Provide specific examples of how you’ve applied Krashen’s Input Hypothesis to your role and specific language. Do not mention names. Answer should be 5 – 7 sentences long.
Provide specific examples of how you’ve applied Krashen’s Input Hypothesis to your role and specific language. Do not mention names. Answer should be 5 – 7 sentences long.
Applying Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, I think that providing comprehensive input that is at “level i+1” to a language acquirer who is at “level i” is important. This helps the new learner to understand the language. Also, focusing on communication that is understandable to the learner is effective. Rather than forcing the learner to learn the language quickly, the language acquirer should be given a “silent period,” providing an opportunity to build up acquired competence in a language. I believe that supplying communicative and comprehensive input is great for learners.
Latin and Ancient Greek are interesting to teach in that they lack the “comprehensible input” of speech. Since neither has any modern native speakers, a new student must learn these languages solely from written material, which most of the time is 2000 years old and complex and, at times, boring. As the article states though, “the best input is comprehensible” and “relevant”. Thus when I have helped peers in the past, I have found that is best to make simple sentences about modern topics so that the student can learn at his/her proper level and be interested in the material. It is also helpful for them to translate both to and from English. I even have Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone translated into Latin which is helpful to take passages from.
As the article states, the input hypothesis can be seen in the effectiveness of “foreign-talk form a sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer”. When speaking to the students I tutor, I keep it at the level where they are currently at, however, in accordance with “level i+1”, a few words or new phrases must be introduced. As a result, they learn these new words little by little and can acquire the language when it’s level is a little bit more than where they are at. By using communication that is understandable, the students reach this new level. By conversing in a normal way with my students, they can use the context to acquire this new input level.
When commenting with a foreign language student the “level i+1” method is the most productive means in advancing oral language skills. Listening to the target language in a context that is understandable to the student builds confidence that encourages self-teaching. The “silent period” proceeds this “level i+1” to give the student time to process and build competence in a language. In this way the student internalizes what he or she has heard in order to come to a deeper understanding of the language before he or she starts producing it. Reading this I realize that I find this method best for my personal language study. Taking this and applying it to peer tutoring means that I can help others build their competence through the introduction of a few new words or phrases in already familiar context and allowing the student to build their ability using their base understanding as a foundation.
Though this may be obvious to some, the three approaches to develop language teaching methods give me a clear outline on how to focus tutoring a second (third or fourth) language. This is how I believe I learned Arabic. In fact, my prior Spanish language experience, my study abroad in Jordan experience, and my experience learning from 5 different Arabic instructors all make me a better linguist. All of these work together and support each other, just like Wilson suggests his approaches should.
Furthermore, I found it interesting that his article addressed adult learning. Adult learning, especially in another language, is very different than child language-aquisition… or so I thought. Wilson’s article mentioned that it is not unlike the way a child learns, and that it is subconscious as well. Though it may take more time for an adult to become fluent, they have to go through it the same way as a child. In order to become comfortable, one must develop a “feel” for the language, as Wilson states. This is entirely true in my experience. Though I do understand a lot of grammatical rules, it really comes down to saying what feels right in many of my normal conversations with Arabic speakers. After time and practice I have discovered more of a natural way to speak, and that is how I want my students to feel. Of course, I want to focus on grammar in the early years, but making them more comfortable in speaking with what they do know is important, as this article supports.
As a language learner, the idea of input hypothesis of “we acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is a little beyond’ where we are now” makes a lot of sense. I have never felt that language learning is easy and every Arabic class has been a challenge for me and has become a bigger challenge as the year progresses. Reflecting with my experience, first semester of the first year Arabic was the most fun class because I just had to acquire new knowledge whereas classes of higher level have been progressively harder and harder in terms of the difficulty and course load.
I plan to use Krashen’s hypothesis by encouraging students to be the optimal monitor. Since I myself used to be very self-conscious of grammar when I was speaking Arabic, I would like to help the tutees by helping them to apply their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence. Since confidence is a big factor as Krashen points out, I would like to encourage the tutees to speak as much as possible with confidence without being too conscious of grammar.
