Extensive reading or FVR may not guarantee the quality of writing; however, without reading, quality writing is a mission impossible. Writing can help people think through and solve problems. People learn to write by reading. All these statements mentioned above help quench my thirst for finding an approach to writing. I usually ask professors or experts for the answer to the question, how to improve one’s writing. From this class, I know that reading is the way to it. Krashen states that “television is not the culprit in the literacy crisis. The culprit is the absence of reading material.” I deeply agree with him. When I look back on my teaching career, I find that I focus too much on textbooks: simply explaining grammar rules to students, and equipping students with reading strategies. Most of the time is spent in form-focused instruction. Rarely had I emphasized a tour to library, let alone to have my students choose reading materials themselves. Lack of access to reading materials which are interesting and comprehensible to students is the main reason why real reading can not happen in my reading class. In the past, reading materials are chosen based mainly on my assumption of students’ preference and language proficiency. Without a precise survey to get a whole picture of my students regarding their language proficiency and preference, I find my teaching can not achieve the expected goals. By taking this class, I think I can find ways to better understanding my students; and hopefully, after some tours to library and introduction to them some graded readers, my students can find the materials which they are interested in. Reading for information and reading for pleasure are the two ultimate goals that I want my students to achieve in my reading class.
The words we read in the texts of books are understandably regarded as an important means of implicit communication with the authors. Writing something as reflections afterward might somehow help us readers visualize what we have digested and what we are thinking (p.138) as a process of one of the two main productive skills in terms of language learning. As well-read (p.129), fluent (p.130), competent (p.130), and simply called good (p.) readers, I’m for the importance of nurturing our writing styles largely absorbed, or subconsciously acquired, from reading (p.132, 133), complete with solving our imaginative difficulties (p.137) on the basis of what they have already read, knowledge of the language they are using, and aspects of print for confirmation (p.130). Before that, being “open” to what we read may help lower our affective factors (p.130) or enjoy an anxiety-free reading. Krashen inevitably mentions the methods of using 1) direct teaching, 2) grammar handbook, and 3) dictionaries may consciously facilitate to fill parts of the gap (p.131) in word spellings, punctuation, and grammar (p.129). I also agree with the difference between formal written language and informal conversational language (p.133). But the controversial idea of “No one writes enough to learn more than a small part of what writers need to know (Smith, 1988, p.19)” also reminds me of the moderately increasing need of frequent writing. More daily email writing via computer (p.154) or keeping a diary or journal (p.137, 153) might at least help maintain such a habit though Krashen concludes that more writing doesn’t support better writing, though (p.135), let alone “teaching language through content” for those who enrolled in shelter subject course in Ottawa, Canada ) (p.135). What we read influences what we are going to write. For the sake of communication and clarifying and stimulating our thinking (p.137), it’s always worthy of continuously producing what we have comprehended after tons of reading in our minds. The assumption of whether watching TV programs may displace extensive reading also gets my attention. It turns out that there is no obvious relationship between TV watching and heavy reading and the access to books (p.141) or absence of reading material (p.145) may be the root cause of developing linguistic proficiency. To better the intellectual progress, complexity and richness of ideas (p.146) of our young readers or beginners’ literacy, less frequent TV watching appears to be a more proper means in the long run. The idea of maintaining our “heritage” language to further develop our second language acquisition may, first of all, overcome the struggle of “ethnic ambivalence/ evasion” (p.148). In order to open a window of opportunity, keeping reading excessively, to name some, comics, magazines, and children’s books (p.143), would be an easier and productive way to make our readers more mature and insightful, complete with the constant and moderate guidance of us parents (p.151), librarians (p.154) or school authorities (p.151), and experienced readers. Regardless of socioeconomic status, reading for pleasure helps our readers understand more by analogy, it’s the way to see different parts of the world.
Basically, I agree with Krashen about the power of reading; however, I still have some problems. As the author said the ability of writing can be raised or improved through reading, but the limits of reading, like: spelling, punctuation and grammar are cures of writing. I really doubt it is enough to get the good writing by reading. Also, if we won’t teach the writing instruction? How can we avoid the errors?
