Skill building versus comprehensible input

Yes, the debate has raged as long as debates have been the rage: which is the better way to teach a language: by skill building, excercising, drilling specific skills (i.e. atomistic way) or by just providing comprehensible input and trusting ther learners' brains' capacity to subconsciously pick up both vocabulary and structure (i.e. holistic way). I know Krashen is a controversial figure but here is what he has to say on the subject and I will be damned if that doesn't make sense:

"We have made a serious error in language education: We have confused cause and effect. We have assumed that students first need to consciously learn their "skills" (grammar, vocabulary, spelling), and that only after skills are mastered can they actually use these skills in real situations. This assumption, the "Skill-Building Hypothesis," insists on delayed gratification. Only after hard and tedious work do we earn the right to actually enjoy the use of language.

There is an alternative. It hypothesizes that "skills," or mastery of the components of language, is the result of one particular aspect of language use, comprehensible input. It claims that grammatical competence and vocabulary knowledge are the result of listening and reading, and that writing style and much of spelling competence is the result of reading. The Comprehension Hypothesis does not require delayed gratification. It claims that we can enjoy real language use right away: we can listen to stories, read books, and engage in interesting conversations as soon as they are comprehensible. The Comprehension Hypothesis, in fact, insists on pleasure from the beginning, on acquirers obtaining interesting, comprehensible input right from the start. The path of pleasure is the only path. The path of pain does not work for language acquisition. I have referred to the Comprehension Hypothesis as the Input Hypothesis in previous writing, a term that I do not reject. But "Comprehension Hypothesis" appears to be more precise-it is comprehension that counts, not simply input. Smith (1975) made this clear in the title of his book, Comprehension and Learning, pointing out that they are closely related: In order to learn anything (using the term "learn" here in the more general sense, not as contrasted with "acquisition"), we must first understand it. Once we have understood it, we have learned it.

The evidence for this alternative hypothesis is strong. It has been shown that comprehensible-input based methods are very successful when compared to methods based on skill-building; this research includes beginning and intermediate foreign language teaching, and the consistent positive impact of free voluntary reading (Krashen, 2003). "


How did YOU learn your other languages? was it skill building or natural acquizition? Which one do you prefer and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I learned english by skill building and 'natural acquizition' (if TV falls under that)

Well, I learned Russian by picking up from listening to TV, radio etc. I had classes at school too, but most of my knowlede owes to this natural picking up.

In case of English, it was initially 100 percent formal teaching or "skill building" as Krashen calls it. Only much later I started to improve it in a more natural way, by picking up like I had done with Russian earlier.

Now I am learning German, and i am applying almost exclusively the natural way, I have had no formal teaching. It feels great, especially in developing listening/reading skills, but maybe not so great when it comes to actual speaking. I believe a little conscious and explicit teaching of some German grammar rules would not hurt. However, I am too lazy to study them consciously, so I stick to Krashen's method... :)

Genarally speaking, IMHO teaching language explicitaly is for the selected few, the "elite", who are dedicated and concentrated enough to learn the language consciously, but the masses would profit much more from natural method, as described by Krashen...

I've been learning Italian using comprehensible input (mostly authentic written materials of different sorts and TV programs). It has worked fine for me, but I've had to study grammatical forms separately. While you can't do without some basic grammar while using this method, the objective should be to rely increasingly on deduction rather than induction (I mean, for example, that you should deduct various syntactic constructions from samples of actual usage).

On the other hand, this method seems to be effective only if you try to follow it up by actually interacting in the language you are trying to pick up, otherwise it will leave you with just comprehension skills, not the ability to use the language actively.

You cannot learn vocabulary just through reading and listening to a foreign language, without some form of translation into L1, contextual clues or something else unlikely to be present in raw input. The distinction between input and comprehension is clearly vital.

But where do we draw the line between 'active learning' or skills training and 'comprehension?' Is it when the dictioanry comes out ? Or the grammar book ? Or when we start a course with a teacher ? At what point do we distinguish between the two ?

Incidentally, I think that grammatical structures and pronunciation patterns can certainly be improved by 'natural' acquisition, and I think a large weighting towards it is desirable in learning a language. At some stage, though, you will have to 'actively' engage with the language. Even checking a word in the dictionary is going beyond soaking up input.
However, come to think of it that rather ignores the large number of compound words I have guessed the meaning from their components. Perhaps it is worth starting with the shortest and most commonly combined words...

Enough rambling.

I think you can't learn a language by relying on (written or spoken) input only. Some sort of activity should always be there. What I personally prefer is an "input first" method, where you use comprehensible input to make yourself conscious of native-like usage. You can then proceed by trying to consciously use native-like structures, but only after having checked the contexts in which they are proper (e.g. by using samples or in case of vocabulary items, a dictionary). However, this works only on levels not lower than pre-intermediate, at least for me. You always have to be familiar with the basics of the given language to be able to make use of comprehensible input.

Also, I have a feeling that this method would not be appropriate for learning a language with a markedly different cultural background than your own (e.g. most Asian languages if you are European or American). In the case of the latter, you should converse with native speakers at a fairly early stage, or it may even be better to learn them from a native speaker.

Yes, no doubt Krashen's views are somewhat extreme, however they still do make sense. Of course, speaking practice is essential, but first and foremost there shoudl be input. To put enough input into your head - thats the most difficult and most time-consuming part. Once the language is there in your brain, to learn to find the right things to say at the right time is the easy part. All you need is to remember them. Of course, it requires some practice too, but if you have had not enough input in the first place, no "speaking practice" will help you to learn to speak. This is the simple truth many English teachers cannot realize, especially those who ar maing their students speak from the very beginning.

I agree that the trend in teaching which encourages speaking from the first lesson onwards is rather optimistic, and not especially useful.

You could point out however that genuine beginner learners of English don't really exist - everyone I have ever taught has had some, or indeed quite a lot of contact with the language. The case is very different in the case of lesser spoken languages - I for one had never heard much Romanian before attempting to learn it.

Stephaniel Spaniel,
That's right. Many learners have had some informal exposure to English. Indeed, some learn to understand and even to speak English from that exposure alone!