Sessions 2: 10.45-12.15Theories of Language

Learning

1. Krashen’s ‘Monitor Model’ Theory

Dr. Simon Phippsdr.simon.phipps@gmail.co

m

CTS Module: Fresh Insights into Teaching & Learning (Linguistics)

KRASHEN’S ‘MONITOR THEORY’1980S

Krashen’s 5 hypotheses;

1. Monitor Hypothesis 2. Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis 3. Natural Order Hypothesis 4. Input Hypothesis 5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

1. ACQUISITION/LEARNING HYPOTHESIS

Acquisition = subconscious process - focus on meaning

Learning = conscious process - focus on form

Acquisition (similar to FLA) – meaningful interaction in a communicative setting

Learning cannot turn into acquisition, because: L1 acquisition happens without knowing rules learner can know the rule but still break it when speaking no-one can know all the rules 

BUT

Research does show that; some rules can be acquired through learning learning can help acquisition

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LEARNING

Explicit linguistic knowledge implicit linguistic knowledge ?????

 

Strong Interface Position (Sharwood-Smith)Explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge  

Weak Interface Position (Ellis)Explicit knowledge can facilitate implicit

knowledge

 

Non-Interface Position (Krashen)Explicit knowledge can not facilitate implicit knowledge

2. MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

Learning = monitor or editor Monitor can adjust utterances initiated by the acquired system Conscious knowledge of rules can only help ‘polish up’ language

3 conditions for the use of the monitor: Time focus on form knowing the rule

 BUT

The monitor is mentioned only in connection with production, not comprehension

Research shows that: the monitor seems to enhance not hinder performance early adolescence seems to be the best age to learn L2 in the

classroom increased rate of learning increased ultimate levels of attainment

3. NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS

Morpheme studies (1970s) show that; Learners acquire rules in a predictable order regardless of learning

BUT

Findings are today viewed with some suspicion Difficult to know when to measure How to know when a rule has been acquired

 

Research shows that; L1 can influence the order of acquisition There seem to be different routes in the SLA process Not all learners follow exactly the same order although there is some agreement on a tentative order

4. INPUT HYPOTHESIS

Comprehensible input (i + 1) If input is understood, info about grammar is automatically available Speaking is seen as the result of acquisition, not as a cause

Comprehension is seen as more important than production Silent Period Natural Approach

 BUT

Research shows that; Children learn chunks of language and analyse them later Children appear to be able to learn without simplified input The Natural Approach is not backed up by evidence Speaking (comprehensible output) plays a crucial role in learning CI and the Affective Filter (see below) are factors of acquisition, not

causes

There are 2 reasons why babies are silent…

5. AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS

The Affective Filter is; A barrier to acquisition An internal processing system which screens input

If the filter is down, input may interact with the LAD This is what causes individual learner differences

BUT

Although affective factors clearly influence learning; Too vague to pin down exactly how this might work More of a metaphor

Psycholinguistics tells us that the brain has a need for equilibrium Low affect = few resources left for attention to any task Some evidence that some stress can enhance learning

KRASHEN’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD

‘Krashen’s ideas themselves initially stimulated a good dealof data-based research, and forced some fresh thinking inlanguage teaching circles. While some of the original claims no longer excite much interest among researchers and/or have been superseded by other developments, they served avaluable purpose by identifying some of the relevant issues and, where apparently wrong, by obliging critics to seek out and substantiate alternatives.’ 

(Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to SLA Research.

London: Longman, p249)