Every coin has two sides. If extensive reading represents one side of the coin, intensive reading represents the other side of the coin. One cannot go without the other. As Krashen has suggested, “FVR is not a replacement for the language program. FVR complements language arts classes.” He states that “I am not proposing a language arts program consisting only of free reading. I also recognize the value of reading that is assigned by teachers, and reading that is recommended by teachers…Assigned reading and FVR will help each other” (p. 150).
The author has pointed out the limits of extensive FVR in the beginning of Part III, implying that even very well-read people may have gaps in their competence with spelling, punctuation, and grammar problems. This reminds me of an incident of some native speakers in American who cannot differentiate the usage of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.
Still, ER is important in a way that it helps in developing our writing ability (p. 132). Personally, I believe it is true because when writing a paragraph, we need to state out the main idea of the paragraph we wrote, and we should provide sufficient supporting details or examples for the idea. Those who read extensively for fun, information, and meaning are usually those who can provide interesting and informative details and examples to supports his/her ideas in a writing (compare with those who read less).
The function of writing, on the other hand, helps to “clarify and stimulate our thinking” (p. 137). This is true in a way that our ego-conscious are very fragmental. If a brilliant idea came across our mind and we did not write it down immediately, we probably would not remember it after a few days. Abstract ideas can only become concrete facts if it is being written down. As suggested by Elbow (1973), “it is difficult to hold more than one thought in mind at a time. When we write our ideas down, the vague and abstract become clear and concrete. When thoughts are on paper, we can see the relationships among them, and can come up with better thought” (p. 137).
Krashen uses Smith's observation that teenagers learn their dress code, slang and behaviour patterns by simply observing those around them - not through studying them. I can relate to this observation, specifically with regards to SLA.
I had an experience learning an L2 while living in a foreign country. In this country, foreigners weren't allowed to interact with locals and so in order for me to continue living with a local family, I had to pretend to the best of my ability that I was also a local. In this situation, I remember watching the girls my age to see how they walked, talked, what their body language was like until the time finally came when I could go out, buy things, interact to a small degree and almost pass for a local. In fact, when I speak this L2 I sound like I learned it on the street (not educated), I learned mostly slang although I didn't know it was slang until I spoke it to people from other areas/countries and they didn't always know what I was saying. For example, where I was living, "guapa" meant "angry" but in other places it means "beautiful". You can imagine the confusion and frustration when I wanted to convey, "I'm so angry" but but people were hearing, "I'm so beautiful".
I guess you could say that I learned about this culture and the L2 through imitation and observation. Trying to pick up on the nuances of this new world I was living in was very much a conscious process for me and I imagine this is similar to what young children and teenagers go through who immigrate to foreign countries and have to 'fit in' in their new school.
With regards to all the studies about TV that Krashen mentions, it seems to me that the majority of studies he's referring to are looking at L1 learners watching TV in their L1. This, in my opinion is quite different than what we are dealing with here in Taiwan. I can see the many points that excessive TV can have a detrimental effect on our studies. However, I don't believe this refers to L2 language learners.
I have a friend here in Penghu who is one of the few (non-teachers) I've met here who can speak at least an intermediate level of English. He has had no English exposure other than TV and he speaks marvelously for someone who has had such a little amount of authentic English practice.
Many kids in Canada start to learn French or English through watching 'Sesame Street' in their L2. Norther Europeans (Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Norway, etc) speak better English than any other group I've come across. One thing they all say is that they've always grown up watching English TV programs, usually without subtitles.
My point is, I can think of numerous cases of people I've come across in my life where learners have improved their L2 through watching TV.
If we truly want our students to improve their reading and writing, the answer is evident. We need to create an environment for them in our classrooms and schools where we they can choose books for pleasure and we need to make sure that we encourage this type of reading. One way is to give them time during class and let them see that we, as teachers are also using this time for some SSR. Another way is to break the habit of wanting to test them on everything they do. Let's let the fun reading stay fun.
Extensive reading or FVR may not guarantee the quality of writing; however, without reading, quality writing is a mission impossible. Writing can help people think through and solve problems. People learn to write by reading. All these statements mentioned above help quench my thirst for finding an approach to writing. I usually ask professors or experts for the answer to the question, how to improve one’s writing. From this class, I know that reading is the way to it.
ReplyDeleteKrashen states that “television is not the culprit in the literacy crisis. The culprit is the absence of reading material.” I deeply agree with him. When I look back on my teaching career, I find that I focus too much on textbooks: simply explaining grammar rules to students, and equipping students with reading strategies. Most of the time is spent in form-focused instruction. Rarely had I emphasized a tour to library, let alone to have my students choose reading materials themselves. Lack of access to reading materials which are interesting and comprehensible to students is the main reason why real reading can not happen in my reading class.
In the past, reading materials are chosen based mainly on my assumption of students’ preference and language proficiency. Without a precise survey to get a whole picture of my students regarding their language proficiency and preference, I find my teaching can not achieve the expected goals. By taking this class, I think I can find ways to better understanding my students; and hopefully, after some tours to library and introduction to them some graded readers, my students can find the materials which they are interested in. Reading for information and reading for pleasure are the two ultimate goals that I want my students to achieve in my reading class.
The words we read in the texts of books are understandably regarded as an important means of implicit communication with the authors. Writing something as reflections afterward might somehow help us readers visualize what we have digested and what we are thinking (p.138) as a process of one of the two main productive skills in terms of language learning. As well-read (p.129), fluent (p.130), competent (p.130), and simply called good (p.) readers, I’m for the importance of nurturing our writing styles largely absorbed, or subconsciously acquired, from reading (p.132, 133), complete with solving our imaginative difficulties (p.137) on the basis of what they have already read, knowledge of the language they are using, and aspects of print for confirmation (p.130). Before that, being “open” to what we read may help lower our affective factors (p.130) or enjoy an anxiety-free reading. Krashen inevitably mentions the methods of using 1) direct teaching, 2) grammar handbook, and 3) dictionaries may consciously facilitate to fill parts of the gap (p.131) in word spellings, punctuation, and grammar (p.129).
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the difference between formal written language and informal conversational language (p.133). But the controversial idea of “No one writes enough to learn more than a small part of what writers need to know (Smith, 1988, p.19)” also reminds me of the moderately increasing need of frequent writing. More daily email writing via computer (p.154) or keeping a diary or journal (p.137, 153) might at least help maintain such a habit though Krashen concludes that more writing doesn’t support better writing, though (p.135), let alone “teaching language through content” for those who enrolled in shelter subject course in Ottawa, Canada ) (p.135).
What we read influences what we are going to write. For the sake of communication and clarifying and stimulating our thinking (p.137), it’s always worthy of continuously producing what we have comprehended after tons of reading in our minds.
The assumption of whether watching TV programs may displace extensive reading also gets my attention. It turns out that there is no obvious relationship between TV watching and heavy reading and the access to books (p.141) or absence of reading material (p.145) may be the root cause of developing linguistic proficiency. To better the intellectual progress, complexity and richness of ideas (p.146) of our young readers or beginners’ literacy, less frequent TV watching appears to be a more proper means in the long run.
The idea of maintaining our “heritage” language to further develop our second language acquisition may, first of all, overcome the struggle of “ethnic ambivalence/ evasion” (p.148). In order to open a window of opportunity, keeping reading excessively, to name some, comics, magazines, and children’s books (p.143), would be an easier and productive way to make our readers more mature and insightful, complete with the constant and moderate guidance of us parents (p.151), librarians (p.154) or school authorities (p.151), and experienced readers. Regardless of socioeconomic status, reading for pleasure helps our readers understand more by analogy, it’s the way to see different parts of the world.
Basically, I agree with Krashen about the power of reading; however, I still have some problems. As the author said the ability of writing can be raised or improved through reading, but the limits of reading, like: spelling, punctuation and grammar are cures of writing. I really doubt it is enough to get the good writing by reading. Also, if we won’t teach the writing instruction? How can we avoid the errors?