I’ve used the input hypothesis during lie conversing with a friend a couple years ago in spanish. She asked me to exclusively speak in spanish to her, and so I would talk about my everyday with her in spanish. I would usually add structures that are unconventional and idiomatic, and it proved successful at making her learn more about the language. Similar examples happened when I tutored my first time. While going over some topics and sentence structure, I would use the elements studied in sentences that were more complex than the examples in the book, yet very understandable. The tutee was responded very well to the exercise.
Krashen’s “Input Hypothesis” asserts that language acquisition is garnered through the understanding of language forms that are slightly above the level of the learner (i+1, as he states). While in Germany last spring, I experienced the praxis of this hypothesis as a student. As I had to interact in German regularly, I was often met with unfamiliar forms and structures. By reflecting upon these forms after conversation, (effectively, a “silent period”), I was able to slowly implement them in my own language. Given this knowledge, I will constantly seek to speak with tutees at an understandable level while also implementing forms that may seem unfamiliar. Afterwards, I will then ask the student to reflect upon our conversation in the hopes of weeding out and elaborating upon these unfamiliar forms, thus making the student confident with his/her ability to engage at a comprehensible, yet challenging level.
Although I had never thought of it as such, Krashen’s “input hypothesis” makes perfect sense to me as a language learner. While studying and working in France, I was frequently presented with “level i+1” input from a variety of sources. Specifically, living with a host family afforded me the opportunity to pick up on vocabulary and structures used in more colloquial, and especially nonacademic, settings. Similarly, in a more professional setting for my internship this summer, I was exposed to a particular vocabulary and formal etiquette in professional writing. When working with tutees, I have made a point of including vocabulary and grammatical structures just beyond their apparent level, a strategy that has proven successful thus far.
While reading Krashen’s “Input Hypotheses”, I had a lightbulb moment and suddenly realized the significance behind many of my language experiences while learning Japanese. I remember entering 3rd year and hearing my professor say certain phrases here and there I didn’t understand-I was worried at the time that I had missed some grammatical point everyone else had studied, but I realize now it’s the “i+1” method. I found it significant that adults learn in a similar way to children, albeit slower, because I found myself subconsciously picking up on phrases I had never formally learned while in Japan. When I have tutees, I’m going to be careful to not correct every mistake-as the article points out, creating a relaxing environment is really important, since embarrassment about possibly making mistakes will just discourage students from speaking. In my own experiences in Japanese class, getting just a head nod from my professor while I talk really encourages me to keep going, even though I’m aware I’m not speaking perfectly.
After reading the summary of Krashen’s work, I realized how much it applied to my own language learning. The first thing I noticed and appreciated about it was the fact that Krashen believes that language acquisition does not “require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules.” I found this true of my own experience in the Gaeltacht last summer. I was told simply to speak and use what Irish I had and not to worry too much about correctness and grammar, as that would follow. I found this much more beneficial to my Irish that reviewing grammar rules and drilling vocabulary.
Krashen’s input hypothesis has helped me to challenge my tutees by giving them input at a “i+1” level when they are at level “i”. For example, a student was practicing writing down words in Arabic dictated by me. I made sure to use words that contained only the letters in Arabic that the student had learned, yet make the words difficult enough for a challenge. For example, I used words with combinations of sounds that the student was not familiar with but still had the tools to figure it out. This hypothesis is important because it shows us that we cannot grow in our language capability without a challenge. Therefore I will try to challenge my tutees at a level slightly higher than their language level, so that they are not discouraged yet are effectively challenged.
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis states that if a person learning a language is at a level “i”, then they should be receiving comprehensible information that is at a level “i+1”. This means that as a tutor I should use words and sentences that are a little beyond my tutees’ level. The key word in Krashen’s theory is “comprehensible”. I have been trying to help Portuguese language students by using more advanced vocabulary. This I only do to a certain extent because when I overdo it, the learner cannot understand what I am saying. It also helps to be very theatrical when speaking, this way the tutees can infer what you are saying from your actions when some of the vocabulary is unfamiliar to them.
