquire. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Mason, Beniko; Krashen, Stephen |
Source: |
TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, v44 n4 p790-793 Dec 2010 |
|
Pub Date: |
2010-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Reader Response; Vocabulary; Incidental Learning; Vocabulary Development; Second Language Learning; Grammar; Second Language Instruction; Teaching Methods; English (Second Language); Pretests Posttests
Abstract:
File and Adams (2010) conclude that their data confirm the superiority of form-focused vocabulary instruction over incidental acquisition. The authors of this response argue that File and Adams's data actually confirm the reality, robustness, and possible superiority of incidental acquisition. Their subjects heard two passages read to them that contained target words that were set in bold and were explained either before or during the course of the reading. There were also target words in each passage that were not explained or set in bold, as a test of incidental acquisition. The gains in word knowledge were indeed greater for the taught words, but the gains for the incidental words were impressive, despite the fact that the conditions for acquisition were far from ideal. In addition, incidental learning might have been more efficient: There was more time devoted to the taught words. (Contains 1 table, 1 figure, and 1 footnote.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2009-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Recreational Activities; Reading Instruction; Teaching Methods; Literature; Reading Research; Case Studies; English (Second Language); High Schools; Higher Education; Foreign Countries; Comparative Analysis; Student Motivation
Abstract:
Both the popular media and professional literature are filled with suggestions on how to improve reading, but the one approach that always works is rarely mentioned: provide readers with a supply of interesting and comprehensible books. Instead, people are given advice that is dead wrong as a means of improving reading (e.g., roller skating and chess)--advice that leads only to reading-like behavior (intensive phonics), or advice that teaches students to use strategies that are innate (e.g., prediction), or that they will acquire anyway as they read. Briefly, studies show that those who read more read better. They also write better, spell better, have larger vocabularies, and have better control of complex grammatical constructions. The research literature also contains a number of case histories, cases in which self-selected voluntary reading resulting in unmistakable improvement in reading and other aspects of literacy. These studies are "scientific" in that there was no other possible source of the improvement other than reading. Even more convincing are experimental studies in which students who do self-selected reading for a given amount of time are compared to students who devote the same amount of time to "regular" instruction. Self-selected reading has been a consistent winner in these studies, in first and second language, for children and older students, and in widely differing circumstances. In this article, the author presents only a small portion of this research in an area that has not received much attention: studies of students of English as a foreign language. These studies are of interest for practical reasons, of course, in that English is studied worldwide. They are also of theoretical interest, as most subjects in these studies have little access to English outside of class. It is thus a "clean" experimental situation. The author also discusses non-reading approaches to improving reading. (Contains 2 tables and 1 footnote.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2006-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Reading Materials; Sustained Silent Reading; Silent Reading; Independent Reading; Recreational Reading; Reading Improvement; Literacy
Abstract:
This article focuses on a literacy approach called free voluntary reading. In schools, this approach is often called sustained silent reading, or SSR. The secret of its effectiveness is simple: children become better readers by reading, and it may be the only way to help children become better readers, writers, and spellers. Study after study has confirmed that those who read more know more about a wide variety of topics. Plus, according to both students and teachers, SSR is a much more pleasant approach than regular skill-building instruction. The author states that encouraging students to read for pleasure and providing them with interesting reading materials may not guarantee that every child will become a dedicated, highly literate reader, but it is clearly a necessary step in the right direction.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Krashen, Stephen |
Source: |
Multicultural Education, v12 n4 p16 Sum 2005 |
|
Pub Date: |
2005-06-22 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Poverty; Academic Achievement; Homework; Minority Group Children; Family Influence; Socioeconomic Status; Hmong People; Vietnamese People; Immigrants
Abstract:
It is well-established that the effects of poverty are devastating for children in school. More generally, scholars have documented that low "socio-economic status" (SES), whether measured by family income, parent education, or parent occupation, is usually the most powerful predictor of achievement and test score performance, sometimes swamping all other factors (White, 1982). This advantage translates to life success; children of the wealthy are far more likely to become wealthy, become professionals, and attain positions of power than children of the poor (Simonton, 1994). There have been some recent challenges to this generalization, however-claims that some children, especially Asian immigrant children and the children of Asian immigrants, do very well even though they come from high-poverty backgrounds. Two such cases are the "Boat People" of Vietnam, who arrived in the United States in 1978, and the Hmong. In this article, the author examines whether hard work and family values overcome the effects of poverty in attaining academic success.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (114K)
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
|
