Stephen Krashen'S Theory: "Monitor Model" [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

STEPHEN KRASHEN’S THEORY: “MONITOR MODEL” ●

●

●

● ● ● ●

Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model is one of the influential and discussed theories of language learning/ acquisition. Adults have two distinct ways to develop competence in a second language: acquisition (which is a subconscious process), and learning (which is conscious). Acquisition is similar to the process by which children acquire their native language. Learning involves a conscious knowledge of rules. For acquisition to take place, the learner must be motivated, have a good self-image and be free from anxiety. Error correction should be minimized in the classroom, where the main purpose of instruction should be to provide comprehensible input. We acquire new structures only when we are exposed to comprehensible input. This theory describes five central hypotheses: 1) The acquisition- learning distinction; 2) the natural order hypothesis; 3) the monitor hypothesis; 4) The Input Hypothesis; 5)The Affective Filter Hypothesis.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. The input hypothesis was first published in 1978 STEPHEN KRASHEN (born 1941) is a linguist, educational researcher, and political activist and an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition. Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. KRASHEN'S THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION CONSISTS OF FIVE MAIN HYPOTHESES: ● The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis: Adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing competence on a second language: acquisition, which is a subconscious process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in the first language ; and learning, which refers to conscious knowledge of the rules of grammar of a second language and their application in production. ●

The Natural Order hypothesis: The acquisition of grammatical structures(primarily morphemes) proceeds in a predictable 1

order when the acquisition of knowledge is natural (i.e. not via formal learning) ●

The Monitor Hypothesis: Acquisition is the sole initiator of all second language utterances and is responsible for fluency, while learning (conscious knowledge of rules) can function only as “editor” or “monitor” from the output. ● The Input hypothesis: The Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. We can then define 'Comprehensible Input' as the target language that the learner would not be able to produce but can still understands. It goes beyond the choice of words and involves presentation of context, explanation, rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual cues and meaning negotiation. The meaning successfully conveyed constitutes the learning experience. ●

The Affective Filter hypothesis: Krashen states that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good selfimage, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE: ❖ The author also suggests certain implications for classroom practice: 1)The main function of classroom may be to provide comprehensible input in an environment conducive to a low affective filter (i.e. high motivation low anxiety) 2) The classroom is useful for beginners and foreign language students who do not have input sources outside of class or those whose competence is so slow that they are unable to understand the language from the outside world. 3)The requirements for optimal inputs are: a) comprehensible; b)interesting and relevant ; c) not grammatically sequenced, d) provided in sufficient quantity to supply i+1, and e)delivered in an environment where students are “off the offensive”. 4) Error correction should be minimal in the classroom; it is of some limited use when the goal is learning, but of no use when the goal is acquisition. Error correction raises the effective filter and should, therefore, not be used in free conversation or when acquisition is likely to take place. 5) Students should never be required to produce speech in the second language unless they are ready to do so. Speaking fluency cannot be laught, but “emerges” naturally in 2

time with enough comprehensible input. CRITICISM Some critics, for instance, have questioned his use of generalizations in describing the model. Munsell and Carr (1981) questioned the distinction between “learning” and “acquisition” and the notion of “conscious” and “unconscious”. They also seem to object to the implications that language learning is distinct from other kinds of learning. “We cannot imagine trying to learn basketball simply by watching people do it, trying it, and creatively constructing the rules. It is much easier to start with conscious exposition of the rules and build one’s skill upon that foundation.” McLaughlin’s objections are toward a more cognitive perspective. His objections to Monitor Theory are summarized in the following five points: 1- McLaughlin (1987) points out that Krashen never adequately defines acquisition, learning, conscious or subconscious which makes it extremely difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language. 2- Krashen has had to place more and more restrictions on the conditions under which this theory would be used effectively, but these restrictions are of limited usefulness in explaining a learner’s conscious knowledge of grammar. 3-The Natural Order Hypothesis is quite weak due to methodological problems. 4- McLaughlin believes the Input Hypothesis is also unstable since no clear definition is given of “comprehensible input”. 5- The Affective Filter Hypothesis is also questionable because Krashen does not make any serious attempts to explain how and why this filter develops. In conclusion, some of Krashen’s Monitor Theory’s central assumptions and hypotheses are not clearly defined and, thus, are not readily testable or falsifiable.

3