Kreshen’s offers a study in which there are two way of learning the language, through language acquisition and language learning. Language learning is the most common way that students learn the language, through grammar rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. However, Kreshen hypothesize that it does not suffice to only learn the grammar and the rules. One needs to comprehend it and from there they can increase their input. I agree with this and I can see it when I tutor the students. I use visual aid to assist them as well as examples to have them understand the reason as to why the grammar works the way it does. I also agree with her strategy on allowing the student to be given an initial “silent period” where they build their own competence in a language before producing it. Rather than being explicit, it allows the student to think on their own how the language works. At this point is a great opportunity to present a structure that is beyond the students ability (i+1) in order for the student to see the progression of the language. However, I have seen, especially for beginning students, it is still a little harder for them to grasp this concept, but I always try to implement vocabularies through the use of images.
I found Krashen’s “Input Hypothesis” to be very applicable to my own language-learning experience abroad. Although I have studied Russian for many years, I felt slightly overwhelmed when I first arrived in Russia due to the constant barrage of high-level Russian. Luckily, I was able to understand most of it given a little time to reflect, and respond in a slightly less sophisticated, but nevertheless adequate, fashion (thus demonstrating Krashen’s i/i+1 rule). After the first few weeks in Russia I found myself on a rapid learning curve, and I believe that my success in learning the language is due mostly to the fact that no one “talked down” to me; being addressed constantly with higher-level Russian always kept my mind working. For that reason, this is something I will strive to implement with my own tutees in tutoring sessions.
Krashen’s “Input Hypothesis” puts into words what many of us try to use in our tutoring and something we learned in our own language acquisition process. I grew up speaking spanish but struggled to read it, so I started with children’s books and then worked my way up (level i + 1). While tutoring I usually try to ask the student if they have any vocabulary words they would like to work on. If they do have a certain set of words I use these words and similar ones. If it is a certain verb I have them use it in various sentences each with unique structure. They may struggle with the new material but context clues help them make sense of it and they have now learned something new.
As I am not personally a tutor for the CLSC I do not have much experience with the Input Hypothesis Krashen describes from a tutors perspective. However, as an avid learner of a second language, Spanish, I know that I personally have benefited from speaking with native speakers who speak to me at a level slightly above my own. I know that I have advanced my speaking ability when involved in a conversation that forces me to apply what I have already learned to piece together what I am being told now. Typically, as the article describes, I found myself understanding the higher language level before I myself can reproduce the language patterns myself. I responded very well to the reading stating that CSLC language tutors are a great resource because of the low-pressure learning atmosphere that they provide. When there is little pressure I am able to feel more confident in my language acquisition skills and am more comfortable trying to use higher level language patterns.
Krashen’s input hypothesis states that receiving input at a level slightly above one’s current level allows for a language learner to in
To improve his/her level. So during tutoring it is important to encourage students to use the new phrases and sentence structures they are learning rather than simply speaking to them at the level they are already at. They may not be able to do so immediately but repeated exposure will help then acquire these new phrases eventually.
I am taking this training for my future role this summer as an English instructor in a Spanish-speaking country. Although I do not yet have any experience as a language tutor, I do have significant experience learning a second language. Following my Spanish coursework at Notre Dame, I studied abroad in South America for five months. The language skills I acquired during that experience came not from my language class or from direct instruction, but instead from interacting with my host family and from my coursework in other disciplines. This experience follows Kushen’s Input Hypothesis, especially the argument that we should focus on communication that is understandable and “a little beyond” where we are now.
I, like Sarah, studied abroad in Chile for a little over five months. Even though I had been studying Spanish in a classroom for the last six years, I felt like my progress had plateaued. Once I got to Chile, even though the process was slow, I witnessed remarkable increases in my abilities to comprehend and participate in the world around me. I believe this goes connects with Kushen’s Input Hypothesis. I can also attest for his idea that when a student is placed in an environment too far removed from his abilities, he or she will rely on the grammatical structures of his primary language. Once the student has reached the i+1 level of comprehension, I believe the anxiety of learning another language will decrease and she or he will be able to produce more fluent sentences in their second language.
