Stephen Krashen – April 26, 2012
How’s this: Don’t worry about number of repetitions. Don’t worry about vocabulary. Worry only about presenting comprehensible and compelling input, vocabulary will take care of itself. For crucial vocabulary, there will be plenty of repetitions, and they will be “distributed,” not “massed,” exactly the optimal way of presenting items for optimal retention.
Stephen Krashen – April 26, 2012
We need to do a study. If we just focus on comprehensible and compelling input, how much of the “required” vocabulary is covered and acquired anyway?
Stephen Krashen – April 27, 2012
Study 10 TPRS classes. None of them with a specific focus on vocabulary.
Give students a vocabulary test at the end of the semester or year. See what words they know.
Compare this to lists of words that are on typical curricula.
Compare to performance of students in classes that focus on vocabulary.
That’s it.
Stephen Krashen – April 28, 2012
In general, CI-based approaches (including sustained silent reading) produce superior results on VOCABULARY acquisition (as well as reading comprehension, heavily based on vocaublary knowledge) than skill-based approaches.
See also efficiency studies by Beniko Mason (benikomason.net).
My suggestion is to supplement this research to see if CI-based methodology “covers” the vocabulary that most curricula require. I think it is important to demonstrate this. Studies such as these need to be done to provide the engine for change.
Will this be proof? No, no study ever provides proof. Research can only support or fail to support hypotheses.