"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules,
and does not require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen
"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low
anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These
methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to
produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying
communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting
production." Stephen Krashen
"In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to
help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen
Introduction
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 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.
Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view
that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second
language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and
anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good
self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second
language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can
combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents
comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter
is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary,
but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
Veronica Nolan
Source: http://si.unm.edu/Web%20Journals/articles2001/VNOLAN~1.HTM
When I enrolled in the Summer Institute, I was aware of the different second
language acquisition theories. As my time in the courses progressed, I was
continually amazed to learn about the many different theories and how they
apply to classroom instruction. I found Stephen Krashens Monitor model
interesting and wanted to know more about it. I chose Krashens theory
because it is multi-faceted and very interwoven.
Stephen Krashen has published over 100 books and articles within the past
twenty years dealing with second language acquisition
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html). Krashens widely accepted
second language acquisition theory contains five central hypotheses. A brief
discussion of each follows.
The Five Hypotheses of Krashens Theory
1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
This portion of the theory states that students acquire (not learn) grammatical
structures in a predicable order with certain items being learned before others
(Krashen, 1994, p. 52). This order seems to be independent of the learners age,
the conditions of exposure, and the background of the L1 development
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html). According to Krashen
(1994), natural order patterns of second language acquisition do not follow
those of the first language acquisition patterns. Nonetheless, there are patterns
to L2 development.
3) Monitor Hypothesis
Krashen also proposes that the use of the Monitor varies among different
people. There are those who use it all of the time and are classified as over-
users. There are also learners who either have not learned how to use the
monitor or choose to not use it and they are identified as under-users. The
group in between these ends of the spectrum are the optimal users. These
people use the Monitor appropriately and not to either extreme. A psychological
profile of the language user is helpful to determine in what group they belong.
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html)
4) Input Hypothesis
There are three key elements to this hypothesis. First, language is acquired, not
learned, by the learner receiving comprehensible input that has arrangements or
structures just beyond the learners current level of mastery (i+1). Next, speech
should be allowed to emerge on its own. There is usually a silent period and
speech will come when the acquirer feels ready. The readiness state arrives at
different times for different people(Krashen, 1994, p.55). It should not be
taught directly and a period of grammatically incorrect speech is typical.
Finally, the input should not deliberately contain grammatically programmed
structures. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, i+1 is
automatically provided(Krashen, 1994, p. 57)
I taught first and second grades at an elementary school in the South Broadway
area of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I taught at this elementary school for six
years. I enjoy teaching in culturally diverse settings and would not trade
anything for the experience that my teaching has provided me.
I believe that this is how all people learn because learning does not occur in a
vacuum. I believe that when learning transpires, there is always an influencing
factor, such as a guidebook, a teacher, a peer, or an instruction sheet present.
Guidance needs to take place in order for learning to follow. If a student is
presented with information that is not the slightest bit comprehensible and no
assistance for understanding is provided, chances are that the student will
struggle and likely give up.
As for the Monitor Hypothesis, I can confirm to this aspect of Krashens theory
as being supported in my classroom as well. Through my efforts of providing
that crucial wait time after I have asked a question, I am allowing my students,
L1 learners as well as L2 learners, the time to use their Monitor if they wish, to
construct a response or to contribute to the discussion. All of my students
make mistakes when speaking at one point or another and I have listened to
them process their own corrections or help other students correct their speech.
This process helps everyone involved to learn and provides the needed
ingredient for the i+1 aspect of Krashens theory.
Conclusion
References:
Guerra, C. and R. Schutz. Vygotsky. Retrieved June 19, 2001 from the World
Wide Web:
http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-vygot.html.
Krashen, S.D. (1994). Bilingual education and second language acquisition
theory. In bilingual Education Office (ed.) Schooling and language-minority
students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 47-75). Los Angeles: Evaluation
Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.