Post 103: Opponents of Krashen

Post 103: Opponents of Krashen

Krashen's theories revolve around how children acquire their first language through comprehensible input. Children do not have an affective filter or monitor because children have not developed any habits from their first language. Because children do not have any habits from any language, children are able to learn many languages at the same time and gain native like proficiency in both languages.


Critics of Krashen's Input Hypothesis say that it is difficult to gauge a student's language level i + 1 because students have many different unique language levels that is different with each individual student. What exactly does Krashen mean by input + 1? Krashen never made that clear. In my career, I would assess the class's language level as a whole and if I have a struggling student, I then assess his language level and compare that to the class's level to determine if I am teaching a beginning ESL class, an intermediate ESL class or an advanced ESL class. Each teacher has to find his/her own method of gauging student language level. Sometimes it is i + 1 and sometimes it is i + 3 depending on the class.

Critics also say Krashen spends too much time focusing on comprehensible input because output is just as important as input according to Swain.  A student needs to know proper grammar, proper pronunciation, proper spelling and Krashen does not place enough importance on what students can learn from a teacher. 

Krashen separates school learning and home learning of language into two discrete units when they are interrelated. Children learn language from both what they learn in school (proper grammar, vocabulary) as well as what they hear from their parents and teachers. Language Acquisition is not just about comprehensible input and waiting until the students gets enough comprehensible input before speech naturally emerges. Language Acquisition is better understood when described as a process that is enriched by the Learning View (schooling). Both Acquisition View and Learning View work together for Second Language Acquisition.

Krashen also states that children learn language more easily than adults because children live a carefree worry free life while adults are burdened with jobs, bills, and other tasks. When in fact, children in low income areas have to go to school, have to work several jobs to help their parents make ends meet so saying children lead 'care free' lives does not take into account lower income disadvantaged children as Krashen studied mainly affluent white middle class children and made his assumptions based on affluent children.

As for Krashen's Natural Order Hypothesis, Krashen fails to account for the influence of the first language on the SLA. Second Language Learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on the native language. Europeans acquire SVO (Subject verb Object) sentence structure faster than a Korean because the Korean language does not have SVO. (Wode 77, Zobl, 80, 82)

Krashen's theory de-emphasizes the teaching of formal grammar because teaching formal grammar rules is considered dull and uninteresting thus lowering interest and increasing stress for the SLL. In fact, many Language learners want to learn grammar so that they can visualize the sentence structure of the language they are speaking
 
 My Rosetta Stone students would complain that there was no grammar book and that they did not understand all the grammar patterns that RS would show them in pictures. Therefore, a good SL grammar book and comprehensible input in tandem both work together, not separately for good SLA.