Teaching English in the Priy Classroom | Page 28

accuracy rather than the other way round. The second notion is that, for Krashen, language is acquired when it contains structures a bit above the student’s current level of competence (i+1). It could be claimed that the above two notions draw heavily on the Vygotskian tradition (discussed in section 1.1.3.1) as the role Krashen assigns to the teacher in order to make input comprehensible to students is similar to what Bruner (1978) refers to as ‘scaffolding’. This is considered an essential step in order for children to proceed from stage i to stage i+1, i.e. to develop within their ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky 1978). The above two notions have certain implications for the classroom practice. The first implication refers to the teaching of grammar. Krashen (1987: 23), quoting MacNamara’s (1972) claim that the child does not acquire grammar first and then uses it in understanding but, rather, she first understands and then acquires, argues against the implementation of syllabi which are grammatically structured. Such a claim is not only based on the assumption that grammatical syllabi do not contribute to acquisition (see the ‘Natural Order’ Hypothesis above) but also because they treat all students as a homogenous group, thus failing to provide each one of them with optimal input (i+1) either because for some students input consists of (i), i.e. language which is known to them, or because it consists of (i+2), i.e. language which is above their level of ability and thus incomprehensible. The second implication refers to the role of the teacher. For Krashen (1987: 64), a good teacher is not one who has an extensive knowledge of grammar but, rather, one who can make input comprehensible to each one of her students, regardless of their level of competence in the target language. If this is achieved, Krashen considers that the classroom can become an environment which promotes acquisition and where grammar is automatically acquired. This claim of Krashen has been strongly criticized, however, by a number of researchers (e.g. McLaughlin 1978; Sharwood-Smith 1981; Ellis 1984) who stress that it is possible to influence the speed and/or course of L2 learning by helping students focus on the form of language. According to Jane Willis (1996: 102), this can be achieved by engaging students in ‘conscious-raising’ activities which do ‘…not consist of decontextualised presentation and practice of language items in isolation but, rather, they involve learners in a study of the language forms they were actually used or needed…’. Ellis (1990: 15-16) stresses that the difference between consciousraising and traditional grammar-teaching is that the former sees form-focused instruction as a means to the attainment of grammatical concept rather than an attempt 28