Spaced Exposure with SRS

Flashcards are among the most traditional and widely utilized language study tools. In my own experience they are also one of the most ineffective. Look at the front, recall translation, confirm by looking at the back, then repeat. Brute force memorization is effortful, time intensive, and boring.

To lessen the review burden of flashcards, spaced repetition algorithms were developed (Sebastian Leitner was an early pioneer). If a student has a deck of 100 cards then it is likely a certain percentage of those cards are well known and do not require constant review. These "known" cards are put into a separate box and reviewed at larger intervals. More challenging cards are kept in a "difficult" box and reviewed more frequently. Algorithms vary on spacing and categorization, but the basic principal holds throughout: flashcards are more effectively studied by spacing out reviews.

A wide array of computerized flash card systems (SRS) is available to make the utilization of spaced repetition simple and convenient. The core weakness of SRS is that it remains rooted in the realm of deliberate memorization (it is just a more efficient way to go about it). Efficiently scheduled brute force memorization is still effortful and boring; hardly an ideal way to acquire a foreign language.

An alternative paradigm is spaced exposure (SE): using SRS as a means to ensure routine exposure to interesting, comprehensible input. The purpose of SE is not to memorize or "retain" information, but rather to gradually internalize it over time. In that sense it is not optimal for time compressed study demands (i.e., exam preparation over the short term) but I have found it highly effective and pleasurable for long term study.

Making the Schedule Easy

A key element to SE is using an SRS system that has a scheduling algorithm which can be altered by the user. As an example, let us consider Anki – it's scheduling algorithm can be modified by following these instructions. The spacing between grades is different for each learner; I don't enjoy spending hours reviewing flashcards so I scheduled liberal gaps in between grades. Anki has four grades that can be given to a card: Again, Hard, Good, Easy. For "Again" I have a minimum of three days between viewings and for "Hard" it is in the neighborhood of one to two weeks. The remaining grades have much larger intervals: "Good" is half a month to one month, while "Easy" is one to two months.

Grading for Convenience

SE is about exposure to input, not about memorization or meeting expected learning benchmarks or goals. If a word is forgotten, it is forgotten. That does not necessarily mean I grade it as "hard" or "again". If I want to push a card out simply because I believe I may pick up the word over a month in the course of other exposures then I will mark the card as "Easy". If I really want to see it again soon then I will use "Again" or "Hard". If I am ambivalent then I will probably mark the card as "Good". If the card takes too much time to read or is uninteresting – even though it may have been interesting at one time – or I just feel like giving up, then I will delete it.

The central goal of an SRS is memorization, whereas the central goal of SE is exposure. The more time you spend with real, comprehensible, interesting input the more rapidly and accurately you will acquire the language.

Good Cards, Bad Cards

A good flash card is:

1. Comprehensible: at least 80% known words/patterns.
   
2. Meaningful: the real language (native composed) in a real context.
   
3. Interesting: concerning a topic that stimulates you.
   
4. Contains hints and/or visual aids if necessary: pictures, related words, explanation notes, etc.
   
5. Helps you notice something about the word, grammar, kanji, etc.
   

A bad flash card is:

1. A word and then a translation with no context.
   
2. A definition: dictionaries are not often read for pleasure.
   
3. A single kanji: characters, like words, are best learned in the context of a full sentence or phrase.
   
4. Boring: unreadable, contrived, or otherwise just not pleasurable to read.
   
5. Deleted from your deck, quickly.
   

Card Examples

The following are examples of cards I have or at one point had in my deck. What constitutes an optimal card will vary from person to person, but the above rules hold true throughout. Especially critical is comprehensibility. If you cannot at a meaningful level comprehend the card then it has little or no utility.

Unless otherwise noted the backs of all the presented cards are nothing but ruby readings.

Front: エールフランス機が緊急着陸、爆弾脅迫で　ブラジル
緊張　救急車　協力　白人

One trick is to use known kanji to assist in reading unknown kanji. If you study about Chinese characters you will discover that the majority are　形声文字 (keisei moji) characters; kanji that contain elements which give a clue to both its meaning and reading. In this sense, kanji is quite consistent and logical. It just takes repeated exposure to learn the base characters.

The first line in the above card is a news article headline which contains many words I had trouble reading, but the meanings I was reasonably certain on from the context and the kanji. All of the helper words I read and understand comfortably. Some kanji match perfectly in both lines (緊、急) while others do not but the reading is the same in that case (白>>迫　協>>脅).

Front: ローマ帝国: 定食　×携帯電話

The above is a simple card that is just a word. It violates my rule of always providing a larger context but I am interested in the word and the card helps me notice some things: (1) the correct reading of a character I have trouble with (note the use of color), and (2) another character I sometimes confuse the character in question for (帝 帯). Note the use of the "batsu" or "X".

Front: 中ソ対立とは、1960年代から表面化した中華人民共和国と旧ソ連のイデオロギー対立、軍事対立、政治対立を指す。

I can read this card completely, but the meaning of the word in red is not 100% yet. Perhaps when I read this card I will look up the meaning or search for another sentence containing the word, or perhaps not. I may lookup up the meaning of the word and put it on the back of the card along with the ruby reading for future reviews.

