Comprehensible Input

Krashen (1987) considers the `Input Hypothesis’ as `the single most important concept in second language acquisition theory.’ According to him it is important because (i) it attempts to answer the question of how we acquire language and (ii) it may hold the answer to many of our problems in second language instruction at all levels.

According to the input hypothesis we acquire language `when we understand language that contains structure that is “a little beyond” where we are now.’  To understand more than what has been acquired, a number of other aspects like the context, the knowledge of the world and extra-linguistic information are used.

The input hypothesis relates to acquisition and not learning and for this acquisition to take place the language we are exposed to should contain the structure that is a bit beyond our current level of competence (i+1).  `If the acquirer understands the input, and there is enough of it, i+1 will be automatically be provided’ and it is not necessary to deliberately aim at i+1 while deciding the language to be used for the exposure.  The Input hypothesis also believes that fluency in speech cannot be taught and it emerges over time because of the comprehension.  So till the acquirers feel `ready’ to speak they need not be forced to speak.

The activities or materials used for promoting subconscious language acquisition should fulfil certain requirements so as to provide the best results.

The Input should be Comprehensible

The Input should be Interesting and/or Relevant

The Input should not be grammatically sequenced

The Input must be in Sufficient Quantity

The Students should not be put on the Defensive

There have been a number of  research studies which have proved the superiority of the `input’ in sufficient quantity over formal grammar teaching.   Nickolov and Krashen (1997:17) tested the efficiency of the `Comprehension Hypothesis’ and followed it for seven years.  Two EFL classes in Pecs, Hungary were selected for the study.  The experimental group had a story-based syllabus and a focus on content, with no formal grammar instruction and no focus on form for seven years.  The comparison group followed a structural syllabus, with explicit rules, drills and exercises.  Both the groups took a common test at the end of grade 8.  The analysis of accuracy and fluency was done in an interview situation wherein the students were asked to talk about themselves, describe a person they knew, a book they had read or a film they had seen. The results prove that comprehensible input can produce both  accuracy and fluency  Contact was maintained with the students after the completion of the study and it was found that 13 of the 15 in the story-based class passed a form-focused proficiency examination at the university level.  “The results are quite consistent with previous comparisons of comprehensible input-based and traditional classes.”(Krashen, 1997).

In a number of research studies it has been proved that students who read for pleasure and who read a lot do better on a wide variety of tests.  There are case histories which have proved that reading helps even when all other methods fail.  For example,  Segal (1997) reports on a 17 year 11th grade student in Israel.  Though this girl spoke English at home with her parents, she had a lot of problems in writing. A number of methods were tried to help her without any benefit.  Finally after a vacation when she returned to school she had improved miraculously.  It was found out later that the girl had developed the reading habit during the vacation.  This is what the girl’s teacher  has to say about her writing –

"When I came to her L’s composition I stopped still.  Before me was an almost perfect essay.  There were no spelling mistakes.  The paragraphs were clearly marked.  Her ideas were well put and she made good sense.  Her vocabulary had improved.  I was amazed....."

It would be useful to  try out such experiments at the school level.  Even from the KG classes in English medium schools, instead of making the children copy the letters of the alphabet hundreds of times, the teachers could expose them to natural language by telling them stories and jokes and help the children acquire the language as they acquire their mother tongue.  In the later classes in addition to narration the teacher can talk to them about everyday events, sports, music or whatever the children are interested in and use language for real communication rather than reading out sentences from textbooks.  Most of the students spend about six hours in schools and they attend tuition classes before and after school and spend at least two more hours doing homework.  In this way they are engaged in learning-related activities for about ten hours a day.  At the end of it all what they learn is negligible.  If the time they devote to studies is properly utilized would we have the problems that we are facing today?

References

Huttenlocher, J.  (1974).  'The Origins of Language Comprehension', in Solso, R.L. (education). Theories in Cognitive Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Potomac, Md.

Krashen, S.D. (1987).   Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisiton. Prentice Hall International: (UK) Ltd.

Krashen, S.D. (1997). 'The comprehension hypothesis: recent evidence' in English Teacher's Journal. December 1997: 17-28

Sachs, J. S. & Truswell, L. (1976). ‘Comprehension of two-word instructions by children in the one-word stage’. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development. Department of Linguistics: Stanford University.

Steinberg, D. D. (1982).  Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and World. Longman: London & Newyork.

Here is a Free Personal Learning Styles Inventory, at HowtoLearn.com.  It's a quick and easy online test to help you figure out how you or your child learns best -- by seeing, hearing, or doing.  To check it out click here. 

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions post them on my blog and I will respond to you: What to Pursue Blog.