LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Theories and ApplicationsFoundations of Language Acquisition2010512 EIL Batch 10 - Group 3Chulalongkorn University – ThailandKrashens Five Main Hypotheseson Second Language Acquisition
Krashens Theories of Second LanguageAcquisition consist of five main hypotheses: The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter HypothesisThe design and procedures in the Natural Approachare based on these five hypothesis.
L2 AcquisitionTheory CurriculumThe Natural ApproachCombinesLearningProcessSpokenProductionDuringFocused on
HistoryStephen Krashen andTracy Terrell developed the"Natural Approach" in the earlyeighties (Krashen and Terrell,1983), based on Krashens‟ fivetheories on second languageacquisition.“Language acquisition does notrequire extensive use ofconscious grammatical rules,and does not require tediousdrill.""Acquisition requiresmeaningful interaction in thetarget language - naturalcommunication - in whichspeakers are concerned notwith the form of theirutterances but with themessages they are conveyingand understanding."
Theory of LanguageReflecting the cognitive psychology andhumanistic approach prominent in the fieldof education at that time, Krashens‟ fivetheories on second language acquisitionshifted the culture of the languageclassroom 180 degrees and brought a senseof community to the students by theirsharing of the experience of learning thesame language together.(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
The Acquisition/Learning HypothesisLanguage acquisition(an unconscious processdeveloped through usinglanguage meaningfully) isdifferent from languagelearning (consciouslylearning or discovering rulesabout a language) andlanguage acquisition is theonly way competence in asecond language candevelop.(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
This acquisition-focused approach seescommunicative competence progressing throughthree stages:(a) aural comprehension,(b) early speech production, and(c) speech activities, all fostering "natural"language acquisition, much as a child would learnhis/her native tongue.Following an initial "silent period",comprehension should precede production inspeech, as the latter should be allowed to emergein natural stages or progressions.Cook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
The Acquisition-Learning HypothesisThere are two independent systems of second language performance:The acquired system„ and The learned systemAcquisitionA product of subconsciousprocesses very similar to theprocess children undergoes whenthey acquire their first language. Needs natural communication inthe target language. Informal situations. Depends on attitude. Uses grammatical „feel‟. LearningA product of formal learningIt comprises a conscious processwhich results in consciousknowledge about the language,for example knowledge ofgrammar rules. Formal situations. Depends on aptitude. Uses grammatical „rules’.Cook, V. websitehttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
Acquisition/Learning HypothesisStrength WeaknessesLanguage is learnedis through naturalcommunication.The idea of „Language does notlead to acquisition‟ is refuted bythe experience of anyone whohas internalized some of thegrammar they have consciouslymemorized.The definitions ofacquisition/subconscious andlearning/conscious are not clearenough (Gregg, 1984)
The Monitor HypothesisExplain the relationship between acquisitionand learning.The acquisition is the utterance initiator,while the learning system performs the roleof the „monitor‟ or the „editor‟.(www.sk.com.br.sk-krash.html)
The Monitor HypothesisThree specific conditions: Time Focus on form Know the rule(Krashen, 1982)
The Monitor HypothesisIndividual variation in monitor useMonitor Over-users are learners who attempt “monitor”all the time.Monitor Under-users are learners who prefer not touse their conscious knowledge.Optimal Monitor users are learners who use the“monitor” appropriately.According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is orshould be minor.(Krashen, 1982)
The Monitor HypothesisWeaknesses“There is no clearevidence to show us„monitor‟ use. We are notable to determine thelanguage that has beenproduced by the learnedsystem and the acquiredsystem” (Lightbown, &Spada, 1993).“Knowing a language ruledoes not mean one will beable to use it incommunicative interactions”(Brown, 2000).DiscourageSpeech is haltingFocus more on accuracy
The Monitor HypothesisApplications to teachingProduce „Optimal Monitor Users‟ Easy rules to remember and apply Communicative competency(www2.education.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka/bilash/Best%20of%20Bilash/krashen.html)(www.standord.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm)
The Natural Order HypothesisBy referring to several prior research findings byBrown, 1973; Dulay and Burt , 1974 ; Andersen, 1976;Kessler and Idar, 1977; Fabris, 1978; Christison, 1979;Makino, 1980, Krashen said that grammatical morphemesseem to be acquired in natural order. Some structures areacquired earlier and some later.Natural order is found in both language acquisition bychildren and adults alike. In case of L2, natural orderexists regardless of the acquirers‟ L1. Later findingsshow that this hypothesis is valid for other languageacquisition as well.(Krashen, 1982)
"Average" order of acquisition of grammatical morphemesfor English as a second language (children and adults)
Weaknesses of the Natural Order HypothesisThe morphemes themselves do not form anylinguistic unity, so there can be no unitary hypothesis toexplain why they should follow in sequence. (Mason, 2002)Any language learners‟ behavior may vary. So amorpheme present today may disappear tomorrow.(Mason, 2002)The order may depend to some greater or lesserextent upon the situation in which the learners acquire theirL2.The complexity of morphemes depends on thelearners‟ L1.
Implication for Teaching A syllabus should not be based on theNatural Order Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982). Lots of grammar programs are based onwhether the points covered are easy ordifficult for the teacher to formulate, ratherthan on whether they are easy or difficult forthe learner to acquire.
An important condition for language to occuris that the acquirer understand (via hearing orreading) input language that containsstructure “a bit beyond” his or her currentlevel of competence.For example,If a learner is at a stage „I‟, then maximumacquisition takes place when he/she isexposed to Comprehensible Input thatbelongs to level „i + 1.(Krashen, 1985)The Input Hypothesis
The Input hypothesis is only concerned withacquisition, not „learning‟.“Human acquires language in only way – byunderstanding messages, or by receivingcomprehensible input” and Learners improveand progress along the „the natural order‟when they receive L2 comprehensible input”.(Krashen, 1985)Input Hypothesis
1.) Speaking is a result of acquisition & NOT itscause.2.) If input is understood, and there is enough of it,the necessary grammar is automatically provided.(Krashen, 1985, p.2)Input Hypothesis
Krashen suggests that natural communicativeinput is the key to designing a syllabus.Communicative Language Teaching ApproachCooperative Learning Approach (Scaffolding)Michael Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a senseKrashen left off. He posits in what has come to becalled the interaction hypothesis, that comprehensiveinput is the result of modified interaction.Teaching Application
Vygotsky influenced Krashen‟s secondlanguage acquisition theory – application of theirtheories to second language teaching producessimilarities.Krashens Input HypothesisVS.Vygotskys concept of zone of proximal development(ZPD) : Social ConstructivismL1: Baby talk (Accommodation Theory) links toNature & Nurture between Function & FormRelated key points to other theorist & L1
Debatable and CriticismStrengths ControversialThe more comprehensibleinput, more L2 proficiency.Teaching methods aredependent oncomprehensible input.Since not all of thelearners can be at thesame level of linguisticcompetence at the sametime, we are unable todefine the level of i andi+1.Grammar generalization(making errors)
The Affective Filter Hypothesis“… Learner‟s feeling or attitude as an adjustablefilter that freely pass, impedes or block inputnecessary to acquisition”3 kinds of affective or attitudinal variables relatedto SLA1) Motivation: high2) Self-confidence: high3) Anxiety: low(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 183)
The Affective Filter Hypothesis Learners with a low affective filter: highmotivation, self-confidence, a good image, and alow level of anxiety Are better equipped for success in SLA Learners with a high affective filter: low self-esteem and a high level of anxiety Form a mental block When the filter is high, it blocks languageacquisition. The low affective filter is desirable.
The Strengths of theAffective Filter HypothesisTeachers try to reduce learners‟ negativefeelings.Learners can have higher competence whenthey receive comprehensible input in low-stresscondition.
Strengths of the Affective FilterHypothesis“A learner who is tense, angry, anxious, orbored will screen out input, making it unavailablefor acquisition. Thus, depending on the learner‟sstate of mind or disposition, the filter limits what isnoticed and what is acquired. The filter will be upor operating when the learner is stressed, self-conscious or unmotivated. It will be down when thelearner is relaxed or motivated.”(Lightbown and Spada,1993,p. 28)
Weaknesses of the AffectiveFilter Hypothesis“Sheltered” classroom environmentvs.“Real world” environmentThe stresses of everyday life andcommunication are an uncontrollablevariables.
Implications for Language TeachingStudents activities should be based on meaningfulcommunication rather than on form.Input should be interesting and student needsbased.Input should contribute to a relaxed classroomatmosphere.
“The best methods… are therefore those that supplycomprehensible input in low anxietysituations, containing messages thatstudents really want to hear.These methods do not forceearly production in the secondlanguage, but allow students toproduce when they are ready,recognizing that improvementcomes from supplyingcommunicative and comprehensibleinput, and not from forcing andcorrecting production."Stephen Krashen
Theory of languageThe Communicative view of language is thefocus behind the Natural Approach. Particularemphasis is laid on language as a set of messagesthat can be understood.Language is a vehicle for communicating meaningsand messages.Communicative approachThe focus on meaning not formVocabulary is stressed (Lexicon)Formula I + 1
The use of the term ‘Natural Approach’rather than ‘Method’ highlights the developmentof a move away from ‘methods teaching’ whichimplies a particular set of features to be followed,almost as to ‘approach’ which starts from somebasic principles which are then developed in thedesign and development of practice in teachingand learning.It is now widely recognized that the diversityof contexts requires an informed, eclecticapproach.(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
Interrelated Key Points of the HypothesesCombined model of acquisition and production
Krashens Theories of Second LanguageAcquisition consist of five main hypotheses:(The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis)Language acquisition (an unconsciousprocess developed through using languagemeaningfully) is different from languagelearning (consciously learning or discoveringrules about a language) and languageacquisition is the only way competence in asecond language occurs.
Grammatical structures are acquired ina predictable order and it does little good totry to learn them in another order.(The natural order hypothesis)People acquire language best frommessages that are just slightly beyondtheir current competence:i+1 (The input hypothesis)
Conscious learning operates onlyas a monitor or editor that checks or repairsthe output of what has been acquired.(The Monitor Hypothesis)The learners emotional state canact as a filter that impedes or blocksinput necessary for languageacquisition.(The Affective Filter Hypothesis)
Learner Roles:Learners trying to „acquire‟ language, not learn it inusual way. Slightly more difficult input is given than atlevel, but by context & extra-linguistic info, canunderstand.Learner‟s roles change depending on the level and amajor aspect is the learner deciding when to speak,what to speak about & what language to use whenspeaking..
Learner roles:3 phases:1) pre-production: no response but participate by e.g.pointing.2) early-production: either/or questions, single words,short phrases, fill in charts, use fixed conversational patternse.g. „How are you?‟3) speech-emergent: role-play, games, personalinfo, opinions, group problem solving( Krashen & Terrell, 1983:76)Should not try and learn a language in the usual sense, butshould try and lose themselves in activities involvingmeaningful communication.
Materials & ActivitiesThe primary goal of materials to make classroomactivities as meaningful as possible by giving “theextra-linguistic context that helps the acquirer tounderstand and thereby to acquire” (Krashen &Terrell, 1983:55).Thus REALIA are of paramount needs based, andnot textbooks.So pictures, visual aids, schedules, brochures, ads,maps, simple books, games.
Materials & Activities1. Real life dialogues2. Pair-work interviews with personal info3. Personal charts & tables4. Preference ranking – opinion polls / give opinions5. Giving personal info about self- social networking6. Role Play/ Imagination user7. Problem-solving activities8. Games & Songs9. Content activities such as academic subject matter orsituational
Krashens Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized: Acquisition is more important than learning. In order to acquire, two conditions arenecessary. The first is comprehensible (oreven better, comprehended) input containingi+1, structures a bit beyond the acquirerscurrent level, and second, a low or weakaffective filter to allow the input in. Present as much comprehensible input aspossible
Krashens Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized: Things that help comprehension are studentneeds based – such as pics/realia- exposureto wider lexicon / vocabulary Focus should be on reading & listening –speaking comes later when ELL‟s ready
Krashens Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized: „Natural Approach‟ focuses mainly on basiccommunication skills. 2nd perspective is that “ the purpose of alanguage course will vary according to theneeds of the students and their particularinterests” – Krashen & Terrell 1983:65.
Breen,M. & Candlin, C.N. (1980). The Essentials of a communicative curriculum in teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2):89-112.Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching, (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs:NJ, USA.Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (2003). The Handbook of second language acquisition.John & Sons: NJ, USA.Gregg, K. (1984), Krashens Monitor and Occams Razor, Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100Krashen, S., (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.Krashen, S., (1985).The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow LongmanKrashen, S., (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London, Longman.Krashen, S., (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.Krashen, S., (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International.Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1998). How Languages are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press.Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: NY, USA.Mitchell,R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. Oxford: NY, USA.Richards,J.C. & Rodgers,T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, (2nded.). Cambridge: NY, USA.Saville-Troike,M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge:NY, USA.Web Links:http://2.education.ualberta.caCook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htmhttp://languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htmhttp://sk.com.br/sk-krash.htmlhttp://www.standford.edu/ kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htmhttp://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L12_Krashen_Review.htm