Comprehensible Input
Input has long been viewed as the key component in second language learning. Much research has been presented on this topic (Krashen, 1982; Loschky, 1994; Gass & Madden, 1985). Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis emphasized the role of comprehensible input in language acquisition. Krashen (1982) states:
The final part of the input hypothesis states that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly. Rather, it ‘emerges’ over time, on its own. The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach speaking, according to this view is simply to provide comprehensible input. (p. 22).
Input is made comprehensible by augmenting spoken language with gestures, props, and other methods. It is posited that if a learner is given comprehensible input at a level just above a learner’s current understanding of the target language, the learner will progress to that next level of understanding of vocabulary, grammatical forms, and pronunciation (Baker 2011). Krashen (1982) explains that a language learner progresses from i (where i represents a learner’s current competence) to i+1 (the next level) when, “the acquirer understands input that contains i+1” (p. 20). Krashen posits that the learner uses context, world knowledge, and other information to help to comprehend the meaning of language that is i+1 (p. 20). He contends that for a language to be acquired, “input must contain i+1,” and that, “if communication is successful, it contains i+1” (p. 21).
In my Elementary Alutiiq Language class, the students do receive comprehensible input in the form of songs, stories, presentations, and Total Physical Response activities. Asher (2001) describes TPR as “a language-body conversation,” wherein one interlocutor, usually the teacher, gives students a command in the target language and the learners respond with a physical response- such as sitting, waving, smiling- depending upon what command they were given. Comprehensible input plays a critical role in the vocabulary introduction phase of my lessons; however, the focus of this project is to encourage students’ engagement and promote output production.
The final part of the input hypothesis states that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly. Rather, it ‘emerges’ over time, on its own. The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach speaking, according to this view is simply to provide comprehensible input. (p. 22).
Input is made comprehensible by augmenting spoken language with gestures, props, and other methods. It is posited that if a learner is given comprehensible input at a level just above a learner’s current understanding of the target language, the learner will progress to that next level of understanding of vocabulary, grammatical forms, and pronunciation (Baker 2011). Krashen (1982) explains that a language learner progresses from i (where i represents a learner’s current competence) to i+1 (the next level) when, “the acquirer understands input that contains i+1” (p. 20). Krashen posits that the learner uses context, world knowledge, and other information to help to comprehend the meaning of language that is i+1 (p. 20). He contends that for a language to be acquired, “input must contain i+1,” and that, “if communication is successful, it contains i+1” (p. 21).
In my Elementary Alutiiq Language class, the students do receive comprehensible input in the form of songs, stories, presentations, and Total Physical Response activities. Asher (2001) describes TPR as “a language-body conversation,” wherein one interlocutor, usually the teacher, gives students a command in the target language and the learners respond with a physical response- such as sitting, waving, smiling- depending upon what command they were given. Comprehensible input plays a critical role in the vocabulary introduction phase of my lessons; however, the focus of this project is to encourage students’ engagement and promote output production.