monitor hypothesis learning process

Introduction The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis Curriculum Design Conclusions Bibliography

  Introduction         The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.  First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today.  In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms.  The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).  Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981).  Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:  The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).         As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn’t want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn’t think about what kind of input to provide for students.  However, upon closer examination of Krashen’s hypotheses and Terrell’s methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system.  In fact, within the covers of “The Natural Approach”, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen’s model.  In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen’s hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language.  Rather than use Krashen’s own label, which is to call his ideas simply “second language acquisition theory”, I will adopt McLaughlin’s terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as “the Monitor Model”.  This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis         First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between “acquisition,” which he defines as developing competence by using language for “real communication” and “learning.” which he defines as “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (p.26).  This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s.  He claims that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children’s speech rather than their grammar.  He compares it with several other authors’ distinction of “implicit” and “explicit” learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.         Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself.  He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners.  Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized.  However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech.  Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit.  The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.         McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious”, and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language.  This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach.  If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start.  As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for “acquisition” is bound to be problematic.         Krashen’s conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately.  In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully.  They see people who live in other countries as just having “picked up” their second language naturally in childhood.  The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that “natural” acquisition presents.  This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas         Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition).  This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998).  However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b).  As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method. The Natural Order Hypothesis         The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order.  Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers.  These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes.  Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups.  A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.         Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology.  Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction.  The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us.  In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.         McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language.  The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.  The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident.  Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes.  The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar.  As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.         When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent.  Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production.  McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33).  In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition.  Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension?  Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production?  First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children.  Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact. The Monitor Hypothesis The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such “learned” competence can have is an editor on what is produced.  Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study.  The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by “acquisition”.  Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived.  However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on “easy” rules.  This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence:  Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as “confirming evidence” (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.         Perhaps Krashen’s recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out.  However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely.  Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory.  Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82).  Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.         McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research.  Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation.  Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar.  He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance.  But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers.  These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.         The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear.  Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries.  However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory.  In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules.  He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis         Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs:  by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1.  In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction.  Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis.  One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34).  He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate.  This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language.  However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.  This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”         Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided.  He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87).  He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.         McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen’s model.  He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis.  The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37).  Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context.  Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition.  Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially.  Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.         This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen’s model for the language learner as well as the teacher.  He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level.  One of Krashen’s cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input.  But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works.  In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don’t understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do.  Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely.  However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis.  Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved.  More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed.  As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses.  In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis’s exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition. The Affective Filter Hypothesis         This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”.  Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.”  He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary.  He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation.  Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.         Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well.  Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92).  He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated.  Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (p.94).         McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29).  He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen’s.         Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation.  However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don’t have this filter, is somehow easier, since “given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages” (p.47).  This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day.  A simplification into a one page “hypothesis” gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path.  As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems. Curriculum Design         The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model.  These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum.  The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.         This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive.  In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom.  The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get.  The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.         Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty.  Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background.  The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved.  It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101).  However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.         Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions.  These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84).  These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model.  The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production.  Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose.  Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.         Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening.  However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension.  Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway.  Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best.  Consider the dialog presented on p.87: . . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run.  The instructor expands the answer.  Yes, that’s right, he’s running.

Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

The Monitor Hypothesis

Between the decades of the 70s and 80s, the linguist Stephen Krashen was developing his studies of five hypothesis of his theory of Second Language Acquisition . These hypotheses are  The input hypothesis, The acquisition-learning hypothesis, The monitor hypothesis, The natural order hypothesis, and The affective filter hypothesis. This article has as purpose talk about The monitor hypothesis and how it works. But first, we have to know what it is the purpose of this hypothesis.

According to Krashen(1982, p. 15-16):

The Monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition and learning are used in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition “initiates” our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor, or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after is has been “produced” by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction). […] The Monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited role in second language performance.

            As we know, we have two distinct ways to develop a second language. These are  acquisition and learning. Learning is when we develop the target language in a conscious way, in a formal way. It is when we learn the rules of grammar, the structures of the language in schools when he has a teacher to help us with our doubts. In other hand, the acquisition process is when we develop the target language in an unconscious way, in an informal way. It is when he has a frequent contact with the language, it is when we are not aware of the fact that we acquire, without knowing that we acquiring.

            In The Monitor Hypothesis, Krashen points to the learning process as a system which monitors and analyze our development of this second language. The monitor tends to show us our failures and errors, and fix our output. Krashen also points to the fact that we only will have a good use of our output if the student has a background of the structures and rules of grammar. Also according to Krashen (1982, p. 16), the process of developing the Second Language depends on three conditions, are they: time, focus on form and know the rule.

• Time (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

A second language performer needs to have sufficient time. For most people, the normal conversation does not allow enough time to think about and use rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i.e. a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is saying.

• Focus on form (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough. The performer must also be focused on form, or thinking about correctness (Dulay and Burt, 1978). Even when we have time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it.

• Know the rule (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed only to a small part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to.

            Krashen also pointed the monitor will depend on the three conditions and from the type of the users. He had pointed thee kinds of user, are they: Monitor Over-users, Monitor under-users, and The optimal Monitor user.

• Monitor Over-users (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language. As a result, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency.

• Monitor under-users (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Underusers are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a “feel” for correctness (e.g. “it sounds right”), and rely completely on the acquired system.

• The optimal Monitor user (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users, performers who use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere. […]In writing, and in planned speech, however, when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever corrections they can to raise the accuracy of their output.

By: M.V.N. Silva

Input Hypothesis. In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in:< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Monitor_hypothesis > Access on December 01, 2018.

Krashen, Stephen D. (1982).  Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition  (PDF). Oxford: Pergamon. Available in: < http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf > . Access in: December 1, 2018.

SCHÜTZ, Ricardo. “Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition.” English Made in Brazil. Available in: < http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html >. Access in: December 1, 2018.

Stephen Krashen. In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen#cite_note-USC_bio-1 >Access on November 30, 2018.

Share this:

Published by alkrashen

View all posts by alkrashen

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Second Language Acquisition: Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Approach

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

The second language can be defined as any other language which is learned or acquired after their first language or their mother tongue. Learning or acquiring a second language can be a difficult task for anybody that wishes to speak or write in a language other than their first language. Teachers should have the basic knowledge of second language acquisition theories to provide a comprehensive teaching and learning environment to students. One of the most applied and well-accepted theories is Stephen’s Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition. The present study was carried out as an observation on students to address the importance of Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Approach in the stages of second language development to ensure effective teaching of the second language. The findings show that the cause of the input factor should be taken into consideration when teaching a second language/foreign language. The findings also indicated that cooperative learning can be ...

Related Papers

Hilal Peker

Merrill Swain, who coined the Output Hypothesis, has been one of the important figures in the Second Language Acquisition field. She propounded her theory as complementary to Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis suggesting that learners cannot attain full grammatical competence merely through input processing in a language. The Output Hypothesis has been quite successful in terms of shedding some light on unanswered questions related to output. However, there are still some deficiencies in interpreting what the hypothesis intended to explain. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to critically review the Output Hypothesis by concentrating on the deficiency of an operational definition of comprehensible output, scarcity of output instances and problems arising from forcing learners to produce language.

melisa Perea

Jenrich Vrolijk

Milena Manchola

RECIE. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa

REVISTA RECIE

Today’s societies are characterized by cultural and linguistic diversity and schools are places where different groups meet. Two similar proposals in the United States and Latin America have emerged in this regard: Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) and Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE). This work of bibliographical review compares both paradigms using the Comparative Method. Specifically, it contrasts their goals, historical backgrounds, and language teaching aspects concerning the Second Language Acquisition field. There were found strong differences in all areas. Regarding the goals, CRT is mostly concerned about school performance, while IBE focuses on political-cultural revindications. About the historical background, CRT has been close to academia and IBE is mainly a result of social mobilization. In language teaching, CRT possesses a strong research tradition and solid scientific foundations. IBE presents scientific weaknesses and dispersion, as well as a lack of consensus. Regarding SLA, both paradigms are influenced by Commin´s notions of BICS and CALP and immersive bilingualism, Krashen’s hypotheses, and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural perspective and Zone of Proximal Development. The findings point out that these differences are related to the groups involved in the historical development and the way they emerged. Both paradigms should establish a dialog to strengthen each other.

