Just one last time, and then you guys can "duke this one out":

Bob, if you dismiss Krashen's "entire body of work as wrong," how can you
agree with him about Free Voluntary Reading, which you called wonderful?
Isn't that part of his work? It seems to me that such a dismissal IS a
dangerously sweeping generalization.

As a teacher who works in the trneches with young American high school
students, I have to say that I have learned some very useful pedagogical
tactics from Krashen's "i+1" idea - even if it IS an innacurate discription
of L2 acquisition (and I am not qualified to speak to this question, so I
won't), it works for me as a teaching model, both in ESL and in the native
English class. So does Sheltered English work, though perhaps not in all
cases (I doubt that "one size fits all" anyway). Any tool that works is a
good tool!

As far as the TV question is concerned, what real evidence is there that TV
is the CAUSE of the current crisis in literacy. It seems to me that proving
cause and effect is nearly impossible. Also, aren't there a myriad of
contributing factors to the low levels of reading among American students?

One other question: How low are these levels? If we have a record number of
students in school, as I believe we do, isn't it true that there might
actually be MORE readers in school today than when we were young? Has anyone
studied this question?

Looking forward to the debate,

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School
"Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her." - G.
B. Shaw



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Teaching grammar (the ESL angle)


>"Paul E. Doniger" wrote:
>
>> I am puzzled by your recent posting. Do any of us not realize that there
is
>> a world of difference between first and second language acquisition and
>> learning? I think we do.
>
>I recommend a reading of the following Krashen, S. (1994). The input
>hypothesis and its rivals.  In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and explicit
>learning of languages  (pp. 45-78).  San Diego: Academic Press for an
>example of someone who mixes evidence from first language acquisition
>and second language acquisition to make important claims about second
>language acquisition.   It has apparently gotten even worse.  Just this
>week on flteach-l, Krashen made claims about chimp acquisition of
>language to support his input hypothesis. I refer to the following post:
>
>[Krashen post
>Date:    Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:50:46 -0800
>From:    Stephen Krashen <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Nonhuman language acquisition via comprehensible input
>
>Dick Russell's speculation that primates acquire via natural
>methodology is supported by Fouts' observations on Washoe and other
>chimps, in his book Next of Kin. Washoe and other chimps acquired an
>impressive amount of sign language, including some syntax.
>
>There was no correction, but lots of comprehensible input:
>
>Washoe was picking up
>signs left and right by seeing us use them . We used only sign language
>around her, which gave her plenty of opportunity to imitate us, even if
>she did so according to her own timetable" (p 78).
>
>........                                        end Krashen post.]
>
>Apparently, Krashen believes that human language acquisition and chimp
>"language acquisition" is comparable.  (I did not make this up.)
>
>>
>> Regarding Krashen, it seems to me that the body of a person's work should
>> not be summarily dismissed as "wrong" without some detailed evidence. Do
you
>> mean, for example, that his "input hypothesis" is completely wrong?
>
>I am dismissing his entire body of work as "wrong."  Last year, Krashen
>admitted on the same list that White (1987) was right.  It is not
>COMPREHENSIBLE input that causes a restructuring of a learner's
>interlanguage but INCOMPREHENSIBLE input.  I can share with you these
>posts if you wish.  I recommend to anyone interested in second language
>acquisition and why the comprehensible input hypothesis is fundamentally
>flawed the following White, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input: the
>Input Hypothesis and the development of L2 competence.  Applied
>Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
>
>> And is
>> he also wrong about Free Voluntary Reading (Would you dismiss the notion
>> that reading is the most powerful tool in language arts education?)?
>
>Free Voluntary Reading is wonderful.  Can't we account for these effects
>from time on task?
>
>> Do you
>> think he is wrong in dismissing the notion that television is responsible
>> for the apparent "literary crisis" in America?
>
>Yes, I do.  I don't know what the apparent "literary crisis" in America
>means. Clearly, what it means to be literate has changed over the past
>hundred years.  The Civil War is interesting for historians because of
>the widespread literacy among the common soldiers, especially among
>those who fought for the Union.  Have you ever read any of the unedited
>letters the common soldier wrote?  By today's standards, these
>supposedly "literate" people would be consider illiterate.
>>
>> Where do we draw the line? I, for one, find such sweeping generalizations
>> dangerous.
>
>I find sweeping generalizations dangerous, too.  As someone who has to
>teach about Krashen to pre-service teachers, I am appalled at his
>sweeping generalizations about second language learning based on no
>careful examination of the literature and an apparent disregard for the
>facts.  Please see the post above about comprehensible input and chimp
>language learning as a typical example of the kind of evidence in the
>writings of Krashen.  I am prepared to cite others if you wish.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>