In the last summer I learned French for three months. Although we started from learning the basic pronunciation rules and grammar, we started to read short passages and listen to normal-speed conversation after only two weeks of learning. I remembered myself complaining to our teacher, that I couldn’t understand a single word that they were talking about in the audio; that “it’s too hard for us beginners!”. But our teacher told me to just relax and try to get used to listening to the high-speed conversations: “that’s what you are going to have in real life situations!” So day by day we listened to real life conversations, and then we began to watch short videos and movies. I didn’t even realize that after 3 months that I could actually understand those audios that I had found hard in the beginning; and I was even able to watch a French movie and actually understand their conversations. I believe that this is indeed my personal experience of the input hypothesis. It is similar to a method of goal-setting: that you should always set goals that are little bit beyond your ability. Only by wanting to be 120% excellent can somebody actually pushes himself to try his best and reach 100% great. This rule might work to many other things, but I can see from my personal experience that it applies well to language learning.
Although I have yet to instruct or tutor another individual, I can easily attest to many instances of Krashen’s hypothesis within my study of Italian. The first marked difference between language acquisition and language learning really struck a chord as I reflected over the last three semesters; the poignant repetitiveness of grammar instruction, while necessary, did not propel my comprehension or confidence in the manner speaking exercises did. The central idea of pushing the pupil slightly beyond their level, really manifested itself through instruction in the target language and the presentation of video with and without the native language subtitles. These components of the class did much more to further my ability to speak and understand. Another great technique that I will look to employ is the “silent period” before response. Regardless of the stress level in responding, personally, it may take a moment or two to formulate a clear and correct response. Having a few moments to prepare myself is something I appreciate, and a method I am sure future students will appreciate as well.
Although I do not have experience as a formal language tutor, coming from a city that borders Mexico I feel I have seen many of Krashen’s principles in action. I myself had to learn English as a second language as a child, as do many people who immigrate to the United States. Through my own experience, as well as that of my peers and family members, I came to understand that one of the best ways to learn a second language is not necessarily to be in a classroom. Of course having a classroom experience is important for getting introduced to the language and its rules; however, it wasn’t until we had many interactions with English speakers that my family and I started to feel confident enough to speak the language. It was through these interactions that we came to understand the language more.
I have no experience working as a language tutor and haven’t studied a language since high school so I can’t really comment much on experiences that I have with Krashen’s input hypothesis. I will be teaching English in Bangladesh this summer and I found many of the points that Krashen made interesting and applicable for what I will be doing. For one thing, I realize that I don’t want to overwhelm my students with a high level use of language right away and will try to keep my input to them at as much of an i+1 level as possible. As Krashen points out this is the most effective level of input for developing competency over time, and additionally I think this will help contribute to an anxiety free learning environment that will help promote language learning. Because I will be working with children, I will also try and keep the classroom experience as stress free as possible and try to make sure they are having fun while they learn. I also found it interesting that he notes that most language teachers underestimate the quantity of comprehensible input required for language competence, and I will try to keep this in mind and provide my students with as much i+1 level input as possible.
I have never been a language tutor, but I have taken two language classes at Notre Dame, which provide some insight into the role of the student. In my brief language learning career, I understand the benefits of Krashen’s input hypothesis. Many times I felt that too much information was presented to me at one time, which caused me to be overwhelmed and unable to respond to questions. I hope to take this understanding and use it to facilitate learning in my classroom over the summer. This summer I am going to Bangladesh to teach English. This will be my first time teaching a foreign language, but I believe I can employ several facets of Krashen’s input hypothesis to help me teach more effectively. I certainly do not want to overwhelm the students I am teaching with difficult concepts beyond there grasp, which I know can be disheartening. I also want to keep the students engaged in topics and readings they would enjoy outside the class room such as magazines, news, sports, celebrities, and topics of that sort.
I have not yet started my job as a peer tutor, but I can easily understand Krashen’s hypothesis from my personal experience of learning English as my second language since little. To start with, that experience is a perfect illustration of the difference between language acquisition and language learning. Unlike many of my peers who started learning English by taking classes at school, which focused heavily on grammar, I began by talking to my foreign teachers. It was more of an unconscious learning experience in a less formal and less intimidating environment. Because of that, my English improved much faster than my peers and I was more willing to talk to native speakers, which further accelerated my learning progress. I also fully agree with Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis. I don’t think about what proper grammar I should use before I talk. I start a conversation by following my intuition of what sounds like the correct way to phrase the sentence, which is unconsciously developed over my years of interaction with native speakers. Then throughout that conversation, I would consciously check upon my grammar usage.
