We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis by Stephan Krashen (1994)

Key Points: This paper argues vocabulary and spelling are best learned by independent reading as oppose to learning through teacher instruction or by production. Three hypotheses are compared in this paper: the Input Hypothesis, learning through reading, the Output Hypothesis, learning by writing and speaking, and the Skill Building Hypothesis, learning through rules and drills. This paper looks at studies that prove the Input Hypothesis is the better than the other two.

            Krashen concludes that vocabulary in context is better remembered. Also, vocabulary is complicated and one word can have many meanings depending on contexts. Studying vocabulary lists doesn’t help the student learn vocabulary use. As for spelling, direct instruction has not been proven effective therefore reading is a more efficient way to learn spelling.

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     On page 442 Krashen compares the preschoolers to all other language students. The preschoolers do not have to produce output but they still learn. This proves that output is not necessary. But comparing preschoolers to all other language learners is a weak argument.

2.     It can be said that SSR does include instruction. The teacher is placing importance on reading and the lesson to the students is that reading is important. The teacher is also emphasizing self-learning.

3.     The Goodman and Goodman study cited by Krashen, in which Goodman and Goodman’s daughter was the test subject, seems like a weak or inappropriate study to cite.

4.     What exactly is spelling instruction? And, is it really taught in middle school? It’s my opinion that spelling is an acquired skill and cannot be taught.

5.     I do not feel that Krashen effectively argues that OH is a better than IH in learning spelling.

6.     On page 448 Krashen says in reference to test subjects who were assigned self-reading, “they also received regular, brief conferences with teachers to discuss their reading and deal with problems.” Is this that much different from traditional reading classes?

7.     On page 552, Krashen states that in his paper that all things said applying to first language learning can apply to second language learning. I disagree because age is an important factor when supplying language input to students. First language learning happens at a young age but second language learning can happen at any age. Krashen uses the term “good reading” as in, good reading is better than vocabulary lists, but good reading for a preschooler may be different than good reading to an adult.

Extensive Reading: Why? and How? by Timothy Bell

Key Points: this paper outlines a program for adult students in a Yemen university, in which Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading was used. This program put together a library of graded readers with the student’s interests in mind and had students read on their own without the pressure of tests. This model was based on Krashen’s theory that, “comprehensible input will lead to language acquisition.”

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     I would have appreciated it if this article supplied a definition of ‘extensive reading.’

2.     On pare 4 Bell suggests written work to go along with the reading, but this may put added pressure on the students which is something that should be avoided. The next suggestion on the page says to avoid tests. I would prefer a multiple-choice test to a writing assignment.

3.      Bell discourages the use of dictionaries because they could make the reading less enjoyable, but couldn’t confusion over meaning take away from enjoyment? And, what do you tell the student who says that they can’t find a book that is easy enough?

4.     Bell mentions that the “modest sacrifices,” necessary to put together this program are worth it. But the sacrifices do not seem that modest: multimedia sources to promote books including video, audio, CD ROM, and film, a card file system to keep track of the books, 141 graded readers selected to motivate the students to read, institutional support.

Extensive Reading in English as a Foreign Language by Beniko Mason and Stephan Krashen

Key Points: the three studies described in this paper prove that extensive reading classes are more effective than traditional reading classes. The studies showed that the extensive reading classes offered increased motivation as well as the ability to work with low-level students. It may be assumed by teachers of low-level students that extensive reading requires a high-level of motivation and reading level, but Mason and Krasen prove otherwise.

My Interaction with the Paper:

1.     This paper offered a good definition of the term extensive reading. I had partially formed my own definition after reading the first two papers, but I had not realized that an important component to extensive reading is giving the students their choice of reading material.

2.     It appeared to me that in all these studies there was a lot of support for the extensive reading class. The teachers seemed to be highly motivated; in fact, I think Mason was a teacher in one of the experiments.  There must have been institutional support. Could the special support for these classes have accounted for some of the success in these classes. Krashen mentioned in one of his paper, We Acquire vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis, that one experiment did not yield good results in favor of extensive reading because of a lack of teacher support. However, it seems that supporters of extensive reading down play the teacher’s role in extensive reading. How much of the students’ motivation to read is coming from the teachers in these experiments?