Front: 消費者　　消費税金

Once again, here are words without a larger context but their presentation helps me notice something so the card is useful.

Review Time

Not a great deal of time each day is spent reviewing my cards, but it does fill in lots of dead time at the computer. I find it easy to keep up with my cards because they are pleasurable to read, I can comprehend almost everything, I can read them quickly, and the gaps in between reviews are long.

Dealing with backlogs is easy because they hardly every happen, and even if 100 cards are waiting to be reviewed it does not take much concerted effort to get through them because I can read them so quickly (they are at my level). If the backlog was greater or I just felt unmotivated to do anything about it I would probably just delete or suspend a large portion of the due cards. I am more concerned with enjoying the real language than trying to measure up to artificial metrics.

I use spaced exposure because I find it pleasurable and I think it is helping to improve my acquisition of Japanese. If and when it becomes boring or tedious - as of this writing I have been doing SE for almost one year - then I will stop.

Essential Human Resources for Language Acquisition

Abbreviations: L1 = your native language; L2 = target language; N = native speaker

If you are acquiring a foreign language, endeavor to make the following friends:

1. L1 fluent in the L2: The L1 friend should be fluent in the L2 to an adult academic level in all phases (reading, writing, speaking, comprehension). The L1 friend, despite being fluent, is not as much a model to emulate as they are a resource to explain, in your L1, issues/challenges related to L1 to L2 acquisition. As a fellow native L1 speaker, they will be aware of things that L2 friends are not.

2. L2N fluent in L1: The L2 friend is ideally fluent to an academic level in your L1. As a L2N they are a source to model. The fluent L2 friend can answer questions in both your L2 and L1, though their level of insight at the L1 level is not as high as the fluent L1 friend.

3. L2 not fluent in L1: This friend is more for output practice than anything else; a native who comes with no escape hatch (your L1) that forces you to utilize what you know.

These friends should be accessible, understanding, supportive, and encouraging of your efforts.

Good Learner, Bad Learner

This quick and informative video was originally made to illustrate to ALTs some effective ways to acquire Japanese while in the country, but I think it has useful messages for all learners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MqIVkUHt20

Learning in Context

Accountants are fond of the saying, "cash is king." There is no more critical a resource or indicator of fiscal health than the amount of hard cash a company has available to it. Cash is where the financial rubber hits the road. This seems like an obvious principle but given the financial state of many organizations we can see how its meaning is often lost on decision makers. All too often the original principal is lost to obscurity. Language acquisition is no exception.

In language acquisition, "context is king." Our linguistic rubber hits the road when we understand the messages we are inputting. Comprehension is more easily accomplished when there is a meaningful story (I frequently use that word in place of "context") within which messages are digested. Input, then, must be rooted in a meaningful background in order to be optimal for language acquisition.

Stories paint a vivid picture for us. They give us a full world in which something significant takes place. Absent this world, language is much more difficult to understand and pick up. Most learners assume that if words aren't used they will soon be forgotten. The real problem is the lack of a story.

Words are recalled when they are paired with a striking scene, instance of action, or a meaningful moment. Human memory is a bread crumb trail that is highly tailored to the individual. Once a piece of input has been internalized, recollection happens almost instantaneously. This is much more optimal than the traditional language student's recall mechanisms: grammatical deconstruction & reconstruction (reverse engineering) and rote memorization.

While having a story is preferred to none, stories selected by the learner are the ideal. I love Hamlet but many others could care less about it. While I enjoy Hamlet I do not care much for Othello. Central is your interest level in the story. If you are not engaged in the story then using it to acquire language is going to be no more helpful than relying on pure memorization.

Stories should meet two primary criteria to be most useful for language acquisition purposes:

(1) We must be interested in the subject matter.

(2) We must be able to basically understand the story.

The first point is no breakthrough discovery. If I don't really care for Othello then there is no reason to torture myself by trying to utilize it to learn new words and phrases. They are just as likely to be found in Hamlet, a Tom Clancy novel or the comic pages for that matter.

The second point – the ability to basically understand the story – is the caveat. Even an interesting story is useless unless it can be understood at some level. It is the line between futility, a fighting chance, and holding your own. Learners should be aware of how much of the story they are really capable of understanding.

"Futility" is when you read the text and have to look up every other word. Let's consider this to be cases when more than 50% of the text is unknown words. Such reading is incredibly slow and effortful. I would argue that even reading with the assistance of electronic/computerized dictionaries (fast lookups) is futile because you would still spend the majority of your time assembling meaning in a piecemeal fashion.

A "fighting chance" is when we have moved out of the realm of futility. In this case there are likely sentences we can comprehend but they are often in between sentences we do not. The amount of lookup is lessened but still takes up a noticeable amount of time. Again, computerized lookup speeds the process but there is still a good deal of mental exercise to go through. If the overall text length can be minimized then there is a better chance of having a reasonably pleasurable, low stress experience.

"Holding our own" is the ideal state. Percentages are arguable, but anywhere from 75-90% or more of the text should be known words. Lookup becomes an infrequent occurrence as we should be able to infer meaning from – that's right – the context, rather than having to look it up. This is the sweet spot of language acquisition. Highly comprehensible, interesting reading materials are a GOLD MINE of language learning.

