REFERENCES

1. DeVoss, D.N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., Hicks, T. 2010. National Writing Project: Because Digital
Writing Matters. United States of America: Jossey-Bass.
2. Herrington, A., Hodgson, K., Moran, CH. 2009. Teaching the New Writing: Technology,
Change, and Assessment in the 21st-century Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Richardson, W. 2010. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms.
California: Corwin.
4. Stephens, L.C., Ballast, K.H. 2011. Using Technology to Improve Adolescent Writing. Pearson
Education.

SANTRAUKA

ANTROS KARTOS SKAITYNO WEB 2.0 PROGRAMŲ ,,BLOG“ IR ,,WIKI“

NAUDOJIMAS MOKANT DABARTISTUS BENDRAUTI SKAITMENINIAME
PASAULYJE

Sandra Jasionavičienė

Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas akademinio rašymo mokymo procesas universitete. Šių

dienų studentas yra pasikeitęs, dėl to ir mokymo procesas turi būti keičiamas. Pokyčius sąlygoja
technologijos, be kurių dabartistai neįsivaizduoja savo gyvenimo.
Atliktas tyrimas, kuriame dalyvavo 45 anglų filologijos pirmo kurso studentai. Tyrimo
tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, kokia yra tų studentų mokymosi rašyti angliškai patirtis ir kokie veiksniai
sąlygoja jų motyvaciją mokytis. Išsiaiškinta, kad internetinių programų įtraukimas į akademinio
rašymo programą motyvuotų studentus mokytis rašyti. Blog ir wiki programos buvo naudojamos du
semestrus. Jų naudojimas davė teigiamų rezultatų ir patvirtino hipotezę, jog, norint sužadinti
studentų motyvaciją mokytis ir tuo pačiu metu sėkmingai juos rengti bendravimui rašytine forma
skaitmeninėje visuomenėje, dėstytojas turi integruoti technologijas į mokymo rašyti programą.
 

Comprehensible Input Versus Comprehensible Output – Have we

Given them their Chance?

Vytenis Končius

Šiauliai University, 38 Višinskio St., Šiauliai, Lithuania,

koncius@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
There are two major views of language acquisition process. According to the first view,
language acquisition is largely an automatic process, taking place unconsciously. Therefore the
most effective method of language instruction is simply to create favourable conditions which allow
this automatic acquisition process to take place. The most famous proponent of this theory is
Stephen Krashen with his Comprehensible Input hypothesis. There is also an opposing view,
arguing that adults cannot successfully acquire a second language relying only on the automatic
207
processes of Krashenian acquisition. According to this view, an active participation on the part of a
learner is necessary: a learner must produce output – try to express their ideas in a second
language – not just passively understand the input. Without such output successful acquisition of a
second language is not possible. A famous proponent of this view is Merill Swain, who in contrast
to Krashen has put forward her Comprehensible Output hypothesis. Debate between the proponents
of these two language acquisition approaches is still continuing, often being reflected in language
classrooms: either by some teachers’ relying too much on the automatic and unconscious processes
of acquisition, paying too little attention on developing speaking skills, or by others’ stressing early
production too much, thus forcing students into psychologically uncomfortable situations and
possibly damaging their self-confidence. Both of these approaches have their strong and weak
sides. Therefore, the methodologically safest way seems to be to allow both of these views be
organically expressed in the teaching/learning process without dogmatically overstressing any one
of them.
Key words: language acquisition, Stephen Krashen, Merill Swain, comprehensible input,
comprehensible output.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the history there always existed two major approaches to second language
acquisition: “naturalistic” and “academic”. The former is exemplified by the numerous cases of
people “picking up” second languages in various natural environments without any significant
formal instruction (e.g. immigrants, travelers, traders etc.), while the latter (i.e. the “academic” or
„elite“) approach - by the formal study of languages, especially “dead” languages like Latin, Greek,
Sanskrit, etc. which was historically widespread in various cultures for religious, academic or other
purposes but had little practical application for everyday communication. In the more recent times,
however, learning foreign languages with the practical goal of communicating with people from
other countries became increasingly prominent. Consequently, various types of “communicative”
approaches to language teaching, which arose as a reaction to the old-fashioned “academic” ways of
consciously studying languages, stimulated this age-old debate between the proponents of “natural”
versus “academic” language learning: could we “pick up” a second language in more or less the
same way and with the same ease as young children acquire their mother tongue or is some measure
of conscious study still necessary or at least useful? Are there more similarities or differences
between the acquisition of a first and a second language and what exactly are they? How much do
factors like age, individual characteristics, motivation, attitude, teaching/learning method etc.
determine the ultimate success of a learner/acquirer? These questions gave rise to new ways of
thinking about learning and teaching languages.

