The application of the input hypothesis in the teaching of English writing in se

Abstract:With the further advance of the reform of education system ,writing plays a more and more important role in English testing. So, how to improve student’s writing ability becomes one of English teachers’ major tasks. Krashen’s input hypothesis offers us an effective way to explore it.

Keywords:Krashen’s input hypothesis,SLA, competence

中图分类号:G633文献标识码:A文章编号:1003-2851(2010)02-0120-02

Krashen’s input hypothesis has had a great impact on SLA(second language acquisition) and has also profoundly influenced classroom approaches to EL teaching and learning.

Krashen’s(1985)Five Hypothesis consists of five inter-related hypotheses, which has enjoyed great prominence in SLA research. The five hypotheses are a whole unit and show us Krashen’s main claims. Among the five hypotheses, the Input Hypothesis is central. Although his Input Hypothesis also has some drawbacks, it is hoped that through the analysis of it, its implications for English writing teaching can be drawn out.

Input is probably one of the most important terms in SLA. Without input, second language learners cannot learn a language. From Krashen's point of view, the Input Hypothesis may be the single most important concept in SLA theory for it attempts to answer the question of “how we acquire language”. This hypothesis assumes that acquisition is central and learning is peripheral, and the goal of our pedagogy is to encourage acquisition. The question of how we progress from one point to another through “natural” developmental sequence then becomes crucial. This hypothesis states simply that we acquire language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of acquired competence. It is stated that in order for acquirers to progress to the next stage in acquiring the target language, in writing, I think, besides organizing their own words, they are required to find common mistakes about the same expressions and then try avoiding them.

Krashen(1985)calls the type of input which can promote learning“i+1”, where the “i” refers to the acquirer's current level of competence, and the“+1”means the materials to be learnt are a little higher than learners’ current level of competence and they are challenging but not overwhelming to the learners. Only if the materials exposed to the learners are at the level of “i+1”, acquisition is possible to happen and the language development can be facilitated.

Krashen does not actually define comprehensible input. Ioup(1984)points out, “it is impossible to define a set of levels and determine which structures constitute i+1 level and hence there is no way of testing the hypothesis” (qtd.in McLaughlin,1987:39). Larsen-Freeman and Long(1991:247)also believe that the Input Hypothesis is untestable and they claim that such hypothesis “contains vital constructs, i and i+1,which Krashen(1984)himself recognizes are unoperationalizable, given the state of knowledge in inter-language studies”. Gass(1988)points out that it is not the comprehensible input but rather comprehended input that is important(qtd.inEllis,1994:278).

The Monitor Hypothesis states that acquisition and learning are used in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition “initiates” our utterances in second language and is responsible for our fluency. The conscious learning has an extremely limited function inL2 performance: it can only be used as a monitor. This hypothesis claims that when we produce an utterance in a second language, the utterance is “initiated” by the acquired system, and our conscious learning only comes into play later. We can thus use the monitor to make changes in the utterance only after the utterance has been generated by the acquired system.Krashen’s(1985)Monitor Hypothesis implies that formal rules play only a limited role in L2 performance.Also,L2 performers can use conscious rules only when three conditions are met: a. Time(Need to have sufficient time to think about and use conscious rules effectively); b. Focus on form(Need to be focused on form or thinking about correctness); c. Knowing the rules(qtd.in Larsen-Freeman and Long,1991:240).2.1.4

The Affective Filter Hypothesis: This hypothesis deals with how affective factors relate to the SLA process. It assumes that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their affective filters. It is “affective” because the factors that determine its strength have to do with the learner’s motivation, self-confidence, or anxiety state. It states that the influence of affect is “outside” the language acquire device, while the role of input in second language acquisition is primary. It claims that affective variables act to impede or facilitate the delivery of input to the language device. According to Krashen(1985),performers with good attitudes have a lower affective filter, which means that the performers are more “open” to the input and that the input strikes “deeper”. Thus, having the right attitudes is very important. It will encourage learners to try to get more input, to interact with speakers of the target language with confidence, and also to be more receptive to the input they get. The Affective Filter Hypothesis implies that our pedagogical goals should not only include supplying comprehensible input but also creating a situation that encourages filter. The effective teacher is the one who can provide input and help to make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation.

According to the present college entrance examination, English writing plays a very important role in English learning. Therefore, English teachers pay more and more attention to the English writing abilities of our students. Improving students’ writing competence is one of the major tasks of us teachers. In reality, it is very difficult to improve such abilities. In the traditional teaching of English writing, students’ compositions are judged only by teachers according to their final products. The planning, drafting, and reviewing of writing process fall into neglect. Traditional English writing class is teacher-centered. After enough explanations and lectures, teachers ask the students to finish the writing task separately during a given time. Finally, they hand in their papers to their teachers to evaluate or score, which leads the students to focus on language factors, neglecting the practice and creativity of writing activities. What the students need to do is imitating copies and transforming models provided by the teacher.

Without participation in learning procedure, the students seem like on-lookers in class. The students can not apply what they have learnt in class to practical tasks. So, the change of our teaching methods is urgent. I have tried another way to develop my students’ interest in English writing. Every time we are going to finish a writing task, I’ll do as follows:

Firstly, I’ll give my students about 20 minutes, after which the papers must be handed in. during the 20 minutes, the students are require to understand the topic, analyze key phrases mentioned in this passage, determine the tense and finish writing the paper.

Secondly, I will distribute the papers to the students immediately before they forget what they are writing about , making sure that each student don’t have his/her own paper. Then ask them to read the works of their classmates and pay more attention to good sentence structures they themselves haven’t thought of to use.

Thirdly, I’ll give full explanations to them. Help them understand and analyze this topic better. I’ll show them some good sentences or expressions or words that are more appropriate. Then, we’ll divide the total 25 scores into 25 pieces, and distribute all these 25 scores to the key words, phrases and sentences together.

Fourthly, according to the explanations, the students are supposed to point out the mistakes that occur in the paper and judge how many scores they will give to each sentence and the papers. Compared with others’ papers, the students can guess how many scores they themselves will get.

Lastly, the papers are turned in. I’ll examine each paper carefully, and adjust the final marks. When the writing books return to the students, they are eager to see whether his own marks is close to what they guessed before and whether the scores they gave to others is close to what the teacher gave. Besides, they want to find out how many mistakes others pointed out in their papers.

In my opinion, asking the students to correct others’ paper is something beyond their own ability. It’s something they must jump to reach. Doing like this develops my students’ interest in English writing. They all take active parts in English writing. We get rid of the boring phenomenon of explaining and listening in class. My students all discuss with me as well as with their classmates heatedly about the key points in order not to make mistakes while correcting papers.

Having been trained for a period of time, the students seem to have some changes. Obviously, they have become sensitive to some certain mistakes while writing papers. Besides, they pay more attention to structures of sentences and passages as well as the use of conjunctions.My students have learnt to think while writing in addition, that is to say , they have a good language sense . The most important is that they have got enough self-confidence in writing and even in English learning.

To me, my students’ interest in English learning is also very important. Therefore, I always try my best to cultivate their interest and encourage them to make it clear that “They can make it”.

References:

[1]Cook,V.2000a. Linguistics and second language acquisition. Beijing: Foreign language Teaching and Research Press.

[2]Cook,V.2000b. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing : Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[3]Ellis,R.1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[4]Lasen-Freeman, Long. An introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research【M】. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2000.