One very practical issue is how students, particularly beginners, should study in context. There are three types of input that can be utilized when studying with stories:

(1) Modified Input (graded readers)

(2) Pure Input (native materials)

(3) Measured Input (limited length native materials)

Graded readers are a well known literacy development tool. They are content that has been deliberately constructed to match a certain reading level in terms of vocabulary, recognizable patterns, length, etc. Obviously, less demanding material is quite valuable for beginning learners because they are not ready to tackle large tracts of unknown vocabulary and patterns. Their drawback is availability and diversity of content.

Some would argue that any deliberately simplified content is a less than ideal study resource because it is too far outside the norm of the living language, but as long as the reader finds it interesting the content will still be useful regardless of whether it is simplified or not.

Children's books could be seen as a quite natural starting point in language studies but in fact they are far from ideal for adult readers. The stories are juvenile and not of much interest to adults and are written so they may be comprehended by individuals with not only limited language skills but little common sense and experience (i.e., children). This makes it difficult for adults to relate to the stories and draw the appropriate inferences. Adult learners should read adult things.

(An exception would be young adult reading materials. Starting from 5^th or 6^th grade levels the material starts to become engaging for even fully grown adults. Of course by this stage readers are working with much more voluminous content like short novels so the reading itself is not trivial.)

The next type of input is pure input, which is actual media made for native, adult speakers of the language. There is no soft-pedaling of the language here; it is real, natural (mistakes and all) and speedy. Real stuff is good. It's not only good, it's very good. The vast majority of our "study" time (at least 80%) should be spent with real materials. At first the going will be slow but the more time that is invested the sooner results will appear.

We learn the language by reading and listening to the actual language. Sterilized versions can be of some use but they are no substitute for the genuine article. Many beginning students resist real materials because they feel they can't be comprehended. Instead, they rely on crutches like materials written for foreigners learning the language, which are very artificial (think unrealistic) and largely uninteresting. What learners need is exposure to interesting content on a daily basis.

Measured input is my answer to the claim that native materials are too difficult for beginners. The secret is text length. When our collective ability in a language consists of 100 words and a handful of simple patterns then digesting lengthy prose is going to be very time consuming, to say the least. To make things easier we need to cut the fat.

I think we could probably term this as "sentence mining" but for me that connotes a lack of story. Picking out sentences at random, translating them, and then importing them into a flash card system is an exercise that hardly seems appealing. It is better to find a source where the "story" is limited to just one, two, or a handful of sentences or phrases, read them repeatedly and frequently, and gradually ramp up the difficulty. Great sources to start with would be:

• Commercials
  
• Weather reports
  
• Songs
  
• Advertisements
  
• Personal Pages
  
• Help Wanted Ads
  
• Television Schedules
  
• Twitter
  
• Online Video Sites
  
• Horoscopes
  
• Manuals
  
• Diagrams
  
• Charts
  
• Train/Plane Schedules
  
• Photograph Captions
  
• Newspaper Headlines

Limited length is not the only helpful feature of such sources. Illustrations, pictures, photographs, sound, and a shared sense of background understanding (i.e., when you read the weather report you know what to expect) all aid in increasing comprehensibility. Measured input is an ideal bridge to pure input of unlimited length.

Learning by working with real materials in context is probably the most useful tool a language learner has at their disposal. Everything should have a story, some substance to it. Your individual sense of what does and does not stimulate you is the gauge to measure content's usefulness. If you are curious about it and motivated to know more, use it. If not, don't bother.

Studying in context means inputting materials that have a background, meaning and/or purpose that interests you. Favor materials that have these characteristics and spend as little time as possible with ones deliberately constructed for foreign learners. If you apply this simple rule consistently to your language studies you will be well on the way to fluency.

RSS Readers & Language Learning

Any person learning a foreign language via an input-based approach will invariably be using the Internet to access much of their authentic content. RSS readers (aggregators) are a very powerful software tool for organizing and accessing all of your resources in one central place. Using a reader greatly reduces the amount of time you need to spend manually checking web sites for new content.

Many web sites offer all or part of their content in a regularly published feed format. A feed is nothing more than a stream of data coming from a web site that describes content on the site. It is entirely controlled by the site's owner. When a change is made to the site the feed is updated and if your reader is subscribed to that feed you will be automatically notified. The feed may provide just a link to the new content or it may give you all of the content, which you can read in your reader software.

The reader I use is Google Reader (reader.google.com). It has nice organization capabilities, text can be comfortably read, and it is accessible anywhere I can use a browser. The interface is also available in many languages (of course, mine is set to Japanese).

Many sites will have links to their feed(s) prominently displayed. You just need to copy that address and add it to your reader, everything else will happen automatically. Here is just a sample of some of the feeds I follow:

http://search.twitter.com/search.atom?q=%E3%82%AA%E3%83%90%E3%83%9E

https://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/25624708.rss

http://www.c-radio.net/rss/c-radio.xml

http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/lingosteve/uploads?orderby=updated

Google Alerts (google.com/alerts) is another good way to keep interesting content coming your way. You can subscribe via email updates or get everything in an RSS feed and monitor it in your reader.