1. THE RESEARCH OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Many language learning theorists have observed that although from the structural point of
view the phenomenon of language is extremely complex, this does not usually seem to cause a
proportional difficulty in mastering it. Every developmentally normal child masters his mother
tongue with apparent ease and without a need to grapple with the enormous complexities of its
structure, understanding and formulating which has presented an enormous task for generations of
linguists. What is more, many adults too seem to master languages in a similar way, although the
degree to which it is indeed similar is often debated. The following quotes illustrate their authors’
amazement by this phenomenon:
Language learning is once complex and simple. When I think of the complexity of
language learning, I’m amazed that people succeed. As a linguist, I have spent much of my life

208
puzzling over the complexities of language, and I feel I still understand so very little about any
language. Yet, people do learn new languages, not only as children, but also as adolescents and as
adults. Observing that process only increases my sense of wonder. People learn far more than they
are aware that they are learning. How do they do it? (Thomson, 1993)
Is it not quite phenomenal that after having somehow completely learned one complex
language already, we manage to begin learning another, and some adults even gain native-speaker
or almost native-speaker proficiency? Not only this, some ‘acquire’ a third, fourth, fifth (or more)
language in addition to the second, and this with everything else that is going on in their lives. How
do they do it? ( Rast, 2008, xiv)
In an attempt to answer this question (“how do they do it?”) many theories and models of
second language acquisition have been put forward during the last several decades. According to
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), there are over 40 SLA theories based on various psychological
and sociological models: Biheviorist (Pavlov, Skinner), Innatist (Chomsky), Cognitivist (Slobin),
Connectionist, Information Processing (Anderson), Social-communicative (Vygotsky),
Aculturationist (Schumann, Acton), Accomodationist (Giles), Resultative (Hermann) and others.
Early methods of language instruction since 1950s and 1960s were also based on various theoretical
models: Interference (Weinreich), Contrastive analysis (Lado), Habit formation (Lado, Bloomfield),
premices of Universal Grammar (Chomsky), Hypothesis and Trial (Corder), Interlanguage
(Nemser, Selinker), Error Analysis (Corder) (Cook, 1993). Unfortunately, this wide array of
theoretical models and practical approaches often failed to provide clear answers for those who
needed them the most, i.e. languages teachers and learners, who were more interested in finding the
best way to teach and learn another language and not receiving a veritable smorgasboard of
unlimited theoretical possibilities.

2. COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT VS. COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT

Against this backdrop, a more clear and focused, albeit possibly slightly simplistic (for not
taking into account various other important SLA aspects), debate arose between Stephen Krashen
and Merrill Swain who were representing two diametrically opposed views to language acquisition:
Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output. The main question in this debate was: which
one of them is the major driving force in the process of successful SLA, which one is primary and
which one is secondary, which one is the cause and which one is the result?
The “comprehensible input” hypothesis of SLA was first introduced by Stephen Krashen in
the 1980’s (Krashen, 1981). According to it, the primary driving force behind the process of
language acquisition is not conscious study of vocabulary items or grammar rules, but simply
receiving “comprehensible input” or “understanding messages”. In other words, we acquire another
language simply by understanding what we hear or what we read. One of Krashen’s most
controversial claims, however, was that learners’ output is not a driving force of acquisition, but
rather, its result:
“There are numerous studies that confirm that we can develop extremely high levels of
language competence without any language production at all” (Krashen, 1994).
Despite being intuitively appealing to many language teachers and learners,
Comprehensible Input hypothesis (as well as other hypotheses included into Krashens SLA model)
has attracted a lot of criticism. Numerous critics, like McLaughlin (1978, 1987), Gregg (1984),
Lightbrown (1998), Zafar (2011) etc., pointed out the weaknesses and contradictions of Krashen’s
claims. For example, Lightbrown (1991) observes:
“Like many SLA researchers, I have questioned Krashen’s complete confidence in
comprehensible input and his dismissal of focused instruction, especially for learners whose
development takes place principally or only within a classroom context. Some recent classroom-
based research has yielded evidence that learners not only benefit from, but may sometimes require,