I used to be a language tutor in high school. And I have a lot of tutoring experiences. Although I am not familiar with Krashen’s input hypothesis, I still can easily understand it from my experience of studying English as my second language. In my opinion, I believe that directly talking to native speakers is much more important than learning grammars. I know that most schools start with teaching students grammars when they are learning a language. In fact, as long as you read more and listen more, you will find the correct way to speak this language, which you can never learn from grammars. I name it as the “sense of language”. Therefore, the best way to study a language is not in the classroom, yet it should be the interaction with native speakers of one kind of language.
I have never formally tutored a foreign language, and I am participating in this training in order to do so over the summer. But the idea of the “input hypothesis” does not seem to apply only to learning a language, but also towards any type of learning. A certain level of familiarity or comfort, a learner’s “i,” should always be encouraged in a learning environment in order to provide sure footing for the “+1.” However I think that the input hypothesis is a hypothesis that emphasizes the importance of language learning, not necessarily language acquisition. An environment that encourages “acquisition” and “learning” should be fostered, but I think this might be easier said than done.
Though I have no experience teaching a second language, I do remember my experiences from learning Spanish in high school. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis seems to reflect my experiences from high school where I felt I made the most progress when a class forced me slightly beyond my comfort zone. This summer I will be teaching English in Jinja, Uganda. I will keep Krashen’s input hypothesis in mind. Students need to be brought into that “+1” area in order to make real progress and begin to develop a real sense of the language.
During this past fall semester, I studied abroad in Toledo, Spain, and tutored two brothers in English every Monday afternoon. They were both at a very advanced level for being in middle school and high school, so they were able to keep up well in conversation. We started each session with 15 minutes of casual conversation, sharing about our weeks – what was going on in school, any interesting stories, memorable moments. For these meetings, we would convene in a cafe with light background music. In that way, we were able to create a low-stress environment to enable them to learn the language more tranquilly. Also, since they were advanced, according to this hypothesis, the best way for them to acquire the language was by allowing them to engage in real-world conversation with me, a native English speaker. I was forced to speak at a much slower pace, articulate every sound, and use common vocabulary for them to understand. I was grateful to have been able to grasp enough of the Spanish language to explain certain things they did not understand or translate various words. Something I could have done to improve our sessions was focus less on correcting them often, but rather only highlighting mistakes if they occurred often. I also should have allowed more time and space for regular conversation instead of forcefully teaching phonics. Thereby, I should have spoken more so they could hear my accent and the way I pronounced these difficult sounds. Language acquisition is obtained first with a foundation of grammar and rules, but then solidified through conversation and real immersion.
I’ve never been a tutor for a second language, or truly immersed myself in a culture the speaks a different language. I have, however, taken Spanish classes since Freshman Year of high school, and therefore can identify a great deal with the monitor hypothesis. I feel that learning the rules of vocabulary and grammar has been my primary experience with foreign language, but it was interesting to learn about the method behind my schooling. I feel that now that I have a strong core understanding of basic grammar rules, it would be beneficial to immerse myself in an entirely Spanish-speaking community to best learn and grapple with the diversity of situation, language, and vocabulary. It was helpful to read this and better understand why language professors and tutors create the environment that they do, and will be useful when finally immersing myself in an entirely new community with a completely unknown language.
I have never been a tutor before but I understand Krashen’s Input Hypothesis perfectly through my own English learning process. In my high school, I tried to immerse myself into English movies and books and talk to Americans more often than my peers did. As a result, I could almost feel the language acquisition happening. Instead of learning tons of grammar rules in class, I focused on giving myself a “feeling”, which I subconsciously used when I spoke English. I would know that I said something wrong because it just didn’t sound right. Later when I came to America, I recognized the great differences in “Classroom English” and “Real World English”. My friends’ frequent uses of slang always caught me off guard. However, immersing myself in the English-speaking world, I made progresses much faster than I did in China. After reading this passage, I know the importance of English tutoring. It creates a more comfortable and relaxing atmosphere where students can ease their mind and acquire language more effectively.
This past fall semester, I studied abroad in Puebla, Mexico. Even though I have been studying the Spanish language for the last nine years, initially when I got to Mexico my progress was put to test. The ability to put my knowledge and use of the language in the real world was what I needed to do. Slowly but surely, as my time in Mexico increased so did my ability to speak and comprehend the language. I was able to have small conversations at meal times with my host family and I truly believe this was the most successful thing in being able to speak the language so proficient and easier by the end of the semester. This relates to Kushen’s Input Hypothesis. Initially, when I was there I just kept it simple and spoke of the basic vocabulary and grammar I learned. As a result, I was able to acquire the i+1 input through my production ability. After slowly immersing myself in the culture and the language, I became more confident and it was so much easier to express myself in Spanish, without really having to think very hard about what I wanted to say. I truly believe once you get to the i+1 level, the ability to speak the language comes with ease and there is less stress because you have broken that initial barrier of getting to that level, which is so important.
I do not have experience being a language tutor, but I have personally experienced the results of the Krashen’s Input Hypothesis during my studies of Spanish in college and in high school. It really helped me to get the ball rolling to only concentrate on input that is slightly past what I already knew. This kept me from getting frustrated but also pushed me to understand the language better. Additionally, talking to native speakers that I have known in the past has really helped, because one-on-one interaction always seems to be the best option, and someone you are familiar with is apt to know where you are. I hope to use these strategies affectively when I travel to Cambodia, and start to teach English as a foreign language. It will be interesting to see if this i+1 strategy will kept the students on track and involved, instead of feeling overwhelmed and helpless.
This past fall, I studied in Angers, France. This unique opportunity allowed me to live with a host family and have daily exposure to the discomfort of acquiring a new language. My host family knew that I was not a high-level French speaker, but they also recognized that I was eager to develop my vocabulary and improve my conversational skills. The family spoke at a slower pace, but did not shy away from including vocabulary and sentence structures that were unfamiliar to me. This not only helped me further my language-speaking skills, but their confidence in my ability to learn inspired me to push myself a little further, +1.
I have some experience tutoring Hispanic adults in English speaking and writing. I also have experience tutoring Hispanic children grades 1-3 in English reading comprehension. I found that the adults responded best when I spoke to them in English, speaking slowly and annunciating clearly. I chose words and phrases that I knew were slightly above their comprehension levels. Over time they began to better understand me. With the 1-3 grade children, I began each lesson by conversing with them in Spanish and then easing into English so that they were not as nervous. All in all, I believe my students made the most progress by speaking with me and listening to me speak, rather than by doing grammar worksheets. This is consistent with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis.
I agree with Krashen’s point, because I have so many personal experiences that prove it to be right.
Luckily, my mother is an English professor in university and she has always been telling me the importance of learning acquisition for language. And of course, as a teenage girl who repelled a lot, I first refused to immerse myself into the language. I did all the regular school work and finished the reading assignments carefully. Technically speaking, I was good student. However, things did not turn out as what I thought. My English skills, especially in pronunciation and listening, the two most important elements of language as a tool for communication, were really poor. So I began to listen to my mom’s advice. I watched movies in English and talked to myself and my twin sister in English every morning when I rode to school. Gradually, I began to realize the importance of the idea “immersion.” To be successful in any discipline, especially language, one has to first, love it. And second, put oneself into it, which means, immersion, and in Krashen’s words, language acquisition.
I really like the language program here in Notre Dame, because it gives students a chance to immerse themselves into a specific language and actively use it as a tool. Immerse yourself into the language, imagine yourself as a native speaker, and talk, talk and talk! Soon you will have devotion, confidence and success.
Provide specific examples of how you’ve applied Krashen’s Input Hypothesis to your role and specific language. Do not mention names. Answer should be 5 – 7 sentences long.
I have had experience with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, not as a tutor, but as a student. While I have never spent an extended period of time in a country which speaks my second language (Spanish), I have practiced language acquisition by frequently watching Spanish language television. These television programs are typically at a level of language which is just outside of my comfort zone, placing it into Krashen’s “i+1” level. This learning is consistent with Krashen’s idea that optimal language learning occurs in a low-stress environment where errors are not scrupulously corrected.
Krashen’s input hypothesis suggests that to most productively benefit from learning another language, you must be challenged at a level that is above your own. This type of learning might cause a certain degree of discomfort as it requires you to stretch your current capacity of the language. Though I have never taught a language, as a former Spanish student, I can relate to and understand Krashen’s input hypothesis. When learning Spanish, I always felt both most uncomfortable and most challenged when put in a situation that required me to push myself in my Spanish usage. I think a lack of emphasis on Krashen’s input hypothesis demonstrates why a lot of students do not continue to become proficient in a language. Since foreign language courses often focus on writing and reading more than speaking, students are not always provided with the opportunity to become more fluent orally, and may see their efforts as futile.
The input hypothesis is very very useful when Arabic is being learned/taught. Currently in the world of Arabic Language study for English speakers there are many complaints about the way grammar is taught. Most programs use the Al-Kitaab system which is not the clearest in explaining grammar. This makes it extra important to be exposed to Arabic speakers that use grammatical structures correctly. In hearing these structures used correctly the learner is able pick up the correct usage of certain phrases more quickly. However it is very important to not overwhelm the learner. For example when learning numbers in formal Arabic the number 12 is very unique because it can take on the place of the doer in the sentence. While it is important to eventually learn this, it is not required, and cannot be fully understood by a first year student.
While studying abroad in Taiwan, we accomplished rapid language acquisition by employing Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. We took level 2 and level 3 of Chinese simultaneously to build a solid foundation and also challenge our learning ability. At the time, I didn’t realize we were following Krashen’s “i+1” model, but the challenge of Chinese level 3 is what caused us to improve. As a tutor, I will focus more on speaking ability. I hope to challenge the tutees by asking them to elaborate on their responses as much as possible, even when it is slightly outside of their normal comfort zone. I will also avoid staunching their progress with minor criticisms throughout the session in hopes that they will communicate freely and improve their production ability in time.
I studied abroad last semester in Nagoya, Japan and as the Krashen Input Hypothesis states, I found myself learning a lot more while immersing myself in everyday activities in both school and outside of school. Even though talking to native speakers (or with speakers who are at a higher level than you) can be quite intimidating, it helps further your understanding at a quick pace. With tutoring, I am using more complex sentence structures when talking to the students but even though they have yet to learn certain structures in the classroom, I find that they are able to understand what I am saying and if not, once explained, they can understand it after that perfectly well. Eventually, I think the students will be able to apply what they have heard in their natural conversations as hearing it often will increase their knowledge on how to properly apply them to their own words.
I have never been a foreign language tutor or teacher before but I can well understand Krashen’s Input Hypothesis from my past experience in studying language. The “+1” rule I find to be most effective in learning a new language. I have found that all of the best teachers and courses that I have taken to learn a new language are those that make best use of this rule. Language is something that must be built up slowly but surely. As a student of french I also understand well the importance of participation in real-world conversation to further fluency and comfort within a language. In order to reach a top level of fluency in a new language, consistent engagement in it through real world conversation is irreplaceable.
I found the Krashen summary very interesting. Like many other students, I have too learned a second language. Reading this article was reminiscent of the challenges I faced through my language acquisition. I also helped a friend to improve his English and some of the tactics I used with him others used with me. I didn’t correct him on every mistake he made but the grammatical errors which were repeated. My host family did the same with me. Sometimes they would correct me when need but other times they let me talk just so that I could be comfortable speaking and practice fluidity.
Before this semester, I didn’t have professional experience in tutoring people. However, I’ve had conversation partners and had just begun tutoring a student in English. In the past, the two conversation partners I had were of varying degrees of skill. The first time I met one of them, she was from Turkey, I realized right away that her English speaking was much lower than I was expecting. Throughout the school year working with her, I learned many of these things that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis discusses. For example, I learned right away from the beginning that even though her English wasn’t great, I shouldn’t slow down my language like I’m talking to a one-year old… because it’s unrealistic and she needs to be challenged. At the same time, I didn’t use incredibly difficult words or speak especially fast. Basically language learning boils down to finding the right balance between sincerely challenging yourself, while staying realistic. So now when I’m working with my tutees, I make sure to not just give them the answers, and that I always try to challenge them.