Journal of Modern Languages

Ehsan Abbaspour

Whether corrective feedback is effective in L2 writing has always been a controversial issue among Second Language Acquisition (SLA) scholars despite a vast body of research investigating the issue. This conflict is rooted in the fact that different researchers subscribe to different theories of SLA which are at times contradictory in nature. The present article reviews and investigates major SLA theories with respect to their views and stance toward the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and error correction in second language writing. Many of these theories do not address the role of corrective feedback explicitly or merely focus on the role of oral feedback. Polio (2012) and Bitchener and Ferris (2012) have partially investigated the issue at stake reviewing a number of SLA theories. In this study, however, attempt is made to shed light on the role of WCF especially in the theories which are not directly concerned with L2 writing.

Foreign Language Annals

Francis John Troyan , Kristin Davin

jarrah al-jarrah

The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the EFL learners’ practices and understand their experiences with SNSs (social networking sites) as a tool for English language learning. The study was conducted in richer information and a deeper insight was gained through a qualitative case study. In the qualitative phase, 12 participants were purposefully selected and interviewed in order to explain further the statistical results, develop a rich descriptive picture of their lived experiences using social networking to improve their English language learning, and identify the factors and barriers that influence their practices. This study was guided by the following research question: How do these Facebook practices affect their language learning experiences? The results revealed that most participants felt comfortable using Facebook in English language learning. However, less than half of them used Facebook on a regular basis to learn English. In addition, they tended to read...

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the perceptions of ESL teachers regarding the use of educational mobile applications to help ESL elementary school students develop their language skills. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews from eight ESL teachers from different schools in Carbondale. Participants reported positive perceptions of using educational mobile applications to develop the language skills of students. This study provides some recommendations for the successful integration of technology in English learning and teaching. Article visualizations:

Professor Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Search Our Store:

The monitor hypothesis (krashen’s hypotheses of language acquisition series, #2 of 9).

The next post in this series (#3/9), The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis , is found here .

M: The M onitor Hypothesis

“knowing grammar rules can help students to monitor their speech and correct themselves.”.

The first of Krashen’s hypotheses we will discuss here is the monitor. This is for two reasons. First, every conversation among language teachers ends with discussing a point of grammar. We like language and we like figuring out how it works. We went into language teaching because we enjoy the nerdy side of it like debating the finer points of obscure grammar.

The other reason is that whenever comprehensible input is mentioned concerns are raised about the role of explicit grammar teaching. Putting the monitor hypothesis first helps to allay the fear that students will not know any grammar or that you think it is unimportant.

Grammatical knowledge does not correlate completely with fluency, but it can be helpful in some situations. Explicit grammar study can serve a purpose, but it is limited. When students are consciously aware of grammar they can sometimes monitor their language use and make corrections as they write, and to a lesser extent, as they speak.

For this internal monitor, or self-check, to work three conditions must be met. The student must:

• Know the rule
• Be focused on the rule
• Have time to apply the rule

These conditions rarely occur when using the language outside of the classroom. They normally happen only on tests in class that are focused on a particular aspect of grammar—and then students promptly forget them.  Here is why these conditions are difficult to achieve in real world use outside of the classroom:

• On knowing grammar rules: Language is so complex that even PhD’s that study the subject do not know all of the rules of grammar. New grammar rules are discovered every year. Professional linguists would admit that no one knows all of the grammatical rules of the language they use, but with use, the subconscious mind puts most of it together.
• On focusing on grammar rules: In real language use one rule is hardly ever the focus. Many verb tenses and multiple aspects of grammar are used, even when talking with young children.
• On time to apply grammar rules: When you are speaking there is hardly ever time to think about the grammar formulas or rules—what you have acquired will come out. Language that is acquired subconsciously comes out spontaneously.

Explicit grammar teaching tends not to stick with most students. Why? Because explicitly taught grammar is rarely contextual or meaningful . Grammar rules have traditionally been taught as units. The rule is presented, practiced, drilled, tested… and then quickly forgotten. This is an ineffective strategy for long term memory with language, let alone acquisition. The human brain picks up language piece by piece and repeated over time, rather than all at once. Meaningful, comprehended, spaced repetition is what works; not all of one grammar point in one lesson. Enjoying regular, nutritious, tasty meals rather than trying to eat a pickup truck full of food once a month is what works to make your body healthy. The same thing goes with acquiring language—learning little by little is best.