You can monitor videos by turning a Google Video search into an RSS feed:

http://video.google.co.jp/videosearch?q=オバマ&hl=ja&output=rss

If a site has no RSS feed you can manually create one with Page2RSS.com

Against Goal Making

Advice is never in short supply, and one piece I often hear paired with language learning is to be a “goal oriented” learner. We can argue over what that really means but the essence is fairly obvious: set clear objectives, reach them, receive benefit from the satisfaction and knowledge gained, and then repeat. There are many arguments (good ones) in support of this approach. I want to argue, however, that while goal making may be a good approach to language learning it is not an optimal approach.

Put simply, goals are not ideal because they are seldom reached.

I have set many goals over the course of my life and while several have been reached many more have gone unattained, partly realized, or completely dropped and forgotten. I would venture a guess that for every goal I actually made any real progress on there were probably ten goals which barely got off the drawing board. Goals more often lead to disappointment than success.

The arguments against such a morbid assessment of goal-making are not without merit:

- The goal making process itself is more important than results. It encourages us to act.

- Having defined targets to aim for is an essential beginning to any time-consuming process.

- Even low ratios of success (ex: 1/10) can yield worthwhile effort/utility ratios.

- Goal orientation is a common characteristic of successful, content people in general.

- Goal making forces you to analyze your own unique situation and characteristics.

Lost in this discussion, ironically, is the very notion of what goals represent: an endpoint. Therein lies the rub. Ends and language learning are mutually exclusive. I can finish reading a book, I can complete an examination, I can exhaust all the content on a web site; I cannot reach an end to either language learning or acquisition, native or otherwise.

Unknown words, weak domains of knowledge, and mechanics that need polishing are but a few of the areas of concern to any human being who communicates with and utilizes the world in which they live. If goal-oriented language learning yielded the kind of results most people expected then fluency examinations would be truer measures of skill and ability than they presently are.

Despite this negative assessment a larger view should be kept in mind: goals are not inherently bad, they are just bothersome. Goals are like chains that weigh us down as we move forward. We keep metrics to gauge our progress. We constantly worry that we are not doing enough to reach the goal. When our goal performance is less than expected (as it so often is) we second-guess and rethink our goals, creating whole new ones to fret over. Goals inspire us at the beginning but it is not long until the honeymoon has worn off and they just seem like fanciful dreams which will never come true. Whatever motivation we felt at the outset hardly seems worth the frustration brought on.

Of course the above dialog speaks very much to another important concept in language learning: failure. I am not the first to embrace and argue for the benefits of failure (http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/processes-not-results-or-everything-i-ever-needed-to-know-about-life-i-learned-washing-dishes). Failure teaches. Failure builds. Failure makes us stronger. I like failure (yes, I said it!), but I should also admit that failure can feel pretty crappy and is often a de-motivator due to its unpleasantness. The terms “goal” and “failure” are another pair that know each other very well.

It seems a paradox has emerged: failure is good but goals are bad (well, not ideal at least) and the two are blood brothers? So, does this not mean that, circularly speaking, goals are good because when we don’t meet a goal that constitutes failure and failure is good? The answer requires explanation.

Failure that happens naturally or as a matter of consequence is good. Suppose I get lost driving to a friend’s lake cabin and arrive late to a dinner party. This constitutes a type of failure, but I at least know one route not to take the next time. Now suppose I make a goal to read one novel every month. At the end of the third month I am not even half way through the first book… another failure, but of a worse sort because I now feel that I simply cannot read to the level I wish to. It is important to notice the distinctions at play.

In the first case, my failure was due in large part to things external from me and not something I was all that aware of to begin with because there were many unknowns. The goal itself – getting to the friend’s cabin for a dinner party – was not a goal that was entirely planned and developed by me. It came about naturally when my friend decided to have the party. In the second case the failure was part of a chain of consequences that started with my deliberate creation of the goal to read one novel a month. The blame comes squarely back to me. This is the root of the problem I have with goals: if I fail, it is my fault.

One could argue this would resolve me to correct my ways and set out on a better path, but that is not likely to happen for every deliberate-goal-rooted failure we encounter. Again, a ratio of 1/10 is springing to mind. Even if that single success was a big one I still had to wade through all the grief and tears of the ten failures. No pain, no gain? True enough, but favoring our quite natural aversion to displeasure and attraction to enjoyment is no less useful or valid an approach to fulfilling our hopes and aspirations than adopting try-try-again fatalism.

In summary thus far, goals have their good and bad points but it seems there are also more pleasurable paths we can follow to reach the achievements we desire. The question becomes, if not goal making then what? The response: habits.

Instead of making a goal to read one novel per month, I should instead resolve to read as much as possible. A few minutes here, a half-hour there, maybe even two or more hours if I have a chunk of free time on the weekend. The accomplishment will take care of itself. As long as we keep reading, the book will eventually be finished and without the time spent worrying about artificial deadlines it will probably be finished in a time frame acceptable to us. The real secret, however, is not so much the habit itself and how often I execute, but rather how I measure the success of the habit. This is one of the great powers habits have over goals.

Have you ever tripped over your own feet and stumbled? Walking is an ingrained pattern for most people but when we occasionally fail to walk correctly it is a mere temporary embarrassment and certainly not a reason to give up walking entirely. The failure is soon forgotten and you resume strolling correctly. Habits have a built-in resistance to unpleasantness and de-motivation.

Habits have another power that goals do not: an autopilot feature. Once the switch is turned on, habits become things we do unconsciously, they become reflexes. Reflexes are good because they are lazy. In most cases they are going to happen whether you put any thought/effort to it or not. When we consider time intensive tasks like language acquisition the benefit of the autopilot becomes obvious.

Putting all of this into practice, the most important practical consideration is how our environment affects and promotes good language learning habits. To acquire a second language we need lots of exposure to comprehensible input (see Krashen’s input hypothesis). The goal-maker will resolve to read/listen to the target language for X amount of time per day/week and will likely schedule specific times for those activities. The habit-former will simply surround himself with as much interesting content as possible.

A graded reader in the brief case, posters hung on the bedroom wall, a grammar reference in the toilet, an operating system with the language option set to the target language, movies in the target language always inserted and ready in the DVD player, an mp3 player loaded with lots of interesting content for whenever the learner has a free moment. The more the habit-former crafts and molds their environment into one where exposure to the target language becomes involuntary the more rapidly and smoothly good habits will set in.

It can be said that both the goal-maker and habit-former are studying. Any success the goal-maker achieves is the result of deliberate work. The habit-former is actually performing the same work but they are immune to the realization of that. They are “studying” all the time because it is a habit and a pleasant one at that. The unconsciousness of the process gives the allusion that they are magically making progress through little effort.

There are two practical points about habits and optimal co-integration with language learning:

Habits flow and ebb; they are not always constant. For example, you diligently review vocabulary flash cards for a month and then drop off for 3 weeks when you go on vacation. This is not bad, even if you have forgotten much of what you did pick up previously. As long as something was gained and the habit is contributing (even a little) to your efforts then it is likely worthwhile.

Care should be given as to how one will set about trying to establish good habits. Suppose I want to be more deliberate in learning new vocabulary. Flash cards are a popular method for review but they are also frustrating (constantly forgetting becomes monotonous).Instead, we should structure the habit to be as pressure-free as possible. One-sided flash cards are a good example. The target word and its meaning on the front and review of the cards becomes another simple exposure. The words will be forgotten at the same rate but the frustration of failure is removed. They will eventually cement in the mind as long as the exposure keeps happening with some regularity.

Finally, we ask ourselves, “Should goals never be made?” Certainly, the answer is not yes. As we said before, goals are not bad they are just not the ideal for the time intensive realities of language acquisition. If goal making is a concept that appeals to you it need not be avoided. Just remember to keep your goals very broad and loosely defined, few in number, and – this is the key – WITHOUT any consequences for failure. Too many learners have abandoned their studies because they felt they were not “making progress”. Progress is measured by what you do and how often you do it, not by manufactured benchmarks and waypoints. The sooner one can let go of their hereditary need to organize and systematize, the sooner they will be well on the path to the inevitable outcome of fluency by exposure.

EDIT (2011-06-05): Changed title.

Basic Krashen

In the field of linguistics one of the most well known names is Stephen Krashen. Dr. Krashen is known for several hypothesis, the most notable being his input hypothesis. In "Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures" he reviews his various hypothesis, presents recent and old research supporting them, counters arguments against, and discusses areas for research potential.

Explorations could be considered a condensed and abbreviated version of the volumes of material available on Krashen’s web site: www.sdkrashen.com. The book is neither a strictly academic publication nor a practical guide, but rather somewhere in the middle. While the reader will find no specific roadmaps or layouts to language acquisition they also will not be forced to wade through an overly voluminous amount of literature and research review/explanation. The book is divided into four major chapters and my review will expound upon each one.

Chapter 1 – Principles of Language Acquisition

Krashen lays out, in a very easy to understand manner, his major hypothesis:

(1) Acquisition-Learning: Acquisition is subconscious while learning is conscious and deliberate. When we “acquire” a language we are not cognitively aware it is occurring whereas when we “learn” we are consciously aware. Most traditional language teaching is learning, not acquisition.

(2) Natural Order: There exists an “average order” in which we acquire certain grammatical structures. The order is not based on complexity, it cannot be changed, it is “immune to teaching”, and is not the optimal teaching order (because if hypothesis 4 is correct then comprehensible input will lead us to acquire most of the grammar we need in the natural order anyway).

(3) Monitor: Deliberate language learning (traditional school style) has the effect of creating a monitor or editor. We use the monitor to consciously scan our utterances before we deliver them. Think of it as trying to translate in your head or building a sentence from the rules. This can be a good/acceptable thing or it can be a bad thing, depending on the situation.

(4) Input (Comprehension): We acquire language when we understand what we hear or read. We increase our comprehension ability by accessing i+1 input where i=our current comprehension ability and +1=just a slightly higher margin of difficulty.

(5) Affective-Filter: There are certain variables which can affect the comprehensible input we receive, and this explains why some make faster/better progress than others. Examples would be anxiety, low self esteem, motivation, etc.

Of all the hypothesis introduced, the input hypothesis has the most resonance and direct application, I believe, to many foreign language students. Second language acquisition (SLA) can be boiled down to this phrase: input before output. If I can’t understand Polish how can I expect to use Polish in any meaningful way? To put it in reverse terms: if I can learn how to ask directions in a foreign language can I also expect to understand the reply that comes back from a native speaker? Clearly not. This is why input is so important. We need lots of input and we need it all the time in order to ramp up our comprehension (vocabulary, recognizable forms). Most people want to talk before they are ready.

Chapter 2 – Free Voluntary Reading: Still a Very Good Idea

In the next chapter, Krashen discusses his support of what he terms “free voluntary reading”. He argues that students need to be placed in print rich environments where they are allowed to choose comprehensible content, that interests them, and given the time to read in a pressure-free atmosphere. I am frequently asked by my foreign friends, “How can I improve my English?” I give the same answer every time: “You need to read more.” In chapter 2, Krashen argues why this is true.

Comic books, novels, graded readers, newspaper articles, manuals, whatever. It is all valid input as long as it is comprehensible (i+1) and of interest to the reader. In the chapter’s conclusion, Krashen calls recreational reading, “the most thoroughly investigated and best-supported technique we have in the field of second-language pedagogy.” I would agree. Good learners are good readers.

Chapter 3 – Current Issues & Controversies: Does Grammar Teaching Work? What About “Comprehensible Output”?

Chapter 3 is the lengthiest chapter and probably the one most people can skip if they aren’t that interested in Krashen’s arguments against research which supports traditional, grammar-based language instruction methods and output-focused methods. On this I heartily agree. I can’t begin to explain the nuances and structures of present-perfect or continuous-whatever in English grammar but I am reasonably certain I can utilize the language at an adult level. Why should it be any different for the second language? I have met too many ESL students who **could** explain those grammar points but were simultaneously at a complete loss when I asked, “How are you doing today?”

I think this chapter is where the rubber will meet the road for most people. Either you essentially buy into Krashen’s hypothesis or you don’t. Judging by the prevalence of form-based text books, teaching materials, and methods in foreign language instruction today I would say that, sadly, many people still do not.

Chapter 4 – How Reading and Writing Make You Smarter, or, How Smart People Read and Write

In this final chapter Krashen brings together much of what he has covered earlier and presents a model for how reading and writing leads to both language and cognitive development. His main purpose is to stress how traditionally educators have gotten the order wrong in language teaching. Most basic education presupposes that students need a foundation in fact and form **before** they can engage in problem solving. We need to study before we can become good readers/writers/problem solvers. Krashen argues the reverse: we become good readers/writers/problem solvers **because** we do those things. Applied to SLA it becomes (to paraphrase):

We learn a foreign language by inputting with that language for a purpose (problem solving, pleasure) and as we do that we increase our skill in it. We do not learn **about** the language (grammar, etc.) and **then** become skilled as a result of that learning.

“Explorations in Language Acquisition” is in some respect a very bland and boring book. It is the work of an academic summarizing and compartmentalizing his academic work and publications. The writing is functional and clean but not exciting or sexy. Still, Krashen is not incapable of creative prose or amusing descriptions. My favorite line from the book, “The final problem with grammar teaching is the most serious: It’s boring.”

Everyone’s approach to language learning is different. Our goals and motivations are varied. I think, however, we can all safely agree on one thing: most students who are studying languages are failing at them. It is because the way we traditionally study second languages is painful, boring, and flawed. Stephen Krashen is attempting to give us knowledge that will help us overcome those failings. Maybe we should listen.

Language Gap

UCLA Professor Michael Heim makes a good point in this interview (found via Steve Kaufman) that the “difficulty” of a new language is very much dependent upon the language you are coming from. If I am a native English speaker then my mother tongue is going to have far more similarities with German or French than with Chinese or Japanese. There are more obstacles to climb and differences to become acclimated to.

I agree and disagree with his statement that Chinese takes a “lifetime” to master:

Our language abilities, even our native language skills, are constantly evolving as we are exposed to more and more input. We never truly “master” the language, in the sense that we reach a practical end to the acquirement of new words and patterns. There is always something we are lacking or could sharpen. Always.

That being said, I think the goal of most people who are studying a second language is adult level fluency. In other words, they want to be able to function as an adult member of the society of the language which they are studying. With the right methods and enough dedication that is certainly a highly achievable goal. It may take longer for an American to learn Japanese coming from English as opposed to a Korean, but they can both achieve the same ends (and in a fairly minimal amount of time as well).

This is the importance of time on task. If you don’t spend time with the language, as much time as possible, then there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to let your brain internalize the language.

Vocabulary & Paul Nation

Some interesting reading regarding vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists:

http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/bibs/vocab/cup.html

Even a very limited vocabulary of 1000 to 2000 words is enough to get into high coverage rates for certain texts. You can use those to rapidly and enjoyably build your vocabulary.

SRS Methods

A few articles by Khatzumoto and a couple of blog posts by Steve Kaufmann have gotten me thinking more about using an SRS for language learning. My specific use of it right now is for reading, but I think these concepts apply to language aquisition overall.

(1) I think it is important to use an SRS not as a memorization tool, but rather as a way to "make the brain more attentive", as Steve Kaufmann often says. An SRS should be used simply to provide multiple opportunities to see a certain phrase or sentence again-and-again so we have more chances to think about the words, patterns, and meanings captured in that item. Nothing more, nothing less.

(2) Daily use, if possible, is ideal but it also needs to be a periphery habit. 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there. That is good enough. Use it to fill in the gaps between the time you are working with primary materials (books, articles, listening, etc.)

(3) You should not pressure yourself with the SRS. If you keep forgetting an item, who cares? You will get it eventually. If you just don't like a particular item, go ahead and delete it. You should attempt to SRS for probably at least 25 minutes everyday but not much more than that. If you miss a day or two here and there, no worries.

(4) About 20 sentences/phrases a day is equal to roughly 600 items a month. That's about 7,200 a year. 30 a day is just over 10,000 in a year.

(5) Just be a monster with the input collection. Get most of your stuff from the Internet where you can copy and paste easily. If you don't want to spend huge amounts of time trying to fill in the back, leave it blank for now and maybe you will fill it in later. Again, no pressure and no worries.

Paul Nation's Four Strands

We need tons of constant exposure to the language we are trying to acquire, but we also need to expose ourselves to the literature about language acquisition (Krashen, etc.). I recently read an article by Paul Nation (found him via Steve Kaufmann) concerning his “Four Strands” of language learning/teaching that he recommends be balanced across any language teaching program. For reference, here are some of my notes that I jotted down while reading the article:

Reccomends one graded reader, with 95-98% coverage, every two weeks.

Swain's Output Hypothesis:

• Noticing Function: "Oh, I have holes here..."
• Hypothesis Testing Function: "Let's see if it is OK to say this..."
• Metalinguistic Function: Talking about the language contributes to learning it.

Language-focused Learning: deliberate teaching/learning. There are "tricks" and strategies that do speed things up.

Fluency Strand: practicing for speed. The material used for fluency practice should basically have no unfamiliar contents.

Four Strands In a Nutshell: Input, Output, Teaching, Fluency (speed)

Waring&Takaki: In 56 minutes of graded reader reading, 4 words were learnt well while 12 were learnt partially.

The Sound of Language

Input! Input! The gibberish is not as useless as you might think:

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=2455&newslabel=hn

The Rules of Language Aquisition

Input BEFORE Output

Focus on how much you are doing

Motivation, Method, Consistency

Do what works for you

Intensity of exposure

Do things that make the brain more attentive

Listen, understand, copy

Cultural weightlessness (Kaufmann)

Listen/read in bed and on the toilet

Enjoying yourself is not a waste of time

Use real content

When you can't understand, look for patterns or other things you notice

If you're bored, move onto something else (in the target language)

Don't make goals, set habits

Use dictionaries sparingly (they help after you basically know the word)

If it is made for learners, be wary

Learn in context

Gibberish > Words > Phrases > High % Coverage

Audio matched with text (transcripts!) are a great value

Ignore the dissapointment of failure and embrace the value of it

Don't over-analyze. Are you reading and listening every day? That's enough.

A small bit of effortful reading of 50% coverage material will soon blossom to 90%

Why Input?

In response to a relative's question about Rosetta Stone and language learning I wrote the following email. It is largely unedited and just a off the cuff response, but I think it illustrates my motivation and thinking in regard to language aquisition and the reason behind this site.

=======================================

I have heard of Rosetta Stone and seen a bit of it. It is a multimedia based system that uses no or minimal translation and does not explicitly teach grammar. I guess in a larger sense, it is what it is: another language learning tool. Like any tool, it's usefulness depends largely on the user.

I got started with my investigation of language learning when I read through this web site:

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/all-japanese-all-the-time-ajatt-how-to-learn-japanese-on-your-own-having-fun-and-to-fluency

This guy mentioned linguist Stephen Krashen and his input hypothesis quite a bit, so I also started reading Krashen's books and articles (http://www.sdkrashen.com/).

One thing I have come to realize is that while there are an endless number of issues you need to be concerned about when acquiring a new language (what language you are coming from, your goals, motivation, pronunciation, writing systems, culture, etc.), the acquisition process really boils down to one very important point:

input before output

To put it another way, if you can go to Japan and ask for directions in Japanese, that's great but can you understand the answer? Nearly every language learner I ever met (and myself included) had that experience. Not because they were slow or bad learners, but because they did not take appropriate note of this principle (and in many ways they cannot be blamed because traditional teaching methods do not emphasize it).

If you think about this, it is a very profound point.

When people want to learn a new language their goal is almost always communication. They want to be able to speak and be understood, and understand others. This is fine, but it ignores the essential part which is how human beings ACTUALLY acquire a language. They DO NOT acquire languages by learning grammar rules, memorizing vocabulary or otherwise using rote, manual, non-natural/realistic techniques. It just HAPPENS.

Think about it. When you were born you basically had one language facility built-in: when you were hungry or otherwise needed attention you could cry. That was it. You couldn't form a word, you couldn't form a proper sound in any language, you could do next to nothing to meaningfully communicate with anyone. Overtime your language abilities developed, and they developed largely WITHOUT any deliberate teaching. Now, how did this happen?

Constant input.

At first, things were just gibberish. Sounds that had no meaning to you. Slowly, over time, your brain began to naturally notice things about the sounds. Oh, when this sound is a made a person smiles. When this sound is made I get food. When this sound is made someone opens a door. This is the human brain beginning to recognize patterns.  

More time passes, and you pick out more and more words from the gibberish. Eventually, you are able to pick out small phrases from the gibberish. You are starting to understand strings of words together and the messages they convey. Then, finally, you start to understand sentences (whole and complete messages). 

Really, this process is never ending.The sentences you can understand at 18 are remarkably different in terms of order of difficulty from those you understood at 8. But the point is, this learning happened without you really being aware of it and without any real deliberate action on you or another person's part. 

The secret was the constant stimulation your brain got. You constantly heard people speaking the language. Everywhere you went you couldn't help but hear it. Eventually you reached a point where you were able to read the written word and that opened up a whole other input facility. You could now get input from the printed word (voracious readers tend to be much better users of the language).

The most convenient thing about this whole process is that it is repeatable when you are an adult. I think many people assume that only small children are capable of learning languages in this natural manner. If you think about things carefully you can see this is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case (in fact an adult can learn much faster than a child ever could because they already have a base knowledge of concepts that doesn't need to be built along with language).

The key to the whole process is the brain instinctivly forming new pathways in response to new stimuli. It doesn't happen instantly, but with REPEATED and REGULAR repetition of input the brain will eventually codify that input and you will be able to recall and use it instantly, without manual effort. In other words, you will be able to output without thinking (the goal of every language learner). 

When people asked me how to learn Japanese I used to just reccomend a textbook or two. Since this paradigm shift I have had from reading the linguism and language aquisition literature, I now believe I would simply say: immerse yourself with input. Listening and Reading before anything else. The output will come naturally, with a little bit of time. Don't output when you are not ready. You will know when you are ready. 

Lastly, there are three important points that go along with input theory: 

(1) Optimal input should be n+1

(2) Input must be enjoyable to you

(3) Input must be repeated

Point 1 is perhaps the most critical. Basically, it says that input must be comprehensible. This may sound pretty obvious and in fact it is! If you don't at least understand the sense of what you are taking in then it is difficult to actually learn from it. Krashen adds in this notion of n+1. He defines "n" as your current level of language proficiency. He then reccomends that your input should be n+1 in difficulty. That is, it should be just a **little** bit more difficult than the level you can comfortably input at (n). For example, if you can read the material and basically understand things but there are a few words and sentences you can't understand then that is ideal input for increasing your language proficiency.

Point 2 also falls into the common sense department (really, all of this stuff does!). If you don't have an interest in the input you are going to find an excuse to ignore it. Textbooks are boring. REAL, authentic language materials about subjects you enjoy are not! Those should be your PRIMARY study materials (at least 75%, I would say), not grammar dictionaries, workbooks or drill software. The goal is to understand real stuff anyway, so you might as well start there. That is, where you started with your first language anyway!

Point 3 I mentioned before, but it is worth repeating. You need to allow your brain to have many chances to see the patterns of the new language. The only way to do that is continous, DAILY repetition. You CANNOT learn a language by just working on it a couple days a week. Likewise, you can't cram it all in for three months and then go away for a year and come back expecting to be right where you left off. You need the input coming in every day. Spanish music in the car on the way into work, Spanish newspaper to read during the lunch break, Spanish podcasts on the MP3 player when you are jogging, Spanish movies and TV to watch at night. This is immersive input. 

Well, I see I have really gone on a long time here. I probably gave a much longer answer than your question really asked for!! But, this is my basic line of thinking that I am developing from all my research into the matter. 

Lastly, to really answer your question: I don't know anyone who ever finished Rosetta Stone or claimed to actually learn a language with it. But, when I stop and think about it no one I know who can speak another language TRULY learned in the classroom or from a book or software or whatever. They all said the same basic thing when I asked how they really learned the language: INPUT(*)!!

Here are a few websites to look at if you are curious for more details/background:

http://www.sdkrashen.com/

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com 

http://jp.youtube.com/user/lingosteve

http://thelinguist.blogs.com/how_to_learn_english_and/

http://www.antimoon.com/how/input.htm

Well, bye for now!! 

Colin

* Some actual quotes from friends:

- "I studied Japanese in Japan, but I really learned it from living with my host family."

- "I like computers so I read English PC magazines. That's how I really learned English."

- "I learned English by watching Star Trek."

The Khatz Way

The contents are even longer than the URL, but take the time to pour through his approach to learning (after viewing the executive summary). This is just one person's approach but it is based on input hypothesis and no doubt you can take away and add in things that work for you:

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/all-japanese-all-the-time-ajatt-how-to-learn-japanese-on-your-own-having-fun-and-to-fluency

頑張って

Study About Studying

Before you begin to study, learn how to study.

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/khatzumoto-on-video-but-in-english

http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com

http://jp.youtube.com/user/lingosteve

http://thelinguist.blogs.com/how_to_learn_english_and/

http://www.sdkrashen.com/