Second Language "Standards For Success": Out Of Touch With Language Acquisition Research
Stephen Krashen
A list of Standards for Foreign Language Learning has been issued by the University of Oregon Center for Education Policy Research.1 According to the Standards for Success website,2 these standards are part of a larger project covering many different subjects and have been sent to every high school in the United States. It is likely that the standards will be interpreted as guidelines for curriculum.
There is a problem: Most of the standards in the document lead to pedagogy that conflicts with research and theory published in professional journals over the last thirty years. The document, in fact, promotes pedagogy that is the mirror- image of what research says should be going on in foreign language classes.
Contrary to the impression created, Standard for Success is not based on research: It is based on a series of discussions with faculty at several universities. In my view, they were faculty who were clearly out of touch with the field of foreign language pedagogy and second language acquisition research. My guess is that few of those consulted were actively involved in language teaching: Most university foreign language faculty members are specialists in literature and linguistics.
I discuss here a few of the Standards in light of what current second language acquisition (which is based on research) now hypothesizes. I include some citations, but they are only a small sample of the research supporting the points made below.
THE ROLE OF COMPREHENSION
There is an overwhelming amount of research supporting the "Comprehension Hypothesis": We acquire language when we understand what people tell us and what we read. There is no need for deliberate memorization; rather, firm knowledge of grammatical rules (a feel for correctness) and a large vocabulary gradually emerge as language acquirers get more "comprehensible input," aural or written language that is understood.
In support of the Comprehension Hypothesis are many studies showing that foreign language classes that contain more "comprehensible input" produce superior results when compared to traditional classes: Comprehensible input students do far better on tests of communication and at least as well on grammar tests.3 Also in support are studies showing that more reading in the second language, specifically more voluntary reading, results in improvement in reading, grammar and vocabulary.4
Standards for Success does not mention this central idea. The only Standard that mentions comprehension is IC: "Successful students construct meaning from authentic spoken and written sources ....".5 Of the five sub-standards under IC, four deal with literary analysis (identify genre, distinguish main ideas from supporting details, identify literacy devices, analyze literacy devices). In addition, Standard A.8 explicitly insists that students use "mnemonic and memorization strategies to enhance the learning of the target language."6
GRAMMAR
Research consistently shows that conscious grammatical knowledge has a limited function, acting only as an editor of what is already produced.
In support of this position are studies showing that even advanced students with a great deal of interest and experience with grammar are able to access only a small amount of their grammatical knowledge when actually using language. Even when students are deliberately focused on form and taught rules carefully, the impact of grammar study is weak.
1