Articles My Library About

The Promise of “Optimal Input”

Beniko Mason
Shitennoji University Junior College, Emerita
Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California, Emeritus
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2020). The promise of “Optimal Input.” Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching (TOJELT), 5(3), 146-155.

For the last 40+ years, teachers have been advised to avoid following one  

specific  methodology  and  use  techniques  and  activities  from  different  

language teaching approaches and methodologies. This approach is called  

the “Eclectic Approach,” and almost all the modern course books support  

mixing methodologies. (British Council). (1) After 40+ years, however, the  

Eclectic Approach has not been shown to be the most effective method.  

There  have  been  some  objections  against  using  only  an  acquisition  

approach.  In  this  paper,  we  will  explain  that  they  are  no  longer  valid  

objections when  optimal input methods  by way  of  Story-Listening  and  

Guided Self-Selected Reading are used in the classrooms. It is possible that  

other  methods  exist,  which  also  provides optimal  input  that  produces  

results as strong as SL/GSSR that are convenient and easy to install in the  

classroom. This should be investigated, and until this is done, SL/GSSR is  

our best bet. It is clearly  time  to seriously consider  the idea of a 100%  

acquisition-based program.

For the last 40+ years, teachers have been advised to avoid following one specific methodology and use techniques and activities from different language teaching approaches and methodologies. This approach is called the “Eclectic Approach,” and almost all the modern course books support mixing methodologies. (British Council). (1)
 

After 40+ years, however, the Eclectic Approach has not been shown to be the most effective method. Studies revealed that the more eclectic teaching included meaningful comprehension-based activities, the better the results (e.g., Isik, 2000). In fact, research done over the last 30 years has shown that “pure” (not mixed) optimal input is not only effective, but also efficient for language development (e.g., Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Krashen, 2004a, 2011; Mason & Krashen, 1997, 2004; Mason, 2013, 2018; Smith, 2006). Optimal input (Krashen & Mason, 2020) is the cause of effective and efficient (optimal) language acquisition in the limited amount of time we have available to us in schools.

Although optimal input instruction is a good answer, most schools still use the eclectic approach for different reasons, and do not fully exploit the use of the acquisition approach. One popular reason is that the students must take exams and it is thought that the acquisition approach does not prepare students for them. Other reasons given are that students prefer the traditional test preparation course, and that the acquisition approach is slow. These are exactly the same reasons that were given 40+ years ago, discussed below. In this paper, we will explain that these objections are no longer valid and that the acquisition approach using optimal input is a promising answer.

The six objections against fully embracing the acquisition-based approach only were:

  1. We don’t have the materials
  2. “Trivialization”
  3. The “just talk” fallacy
  4. Personnel problems
  5. Students’ expectations
  6. “It takes too long”
    (Krashen, 1985; pages 54-58)

RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIONS

1. “MATERIALS”

When we free ourselves from believing that we must teach according to a grammarbased syllabus, or that we must teach the first basic 2,000 high- frequency words first, and when we understand that language acquisition emerges in a predictable order when students receive rich compelling language input that they understand and enjoy, we can use stories and books for materials instead of traditional textbooks.

There are ways to use stories and books as materials, which are fully consistent with the five hypotheses of Comprehension Theory (Krashen, 1985, 2003). The two approaches that have the greatest promise are Story-Listening and Guided Self-Selected Reading (Mason & Pendergst, 1997; Mason, 2014, 2015, 2019; Krashen & Mason, 2020; Mason & Krashen, 2020). Both ways of teaching appear to provide “Optimal input.” The results of several studies show that they are not only effective; but also efficient for developing listening and reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and writing, as measured by teacher-made tests and standardized tests (Krashen & Mason, 2015; Mason, Krashen, 2017, Mason, 2013, 2018).

2. “TRIVIALIZATION”

Stories and books are not trivial

When input-based teaching consisted primarily of TPR, games, content-related activities, plays, and songs, the critics were right when they complained that the input was trivial, that is, it did not include enough language, enough variety of language, and was not interesting enough, let alone “compelling.”

Stories and books, however, are not trivial; they can provide students with input that is rich, comprehensible, and compelling. There is good evidence showing that reading is the most efficient way to provide comprehensible input for vocabulary acquisition (Nation, 2014).

