Response To Haver

Comments on Johanna Haver, Structured English Immersion (2003)

Stephen Krashen
April, 2003

Haver's Structured English Immersion (Haver, 2003a) is described on its back cover as "a guide that ... explains what SEI is and how it works in the classroom." We are told that those who read it "are taken through a process that guarantees success for ELL's (English Language Learners) at any level." I do not share this enthusiasm. There are many, many serious problems in this volume.

My review consists of the following topics and subtopics:

Haver on Language Acquisition:
    Should children "learn" naturally?
    Haver's approach
    Haver's personal theory of language acquisition
    Haver on reading
The role of the first language
    Haver and the principles of bilingual education
    Heritage language development
    Structured immersion versus bilingual education
    What controlled studies say
    Haver on recent testing in California
The age question: English as early as possible?
The time issue: How long should it take?
    The case of David Ho: Six months with de facto bilingual education
A biased bibliography

HAVER'S VIEW OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Should children "learn" naturally? (Haver on Krashen)

Haver characterizes my position as follows, referring to Krashen and Terrell's Natural Approach, originally published twenty years ago, in 1983. Missing the entire point of the book, Haver claims that I think that language is acquired "through free conversation."

This is not accurate. I have hypothesized that we acquire language by comprehension, not by language production. This point is hard to miss, as it dominates The Natural Approach and has dominated nearly all my writings since the early 1980's. I have hypothesized that conversation helps only insofar as it provides comprehensible input; in other words, we acquire from what others say to us, not what we say to them. We also acquire from other forms of comprehensible input, eg listening to stories and reading.

Haver is correct in part of her characterization of my work: "language acquisition does not result from grammar drill, repetition of patterns, or from listening to incomprehensible speech" (p. xii). Haver, however, feels that students "can ... be taught the basic structure of language systematically ..." (xii). I am sure some students can consciously learn some of the basics of the structure of language. The question is whether it does them any good.

Haver says it does, and in addition to her own experience, she cites Larsen-Freeman (1995) who in turn cites others who claim that "grammar is not acquired naturally and does have to be taught" (xiii). Haver is particularly interested in Canadian immersion programs and studies that claim to show that systematic instruction in grammar is of benefit in this situation. I have examined these studies.