209
focus on form to overcome incorrect or incomplete knowledge of specific target language features.”
(Lightbrown 1991, quoted in Doughty and Williams, 1998, 179)
One of the critics, Merrill Swain, pointed out the results of a study conducted in Canadian
bilingual schools where English-speaking students received massive amounts of comprehensible
input in the French language, but despite this, their second language development was not as
advanced as it should have been expected if Krashen’s Comprehensible Input hypothesis were true:
although the French immersion programmes in Canadian schools were successful and many
students did achieve high proficiency in French, they still fell short of the native speaker level,
especially regarding their grammatical proficiency. As Swain observes herself:
“The results of these evaluations demonstrated that the French proficiency of these
immersion students was more advanced than that of students taking 20 to 30 minutes a day of FSL.
Furthermore, on some tests of French listening and reading comprehension, French immersion
students obtained scores similar to those obtained by francophone students of the same age.
However, to the surprise of some, the speaking and writing abilities of French immersion students
were, in many ways, different from those of their francophone peers. It was these latter findings that
raised doubts about the validity of the input hypothesis (Swain, 1985), most particularly about the
argument that comprehensible input was “the only true cause of second language acquisition”
(Krashen, 1985, 61; Swain, 2005, 472).
Therefore, as an alternative to Krashen’s Comprehensible Input, Swain proposed the
“Comprehensible Output” hypothesis. It suggests, that comprehensible input is not enough for
successful acquisition of a language. According to Swain, students should be “pushed” to speak in
order to successfully acquire new words and especially – new grammatical structures. Passive
listening and understanding is not enough, since we acquire a new language only when we need to
actively communicate and make ourselves understood:
“Put most simply, the output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language
(speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second
language learning. Furthermore, the process involved in producing language can be quite different
than those involved in comprehending language” (Ibid., 471).
Basically, the essence of the whole debate seems to lie in the question of whether we can
acquire a new language in an „easy way“ – just by relaxing and concentrating on the message rather
than actively working with the language itself (Krashen) or do we still have to work hard on it and
without conscious efforts to produce language there can be no acquisition – „no pain no gain“
(Swain).
The most distasteful for many language learners was Swain’s idea, that in order to
successfully acquire a language one has to be “pushed” to speak and thus often find oneself in a
psychologically uncomfortable situation. Krashen, in responding to Comprehensible Output
hypothesis, also observed that: pushing students to speak is unpleasant for them <…> it is “pushed
output”, having to utilize structures they have not yet acquired, under demanding conditions, that
students find uncomfortable. Methods based on comprehensible output put students in this situation
constantly (Krashen, 1998). In responce to Swain’s idea that the major driving force in acquiring
new vocabulary and structure is learner’s need to speak and make oneself understood, Krashen
noted that all the need in the world will not result in language acquisition if there is no
comprehensible input. <…> providing more comprehensible input seems to be a more reasonable
strategy than increasing output.
Thus, despite all the criticism, comprehensible input is still defended as the major factor or
a basis for language acquisition, all other (output included) being secondary factors, playing
supportive roles in SLA process. How, then, could one respond to the observations of the failure of
comprehensible input, such as the above-mentioned study when students in French immersion,
despite years of input, were not as good as observers felt they should be in grammatical aspects of
their second language? To this Krashen optimistically states, that comprehensible input has not been

210
truly “given its chance”: It can be argued, that we haven’t yet given comprehensible input a real
chance. We have yet to see how students will do if their classes are filled with comprehensible
input, if they have access to a great deal of very interesting reading and listening materials and if the
acquisition situation is genuinely free of anxiety” (Krashen, 1998 ).
Decades after this exchange between Krashen and Swain, the dispute does not seem to
have been settled one way or the other: the debate between the supporters of input and output as the
primary driving force in the successful SLA still continues. The best review of the latest
developments in this debate is provided by Ellis (2008, 247–251; 260– 265), Rast (2008, 4–28) and
Krashen himself (1998).

3. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

On the practical classroom level this dichotomy is most often reflected by either some
teachers’ forcing learners to speak while they are still not ready, making them frustrated and
uncomfortable, which may decrease their self-confidence and motivation; or, on the other hand, by
the others’ over-reliance on learners’ capacity to acquire a language just by receiving interesting
and comprehensible input, which attracts criticism from many colleagues, fearing that learners will
not learn to speak if they are not “pushed”.
Thus, after decades of research and debate, the most important question remains: have we
given enough chance for Krashen’s comprehensible input to do its work properly (i.e. teach a
language) or should we admit that Swain was right and that without conscious effort and „pushing“
a learner to speak there can be no acquisition. Unfortunately, although there is a variety of
positions on this issue and the importance of output in SLA has been widely recognized, the
conclusive answer to this question does not seem to be in sight. Concerning the research of
comprehensible input as a sole sufficient factor in successful SLA, Ellis (2008) observes:
“it is perhaps not surprising that the results (of researching the role of comprehensible
input in SLA) have been inconsistent as what probably matters is not so much the input itself as
what learners do with the input they are exposed to” (Ellis, 2008, 251).
Concerning the role of Swain’s comprehensible output, Shehadeh (2002) observes:
After well over a decade of research into Swain’s (1985) comprehensible output
hypothesis, few definitive conclusions can be made, because the question of whether and how
learners’ output, or output modification, helps with L2 learning is still largely unanswered.
(Shehadeh, 2002, quoted in Ellis, 2008, 265)