ReplyDeleteEvery coin has two sides. If extensive reading represents one side of the coin, intensive reading represents the other side of the coin. One cannot go without the other. As Krashen has suggested, “FVR is not a replacement for the language program. FVR complements language arts classes.” He states that “I am not proposing a language arts program consisting only of free reading. I also recognize the value of reading that is assigned by teachers, and reading that is recommended by teachers…Assigned reading and FVR will help each other” (p. 150).
ReplyDeleteThe author has pointed out the limits of extensive FVR in the beginning of Part III, implying that even very well-read people may have gaps in their competence with spelling, punctuation, and grammar problems. This reminds me of an incident of some native speakers in American who cannot differentiate the usage of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.
Still, ER is important in a way that it helps in developing our writing ability (p. 132). Personally, I believe it is true because when writing a paragraph, we need to state out the main idea of the paragraph we wrote, and we should provide sufficient supporting details or examples for the idea. Those who read extensively for fun, information, and meaning are usually those who can provide interesting and informative details and examples to supports his/her ideas in a writing (compare with those who read less).
The function of writing, on the other hand, helps to “clarify and stimulate our thinking” (p. 137). This is true in a way that our ego-conscious are very fragmental. If a brilliant idea came across our mind and we did not write it down immediately, we probably would not remember it after a few days. Abstract ideas can only become concrete facts if it is being written down. As suggested by Elbow (1973), “it is difficult to hold more than one thought in mind at a time. When we write our ideas down, the vague and abstract become clear and concrete. When thoughts are on paper, we can see the relationships among them, and can come up with better thought” (p. 137).
From Sabrina (10/28):
ReplyDeleteThere are some interesting notes in chapter 3:
Students learn/ read best when it is pleasant!
Regarding writing practice, researches reveal that increasing quantity doesn't quarantee quality.
People don't learn output through outpout, but input
(people learn writing through reading, but not writing)
intriging, but philosophical
Krashen uses Smith's observation that teenagers learn their dress code, slang and behaviour patterns by simply observing those around them - not through studying them. I can relate to this observation, specifically with regards to SLA.
ReplyDeleteI had an experience learning an L2 while living in a foreign country. In this country, foreigners weren't allowed to interact with locals and so in order for me to continue living with a local family, I had to pretend to the best of my ability that I was also a local. In this situation, I remember watching the girls my age to see how they walked, talked, what their body language was like until the time finally came when I could go out, buy things, interact to a small degree and almost pass for a local. In fact, when I speak this L2 I sound like I learned it on the street (not educated), I learned mostly slang although I didn't know it was slang until I spoke it to people from other areas/countries and they didn't always know what I was saying. For example, where I was living, "guapa" meant "angry" but in other places it means "beautiful". You can imagine the confusion and frustration when I wanted to convey, "I'm so angry" but but people were hearing, "I'm so beautiful".
I guess you could say that I learned about this culture and the L2 through imitation and observation. Trying to pick up on the nuances of this new world I was living in was very much a conscious process for me and I imagine this is similar to what young children and teenagers go through who immigrate to foreign countries and have to 'fit in' in their new school.
With regards to all the studies about TV that Krashen mentions, it seems to me that the majority of studies he's referring to are looking at L1 learners watching TV in their L1. This, in my opinion is quite different than what we are dealing with here in Taiwan. I can see the many points that excessive TV can have a detrimental effect on our studies. However, I don't believe this refers to L2 language learners.
I have a friend here in Penghu who is one of the few (non-teachers) I've met here who can speak at least an intermediate level of English. He has had no English exposure other than TV and he speaks marvelously for someone who has had such a little amount of authentic English practice.
Many kids in Canada start to learn French or English through watching 'Sesame Street' in their L2. Norther Europeans (Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Norway, etc) speak better English than any other group I've come across. One thing they all say is that they've always grown up watching English TV programs, usually without subtitles.
My point is, I can think of numerous cases of people I've come across in my life where learners have improved their L2 through watching TV.
If we truly want our students to improve their reading and writing, the answer is evident. We need to create an environment for them in our classrooms and schools where we they can choose books for pleasure and we need to make sure that we encourage this type of reading. One way is to give them time during class and let them see that we, as teachers are also using this time for some SSR. Another way is to break the habit of wanting to test them on everything they do. Let's let the fun reading stay fun.