Krashen's Monitory Theory
Krashen's Monitor Theory, a Cognitive Perspective
The research on input and interaction led to Krashen’s (1985)
Monitor Theory, which was the first theory specifically for SLA. Krashen’s
theory evolved in the 1970’s and was based around five hypotheses. The first hypothesis
was the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the belief that acquisition, and
learning are separate processes (Krashen, 1985, in Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Krashen
proposed that acquisition is an informal, subconscious process which derives
from natural and meaningful interactions. In contrast, learning is a formal, conscious
process which occurs in classrooms where form and grammar is the focus. This
theory has had a pivotal influence on current SLA theories.
The second hypothesis was the Monitor hypothesis where
Krashen stated, “that learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor
or editor…acquisition imitates the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for
fluency” (McLaughlin, 1987, in Mitchell & Myles, 2004. p. 46). Furthermore, Krashen
used the monitor to explain individual differences in learners.
The third hypothesis was the Natural Order hypothesis in which
Krashen stated that, “we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order”
(Krashen 1985, in Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p. 47). As VanPatten (VanPatten & Williams,
2015, p. 30) notes however, the theory doesn’t explain the actual order of
acquisition.
The fourth hypothesis was the Input Hypothesis where Krashen
claimed that, “L2 acquisition takes place when a learner is able to understand
grammatical forms that are a little more advanced than the current state of the
learner’s interlanguage” (Krashen, 1985, in Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 9). Krashen believed
that L2 acquisition was input driven, and that output (speaking and writing)
played no role in acquisition (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). According to
Krashen, successful learning would occur if the input was able to be comprehended. To
define comprehensible input Krashen introduced two more constructs i which
is a learner’s current level of proficiency and i + 1 which is a
level just beyond a learner’s level. Krashen viewed input that was i + 1
was the most valuable level for SLA, (VanPatten & Williams, 2015, P. 27) . Krashen’s Input
hypothesis has been criticised for being vague and imprecise. How do you
determine level i and i + 1? ( Mitchell & Myles, 2004). According
to Mitchell and Myles (2004, p. 47), “Krashen viewed the Input Hypothesis as
central to his model of second language acquisition.”
Krashen’s fifth hypothesis was the Affective Filter
hypothesis. According to Krashen, language learners are more likely to learn
when they feel comfortable and have a positive attitude to learning. Furthermore,
language acquisition in this theory is more likely to occur if the
communication has meaning rather than form. According to Krashen (Krashen,
1982, in Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p. 48), “those whose attitudes are not optimal
for second language acquisition will not only seek less input, but they will
have a high or strong affective filter…the input will not reach that part of
the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the Language Acquisition
Device”.
Some arguments against Krashen’s theory are the distinction
given by him between acquisition and learning (Gass, 2013). For learners
in a formal setting whose instruction is in the native tongue, Krashen would
propose that they would only have a learned system “as there is no way of
‘picking up’ information for their acquired system” (Gass, 2013, p. 286). Gass
(2013) also notes that Krashen does not show how learning and acquisition are separate
systems.
The Larsen-Freeman study (1974, in VanPatten & Williams, 2015) tested whether the same
acquisition order for grammatical morphemes would also occur using different
task conditions from those that were used in previous studies. They tested whether a L1 learner’s
background knowledge would make a difference to this order of acquisition. The study used 24 beginning adult L2 learners from four different language
backgrounds. The tasks used were the BSM Bilingual Syntax Measure (used in
previous studies), a forced-choice listening task, a forced-choice reading task
and an imitation task. The results for the four tasks were consistent
across the four groups, except for when two language groups were compared at a
time, where there was a small difference. Overall, however Larsen-Freeman
concluded that “language background does not seem to radically influence the
way in which learners order English morphemes” (Larsen-Freeman, 1975, in
VanPatten & Williams, 2015, p. 29).
Krashen (1985, in VanPatten & Williams, 2015, p. 29), also explained these findings according to his
Monitor Theory, as the greatest differences were found in writing and reading
tasks, as learners were able to focus on form and had time to use their prior
knowledge.
Despite the issues that were raised by Krashen’s hypothesis, his ideas have influenced many
SLA researchers and helped understand second language acquisition. His ideas also offer a
possible explanation for why learners may not always retain what they have been
taught and why learners often struggle to recall drilled grammar forms during
spontaneous conversations (VanPatten & Williams, 2015).
Gass, S.M. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. (2nd ed). London:Arnold.
Comments
Post a Comment