I considered speaking and writing as output while listening and reading as input. For example, babies get surrounded by enormous input as soon as they get born. When the input is ready to be pushed out, babies are able to talk and the last stage(final product) to be reached is writing. This is why writing has been regarded as the most important and difficult task. That was my understanding of output and didn’t know that the act of producing language(speaking or writing) could be a part of the process.
Also, it conflicts Krashen’s Input hypothesis that output has no functions in acquiring the target language. Compared to Krashen, Swain believes comprehensible input is not sufficient and requires comprehensible output as well. One of the reasons is that students can fake comprehension but not production.
Output enables learners to test hypotheses and receive feedback. Learners say or write the rules or vocabulary (interlanguage), “I goed to the supermarket yesterday” for example, and the teacher can implicitly or explicitly reformulates the students’ errors. Feedback helps learners move from declarative to procedural knowledge. Error feedback is very effective; however, feedback on grammar comprises such a large proportion since grammar plays a large role in teaching English in Korea. Rather than just pointing out the wrong grammar, the feedback should connect to the meaning in context in some way. Grammar rules without context might be meaningless and not memorable in the long run.
According to Output hypothesis, output helps students progress from semantic to syntactic processing (focusing on form, instead of meaning). However, focusing on form is already a big problem for Korean students when they produce English. Focusing on form is one of the biggest obstacles to make them reluctant to speak out because they are afraid to make mistakes. The monitored form with extra caution cannot fully reflect the learner’s interlanguage. Output hypothesis sounds very plausible because output enables learners to produce language and gain feedback, but it seems to mainly focus on rules. According to output hypothesis, learners’ awareness on form facilitates their output and the output provides learners with opportunities to test hypothesis about language. They can apply a rule to their utterance to see if native speakers can understand what they say and they reflect on their own output. It sounds to me “focusing on form leads to a successful learner”. Rather, I believe that focusing too much attention to forms inhibits learners’ fluency. Their (most of Korean learners, including myself) primary focus is on grammar, but it should be on meaning and communication, using grammar as a tool, not the object.
Also, it conflicts Krashen’s Input hypothesis that output has no functions in acquiring the target language. Compared to Krashen, Swain believes comprehensible input is not sufficient and requires comprehensible output as well. One of the reasons is that students can fake comprehension but not production.
Output enables learners to test hypotheses and receive feedback. Learners say or write the rules or vocabulary (interlanguage), “I goed to the supermarket yesterday” for example, and the teacher can implicitly or explicitly reformulates the students’ errors. Feedback helps learners move from declarative to procedural knowledge. Error feedback is very effective; however, feedback on grammar comprises such a large proportion since grammar plays a large role in teaching English in Korea. Rather than just pointing out the wrong grammar, the feedback should connect to the meaning in context in some way. Grammar rules without context might be meaningless and not memorable in the long run.
According to Output hypothesis, output helps students progress from semantic to syntactic processing (focusing on form, instead of meaning). However, focusing on form is already a big problem for Korean students when they produce English. Focusing on form is one of the biggest obstacles to make them reluctant to speak out because they are afraid to make mistakes. The monitored form with extra caution cannot fully reflect the learner’s interlanguage. Output hypothesis sounds very plausible because output enables learners to produce language and gain feedback, but it seems to mainly focus on rules. According to output hypothesis, learners’ awareness on form facilitates their output and the output provides learners with opportunities to test hypothesis about language. They can apply a rule to their utterance to see if native speakers can understand what they say and they reflect on their own output. It sounds to me “focusing on form leads to a successful learner”. Rather, I believe that focusing too much attention to forms inhibits learners’ fluency. Their (most of Korean learners, including myself) primary focus is on grammar, but it should be on meaning and communication, using grammar as a tool, not the object.
No comments:
Post a Comment