This book is very typical “Krashen”, and it is in full agreement with pretty much everything Krashen writes. He is an excellent researcher/historian on several topics.
I really wasn’t sure what I was going to write about for this week’s homework, but I’ve been reading the blog threads all week. Some people have made some excellent observations and asked some important questions. Maybe I can add my opinions to the discussions.
Regarding extensive reading vs. intensive reading. They are polar opposites when it comes to goals and purposes. It can be very useful to use extensive reading with students of higher ability level (for all of the reasons listed in the book) and in conjunction with intensive reading, but students with extremely low ability level probably could not do intensive reading, by the most recognized definition of the term. (However, it could be argued that all, or most, reading that is done in the classroom by lower level students could be considered intensive by another definition of the term, based upon the amount of focus needed by the learner.) As the professor was discussing last week, scaffolding is probably necessary for most low level readers and even some intermediate level readers. This is where the teacher comes into the picture, and can be the most important factor in determining the student’s ultimate success or failure with the language. This is the purpose for having a teacher, and this is what our students need. Because the knowledge, skills, and experience of a teacher is so absolutely vital to a student’s success, this is why we need to know what we are doing in the classroom and this is why we have to be the best we can be, at all times, and on all days. (Sorry if it sounds like I am preaching here, but IMO a teacher is one of the most important roles in any society)
Deciding when to use which method and how much time to allow for each method is an important decision every teacher must make for themselves and for their students. It should be based upon many factors, too many to list here. However, in my opinion all classes should be Learner-Centered and not Teacher-Centered. Krashen’s work over the years is also in direct line with Learner-Centeredness. Teachers’ teaching styles will have a direct effect over all of their decisions they make in the classroom. As professional teachers, we all need to be aware of what kind of teaching styles we use, and why we are using them.
Another question came up regarding “Why does the author say that those who recognize more authors’ names have read more and have superior literacy development?” I think it would be pretty safe to say that most people who are learning about SLA would/should be able to recognize Krashen’s name. However, this is probably not because they have read a lot of his work about extensive reading. Most likely it is because he has been referenced so much by others, or perhaps because they have read about his more famous hypotheses. The point is, if one has read Krashen directly, and enjoyed what they read, they are more likely to read more of his works and would, therefore, be able to recognize his name more freely. And, by having read more, they should, in theory, have superior literacy development. The same can be true with subject knowledge. The more a person has read, in theory, the more a person should know on a particular topic. This is the purpose of giving us “comprehensive exams” in order to graduate. The thinking is that we should all have done extensive, and intensive, reading from the three reading lists, and in doing so, should make us “experts” on the topics.
The idea of selecting the books from-easy-to-hard-to-harder texts (p.7) for processing reading appears to meet our eager readers’ needs. I agree with the relevant consistency of conducting free voluntary reading (FVR) and development of literate ability (p.11) since for the ESL readers, according to the reading hypothesis in Figure 1.1 (p.17), skill-building and error correction through direct instruction (p. 18) can be alternatively constructed via consciously productive practices in school. The point that Cornman (1902) argued in the 3-year research (p.24) that the continuing improvement in spelling is somewhat coherent with the study by Waring and Takakei (2003), saying that “vocabulary acquisition is distributed and incremental” (p. 47). If the reader focuses more on the exact meaning of the unknown words, different degrees of vagueness might somehow hamper the interest and enjoyment of reading. The external motivation of the reader may be applied to dominating the attitude toward reading. In reality, the task that the school administration and we teaching faculty encounter is always to transfer the slow and passive learners into quick and active ones. We’ve got to make that happen and it is a point of no return (p. 40). To this issue, whenever I stumble upon someone who falls asleep, appears less attentive, or chats with the neighboring pupil in the middle of the teaching and sharing, no kidding, I pat him on the shoulder with gentle eye contact or ask her mate to do so for me, tending to at minimum manage the class order and optimistically create a sound learning environment to earnestly help them with their learning. It might be hard for first two or three classes, once our class has really become aware that “I mean it”, then their manner toward learning may be gradually adjusted and altered. Anyhow, whatever it takes, it is truly worthy of trying because the proposal of pleasure hypothesis by Krashen (1994), arguing “pedagogical activities that promote language acquisition are enjoyable” (p. 28) should be taken into consideration and put into practice. My major concern this time is, from Bustead (1943) on page 48, “Would the existing policy of evaluating our learners’ linguistic proficiency at the midterms and finals held in week 9 and 18, respectively, be in accordance with what Bustead’s argument of the suitable way to facilitate what our readers have learned?”. If the reader is encouraged to distinguish “what I choose to read in and after class” from “what I have to read in school” (p.52), the concept of free voluntary reading or recreational reading (p. 50) can be optimistically realized. One last concern here is conducted by Goertzel, Goertzel, and Goertzel (1978, p.11). They reported nearly half of the 300 subjects were regarded as omnivorous readers (p. 54), somehow supporting the idea of knowing how to distinguish “core” from “peripheral” reading (p.55) so to be good thinkers.