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on one’s basic paradigm, teaching/learning methods and classroom activities

may vary enormously: from over-optimistic reliance on input as the sole sufficient factor for
successful SLA, to overstressing learners with (often unnecessary and even potentially
demotivating) forced early output.
Due to the ongoing debate between proponents of Comprehensible Input and
Comprehensible Output and due to the continuing uncertainty of many SLA researchers on this
matter, teachers are left without conclusive answers or clear guidance.
Thus, it seems that the answer to this question must lie elsewhere: rather than looking for
prescriptive “universal” language acquisition models, teachers/learners should rely more on their
intuition and adapt various approaches which seem to work best for individual learners. Instead of
adopting Comprehensible Input or Comprehensible Output models as some kind of absolute
authority informing teaching/learning methods and techniques, what seems to be needed is a
sensitive and personalized adaptation to learners’ needs (i.e. “adapting, not adopting). “Whatever

211
works for you” still seems to remain the safest methodological principle in the process of second
language teaching and learning, ridden with so many doubts and uncertainties.

REFERENCES

1. Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan,

2. Doughty, C., Williams, J. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Ellis, R. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, 2008
4. Krashen, S. 1998. Comprehensible Output. Available at: http://www.sdkrashen.com/ articles/
comprehensible_output/ 01.html.
5. Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Available at:
http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html
6. Larsen-Freeman, D., Long M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research. New York: Longman.
7. Rast, R. 2008. Foreign Language Input: Initial Processing.
8. Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Hinkel E. (Ed.), Handbook on
Research in Second Language Teaching And Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
9. Thomson, G. 1993. Key Principles of Design for an Ongoing Language Learning Program.
Available at: http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/gt/nonbegnr.htm
10. Zafar, M. 2011. Monitoring the ‘Monitor’: A Critique of Krashen's Five Hypotheses. Available
at: http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/DUJL/article/view/6903. Acessed on 18 May, 2012

SANTRAUKA

SUPRANTRAMA KALBINĖ MEDŽIAGA AR SUPRANTAMAS ŠNEKOS AKTAS – KAS

SVARBIAU SĖKMINGAI ĮSISAVINANT KALBĄ

Vytenis Končius

Egzistuoja du požiūriai į kalbos įsisavinimo procesą. Anot vieno iš jų, kalbos įsisavinimas
yra didesne dalimi automatinis procesas, vykstantis pasąmonėje, todėl ir pats efektyviausias kalbos
mokymosi būdas yra sukurti palankiausias sąlygas, leidžiančias netrukdomai vykti šiam
savaiminiam procesui. Šio požiūrio žymiausias šalininkas yra S. Krashen’as su savo ,,suprantamo
teksto” (Comprehensible Input) hipoteze. Egzistuoja ir priešingas požiūris, tvirtinantis kad suaugę
negali efektyviai įsisavinti svetimos kalbos, pasikliaudami vien tik minėtais automatiniais procesais.
Anot šio požiūrio, būtinas aktyvus besimokančiojo dalyvavimas, pastangos išreikšti savo mintis
besimokoma kalba – tik tada įmanoma ją sėkmingai įsisavinti. Šio požiūrio žymi šalininkė yra
Merrill Swain, suformulavusi savo “suprantamo kalbėjimo” (Comprehensibel Output) hipotezę.
Diskusija tarp šių dviejų požiūrių šalininkų tebesitęsia, dažnai atsispindėdama ir klasėse: arba per
daug pasitikint savaiminiais ir pasąmoniniais kalbos įsisavinimo procesais, neskiriant pakankamai
dėmesio aktyviam šnekėjimo įgūdžių tobulinimui arba priešingai – pernelyg akcentuojant ankstyvą
šnekėjimą, tuo verčiant mokinius atsidurti psichologiškai nepatogiose situacijose ir taip galbūt
pakertant jų kalbos mokymosi motyvaciją. Abu šie požiūriai turi savo privalumų ir trūkumų.
Metodologiškai saugiausia būtų leisti jiems abiems pasireikšti mokymo procese, dogmatiškai
netaikant nei vieno iš jų.

212
Copyright of Language in Different Contexts / Kalba ir Kontekstai is the property of
Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.