‘O ke Au i Kāhuli From Language Learning to Language Acquisition | A Personal Narrative of Kumu Evolution:

When reflecting on the Hawaiian Language Revitalization Movement, and the mass of speakers needed to not only make ‘ōlelo Hawaiʻi impactful but thrive, we have a long way to go. I am not just referring to those who gained the ability to speak, but to those who truly feel joyful and free to use ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi in different contexts beyond a classroom setting—free from critique, free from feeling like every sentence is being judged for grammatical accuracy. As a Kumu, I am constantly reflecting and thinking about how I can do better for my students. How do I ensure that my instruction is resulting in not just fluency but a true enjoyment of learning the language, beyond the metacognitive and metalinguistics?

I was able to hear from Dr. Kalani Makekau-Whittaker today about his discovery of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and how it changed his life by changing his teaching. I studied Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaiʻi-Mānoa, but have not heard much of what I learned applied to ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi until today. Being in a room with Hawaiian language teachers uncovering these truths of acquisition vs. learning was a beautiful moment.

For those unfamiliar with Krashen’s theories, they boil down to language acquisition occurring when learners are exposed to “comprehensible input” - messages they can mostly understand, with a level of challenge just beyond their current competence (i+1). Krashen argues that language is acquired subconsciously through meaningful interaction rather than through direct instruction or repetition of grammar rules. The input hypothesis suggests that providing learners with comprehensible input, rather than forcing them to speak before they are ready, is the key to successful language acquisition.

Language learning, as opposed to language acquisition, is learning about the language and is a very tortuous process. With a revitalized language, it is very rare not to have linguists influence education, and this has resulted in a culture of criticism. I understand how and why the pendulum has swung so far from the 70s revitalization movement, where folks were welcome to begin learning the language to know where there is a real fear of being wrong and deemed incorrect by the gatekeepers. High standards are excellent in many fields of practice, academic and culturally based, but in language, it must be realistic.

One of the final aspects of Krashen’s hypothesis is about the affective filter. The learning environment needs to be almost, if not entirely, stress-free. We need a space with no anxiety present, just like those where second language learners are invited to make mistakes and where the content is more important than the formation.

I am so grateful for this experience and to see that these ideas are spreading to spaces that are needed even decades after it was initially posited.

What I see now for me as a learner and an advocate is the need for much, much, much, much more comprehensible input and that is where my Wikipedia project comes in.