Aaron’s 4th reflection
ReplyDeleteThis book is very typical “Krashen”, and it is in full agreement with pretty much everything Krashen writes. He is an excellent researcher/historian on several topics.
I really wasn’t sure what I was going to write about for this week’s homework, but I’ve been reading the blog threads all week. Some people have made some excellent observations and asked some important questions. Maybe I can add my opinions to the discussions.
Regarding extensive reading vs. intensive reading. They are polar opposites when it comes to goals and purposes. It can be very useful to use extensive reading with students of higher ability level (for all of the reasons listed in the book) and in conjunction with intensive reading, but students with extremely low ability level probably could not do intensive reading, by the most recognized definition of the term. (However, it could be argued that all, or most, reading that is done in the classroom by lower level students could be considered intensive by another definition of the term, based upon the amount of focus needed by the learner.) As the professor was discussing last week, scaffolding is probably necessary for most low level readers and even some intermediate level readers. This is where the teacher comes into the picture, and can be the most important factor in determining the student’s ultimate success or failure with the language. This is the purpose for having a teacher, and this is what our students need. Because the knowledge, skills, and experience of a teacher is so absolutely vital to a student’s success, this is why we need to know what we are doing in the classroom and this is why we have to be the best we can be, at all times, and on all days. (Sorry if it sounds like I am preaching here, but IMO a teacher is one of the most important roles in any society)
Deciding when to use which method and how much time to allow for each method is an important decision every teacher must make for themselves and for their students. It should be based upon many factors, too many to list here. However, in my opinion all classes should be Learner-Centered and not Teacher-Centered. Krashen’s work over the years is also in direct line with Learner-Centeredness. Teachers’ teaching styles will have a direct effect over all of their decisions they make in the classroom. As professional teachers, we all need to be aware of what kind of teaching styles we use, and why we are using them.
Another question came up regarding “Why does the author say that those who recognize more authors’ names have read more and have superior literacy development?” I think it would be pretty safe to say that most people who are learning about SLA would/should be able to recognize Krashen’s name. However, this is probably not because they have read a lot of his work about extensive reading. Most likely it is because he has been referenced so much by others, or perhaps because they have read about his more famous hypotheses. The point is, if one has read Krashen directly, and enjoyed what they read, they are more likely to read more of his works and would, therefore, be able to recognize his name more freely. And, by having read more, they should, in theory, have superior literacy development. The same can be true with subject knowledge. The more a person has read, in theory, the more a person should know on a particular topic. This is the purpose of giving us “comprehensive exams” in order to graduate. The thinking is that we should all have done extensive, and intensive, reading from the three reading lists, and in doing so, should make us “experts” on the topics.
The idea of selecting the books from-easy-to-hard-to-harder texts (p.7) for processing reading appears to meet our eager readers’ needs. I agree with the relevant consistency of conducting free voluntary reading (FVR) and development of literate ability (p.11) since for the ESL readers, according to the reading hypothesis in Figure 1.1 (p.17), skill-building and error correction through direct instruction (p. 18) can be alternatively constructed via consciously productive practices in school.
ReplyDeleteThe point that Cornman (1902) argued in the 3-year research (p.24) that the continuing improvement in spelling is somewhat coherent with the study by Waring and Takakei (2003), saying that “vocabulary acquisition is distributed and incremental” (p. 47). If the reader focuses more on the exact meaning of the unknown words, different degrees of vagueness might somehow hamper the interest and enjoyment of reading. The external motivation of the reader may be applied to dominating the attitude toward reading. In reality, the task that the school administration and we teaching faculty encounter is always to transfer the slow and passive learners into quick and active ones. We’ve got to make that happen and it is a point of no return (p. 40). To this issue, whenever I stumble upon someone who falls asleep, appears less attentive, or chats with the neighboring pupil in the middle of the teaching and sharing, no kidding, I pat him on the shoulder with gentle eye contact or ask her mate to do so for me, tending to at minimum manage the class order and optimistically create a sound learning environment to earnestly help them with their learning. It might be hard for first two or three classes, once our class has really become aware that “I mean it”, then their manner toward learning may be gradually adjusted and altered. Anyhow, whatever it takes, it is truly worthy of trying because the proposal of pleasure hypothesis by Krashen (1994), arguing “pedagogical activities that promote language acquisition are enjoyable” (p. 28) should be taken into consideration and put into practice.
My major concern this time is, from Bustead (1943) on page 48, “Would the existing policy of evaluating our learners’ linguistic proficiency at the midterms and finals held in week 9 and 18, respectively, be in accordance with what Bustead’s argument of the suitable way to facilitate what our readers have learned?”. If the reader is encouraged to distinguish “what I choose to read in and after class” from “what I have to read in school” (p.52), the concept of free voluntary reading or recreational reading (p. 50) can be optimistically realized.
One last concern here is conducted by Goertzel, Goertzel, and Goertzel (1978, p.11). They reported nearly half of the 300 subjects were regarded as omnivorous readers (p. 54), somehow supporting the idea of knowing how to distinguish “core” from “peripheral” reading (p.55) so to be good thinkers.