RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 1

PDQP Artifact
Literature Review
in support of
Domain A: Making Subject Matter Comprehensible to
Students
(TPE1B)
In partial fulfillment of TED 690
Prof. Shepherd
Allis Snyder-Crabb
NU
7/10/2016

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 2

ARTICLE SUMMARY
In his 2008 article "Language Education: Past, Present and Future", Emeritus Professor at
USC Stephen Krashen asserts that most educational methods of "the past" place excessive
emphasis on the foundational and skill building aspects of language acquisition and proficiency.
Elaborate rules such as those related to grammar and phonics create a barrier to learning via
more organic and natural language-based approaches such as reading and social in-put. He
asserts that much of foundational language teaching is based upon rote rules, vocabulary
acquisition, and focusing on

"'out-put' (speaking and writing) again and again until they

become 'automatic'". Calling this method the "Skill- Building Hypothesis" the author asserts that
the tone of this sort of learning is that actual language use and mastery is delayed until some later
time when an evaluation will determine the next phase of language acquisition. The author states
that requiring extensive skill- building sends a message that "real language use is delayed until
the rules are mastered".
Krashen goes on to insist that "skill building cannot be the major means of producing
competence in language and literacy" and sites studies which indicate that in fact most of human
language acquisition occurs through subliminal means, that is, organically, through listening. Dr.
Krashen considers this approach to learning language as superior and sites its evolution as baring
several names, the "Comprehension Hypothesis" or "In-put Hypothesis" or "Reading
Hypothesis" and the author gives credit to predecessors who advocated similarly. He calls this
method the "present" of education.

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 3
The author goes on to assert that many studies indicate that more reading in the classroom not
only improves reading as would be supposed, but more reading in fact improves subsequent
vocabulary and the complexity of student writing. Dr. Krashen cites studies which indicate that
when students are offered and adhere to sustained silent reading (SSR) and in-class reading
opportunities their reading and writing improves far beyond students whose curriculum focused
more on "Skill-Building Hypothesis" or "in-put" based methods.
Dr. Krashen closes his piece by addressing his views on the "future" of education. He further
discusses the theory of "Communicative Language Teaching" versus "Comprehensible Out-put
Hypothesis" that is, developing language by using real-to-life communication opportunities to
fashion a broader language understanding. When we create communication and fail ourselves or
our listener we must then in-turn refashion repeatedly until that communication is effective for
achieving our (the communicator's) goal. Our author argues that although this is often mistaken
for a "Comprehension Hypothesis" approach as it utilizes organic language understanding as a
basis for growth, it is in fact still "out-put based", which the author considers less effective.
The author recommends three steps to encouraging the "Comprehension Hypothesis"
application in a classroom: 1. Lots of varied reading material and media. Anything that will
interest and encourage reading should be available. 2. Allow time in the classroom to read each
day. 3. Inform the students how they can become literate, how they can become readers and
acquirers of language skills autonomously.
For the "technology as a classroom tool" consideration for this article, the author sites both
studies and widespread opinions with regard to the validity of internet "surfing" as a viable "in-

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 4
put" or reading practice. The author recaps his initial assertion that language and writing
acquisition are best served through a steady diet of reading what one enjoys.

RESPONSE
This article strikes me as a microcosmic view of a macrocosmic problem in education. With
ever greater concern placed on benchmarks and standards and verifiable proficiency in student
learning, much concern has erupted over "teaching to tests", or creating classrooms where the
foundation skills taught are chosen to support documentable proficiency.
Most educators walk the fine line between supporting organic, constructive, student-skill-andinterest-driven goals, and the other concern: the position of being required to provide the service
that the state has hired us to do.

According to the California Commission on Teacher

Credentialing's 2013 publication of the "California Teaching Performance Expectations" Teacher

performance expectation "1B" states that I am to "deliver instruction of increasing complexity".
Contrast this requirement against the author's described learning environment where reading, or
"in-put" is the primary tool for communication mastery. I assert, as do a lot of educators, that
formal-language learners need AT LEAST phonics to adequately decode/read simple words.
Humans may communicate verbally without any understanding of the symbols used in language,
but without sound encoded into discernable symbols, learning to read is greatly challenged.
Sight reading may offer a start for those early in their language acquisition, but the elaborate
understanding of multisyllabic words and the vocabulary of abstract language quickly becomes
challenged without discernable symbolic representations of sounds or meaning. Another example

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 5
of somewhat encumbering primer rules that pave the way for rapid and greater understanding is
the study of prefixes, suffixes, and Latin roots. A fundamental understanding of this concept
constructing for easy deconstruct is essential in the understanding of "BIG words". For example
I bet YOU, as a reader of this stuff understands anti-dis-establish-ment-arian-ism. Hence, a
fundamental understanding of Latin root words makes entire pages of vocabulary simple.
Without some of these ancient rules, words throughout the elementary years would need to have
their meaning decoded one by one, on an individual basis as encountered, rather than applying
rules that make decoding meaning simple.
I also disagree with the author in- so- far- as public education curriculum development has
been established by thousands of years of standards decided by "The University". This method of
establishing rules as touchstones in proficiency is likely as old as pedagogy itself. Academic
language has rules, especially in English. They are numerous and important if one is attempting
to establish one's eligibility for inclusion in "The Academy". NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE ACADEMY, this is granted. However public education has an obligation to
make that foundation available to those that desire achievement within "The Academy". Those
lessons begin with foundational language rules, formats, and systems. The state of California
asks me to help students "produce argumentative, informative, and narrative text; conduct
research, ... write for a range of tasks, to comprehend and [interpret] text use standard
English conventions and functions." (CTC, 2013) I am recruited as a representative of "The
Academy of English Language Arts" to attempt to achieve grade-appropriate standards as
established by a collaborative of my peers, my mentors, some bureaucrats, the taxpayers, and
millennia of pedagogical practice. I have an obligation to guide my students' learning far beyond
what's possible through a daily "SSR/free-read".

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 6
English is a living language built from many other living and dead languages. It is an
exciting, breathing vibrant, ultimately collaborative space where new rules are created overnight
through the saturation of use in popular culture. New English vocabulary is as simple as a set of
quotations marks ("psyched!"), and a hashtag is the best tool for teaching subtext and inference
that there could ever be! English is the standard of communication globally until further notice.
Let's study it a bit and give it its due consideration as students and teachers.
BUT, to defend the Dr. Krashen I would be a fool to argue against anyone who asserts that
more reading of materials that a language student enjoys, the more likely they are to enjoy
reading and hence become a better reader and a better writer. It's not only academic, its intuitive
and that's what makes it right. There is no study needed to tell an educator that reading practice is
the most valuable tool in creating self-sustainable literacy.

RUNNING HEAD: ELA LITERATURE REVIEW, CTC'S DOMAIN A PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT

Page 7

REFERENCES

Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2013). California Teaching Performance Expectations.

Retrieved from: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/adopted-TPEs-2013.pdf
Krashen, Stephen. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present, and Future. RELC Journal.
August, 2008.Vol. 39, No. 2; 178-187. doi: 10.1177/0033688208092183. Retrieved from:
http://rel.sagepub.com.ezproxy.nu.edu/content/39/2/178.full.pdf