Krashen's Monitor Model [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

NAME: JUAN CARLOS PADILLA VILLADA SUBJECT: PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGES ACQUISTION

THE KRASHEN’S MONITOR MODEL

The Monitor Model is a theory of Second Language Acquisition developed by the American linguistic Stephen Krashen by the 1980s. This model has become in an influential theory on the language teaching. Monitor Model involves five principal hypotheses about how a second/third language is acquired/learned by adults: • • • • •

The The The The The

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Monitor Hypothesis Natural Order Hypothesis Input Hypothesis Affective Filter Hypothesis

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis According to Krashen, language is acquired, not learned (Krashen & Terrell 1983). In the one hand, Krashen suggests that acquisition is an implicit and subconscious process that results from informal situations and natural communication between people. Here, language is the means to communicate and not the purpose/end. Through this process young children acquire their first language. On the other hand, author explains that learning is an explicit and conscious process that results from formal or prepared situation (in classroom) in order to enable learners to ‘know about’ the second language. Here, there is a formal and explicit analysis and correction of errors in second language. Differences between acquisition and learning language Acquisition First language Implicit and subconscious process Informal situations Depends on attitude Stable order of acquisition

Learning Second language Explicit and conscious process Formal situations Depends on aptitude Simple to complex order of learning

Taken and adapted from: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm

For Krashen, second language acquisition should attempt to parallel this process, by creating and environment in which learners use language in real communication situations (Krashen & Terrell).

2. The Monitor Hypothesis In the second hypothesis, Krashen explains that conscious learning is complemented by self-monitoring and self-correction of what learner is producing. So, the acquisition system is able to produce spontaneous speech, while learning system is used to check what is being spoken. In this sense, before speaking, learner is checking internally looking for mistakes. Moreover, the learner uses the Monitor system for correcting something after it was uttered (Krashen & Terrell). According to Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully used, three conditions must be met:  The learner must know the rule: It involves to have had explicit instruction about rule.  The learner must be focused on correctness: Thinking about form without ignoring meaning.  The learner must have time to use the monitor: It requires the speaker to slow down and focus on form. Nevertheless, there are many difficulties with the Monitor use. First, learner need to know about grammar and remember every rule. Secondly, it is very difficult to think about form and meaning at the same time. Thinking in form, leaner don’t care about content. Finally, using the Monitor involves having a slow conversation, what is very hard in a real environment. Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommended using the monitor at times when it does not interfere with communication, such as while writing. 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis The author suggests that we acquire the rules or grammatical structures of language in a predictable order for children and adults. Using the research of colleagues Dulay & Burt, Krashen proposes that there is one natural sequence for second languages in the same way as young children pick up their own first language, with certain grammatical morphemes being acquired before others. This is the average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as a second language (Children and Adults):

1 2

-ING (progressive) PLURAL COPULA (to be) IRREGULAR PAST AUXILIARY (progressive)

3

ARTICLE (a, the) REGULAR PAST IlI SINGULAR (-s) POSSESSIVE (-s)

However, this hypothesis has been criticized because there is not research in morphemes and on the development of specific grammatical forms that support strongly this version. 4. The Input Hypothesis Krashen proposes that humans acquire language when they are exposed to sources of ‘comprehensible input’ (oral or written) which are slightly above the level of the learner’s current level (Krashen & Terrell). “If i represents previously acquired linguistic competence and extra-linguistic knowledge, the hypothesis claims that we move from i to i+1 by understanding input that contains i+1. Extra-linguistic knowledge includes our knowledge of the world and of the situation, that is, the context. The +1 represents new knowledge or language structures that we should be ready to acquire.”1 Nevertheless, hypothesis2:

there

are

some

consequences

of

input/comprehension

 Talking (output) is not practicing: Although speaking can indirectly assist in language acquisition, the ability to speak is not the cause of language learning or acquisition.  When enough comprehensible input is provided, i+1 is present: If language models and teachers provide enough comprehensible input, then the structures that learners are ready to learn will be present in that input.  The teaching order is not based on the natural order: Students will acquire the language in a natural order by receiving comprehensible input. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis Finally, with the last hypothesis, the author argues the existence of a kind of emotional filter in the second language learning. This filter involves affective factors such as attitudes to language, motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. According to Krashen, learners with favorable attitudes and self-confidence may have ‘a low filter’ with consequent efficient second language learning. On the contrary, learners with unfavorable attitudes and/or high anxiety have ‘a 1 2

KRASHEN, S. (2003). “Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use”. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Consequences

were

taken

from

“Input

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_input#cite_note-Krashen2003-0

Hypothesis”

at

Wikipedia:

high filter’ and so the input of second language learning may be blocked or impeded (Krashen, 1985). Indeed, attitudes influence the development in second language learning. Finally, I can say that I find this model very appropriated and fitted to reality of second language learning. I would like emphasize on principles such as the affective filter, the self-monitoring/self-correction hypothesis, and the differences between acquisition and learning language applied in the classroom. In the second language learning, we should try to created environments in which students can develop their language skills through real situations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

COOK, Vivian, “Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning” Resource saved from: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm KRASHEN, S. D. & TERREL, T., 1983, “The natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom”. Oxford: Pergamon. KRASHEN, S. D., 1985, “The input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications”. London: Longman KRASHEN, S. D., 2003, “Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use”. Heinemann. WIKIPEDIA, “Input Hypothesis” Resource saved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensible_input#cite_note-Krashen2003-0