Hsieh, Wang and Lee (2011) reported that 65 picture books that were used for readaloud to elementary school children in Taiwan contained three times as many words as textbooks used at this level. These children began to read books in the “Marvin Redpost” series (3rd-grade reading level) (2) on their own towards the end of their fourth year at the language school where Wang taught.

Walter (2020) reported that the words that students encountered in 50 Story-Listening lessons given to beginning high school French as a foreign language students were much richer in quality and more abundant in quantity than the words in the textbooks used during the same length of school time.

Stories are written in correct grammar, and they contain a wide variety of vocabulary, including many low-frequency words and academic words (McQuillan, 2019). When students hear stories and read books that they enjoy and understand, they subconsciously acquire many words necessary to go on to the next level. When stories are not just read to the students, but are delivered by a teacher who knows what her students understand and do not understand, students will encounter just the right amount of “i+1” in both the text and the teachers’ spoken language.

3. IT IS NOT “JUST TALK”

Story-Listening Instruction is not Storytelling

When stories are told to students in the Story-Listening Way, it is not “Just talking.” Story-Listening (Mason & Krashen, 2004; Mason, Vanata, Jander, Borsch, & Krashen, 2009; Mason & Krashen, 2018; Clarke, 2019; Mason, Smith, & Krashen, 2020) is more than just telling a story. It uses written texts of fairy/folk tales as materials and uses a strategy called the Comprehension-Aiding Supplementation (Krashen, 1982; Krashen, Mason, & Smith, 2018) in order to make incomprehensible input comprehensible.

The syllabus is flexibly adjusted by the teacher to accept the students’ natural development and interests. The teacher, however, is the one who decides what story to use and what words to use to tell the story. The teacher takes time to explain the content of the story using words that the teacher thinks that the students already know. The teacher knows the problems that the students have with comprehension and knows how to make the stories comprehensible.

Guided Self-Selected Reading is not Extensive Reading 

Books  are  not  trivial  either,  even  when  the  books  are  pedagogical  readers  graded  according to vocabulary level. Because the grading is not 100% precise, and because  the books are on different topics, the graded readers contain some difficult words even  when they are labeled as starter level readers.  

For  example,  in  one  of  the  200-headword  starter  level  Penguin  graded  readers,  “Manuscript” is used in the first page in “The Big Bag Mistake,” and “Ungrateful” is used  in the 300-headword starter level MacMillan graded reader, “Alissa.” “Ungrateful” is at  the 3rd 1,000-word level word, and “Manuscript” is at the 4th 1,000-word level word. 

In  Guided  Self-Selected  Reading,  students  are  guided  to  appropriate  books  by  an  experienced teacher with extensive knowledge about the readers. The books that the  teacher provides  to  the students include not only graded readers, but also authentic  books that are written for young native speaker readers (McQuillan, 2016). (2) 

Unlike Extensive Reading, students are not asked to read widely for general education  in a GSSR program, but they are advised to read narrowly (Krashen, 2004b). Students  are not taken to the library and are totally on their own. They are not advised to start  reading graded readers according to their scores on the placement tests. Students are  guided: 1) To the books that they can read easily; 2) To appropriate level books; and 3)  To the amount of reading needed in order to reach their goal within the limited time in  school.     

Students are required to keep a reading log for individual guidance; but there are no  comprehension questions (Krashen & Mason, 2019), or vocabulary exercises, and there  is no summary writing in English (in the case of the EFL situation), and no tests after  reading a book (Mason, 2015). Guided Self-Selected Reading does not combine reading  with conscious learning or with Intensive Reading. In GSSR, reading alone is enough.  (Krashen, 2009; McQuillan, 2019; Mason, 2019). 

4.  “NO PERSONNEL PROBLEMS” 

Anyone with some training can do it. 

Both Story-Listening  (SL) and Guided-Self-Selected Reading  (GSSR) methods are  not  difficult to learn and can be used by anyone, even by those without teaching certificates  or college degrees. The methods use common sense. They involve techniques that we  have used from the beginning of human history. 

5. STUDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS 

Orientation and positive experiences change their perspective  

A frequently heard opposition to the use of acquisition-based methods is that teachers  believe that students prefer conscious learning. Our experience is that when students  experience that listening to stories and reading books are much easier and more  fun  and it leads to acquiring the language and better performance on standardized tests,  they prefer acquisition-based methods. To help them understand what these methods  are,  we  first  give  them  an  orientation  and  then  have  them  experience  language  acquisition using the methods.  

Orientation sessions cover these topics: 

  1. the theory,  
  2. the methods,  
  3. the positive research evidence,  
  4. the goal of the program,  
  5. how students are guided to reach the goal,  
  6. what students are expected to do, and  
  7. how students will be evaluated. 

After they receive the above orientation, they experience language acquisition using SL  and  GSSR.  Once  they  experience  how  easy  and  pleasant  this  acquisition-based  instruction is, they start having hope, even if they are still skeptical about an Input-Only  approach. 

When students experience immediate success with SL and GSSR, they are motivated to  continue.  Motivation  does  not  come  from  understanding  the  theory  and  positive  research evidence but comes from successful personal experience with the methods.  

Once  students experience  how  pleasant hearing  stories and  reading  books are,  they  prefer  this  to  studying  grammar,  memorizing  vocabulary,  doing  worksheets,  taking  tests,  and  being  corrected  and  evaluated. What’s more, when  they  see that  they  are 

5 

making significant gains on standardized tests often after only one semester or, at most,  a  year  (Mason,  2013, Mason & Krashen,  2019), gains  that  they  had  not experienced  before with the hard work of using the traditional approach, they are convinced of the  value of these methods. 

6. EFFICIENCY 

Both time and cost-efficient 

Listening to comprehensible and highly engaging stories is not only more pleasant, but  it is also more efficient for vocabulary acquisition. The results of several studies show  that  acquisition  of  vocabulary  from  Story-Listening  proceeds at  a  faster  rate  than  memorizing  words.  We  have  also  found  that  adding  traditional  post-listening  instruction on vocabulary resulted in more words mastered; but was not as efficient in  terms of words retained per minute. The time is better spent in listening to and reading stories (Mason and Krashen, 2004; Mason, Vanata,  Jander, Borsch, & Krashen, 2009;  Mason & Krashen, 2018; Clarke, 2019; Mason, Smith, & Krashen, 2020). 

  • Constantino (1995) reported that her ESL students who read during the summer  passed the TOEFL requirement, but that one who studied for the test did not.  • In Mason (2006), Japanese college students who stayed in Japan and read books from the university library gained the same number of points per week on the  TOEFL as international students who were in an Intensive English Program at a  university campus in the USA. 
  • A middle-aged Japanese man who read about 6,500 pages gained 180 points on  the TOEIC mostly from mostly reading alone (Mason 2011).  
  • A student who read 1700 pages in one-semester reading books that she checked  out  from  the  university  library  gained  85  points  on  the  TOEIC  during  that  semester while she gained only five points after spending 16- months in Canada  staying with a host family and taking college classes (Mason & Krashen, 2019).  Reading alone was unbelievably efficient.  

CONCLUSION 

When we use stories and books as materials in the way of Story-Listening and GSSR,  the  problems  we  listed  earlier  disappear.  When  the  input  is  interesting  and  comprehensible, students listen and read. When the input is abundant and it is rich,  that is, when it contains language that adds depth and interest to the story and helps  make unfamiliar language more comprehensible, it helps provide i+1 for everyone in 

the class.  Research  has  shown  that  the  use  of  stories  and  books  as  done  in  Story-Listening and Guided Self-Selected Reading are not only effective but also time-efficient  for language acquisition.  

The usual objections to an input-only approach have been answered. It is clearly time  to seriously consider the idea of a 100% acquisition-based program. 

 

Notes: 

(1) British Council: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/eclectic-approach
(2) Marvign Redpost: https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/books/marvin-redpost 1-kidnapped-at-birth-by-louis-sachar/ For example: #1 Kidnapped at Birth is at  Accelerated Reader Level: 2.8 ( https://www.akjeducation.com/marvin-redpost-1- kidnapped-at-birth-9780679819462) 
(3) https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/how-many-languages

Acknowledgement 

We thank Ken Smith and John Truscott for helpful discussion. 

REFERENCES 

Constantino, R. (1995). The effect of pleasure reading: Passing the TOEFL test doesn’t have to hurt. Mosaic 3(1):15-17.  

Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67. 

Hsieh, M-Y., Wang, F. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2011). A corpus-based analysis comparing  vocabulary input from storybooks and textbooks. The International Journal of  Foreign Language Teaching (IJFLT), 25-33, Winter 2011. 

Isik, A. (2000). The role of input in second language acquisition: More  comprehensible input supported by grammar instruction or more grammar  instruction? ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 129-130: 225-274. 

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New  York: Prentice-Hall. Available at:  

http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Torrance, CA:  Laredo Publishing Company Inc. 

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei  lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Krashen, S. (2004a). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann. 

Krashen, S. (2004b). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3(5), 17-19,  Krashen, S. (2009). Anything but reading. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 18-25.

Krashen, S. (2011). Free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO: Libraries Unlimited. Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2015). Can second language acquirers reach high levels of  proficiency through self-selected reading? An attempt to confirm the Nation's  (2014) result. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(2),  10-19. 

Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2019). A note on comprehension checking. Journal of  English Language Teaching, 61(1), 23-24. 

Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2020). The optimal input hypothesis: Not all  comprehensible input is of equal value. CATESOL Newsletter, May 2020. pages  1-2.  

Krashen, S., Mason, B., & Smith, K. (2018). Some new terminology: comprehension aiding supplementation and form-focusing supplementation. Language  learning and Teaching, 60(6), 12-13. 

Mason, B. (2006). Free Voluntary Reading and Autonomy in Second Language Acquisition: Improving TOEFL Scores from Reading Alone. The 

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (IJFLT), 2(1), 2-5. Mason, B. (2011). Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (IJFLT), 7(1), 8-12. 

Mason, B. (2013). ‘Efficient use of literature in second language education: Free  reading and listening to stories’, In J. Brand & C. Lütge (Eds.), Children’s  Literature in Second Language Education (pp. 25-32). London: Continuum.  

Mason, B. (2014). Self-Selected Pleasure Reading and Story Listening for Foreign Language Classrooms. Shitennoji University (IBU) Bulletinl, 57. 247-256. Mason, B. (2015). Free voluntary reading with story-listening. Kanagawa-ken, Japan:  Seizansha. 

Mason, B. (2018). A pure comprehension approach: more effective and efficient  than eclectic second language teaching? IBU Journal of Educational Research  and Practice, 6, 69-79. 

Mason, B. (2019). Guided SSR before self-selected reading. Shitennoji University  Kiyo, 67, 445-456. 

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997a). Extensive reading in English as a foreign  language. System, 25(1), 91-102. 

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worthwhile? RELC Journal 35(2), 179-185. 

Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (2017). Self-selected reading and TOEIC performance:  Evidence from case histories. Shitennoji Kiyo, 63, 469-475. 

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2018). American students’ vocabulary acquisition rate in  Japanese as a foreign language from listening to a story. Turkish Online  Journal of English Language Teaching (TOJELT), 3(1), 6-9. 

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2019). Hypothesis: A class supplying rich  comprehensible input is more effective and efficient than “Immersion.” IBU  Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 7, 83-89.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2020). Story-Listening: A Brief Introduction. CATESOL Newsletter, June. 

Mason, B., & Pendergast, T. (1997). Tadoku program at International Buddhist  University. Language Teacher, 21(5), 27-29, 49. 

Mason, B., Vanata, M., Jander, K., Borsch, R., & Krashen, S. (2009). The effects and  efficiency of hearing stories on vocabulary acquisition by students of  German as a second foreign language in Japan. The Indonesian Journal, 5(1),  1-14. 

Mason, B., Smith, K., & Krashen, S. (2020). Story-Listening in Indonesia: A  replication study. Journal of English Language Teaching, 62(1), 3-6. McQuillan, J. (2016). What can readers read after graded readers? Reading in a  Foreign Language, 28, 63-78. 

McQuillan, J. (2019). We don’t need no stinkin’ exercises: The impact of extended  instruction and storybook reading on vocabulary acquisition. Language and Language Teaching, 8(1), 25-37.  

Nation, P. (2014). How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000  words? Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(2), 1-16. 

Smith, K. (2006). A comparison of “pure” extensive reading with supplemental  activities. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2),12-15. Walter, C. (2020). 50 first stories vs. textbook: Do stories contain infrequent  words? Language Issues, 1(1), 39-46.