This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. .. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5. 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 s and s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five .. ‘Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor.’ Applied Linguistics. This paper attempts to briefly examine Krashen’s major hypotheses and to reflect some of .. Gregg, K.R. (): Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied.
|Published (Last):||6 March 2010|
|PDF File Size:||2.50 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.29 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
BE KRASHEN’S MONITOR AND OCCAM’S RAZOR. | NCELA
It was written in advance of Dr. The page as shown initially contains a brief synopsis of Krashen’s work in the fields of second language learningfree voluntary readingbilingual educationwhole languagecognitive development and writing. Each synopsis is followed by comments and a summary of implications for mainstream teachers of ESL students. Teachers who are interested in further information about the various issues can click [More] at the end of each section.
Show all extra text. Krashen believes that there is no fundamental difference between the way we acquire our first language and our subsequent languages. He claims that humans have an innate ability that guides the language learning process.
Infants learn their mother tongue simply by listening attentively to monitlr language that is made meaningful to them. Foreign languages are acquired in the same way. The claim that humans possess an innate language learning ability stems from Chomskywho rejected Skinner’s behaviourist theory that language learning is habit formation through stimulus and response.
From this he developed the theory that all languages share an underlying system named Universal Grammar. The hypothesis that the ability to learn language is innate has been restated more recently by linguist Steven Pinker who claims that this ability is “hard-wired in the genes”.
Chomsky and Pinker are nativists. Their theories are opposed by contemporary empiricists such as Sampsonwho odcam Skinner’s claim that language develops in response to environmental influences. Other linguists and cognitive scientists, such as O’Gradyagree that humans possess significant innate capabilities. However, they suggest that language learning monktor on general cognitive faculties rather than on a mointor language acquisition mechanism. The Monitor Model has 5 components:.
There are two ways of developing language ability: Acquisition is a sub-conscious process, as in the case of a child learning its own language or an adult ‘picking up’ a second language simply by living and working in a foreign country.
Learning is the conscious process of developing a foreign language through language lessons and a focus on the grammatical features of that language. According to Krashen learned language cannot be turned into acquisition. It is pointless spending a lot of time learning grammar rules, since this will not help us become better users of the language in authentic situations. At most, the knowledge we gain about the language will help us in direct tests of that rasor or in situations when we have time mojitor self-correct, as in the editing of a piece of writing.
Language is acquired in a predictable order by all learners. Krashem order does not depend on the apparent simplicity or complexity of the grammatical features involved. The natural order of acquisition cannot be influenced lrashen direct teaching of features that the learner is not yet ready to acquire.
It is claimed that the natural order of acquisition is very similar for a native-English child learning its own language and for an adult learning English as a foreign language.
For example, the -ing krsahen present continuous will be acquired early on and almost certainly before the -s inflection in the third person present simple she likes, he eatsetc. As Krashen points out, much of the frustration experienced by teachers and their students in grammar lessons results from the attempt to inculcate a grammatical form which the learner is not yet ready to acquire. We are able to use what we have learned in Krashen’s sense about the rules of a language in monitoring or self-correcting mpnitor language output.
Clearly, this is possible in the correction of written work. It is much more difficult when engaging in regular talk.
Krashen states that it is often difficult to use ocdam monitor correctly since the rules of a language can be extremely complex. Even assuming the learner has a good knowledge of the rule in question, it is difficult to focus on grammar while simultaneously attempting to convey meaning and possibly feeling.
Most normal conversation simply does not provide enough time to do so. This cartoon shows when not to use the monitor.
In Stevick’s terminology, JM in the cartoon is suffering from “lathophobic aphasia”, an “unwillingness to speak for fear of making a mistake”. We acquire language in one way only: Comprehensible input is the necessary but also sufficient condition for language acquisition to take place.
It requires no effort on the part of the learner. Krashen now refers to this as the Comprehension Hypothesis. This theory has clear implications for language teachers; namely, that their language instruction should be full of rich input both spoken and written language that is roughly tuned at the appropriate level for the learners in the class.
Comprehensible input will not result in language acquisition if that input is filtered out before it can reach the brain’s language processing faculties. The filtering may occur because of anxiety, poor self-esteem or low motivation.
Learners with a low affective filter will not only be efficient language acquirers of the comprehensible input they receive. They are also more likely to interact with others, unembarrassed by making mistakes for example, and thus increase the amount of that input. Krashen’s Monitor Model has attracted enormous attention from psychologists, fellow linguists and educators.
His theories have been criticised for a perceived lack of scientific rigour and for his downplaying of the importance of language output and grammar instruction. Nevertheless, the Monitor Model has been extremely influential in language teaching pedagogy, and it is the basis for ESL instruction at Frankfurt International School.
An introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen
However, the concept of falsifiability, as the means for distinguishing science from non-science Popper,has itself come in for considerable criticism, e.
Feyerabend contends that adhering to strict empiricist methodologies can inhibit scientific progress. Indeed, it is disputed whether linguistics can or should be regarded as a science see Harris, Teachers, of course, are concerned with the practical worth of a particular theory and are generally oblivious or impervious to such ivory-tower discussions.
Whether or not Krashen’s theories of language acquisition meet certain scientific criteria, it is indisputable that they have been widely and successfully applied in the classroom.
An introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen
Subsequent critiques of Krashen have focused more on the pedagogical implications of his theories, for example his claim that comprehensible input is a sufficient condition for language acquisition.
A further criticism of Krashen’s theories is levelled at his repudiation of grammar instruction. Critics claim that some kind of direct focus on grammar is both beneficial and necessary – see Long Krashenafter a comprehensive analysis of the research data in these two areas, concludes that neither learner output nor grammar focus have any direct influence on acquisition. He states that his hypotheses “. So far, research results remain consistent with these hypotheses and there is no counterevidence.
Two small pieces of anecdotal data from Frankfurt International School in support of Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input:.
We were joined a while ago by an Italian boy who had a little German but no English. He did not want to be here and had to be dragged in literally by his parents on the first day. He refused to speak any English at all even in ESL class for his first months at the school.
However, after he overcame his initial negativity and high anxiety or, in Krashen’s terms, after his affective filter came downhe listened attentively in class and spoke German when he needed to communicate. Shortly after Christmas he decided that he was ready to speak English and he did so with an accuracy and fluency some way beyond the other students in the class.
It also helped that the boy had already had the experience of learning a foreign language. A year or so later a grade 7 Hungarian student joined FIS with no English at all – she did not even know the numbers to twenty. Although she was the only Hungarian-speaker in the school, she possessed an outgoing personality and a positive approach.
She soon had a group of friends who helped her both in and out of class to cope with the social and academic demands of school life. Her English developed very fast and towards the end of her first year, she expressed her irritation at the postponement of a test: The field of linguistics has expanded rapidly in the last decades, and SLA research is currently divided into two camps: Sociolinguists are concerned with how language acquisition occurs in the various situations in which the learner finds him- or herself.
Psycholinguists on the other hand are more interested in the cognitive processes that take place when an individual learns a new language see Ellis, Krashen’s Monitor Model is just one albeit the most renowned of a multitude of SLA theories propounded by both socio- and psycholinguists. There is currently a rather acrimonious debate over whether the proliferation of theories is inevitable and desirable e.
Firstly, if teachers make their classroom instruction comprehensible, then not only will the ESL students learn the subject content but they will be acquiring English at the same time. All teachers of non-native English students should regard themselves as teachers of language too.
Secondly, ESL students are often anxious in mainstream classes. Teachers should seek ways to reduce the students’ affective filter in order that they can profit from the comprehensible input they receive. Here are 4 pages from Frankfurt’s ESL website with information about how to provide comprehensible input and lower the affective filter:. Free voluntary reading FVR is the reading of any book newspaper, magazine or comic that students have chosen for themselves and is not subject to follow-up work such as comprehension questions or a summary.
Krashen makes the claim that Free voluntary reading ‘may be the most powerful educational tool in language education’. It serves to increase literacy and to develop vocabulary. Extensive voluntary reading provides non-native students with large doses of comprehensible input with a low affective filter, and thus is a major factor in their general language acquisition.
Krashen expands on his claim in his book The Power of Reading. His own and other’s research has led him to the following conclusions:. Here is a useful online summary of Krashen’s recent work on FVR.
Krashen is a passionate advocate for libraries and was asked to submit a report on the issue to the Obama-Biden Education Policy Working Group. In the report Krashen points out the correlation between library provision and student reading achievement. He states that libraries are even more important for children growing monitr without books at home. Krashen’s research has led many schools to implement in-class reading programmes such as SSR Sustained Silent Reading.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
Investigations conducted by the US National Reading Panel did not find clear evidence kdashen these programmes made students better readers or encouraged them to read more. Some educators see Klump, believe that SSR is not the most productive use of instructional time. Krashen’s response is that the NRP’s research was flawed and that SSR does indeed result in better readers and more reading.
We have ocdam objective data showing how effective this is in terms of students becoming better or more avid readers. However, students, almost without exception, look forward to their silent reading.
They are often so inundated with other work that they have no raozr to read for pleasure at home. They appreciate the short amount of quiet time in what is otherwise a very hectic, demanding school day.