Talk:Stephen Krashen

Stub
I was shocked at how light this article is for one of the greats in his discipline. Why is this not a stub? 72.192.125.5 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring What Was Lost
In reviewing the edit history for this article, it seems that this article was initially developed by over two dozen editors from September 2002 through October 2006. On October 23, 2006, a single user, Jeffmacswan, added large amounts of text, broadly expanding the article. The article continued to be edited by other users until July 15, 2007, when Jeffmacswan deleted almost all of the text of the article with the edit note, "Very sorry; I wrote this entry for the Encycopedia of Bilingual Education (forthcoming) and put up a related version here, but the publisher objected. I have therefore deleted it. Hope others will do." At the very least, shouldn't the article have been restored to its pre-Jeff state? A lot of people who aren't Jeff contributed to this article and right now, their work is lost. If no one objects, I'd like to reincorporate the pre-Jeff information. Jlwelsh 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't restore, too late now and may be confusing. But recycling is encouraged.
 * Materials here Yug (talk)  00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits
I changed "silly" back to "important". "Silly" is really not a neutral term and involves a judgement call. We could add that Krashen is heavily criticized for his views, or that he is thought of as simplistic, but lets not call him silly.

I also added information on the difference between "learning" and "acquisition". I'm not an expert in this area, but i felt it was important to get this down and hopefully we can clean it up a bit in the future.

Theolad 12:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the second external link in the Criticism section because it was irrelevant. It was merely a second article by Krashen's attacker, on a completely different topic, that merely alluded to her first article. I suggest the entire Criticism section should be deleted as it consists solely of a single editorial by a journalist, written in the heat of a major political debate in California more than ten years ago. The is inflammatory and biased, and does not represent scholarly criticism of Krashen's work.

fshepinc —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

i + 1
I seem to recall learning his theory as "n + 1" rather than "i + 1". Anyone else? Stevage 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the choice of letter is rather arbitrary. I think I've heard it most commonly as "L + 1," i.e. "level plus one," which actually seems to make a bit more sense than "i + 1."  However, "i" is the letter used by Krashen in his 1982 book, and presumably elsewhere.  -- Visviva 16:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's in his book, that sounds pretty definitive. Also, anyone know if the term "Krashen bashin'" has achieved enough currency to rate a mention? Stevage 07:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly few Google hits for that; I'd have to say no, unless there are some offline reliable sources that use or discuss the term. -- Visviva 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying
This article could use some subject divisions (history, theory, opposition). A bibliography would also help.

Picture
Any way we could scale down or crop that picture? It's awfully large.


 * Better now? -- Visviva 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistant Professor at Queens College
Krashen was an assistant professor at Queens College (CUNY) which is not mentioned here. I took a course he offered in 1973 or 1974.

Notability
This character really is not notable. What has he done? What third party gives an credence to his activity? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, why would you call him a character? According to a quick search of mine including journals he would be notable enough. I've just added his publication list, but it might need someone more familiar with the subject matter to expand and source the article. --Tikiwont 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Character" was used because I don't know if he's real, and the picture has not source information, so it could be just made up. Just because someone has published stuff or because they appear many times in a search engine doesn't make them notable. See the notability guidelines. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was inducted into the International Reading Association's Reading Hall of Fame. That's a well-established and respected organization within the field. If he satisfies their criteria for inclusion in the RHoF, he is a notable academic by Wikipedia standards. Jlwelsh 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dr. Krashen is the preeminent scholar in the field of language acquisition. His works are seminal to the field; his research has been published extensively in leading journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.238.8 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Krashen is definitely notable. If you're not sure about this, you'd better find a different topic to edit. I've done an enormous amount of research in second language acquisition, and he is cited very frequently, his hypotheses are said to be supported or cast in doubt by many papers, and terms and definitions he proposed are frequently used to frame various debates. This makes him notable, whether or not he's correct. Even the word "acquisition" in the term second language acquisition is usually traced to Krashen's ideas, because he is noted for making a black and white distinction between language learning (the sort of vocabulary list / grammar rule study typically done in a classroom, which he claims is mostly a waste of time) and acquisition (absorbing a language "naturally" from repeated exposure to "comprehensible input", which is another widely-adopted Krashenism.) Krashen believes that acquisition, not learning, is what people should do with a second language, and his influence was strong enough to get most people saying SLA instead of SLL, including those who disagree with Krashen. It's even common for researchers to explicitly point out at the beginning of a paper that when they use the term "acquisition", they just mean learning and are NOT making Krashen's distinction. This feeling among so many researchers that they have to explicitly make the point that they are not making Krashen's distinction is strong evidence of how notable Krashen is in the field. Notable doesn't mean correct; it just means notable. If that many people felt the need to publicly disavow any connection to my ideas, I'd be notable, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuanglen (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is page on Stephen Krashen?
I had come here to learn about him -- but there's hardly anything on him here on Wikipedia. What a disappointment. Oh well, off I go then to YOUTUBE.COM because there's nothing much about him on here on Wikipedia  i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTsduRreug 90.174.2.85 (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Krashen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525015751/http://www.nabe.org/documents/elections/west.pdf to http://www.nabe.org/documents/elections/west.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life
In a YT video, he says he went to (high) school in Illinois in the Chicago area. This and other background information such as any degrees besides his PhD should be added.136.36.180.215 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)