Krashen材料

Krashen
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan

LLD270: Second Language Acquisition

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Model
 Known by various names
 Monitor hypothesis
 Input model
 Comprehensible input model
 Natural model
 All these names refer to the one and the
same model

Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270
04/02/12 Krashen

Five hypotheses
 Acquisition – learning distinction
hypothesis
 Natural sequence/order hypothesis
 Monitor hypothesis
 Comprehensible input hypothesis
 Affective filter hypothesis

04/02/12 Krashen

Acquisition-Learning Distinction Hypothesis
Acquisition Learning
 Subconscious – implicit  Conscious – explicit
learning learning
 A distinct process – can  A distinct process – can
never become learning never become acquisition
 The way children learn  The way adults learn the
the language language
 Meaning focused  Grammar (form) focused
 Inductive  Deductive
 Naturalistic settings  Formal settings

04/02/12 Krashen

Criticisms

 Subconscious – conscious is a psychological
process
 It is possible they are two endpoints in a
continuum (for Krashen, learning cannot become
acquisition and vice versa)
 Confusion between learning settings and
psychological processes
 Problem in defining what a formal setting is
 Research shows that children are not the best
language learners
 Experimental verification is impossible
04/02/12 Krashen

Current research opinion on
acquisition – learning distinction
 Krashen may be correct – neurobiological
findings in the last 3 or 4 years indicate that
there are two kinds of knowledge – declarative
(what) and procedural (how).
 Originally they were considered to be two sides
of the same coin.
 They have been shown to be two entirely
different processes
 It is possible that children acquire language
procedurally from the start whereas adults learn
declarative knowledge and then try to convert it
into procedural knowledge.
04/02/12 Krashen

Implications of Acquisition-Learning
Distinction Hypothesis
 Content based language teaching – total
immersion is preferable.
 Provide meaningful contexts for
understanding language
 Provide meaningful communication
activities such as information gap
activities.

04/02/12 Krashen

Natural (order) sequence hypothesis

 Children learn language in a predictable
sequence.
 It is impossible to alter the course of
development since language acquisition,
be it L1 or L2 is a UG driven process.
 Grammar teaching is a waste of time.

04/02/12 Krashen

Criticisms on natural sequence hypothesis

 Natural sequence is a product of various
factors such as
 Perceptual saliency (competition model)
 Input frequency (connectionist and social
interactionist models)
 Syntactic complexity
 Cognitive transparency
 Artifact of methods and instruments used
 Native language influence

04/02/12 Krashen

Criticisms on natural sequence hypothesis (contd.)

 The sequences are not identical though similar –
the items that are learnt in L1 are also learnt
earlier in L2
 Accuracy order is not acquisition order
 The morphemes studied are only a tiny part of
the language
 Total disregard for grammar had negative results
in Canadian immersion programs
 It has been shown that teaching can somewhat
alter the sequence (noticeability – attention
hypothesis)

04/02/12 Krashen

Implications of natural order hypothesis

 Errors are developmental and are a
natural byproduct of learning – tolerate
them.
 Allow learners to make errors and do not
correct them

04/02/12 Krashen

Monitor hypothesis
Three conditions:
 Knowledge of grammar

 Focus on grammar

 Availability of time

04/02/12 Krashen

Monitor hypothesis

 Grammar focused learning leads to
grammar focused production
 Children do not monitor so why should
adults?
 Learning language is different from
learning about language.

04/02/12 Krashen

Criticisms on monitor hypothesis

 Children do monitor
 Children are not the best language
learners.
 The hypothesis is not falsifiable.
 Total disregard for grammar had negative
effects in the Canadian immersion
programs.
 Noticeability hypothesis – monitoring may
in fact be good.
04/02/12 Krashen

Implications of monitor hypothesis
 Model language and do not teach
grammar explicitly.

04/02/12 Krashen

Comprehensible input hypothesis

 Vygotsky – Zone of proximal development (ZPD)
 i + 1 (expanded, it means, the level of
interlanguage plus 1 level beyond)
 Comprehension is sufficient and there is no
necessity for production (exposure to data will
along work is the innatist position but Krashen’s
position is different from the innatist position in
the sense that what Krashen proposes is not
exposure to any data but to data that are simple
and comprehensible)
04/02/12 Krashen

No
attentio
n

Physical
features
based
comprehensio
n

Form based
comprehension

Meaning based comprehension

04/02/12 Krashen

Comprehensible input hypothesis - criticism

 Imprecise terminology – impossible to come up
with operationalizable definitions, the level of the
learner, 1 level, 2 levels, one level beyond –
what are they?
 Intuitively appealing but impossible to verify
 Comprehensible output is as important as input
is
 Comprehensible input cannot be a causal
variable since it is not given in all cultures.

04/02/12 Krashen

Implications of input hypothesis
 Employ teacher talk along motherese or
foreigner talk

04/02/12 Krashen

Affective filter hypothesis

Learners who suffer from anxiety or lack of
motivation or negative attitude somehow
switch off their comprehension
mechanisms and so even if they are
provided comprehensible input, they will
not be able to process the input. Therefore
a low affective filter is important.

04/02/12 Krashen

How does affective filter work?

04/02/12 Krashen

The significance of affective filter hypothesis

 Accounts for individual variation
 Accounts for the differences between
adult and child language acquisition
processes

04/02/12 Krashen

Criticisms on affective filter hypothesis

 A little anxiety is better than no anxiety at
all.
 Motivation, attitude, anxiety – these may
not be the cause but maybe the
consequence
 A simple correlation (causal-result) cannot
be made between the affective variables
and the language acquisition process
04/02/12 Krashen

Brain science and affective filter hypothesis

 Brain scientists believe that affective
variables do play a role in human learning
and that certain enzymes that are
produced in the body while we are
anxious do prevent us from processing
data.

04/02/12 Krashen

Implications of affective filter hypothesis

 Create a non-threatening
teaching/learning atmosphere in the
classroom.
 Provide a risk-safe environment.
 Students should not worry about being
criticized.
 Capitalize on what students already know.

04/02/12 Krashen

 Create teaching/learning environment in
such a way that students encounter
success rather than failure.
 Provide positive and constructive
feedback.
 Analyze your classroom behavior for any
hidden agenda

04/02/12 Krashen

Krashen’s Variables

 For Krashen, there are only two variables
for language acquisition to take place:
 Abundant comprehensible input
 Low affective filter

04/02/12 Krashen

Krashen – An evaluation
 Major strength – intuitively appealing
 Able to be translated into pedagogical models
 Hybrid model and so draws strengths from
various theories
 For the first time, somebody was able to say that
grammar teaching was not good
 Humanistic in its approach
 Imprecise
 Not verifiable
 Krashen’s dogmatic adherence to his
hypotheses is the major weakness.
04/02/12 Krashen

Krashen材料

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Krashen材料

Similaire à Krashen材料 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Krashen材料