Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: * the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, * the Monitor hypothesis, * the Natural Order hypothesis, * the Input hypothesis, * the Affective Filter hypothesis. the Monitor hypothesis The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the ‘ monitor’ or the ‘ editor’.
The ‘ monitor’ acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule. It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is – or should be – minor, being used only to correct deviations from ‘ normal’ speech and to give speech a more ‘ polished’ appearance.
Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to ‘ monitor’ use. He distinguishes those learners that use the ‘ monitor’ all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the ‘ monitor’ appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person’s psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the ‘ monitor’.
Monitor Over-users. 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. These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Under-users are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a “ feel” for correctness (e. . “ it sounds right”), and rely completely on the acquired system. The optimal Monitor user. 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. (Some very skilled performers, such as some professional linguists and language teachers, might be able to get away with using considerable amounts of conscious knowledge in conversation, e. g. Rivers, 1979, but this is very unusual. We might consider these people “ super Monitor users”, after Yorio, 1978. 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 (see, for example, Krashen and Pon, 1975). application: * conversations where the focus is on communication and not form (“ Monitor-free”). the Natural Order hypothesis The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay ; Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a ‘ natural order’ which is predictable.
For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners’ age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies.
In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition. the Input hypothesis The Input hypothesis is Krashen’s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen’s explanation of how second language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with ‘ acquisition’, not ‘ learning’. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the ‘ natural order’ 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’. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some ‘ i + 1’ input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence. Application: correct generalization is that the best activities are those that are natural, interesting, and understood. meaningful” and “ communicative” drills * free conversations * In intake-rich informal environments, acquisition occurs. * Oral-presentation and group discussion * we can also use communication strategies and visual materials to modify the linguistic input. Communication strategiesi involve making additional linguistic or conversational adjustments * Comprehensibility of the teaching materials According to the Input Hypothesis, “ comprehensible input” is a major causative factor in second language acquisition. And the most fundamental approach for a leaner to acquire a language is to understand the language input.
So the comprehensibility of the teaching materials is the key. Here we can see, a suitable set of teaching materials for the learners is in bad need. For example, if the material is too easy for the learners to understand, they will gain nothing. On the contrary, if it is too difficult for the learners to understand, they will never get a clue neither. Thus an ideal set of teaching materials must content suitable comprehensibility. * Significance of the teaching materials In order to facilitate a learner to acquire a second language, the significance of the teaching materials is also of vital importance.
That is, the topics of the teaching materials should be interesting and relevant to learners. It is observed that when the topic of the teaching materials interests the learner, he/ she is more motivated and get more involved in the listening activity. Accordingly, the learners are much more likely to be much more successful. * Arrangement of the teaching materials As mentioned above, learners develop their language knowledge along the natural order. So it would be unadvisable if the whole teaching materials are of the same difficulty from the beginning to the end.
It is natural order of the teaching materials that we should emphasis here, i. e. step by step. The arrangement of the teaching materials should be carefully designed, studied, tested and modified in a more scientific way so as to enhance the effectiveness of the learning. * Continuity of the teaching materials According to the formula proposed by Krashen as “ i+1”, the learner’s language development along the natural order. And there is the gap between the current level and the next stage. So once the current level is reached, there should be continuous input to keep the learner go on to the next stage.
Otherwise, the learner will stop where he is. In a sense, the continuity of the teaching materials is a guarantee for the learner to take a further step in the learning. NOTE: see Lightbown & Spada’s book (p. 36-38) Krashen’s “ Monitor Model” (1982) Krashen’s five hypotheses regarding second language acquisition have had a great influence on second language classroom instruction. Krashen proposes that: 1. the acquisition-learning hypothesis: acquisition occurs through the subconscious “ picking-up” of the characteristics of L2 and eventually results in spontaneous communication in real contexts.
Consciously focusing on the rules of the language may result in learning, but not true acquisition. As a result of this hypotheses, many experts suggest that contextualized instruction where students themselves notice language patterns, rather than explicit grammar instruction, is ideal. 2. the monitor hypothesis: consciously knowing the rules of the language causes the learner to “ monitor” or edit their language output and may hinder the learner in spontaneous production. This hypothesis is another basis for contextual rather than explicit grammar instruction. 3. he natural order hypothesis: learners acquire the rules of a language in a predictable order that is independent of the order in which the rules may have been presented. This hypothesis is the basis for the presentation of thematic units of instruction rather than grammatically sequenced units in second language teaching. 4. the input hypothesis: acquisition occurs when learners receive comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is described as input just beyond the learners current level of competence (i +1). Input can be made comprehensible through background knowledge, context clues, visual aids, gestures or other extralinguistic cues.
This theory suggests that input should be meaningful and relevant to the second language learner so that they can rely on background knowledge to interpret meaning. For more information on input, see the video clip below. 5. the affective filter hypothesis: learners acquire language most easily when their anxiety is low and they can focus on the input provided to them and process it using their Language Acquisition Device. Students with high levels of anxiety will not be able to comprehend input. This hypothesis relates to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the need for safety, security and belonging before higher order thinking can occur.
In second language classrooms the implications of this hypothesis include the need for a low stress environment and low pressure to produce output initially in the language classroom. http://englishlanguagelearningathhs. wikispaces. com/F. +Krashen’s+Work Hypotheses| Characteristics| 1. The Acquisition Order Hypothesis| There are two ways of developing a second language. Acquisition is a subconscious process and learning a conscious process that results in ‘ knowing about’ the language. | 2. The Monitor Hypothesis| Acquisition and learning are used in producing language.
Acquired competence (subconscious knowledge) allows the learner to produce utterances while learned language (conscious language) serves as a monitor. The monitor allows correction of the language. | 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis| The rules of the language are acquired in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early and others later. | 4. The Affective Filter Hypothesis| It consists of the affective filter, a mental block that prevents the acquirer from fully utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition. 5. The Input Hypothesis| Humans acquire language by understanding messages, or by receiving comprehensible input. | Recourses http://languageofkindergarten. wikispaces. com/file/view/Krashen+for+wiki. pdf http://www. sdkrashen. com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index. html http://www2. education. ualberta. ca/staff/olenka. Bilash/best%20of%20bilash/krashen. html http://www. sk. com. br/sk-krash. html links may be helpful: http://www. antiessays. com/free-essays/107927. html
