Input,+Interaction+and+Output

=Input, Interaction and Output=

Krashen’s L2 learning model (5 hypothesis)
A general theory that looks at learning a language as a natural process that does not require extensive drills or rigid methods of formal instruction. Instead, learning is best achieved through actively communicating in another language in ways that are meaningful to the learner. A brief explanation of each of the five hypotheses underlying this model is given below.


 * The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis**: The most well known and important of the five, this hypothesis describes two forms of gaining knowledge and skill. The first is called, "learning" and it is based on the teaching methods commonly employed in the US, where a teacher imparts knowledge directly to their students by teaching and lecture, and the student absorbs this passively. "Acquisition" is more subconscious, the kind of knowledge that one gains by simply doing a task and gaining understanding by doing it. Krashen states acquisition is the best way for students to master a language, although the language tasks they engage in must be genuine and thus meaningful.


 * The Monitor Hypothesis:**The role of conscious effort in learning another language is small but important. "Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor." (Krashen, 1981, p.15). The monitor functions as a self-correcting ecumenism. Three conditions need to be met for a student to be best equipped to monitor their own language use effectively. They must have enough time to think about applying their knowledge, they must correctly know the language rules they are monitoring for, and they must be motivated to review their own language use. In addition, there are three general categories of monitors: students who monitor too much, not enough, or just the right amount.


 * The Natural Order Hypothesis:** Krashen based this hypothesis on the work of others (Dulay & Burt, 1974, Fathman, 1975) but expanded the theories. It states that in general, children learn specific grammatical structures at around the same time, based on the specific language being studied. However, he cautioned that this is a broad generalization and that individual learners often have different speeds and areas in which they develop.


 * The Input Hypothesis:** Krashen states that students learn best when they receive comprehensible input that is not too easy and not too hard; instead it is just a little challenging for them. He calls this, i+1, which means input +1. "Comprehensible input...(contains) predictable elements: shorter sentences; more intelligible, well formed utterances; less subordination; and more restricted vocabulary and range of topics with a focus on communication." (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2010, p.55). Some people say that comprehensible input is similar to Vygotsky's "Zone of Proximal Development." On the surface, this seems to be true; however, it is important to point out that Vygostsky and Krashen come from very different theoretical backgrounds. Krashen comes from a cognitive perspective -- his idea of comprehensible input is something that occurs within the individual minds of learners. Vygotsky comes from a sociocutural theoretical perspective. In other words, the zpd is a social construct. For Vygostky, knowledge is built socially before it is internalized in the individual minds of learners.


 * The Affective Filter Hypothesis:** The environment of the classroom and the tone set by the teacher raise or lower students feels of comfort and safety. When students have a low "affective filter", which is to say they feel comfortable and safe and supported, they are more likely to succeed. The higher a student's self-confidence and motivation, the more likely they are to succeed as well. Despite this, Krashen cautions that these factors only //help// promote language acquisition, not guarantee it.

References

Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). //Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching series//. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. Díaz-Rico, L. T. & Weed, K. Z. (2010). The cross-cultural, language, and academic development handbook, fourth edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). //Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.// Language Learning **24**: 37-53. FATHMAN, A. (1975). //The relationship between age and second language productive ability.// Language Learning 25: 245-266.

Long’s interaction hypothesis


 * Long’s Interaction Hypothesis: Theoretical underpinnings, concepts, critiques and applications. **

Simply put, Long’s Interaction hypothesis posits that ‘conversation is not only a medium of practice, but also the means by which learning takes place’ (Long, 1996, pp. 451-2).

The Interaction Hypothesis states that learners attempting to converse in the target language identify gaps in their abilities, particularly in pronunciation, syntax, grammar and vocabulary. The self-realization is the product of authentic interactions and encourages the learner to converse in the target language to fill in the gaps and seek the knowledge they lack. In this respect the learner in the Interaction Hypothesis is an active participant in second language acquisition.

The Interaction Hypothesis states that a series of ‘modification checks’ are the key to the second language acquisition process:


 * Clarification requests: ** Learners recognize a word that is unfamiliar and requests clarification.


 * Confirmation checks: ** Learners react to a sentence spoken by another speaker and uses the L2 to confirm understanding.


 * Comprehension checks: ** Learners ask questions of the listeners to confirm (or affirm) they understood the meaning of the learners’ sentences.

The Interaction Hypothesis also identifies situations where the learner target language acquisition via interaction by ‘repairing.’ In repairing, the speaker repeats or restates the other speakers’ utterance to overcome a communication problem. In ‘reacting’ speakers repeat or paraphrase some part of the other speakers’ utterance to establish or develop the conversation topic. (Pica and Doughty, 1985).

Criticism of the Interaction Hypothesis note that it is still a theory and there has been no direct test of it to date (Long 1983). Indirect evidence exists to demonstrate Interaction Hypothesis is a valid theory, in that ‘the success of immersion programs has generally been found superior to foreign/second language programs’ (Ellis 1991). Bonny Norton also critiques Long by pointing out that the interaction hypothesis assumes that language learning is a neutral form of communication. In other words, the hypothesis doesn't take societal power relations into consideration (e.g., situations when learners interact with English speakers who are not willing to respond positively to their clarification requests, confirmation checks, etc. ).

References:

1) Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. On TESOL 1982.

2) Long, M (1996): The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T Bhatia (eds), //Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.// San Diego: Academic Press, 413-68.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">3) Pica, T. and Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 223-49

Swain Output Hypothesis: Essentially according to Swain and others exploring the Output Hypothesis, output is generally seen as the product of learning or the child demonstrating what they have learned (Merrill Swain, 2005). Students need opportunities to produce comprehensible output which ultimately benefits and produces more comprehensible input. According to Angela Anthony (2008), “Teachers use output to determine what students “know” or have learned about a topic” (p 473). But after more extensive research on the output hypothesis researchers are redefining the definition of this notion of output and discovering that output for ELLs is a learning process where ELLs learn from the feedback they receive and their deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Swain (2005) discussed three possible functions of output in the learning process: noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic functions. ELL learners might notice something that they need to explore to deepen their new language comprehension either written or spoken. Then the learner will simulate a test run of how to communicate their message. Finally, the ELL learner will reflect on the language produced by themselves or others in the educational environment. As Anthony (2008) explained, “Creating a “literate environment” that is rich in input provides a safe setting in which to produce and explore a new language. Teachers can encourage the process of learning by creating ‘classroom conditions’ that enable English learners to cross over the instructional divide from confusion into meaningful learning” (p 474).

The following examples have been summarized and bulleted for convenience from (Anthony, 2008)

Examples of Output Hypothesis strategies for teachers:
 * Conduct daily reading and writing activities daily—EXPLICITLY model literacy skills and strategies
 * Integrate literacy concepts and skills into other curricular areas
 * Lower barriers in the classroom both cognitive and cultural ( by reducing the amount of concepts and the amount of cultural knowledge required to access the content students will retain and produce more learning.)
 * Placing value on writing and encouraging it as a tool in the expressive output process
 * Use collaborative dialogue in the classroom between teacher and students (Collaborative dialogue is meant to help build knowledge and construct linguistic knowledge that may not have been accessible to the learner on their own.)
 * Use open ended questions to encourage students to provide detailed and complex responses

Examples of Input Hypothesis strategies for teachers:
 * Encourage parent involvement in the literacy process (L1 supports growth in L2)
 * Developing comprehension support
 * Developing oral vocabulary
 * Use early literacy assessment (i.e Screening students for Phonological Awareness)

References: Anthony, A. (2008). Output Strategies for English-Language Learners: Theory to Practice. //Reading Teacher, 61(6)//, 472-482. Freeman, D. E. & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). //Essential Linguistics//. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.