Krashen and many other SLA researchers assert that language acquisition is mostly an unconscious process, and therefore the use of the monitor is limited. Self-monitoring can be helpful when there is time to reflect and edit one’s own work, as in writing a formal essay when there is time to think, time to write, reread, think again and rewrite. The older students get and the more fluent they become, the more conscious knowledge of grammar rules can help them to monitor their own speaking and writing because they can think more abstractly. Formal teaching of grammar has little place in beginning language classes or with elementary aged students. Grammar study can sometimes be helpful with upper level high school students and with college students because those students can analyze and compare grammar and have more developed meta-cognitive abilities. But keep in mind that explicit grammar teaching is not necessary to develop fluency.

One area where many teachers think that explaining a rule and drilling it may be beneficial is in teaching advanced grammatical structures such as the subjunctive mood in Spanish, French, Latin and other languages. But Krashen’s research indicates that the only factor that influences mastery of the Spanish subjunctive is the amount of reading of novels the students has done, and not (surprisingly, to most students and instructors) the amount of formal study, or even the time spent in another country (!).

APPLYING THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Teach grammar to the appropriate students. Young students need no grammar instruction. Older students can benefit from some grammar instruction to answer nagging questions compare to L1, and as an introduction to linguistics.
• Teach grammar minimally. Teach grammar sparingly, realizing that it does not really help to develop fluency. Use correct grammar and point out how it is being used at the level of the sentence, but limit grammatical units.
• Ask the whole class questions and expect a choral response. Use regular scaffolded comprehension check questions to the whole class to get a general sense of student understanding. The confidence, volume and speed with which the class answers can be a good indicator of general comprehension.
• Ask individual students questions. Use differentiated comprehension check questions to individuals based on their level of understanding and self-reflection.
• Check acquisition with timed writing. Have students write essays from time to time. Start with timed writing of stories they are familiar with to give them confidence.
• Let students use the monitor. Occasionally give student time to write, read and rewrite their essays so that they can use their own internal monitor.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 19, 2018, 8:00 am

Linguist and educator Stephen Krashen proposed the Monitor Model, his theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition published in 1982. Influenced by the theory of first language acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky, the Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

The following sections offer a description of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, as well as the major criticism surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, distinguishes between the processes of language acquisition and language learning. Krashen contrasts acquisition and learning as two distinct and separate language processes. Acquisition occurs passively and unconsciously through implicit, informal, or natural learning, resulting in implicit knowledge and acquired competence of a language; in other words, to acquire a language is to “pick up” a language by relying on “feelings” of correctness rather than conscious knowledge of language rules.

In contrast to acquisition, learning occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal learning and instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about a language; learning results in metalinguistic knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that both children and adults acquire language via access to an innate language acquisition device (LAD) regardless of age as well as that learning cannot become acquisition. The most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model is that explicit teaching and learning is unnecessary, indeed inadequate, for second language acquisition.

Criticism of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that the hypothesized distinction between acquisition and learning as posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis, or, more specifically, determining whether the process involved in language production resulted from implicit acquisition or explicit learning, is impossible to prove. As Barry McLaughlin offers as anecdotal evidence, he feels that the German * Ich habe nicht das Kind gesehen “I have not seen the children” is incorrect based on intuition but also knows that the utterance is incorrect based on his knowledge of the rules of German grammar.

Furthermore, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Kevin R. Gregg offers anecdotal evidence of his personal experience learning a second language as counterevidence to the clear division between acquisition and learning: He initially consciously learned the conjugations of Japanese verbs through rote memorization, which ultimately led to unconscious acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. Both examples of personal experience with a second language illustrate the problem with stringently distinguishing the process of language acquisition from the process of language learning. Thus, the claim that acquisition is distinct from learning fails to withstand evidence-based criticism

Although influential within the field of second language acquisition over the past few decades, the Monitor Model is not without criticism as illustrated by the major critiques of the learning-acquisition hypothesis.

Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, Stephen D. 2009. Principles and practice in second language acquisition , 1st internet edn. Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Lightbrown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2006. How languages are learned , 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28(2). 309-332. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

acquisition-learning hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

Ambitransitive English Verbs

The Natural Order Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism