Skip to main content

Extensive reading

In the United States the second language acquisition academic Stephen Krashen has many supporters. I wrote a dissertation about his work back in the 1980s. His main contention, laid out in his book Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, was that people best acquire second language through exposure to large amounts of "comprehensible input". Krashen argued, and still does, that traditional "skill-building" approaches which see a language as a complex system to be gradually mastered, bit by bit, from simplest to more complex, through analysis and controlled practice, are less successful.

He now calls his idea the Comprehension Hypothesis. It is superficially attractive since it effectively says that second language acquisition is like first language acquisition and that all you need to do is provide students with large amounts of understandable listening and reading for successful acquisition to take place.

Krashen goes further, however, by claiming that the language we practise consciously by means of drills, structured question-answer or grammar-translation, does not really count as comprehensible input since the focus is on form, not meaning. He claims that such controlled practice just allows you to monitor your accuracy as a you speak or write. (My hunch is that this is a false dichotomy and that all practice in the target language, whether focused on form or content, can be good. In other words, conscious learning can leak into natural acquisition.)

None of this is verifiable, despite the many attempts to show by experiment that one approach is better than another, but it seems to chime with common sense and experience that large amounts of contact with comprehensible language is what you need to make most progress. In this regard Krashen has done us a great service.

So, extensive listening and reading must be a good thing. Trouble is, modern language teachers find it hard to supply listening and reading materials which really motivate students.

From the 1980s the Bibliobus series for French was a good example of a set of graded readers which could motivate. They were written in accessible French alongside professional cartoon pictures, including some by the Guardian's Steve Bell. Pupils started at the bottom level, selected books themselves depending on their interests and worked their way through. I used to devote a lesson a week over several weeks to extensive reading with Bibliobus. Bibliobus went out of print after a few years (expensive to produce, expensive to buy and schools had insufficient time to devote to extensive reading) and since the nineties I have failed to find anything as good.

Extensive reading has, alas, been a bit neglected therefore. At A-level, where it it is easier to access material at the right level, we include an internet reading task once a week whereby students choose an article, copy and paste it on to A4, then add a vocab list and short summary in English to prove they have actually done the reading. This has worked well, but you have to monitor whether any Google translating goes on. I recommend this kind of reading task.

In general I am sure we neglect extensive reading for a number of reasons: lack of good materials, lack of time, feeling guilty that we are not being active as teachers in the classroom and, lastly, crucially, a failure to realise the importance of comprehension. There is a gap in the market for a publisher to produce a series of graded readers, either in book form (expensive, but preferable) or online.

Comments

  1. Great point Steve! Thank you but again and you mentioned it in a previous post: the school timetable is inadequate! For extensive reading, students should practice everyday and not just a few hours a week!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics