Sie sind auf Seite 1von 50

Krashens

Monitor Model
Stephen Krashen
1941-Present
- Born in Chicago in 1941.
Spent two years in the Peace
Corps in Ethiopia where he
taught eighth grade English
and science.
Krashen pursued a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the
University of California, Los Angeles,
culminating with his 1972 dissertation
"Language and the Left Hemisphere."

Took up a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the


University of California, Los Angeles in 1972.
Joined the USC School of Education in 1994.
Published over 350 papers and books, and
has presented keynote and plenary
addresses at the National Association for
Bilingual Education, and many other
conferences.

A professor of Linguistics at the CUNY


Graduate Center and the Linguistics
Department of the University of Southern
California.
Krashen believes that there is no
fundamental difference between the way we
acquire our first language and our
subsequent languages.

He claims that humans have an innate


ability that guides the language learning
process.

Infants learn their mother tongue simply by


listening attentively to spoken language that
is (made) meaningful to them. Foreign
languages are acquired in the same way.
Input hypothesis grew out
of Steve Krashens early
work on development
sequences.

Krashen wondered about


the regularity, and
deviances, in morpheme
acquisition orders. Recall
that not all acquisition
orders were identical

6
Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Krashen explained the differences by suggesting a
cluster of claims / propositions known originally as
Monitory Theory and later the Input Hypothesis.

7
Krashen synthesizes his theories of
second/foreign language learning in what
is usually referred to as the Monitor
Model. The Monitor Model has 5
components:
1. Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis
Krashen claimed that Adult second Language
learners has two means of developing ability
in Second Language. Acquisition, and
Learning.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first is Acquisition a subconscious and


intuitive process of constructing the system of
language.

Similar with the process children utilize in


acquiring their first language

Speaker is not concerned with the form of their


utterances, but with the messages that they are
conveying and understanding.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The second means is the conscious


Learning process in which learners
attend to form, figure out rules, and are
generally aware of their own process.

Krashen states that this is often the


product of formal language instruction.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis indicates


that adults do not lose the ability to
acquire languages the way that children
do, since Krashen claims that adults can
access the same natural language
acquisition device (LAD) that children use.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Application for Teaching:

According to this theory, the optimal way a


language is learned is through natural
communication.
As a second language teacher, the ideal is to
create a situation wherein language is used in
order to fulfill authentic purposes. This is
turn, will help students to acquire the
language instead of just learning it.
Teachers must focus on communication rather that
rote memorization of rules
For acquisition to occur, students must be immersed
in meaningful and comprehensible contexts
Language that it learned is not the language that is
spoken
Acquisition Learning
Informal Process Formal Process
Picking Up Knowing About
Unconscious Process Conscious Process
Implicit Explicit
Criticisms
For Krashen, acquisition and learning are
mutually exclusive there is no overlap
between them.
acquisition learning dichotomy
subconscious conscious dichotomy
2. The Monitor Model
This hypothesis further explains how acquisition
and learning are used; the acquisition system,
initiates an utterance and the learning system
monitors the utterance to inspect and correct
errors. It is our learned system acting upon our
acquired system.

The Monitor is involved in learning, not in


acquisition. It is a device for watch dogging
ones output, for editing, and making alterations or
corrections as they are consciously perceived.
The Monitor Model
Krashen states that monitoring can make
some contribution to the accuracy of an
utterance but its use should be limited.

He suggests that the monitor can sometimes


act as a barrier as it forces the learner to slow
down and focus more on accuracy as opposed
to fluency.

Writing may be the most conducive skill to


the monitor.
The Monitor Model

Additionally, the three conditions required by


the Monitortime, focus, and
knowledgeare, as Krashen asserts,
necessary and not sufficient, meaning that,
despite the convenient of all three conditions,
a language user may not utilize the Monitor.
The Monitor Model
Application for Teaching:

As an SL teacher it will always be a challenge


to strike a balance between encouraging
accuracy and fluency in your students. This
balance will depend on numerous variables
including the language level of the students,
the context of language use and the personal
goals of each student. This balance is also
known as Communicative Competence.
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
According to Krashen, we acquire Language rules in a
predictable, or Natural Order.

This is Krashens acknowledgement of development


sequences in interlanguage development.

Grammatical Structures are acquired in predictable order,


for both children and adults, irrespective of the language
being learned.

When a learner engage in a natural communication, then


the standard order will occur.
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
Preproduction, comprehension, or silent
stage or period
Early production
Speech emergence
Intermediate fluency
The Natural Order Hypothesis
Application for Teaching:

According to this hypothesis, teachers should be


aware that certain structures of a language are
easier to acquire than others and therefore
language structures should be taught in an order
that is conducive to learning.

Teachers should start by introducing language


concepts that are relatively easy for learners to
acquire and then use scaffolding to introduce more
difficult concepts.
Given that a child progress in a natural
sequence, the question now is : how do
they go in this pattern?
Humans acquire language by
understanding it or by receiving
comprehensible input
Through comprehensible input, the child
progress in a natural order.
4. The Input Hypothesis
Is a condition for a language acquisition that
occurs when the acquirer understands (via
hearing/reading) input language that is a bit
beyond his current level of competence.
We acquire language from comprehensible
input.
Language should be just a bit beyond their
current level of competence that they can
understand it, but still be challenged to make
a progress.
4. The Input Hypothesis

Krashen also suggests that this


comprehensible input should be one step
beyond the learners current language
ability, represented as i + 1, in order to
allow learners to continue to progress with
their language development.
How does this happen?
CI triggers the SLAD, which
allows to induce the rules of the
language.
i + 1, where:
i = our current language skill level; and
+ 1 = the next level along the natural
order
Two Corollaries of Input Hyothesis
Speaking is a result of acquisition andd not
the cause. It cannot be taught but emerges on
its own because it is a result of the
competence developed through
comprehensible input.
The comprehensible input when enough
carries the necessary grammar. The teacher
need not to teach the next structure along the
natural order because it will be discovered
with right amount of comprehensible input.
The input is the route to know and acquire
the target languages grammar when there
is input.
The input comes in the form of:
The first language
Scaffolding
Conducive environment
Exposure in the target language
Evidence
Silent Period
The usual response when exposed to a new
language
Building competence by listening to a new
language. They are taking note of context,
knowledge of the world and extralinguistic
factors.
Making use of the CI received from listening and
feedback from the adults
When competence is achieved, speeech emerges.
Age Differences
Older acquirers progress more quickly in early
stages because had more CI than younger
learners even they have the critical period
Krashen: The older acquirers has more
comprehensible input because of their knowledge
of the world that makes the input more
meaningful
Strategy: falling back on the L1 syntactic rules,
using the L2 vocabulary and repaired by the
monitor (plus their conversational management)
The Effect of Exposure
The longer people live in a country, the longer
they became proficient in their language
They should be exposed to comprehensible
input.
An input is not comprehensible when it is not
meaningful and understood by the receiver.
4. The Input Hypothesis
Application for Teaching:
This hypothesis highlights the importance of
using the Target Language in the
classroom. The goal of any language program
is for learners to be able to communicate
effectively.
By providing as much comprehensible input
as possible, especially in situations when
learners are not exposed to the TL outside of
the classroom, the teacher is able to create a
more effective opportunity for language
acquisition.
The Input Hypothesis
The learners need to have time to think
about what they are about to say or have
said (self-correct).
The learners need to focus on form,
how do I say it so that it is correct?
The learners must have knowledge and be
able to apply the rules (self-repair).
Comprehensible Input

Appropriate
Speech

Explanation of
Academic Tasks

Use of
Techniques
34
The Input Hypothesis
The input not only needs to be comprehensible
input, but it also needs to be slightly beyond the
students current level of competency.
This concept is represented as i + 1 (comprehensible
input plus 1-slightly beyond the students current level
of proficiency.
In order for the input to be comprehensible, teachers
must present the material in ways that are not tied to
language.
Teachers must use visuals, objects, relia, manipulative,
gestures, modeling, parentese (repeat, rephrase,
slower speech), charts, graphs, and maps.
Criticisms
Krashen is opposed when he suggests that
all learners need comprehensible input
and no explicit rule learning
5. The Affective-Filter Hypothesis
The best acquisition will occur in
environments where anxiety is low and the
defensiveness, absent.
Comprehensible input will not result in
language acquisition if that input is
filtered out before it can reach the brain's
language processing faculties.
The filtering may occur because of anxiety,
poor self-esteem or low motivation.
5. The Affective-Filter Hypothesis
Social-emotional variables related to
second language acquisition.
The most important affective variables
favoring second language acquisition are a
low-anxiety learning environment, student
motivation to learn the language, self-
confidence, and self-esteem.
A non-threatening teaching/learning
atmosphere is indispensible for language
acquisition to take place.
Criticism
centrality of input; what about output or
production?
5. The Affective-Filter Hypothesis
Krashen argues that affective factors
(motivation, anxiety, etc.) can act as a filter
which blocks comprehensible input from
reaching our SLAD.
The Affective-Filter Hypothesis
Application for Teaching:
In any aspect of education it is always
important to create a safe, welcoming
environment in which students can learn. In
language education this may be especially
important since in order to take in and
produce language, learners need to feel that
they are able to make mistakes and take
risks. This relates to directly to Krashens
hypothesis of the affective filter.
Criticism
The Affective Filter Hypothesis is not
precisely defined to predict what learners
acquire under a variety of conditions.
Criticisms on Monitor Model:
1. Krashens theory was one of the first theories
developed specifically to explain SLA.

2. His theory made a large number of claims about a wide


array of SLA phenomena, many of which seemed
empirically falsifiable, which thus attracted
researchers critical of the idea.

3. Krashens theory was closely tied to recommendations


for classroom practice; as a result, it seemed important
to test.
Criticisms on Monitor Model:
4. The acquisition/learning distinction is
not clearly defined and we cannot
determine whether the acquired or the
learned system is responsible when a
learner is producing language. We do not
really know whether learning can or
cannot turn into acquisition. We cannot
carry out a study to test it.
Criticisms on Monitor Model:
5. Krashen suggests that all learners need
comprehensible input and no explicit rule
learning. Throughout the years, it has
become obvious that unless learners attend
to forms, they produce ungrammatical
sentences and accuracy is neglected.

6. The Affective Filter Hypothesis is not


precisely defined to predict what learners
acquire under a variety of conditions.
Now, What?
How do these 5 propositions come together
into a single theoretical statement about
language acquisition? Write a statement of
SLA theory using all 5 propositions.
1. Acquisitionlearning hypothesis
2. Monitor hypothesis
3. Natural order hypothesis
4. Input hypothesis
5. Affective filter hypothesis
In a nutshell
Through comprehensive Input (4), our SLAD is
triggered, and we Acquire (1.1) language
(subconsciously) in a Natural Order (3), as long as our
Affective Filter (5) is low.
Deviant acquisition orders may emerge when our
Monitor (2) introduces Learned (1.2) rules (from
instruction) out of natural order.
People acquire SLs only if they obtain CI and if their
affective filters are low enough to allow the input in.
When the filter is down and appropriate CI is
presented, acquisition is inevitable. It is, in fact,
unavoidable and cannot be prevented.
References:
http://www.sdkrashen.com/.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen
http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-monitor-hypothesis-definition-and-criticism/
Principles of Language Learning and Teaching by D. Brown, 2000 edition
Binnema, J. (n.d.). A closer look at the Monitor Model and some of its criticism. Retrieved December 28, 2006,
from http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~w3spz/hull/KrashensMonitorModel.html
English for Saudi Arabia. (1421H). K.S.A: Ministry of Education, Educational Development.
Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation. Journal of Communication
and International Studies 4(2), 89-98.
Gregg, K.R. (1984). Krashens Monitor and Occams razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. England:
Longman.
Low, G.& Morrison, D. (n.d.). Some new perspectives on monitoring and the language learner. University of
Hong Kong, Language Center.
Romeo, K. (2000). Krashen and Terrells Natural Approach. Retrieved December 28, 2006, from
http://www.stanford.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm
Schulz, R. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they fit? The Modern
Language Journal, 75, 17-26
Schutz, R. (2005). Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition. Retrieved January 1, 2006, from
http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
Stewart, B. (n.d.). Critical perspectives on learning vs. acquisition in Krashens Monitor Model. Retrieved
December 28, 2006, from
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rs831494/stuff_from_school_mac/Bodie/Krashen_final.doc
The Monitor Model. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://www.auburn.edu/~keithcs/monitor.htm
Wilson, R. (2000). A summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition".
Retrieved December 28, 2006, from http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm
References: