Anda di halaman 1dari 6

The monitor model is an interesting set of hypotheses that were developed by Stephen Krashen in the late

1970s. The monitor model is interesting because some of its premises have been disproved, but during the
80s and 90s the monitor model was adopted by some educational systems much to their chagrin.
However, this is not to say that this theory is unusable for the language educator, but what is taken from
the theory and applied to the classroom must be weighted accordingly.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The origin of this hypothesis is completely flawed and science has disproved the basis, but if examined
from a different aspect, can be beneficial to instruction.

Krashen saw acquisition as subconscious learning that was facilitated by something Chomsky had
proposed in universal grammar (UG Theory) called the language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD was
a feature in the brain that helped people learn languages, but Chomsky would have to later admit that
there was no such thing.

If acquisition was subconscious, then the learning part of the hypothesis was what actually happens in the
classroom. Since the educator is making the students consciously aware of the information, this was
considered learning which is not as affective as acquisition.

Although there is no LAD as Krashen had considered when penning this hypothesis, many researchers do
note there can be a difference between subconscious learning (acquisition) and conscious learning
(learning).

How Not To Use

Explicit Teaching Needed: The educational systems that adopted the monitor model were
damaged by acquisition-learning hypothesis because grammar was not explicitly taught. As a
result, writing suffered immensely because direct instruction of grammar is essential for
academic/school writing.

How To Use

Learning: Teenagers, young adults, and adults can really benefit from actually learning
strategies and explicit grammar instruction. Writing is one of the four skills that benefits most
from grammar instruction in older students, so make it part of the curriculum.

Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis involves the acquisition center being monitored by the learning system. So the
acquisition center would produce language and what the student is/has been learning will allow the
student to monitor output. If the output matches, then no problem, but if the language produced is not
correct, then the monitoring of the learning system will help correct the acquisition center.

However, Krashen warns that over-monitoring can cause language production to be more geared towards
accuracy than fluency.

How To Use

Accuracy/Fluency: Krashen is correct in stating too much monitoring will impede fluency at
the benefit of being accurate. A balance should always be central as being too far on either end of
the spectrum is not good for communication.
Natural Order Hypothesis

Krashen states that there is a natural order to acquiring language rules.

Morpheme order studies covers this in more detail along with strategies for use.

Input Hypothesis

The input hypothesis revolves around students receiving an appropriate amount of input. However the
hypothesis believes it is not just input, but comprehensible input that is easily understood by the learner
that will deliver the grammar needed.

How Not To Use

Adults: Input and grammar acquisition works for young learners as they have the ability pick up
language with proper interaction, but adults do not possess the ability to learn naturally like
children. Instead, adults use cognitive strategies to learn complex systems like grammar and
benefit from well structure taught input.

How To Use

Proper Input: This can be utilized across all instruction and not just grammar. Students not
only need input, but they need input that is easy to understand. Teaching language or teaching
materials that are too high for the students do little to progress their language ability or
understanding. This is a major key to instruction. Every educator needs to put this near the
top of his list of teaching beliefs.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests affective filter is a mental screen that filters input from reaching the language
acquisition center in the brain. There are many things that can trigger the mental filter such as conscious
learning, motivation, stress, classroom environment, confidence, etc

How Not To Use

Broken Record: As stated before, conscious learning of grammatical features is not bad.
Conscious learning is beneficial for older learners with the ability to use cognitive reasoning. For
young learners, conscious learning will not be as beneficial.

How To Use

Factors Decrease Learning: Although there is no actual filter in the brain, it is well
documented that issues such as motivation, stress, classroom temperature, confidence, etc do
contribute to a decrease in learning. Any educator who has taught in a sweltering classroom will
understand this point. The educator should try to address as many of these issues as possible as
environment has a big influence on learning

The monitor model is an interesting set of hypotheses that were developed by Stephen Krashen in the late
1970s. The monitor model is interesting because some of its premises have been disproved, but during the
80s and 90s the monitor model was adopted by some educational systems much to their chagrin.
However, this is not to say that this theory is unusable for the language educator, but what is taken from
the theory and applied to the classroom must be weighted accordingly.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The origin of this hypothesis is completely flawed and science has disproved the basis, but if examined
from a different aspect, can be beneficial to instruction.

Krashen saw acquisition as subconscious learning that was facilitated by something Chomsky had
proposed in universal grammar (UG Theory) called the language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD was
a feature in the brain that helped people learn languages, but Chomsky would have to later admit that
there was no such thing.

If acquisition was subconscious, then the learning part of the hypothesis was what actually happens in the
classroom. Since the educator is making the students consciously aware of the information, this was
considered learning which is not as affective as acquisition.

Although there is no LAD as Krashen had considered when penning this hypothesis, many researchers do
note there can be a difference between subconscious learning (acquisition) and conscious learning
(learning).

How Not To Use

Explicit Teaching Needed: The educational systems that adopted the monitor model were damaged by
acquisition-learning hypothesis because grammar was not explicitly taught. As a result, writing suffered
immensely because direct instruction of grammar is essential for academic/school writing.
Find out more information on how to not to use Monitor Model in our online SLA course. Get information
and discounts on our course HERE.

How To Use

Learning: Teenagers, young adults, and adults can really benefit from actually learning strategies and
explicit grammar instruction. Writing is one of the four skills that benefits most from grammar
instruction in older students, so make it part of the curriculum.
Find out more information on how to use Monitor Model in our online SLA course. Get information and
discounts on our course HERE.

Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis involves the acquisition center being monitored by the learning system. So the
acquisition center would produce language and what the student is/has been learning will allow the
student to monitor output. If the output matches, then no problem, but if the language produced is not
correct, then the monitoring of the learning system will help correct the acquisition center.

However, Krashen warns that over-monitoring can cause language production to be more geared towards
accuracy than fluency.

How To Use

Accuracy/Fluency: Krashen is correct in stating too much monitoring will impede fluency at the benefit of
being accurate. A balance should always be central as being too far on either end of the spectrum is not
good for communication.
Natural Order Hypothesis

Krashen states that there is a natural order to acquiring language rules.

Morpheme order studies covers this in more detail along with strategies for use.
Input Hypothesis

The input hypothesis revolves around students receiving an appropriate amount of input. However the
hypothesis believes it is not just input, but comprehensible input that is easily understood by the learner
that will deliver the grammar needed.

How Not To Use

Adults: Input and grammar acquisition works for young learners as they have the ability pick up language
with proper interaction, but adults do not possess the ability to learn naturally like children. Instead,
adults use cognitive strategies to learn complex systems like grammar and benefit from well structure
taught input.
How To Use

Proper Input: This can be utilized across all instruction and not just grammar. Students not only need
input, but they need input that is easy to understand. Teaching language or teaching materials that are too
high for the students do little to progress their language ability or understanding. This is a major key to
instruction. Every educator needs to put this near the top of his list of teaching beliefs.
Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests affective filter is a mental screen that filters input from reaching the language
acquisition center in the brain. There are many things that can trigger the mental filter such as conscious
learning, motivation, stress, classroom environment, confidence, etc

How Not To Use

Broken Record: As stated before, conscious learning of grammatical features is not bad. Conscious
learning is beneficial for older learners with the ability to use cognitive reasoning. For young learners,
conscious learning will not be as beneficial.
How To Use

Factors Decrease Learning: Although there is no actual filter in the brain, it is well documented that issues
such as motivation, stress, classroom temperature, confidence, etc do contribute to a decrease in
learning. Any educator who has taught in a sweltering classroom will understand this point. The educator
should try to address as many of these issues as possible as environment has a big influence on learning.
Find out more information on how to use Monitor Model in our online SLA course. Get information and
discounts on our course HERE.

Final Thoughts
The monitor model is based on some flawed premises that really hurt the education systems that adopted
this theory. Children may not need explicit grammar teaching to speak fluently, but older learners
definitely need explicit grammar teaching to produce quality writing. Speaking and listening are skills that
children gain naturally through input, but reading and writing must be learned and teaching is vital for
these skills. The ideology at the time was a little faulty, so Krashen cannot be blamed for going with
current beliefs. Although many concepts in the monitor model are flawed, there are many bits of
information that can be readjusted and used for language teaching. As with any theory, there is some
falsehood and truth delicately intertwined inside. Educators should find the truths that speak to them and
use them to the best of their ability.

Go through this link


http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/krashen.html
Stephen Krashen is an educator and linguist who proposed the Monitor Model as
his theory of second language acquisition in his influential text Principles and
practice in second language acquisition in 1982. The Monitor Model posits five
hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:
1. Acquisition-learning hypothesis
2. Natural order hypothesis
3. Monitor hypothesis
4. Input hypothesis
5. Affective filter hypothesis
However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five
hypotheses are not without criticism. The following sections offer a description of
the third hypothesis of the theory, the monitor hypothesis, as well as the major
criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Monitor Hypothesis


The third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-
learning hypothesis by claiming that the only function of learning within second
language acquisition is as an editor, or Monitor, for language use produced by
the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical forms not yet acquired.
The Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance either prior
to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via self-
correction. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the
acquired system.

However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language


rule is not sufficient for the utilization of the Monitor; a language user must also
have an adequate amount of time to consciously think about and apply learned
rules. Additionally, the three conditions required by the Monitortime, focus, and
knowledgeare, as Krashen asserts, necessary and not sufficient, meaning
that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a language user may not
utilize the Monitor.

Criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis


The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the
acquisition-learning hypothesis. According to the monitor hypothesis, the main
purpose of language learning is to function as a Monitor for output produced by
acquired system. However, as critics reveal through deeper investigation of the
acquisition-learning distinction, to separate language learning clearly and
adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently, determining
that the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise
impossible to prove.
Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after
production invites further criticism of the hypothesis; second language learners
can and do use the learned system to produce output as well as to facilitate
comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore, invalidate the central
claim of the monitor hypothesis.

Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second
language acquisition, the third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been
without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and
educators in the field.

http://www.slideshare.net/redroseseptember/criticisms-of-krashens-five-hypotheses-full-45749359