Comprehension-Based Learning: The Limits of ‘Do It Yourself’

Abstract

In previous publications, the authors reported on the English skills of students who had learned ESL in an experimental comprehension-based program. The performance of grade 4 and 5 students with two or three years of reading and listening was compared to that of students with three years of audio-lingual instruction. On most measures, the students in the comprehension-based program performed as well as or better than the comparison group (Lightbown 1992a; Lightbown & Halter, 1989). In the present paper, the authors report on a follow-up study carried out when students were in grade 8. After six years of an essentially comprehension-based program in ESL, they performed as well as comparison groups of students on measures of comprehension and some measures of oral production but not on measures of written production. This paper includes a description of some particular gaps in the written language of students in the comprehension-based program, includes a follow-up study with secondary school students who had been involved in an experimental program for learning English as a second language (ESL) in primary school, and concludes with a discussion of the need for pedagogical guidance for the development of writing skills.

Revisiting Comprehensible Input, Output Hypothesis and the Use of the L1 in the L2 Classroom

“…This means an effective language learning environment should include activities that include the practice of receptive and productive skills. This resonates with the findings of Swain (1985), Lightbown et al (2002) and McDonough (2005), who also expressed this view.…”

“…In my context, those who studied drama and literature courses, which demand both input and output seemed to outperform students who only received comprehensible input focused on writing and grammatical accuracy. Research is necessary to confirm this personal observation; however, it does correspond with the findings of Lightbown et al (2002) and McDonough (2005), who found that output resulted in improvements to students' writing skills and grammar. Research suggests, however, that both comprehensible input and output are necessary for overall second language proficiency (e.g.…”

“…Swain (1985Swain ( , 1993 argues that output can facilitate SLA, and that students should be given more opportunities to use their writing and speaking skills. The investigation of immersion programme in Canada, conducted by Lightbown et al (2002), while confirming that comprehensible input proved crucial to linguistic development for some students, found that the comparison group who had been involved in classes that incorporated writing and speaking exercises outperformed those students who received comprehensible input only. Thus, arguably, while comprehensible input is important it is not sufficient in itself.…”

Miti o učenju drugega/tujega jezika

“…Pristopu k učenju drugega/tujega jezika zgolj s poslušanjem in/ali branjem (Krashen 1985(Krashen , 1989 je bil poskusno uporabljen v razredu učencev, starih med 8 in 10 let, v francosko govorečem delu Kanade (Lightbown, Halter, White in Horst, 2002;Trofimovich, Lightbown, Halter in Song, 2009). Krashenov pristop temelji na hipotezi, da se jezika lahko učimo oziroma ga usvajamo tudi samo s poslušanjem in/ali branjem.…”

Learning Simple Perfect Tenses Using Implicit and Explicit Recasts

“…This includes both descriptive and experimental research examining a wide range of variables (e.g., type and amount of feedback, mode of feedback, learners' proficiency levels, and attitudes toward feedback). One of the reasons for this increased interest in CF appears to be related to the observation that despite the fact that L2 learners in communicative classrooms attain relatively high levels of comprehension ability and, to some extent, fluency in oral production, they continue to experience difficulties with accuracy (Harley & Swain, 1984; Lightbown, Halter, White & Horst, 2002;Lightbown & Spada, 1990, 1994Schmidt, 1983Schmidt, , 1990Schmidt, , 2001). Low levels of grammatical accuracy have been interpreted as evidence against the sufficiency of comprehensible input and exclusively meaning based instruction (Doughty & Williams, 1998;Long, 1991;Long & Robinson, 1998;Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985; Spada, 1997;White, 1987).…”