Krashen's+Monitor+Model

The Monitor Model

In the the study of second language acquisition, a key concept is monitoring. Morrison & Low (1983, p. 228) quote Laver when explaining the traditional sense of the term ‘monitoring’. They say that it, “ … gives awareness of what has been created, making it possible to check, either before or after articulation, for the frequent slips of the tongue, grammatical errors, social infelicities and other deviations from intention that characterize normal speech”. In other words, monitoring is a device that allows us to critically analyze what we say and thereby control it. Morrison & Low (1983) go on to say that, due in large part to the work of Stephen Krashen, monitoring has come to have a more particular meaning when it is applied to the adult second language learner. They define the term as, “… the conscious application of pedagogical rules on the part of the formally instructed learner.” They add that according to Krashen, the device when used correctly by the learner allows for optimal acquisition.

To examine Krashen’s hypotheses, it is useful to look at how he views the process of second language acquistion. A major premise of Krashen’s Monitor Model (Krashen, 1982, p. 10) is that acquisition in L2 is a process very much like that in L1 acquisition. He equates acquisition to implicit learning or in other words ‘picking up’ the language. According to de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005, p. 35), Krashen believes that people learn a language through input and meaningful communication in the target language rather than by studying the rules of grammar. They add that he took findings from various fields of study such as, first language acquisition, developmental studies, and neuropsychology, among others, to formulate a model of SLA, which was to heavily influence the communicative approach to language teaching. Notably, according to Ellis (1994, p. 355), Krashen’s model has been influenced by Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. He came up with five theoretical hypotheses incorporating the acquisition versus learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis.

Ellis (1985, pp. 261 - 263) summarizes the five hypotheses. Firstly, the acquisition versus learning distinction is central to Krashen’s monitor model. Acquisition occurs at a subconscious level through natural communication with a focus on meaning. The learner internalizes knowledge of the second language and uses it in actual performance. Learning differs from acquisition in that it is a conscious study of the formal properties of a language such as grammar. Knowledge obtained from acquisition is stored in the left hemisphere of the brain and is available for automatic processing. (Ellis, 1985, p. 261)

Krashen (1982, p. 10) describes learning as the formal knowledge of the language connected with knowing the rules and equates it with explicit learning. Knowledge gained from learning is meta-linguistic in nature. In other words, “… language used to talk about another language.” Trask (1999, p. 184) It is also stored in the left hemisphere but, in contrast to acquired knowledge, not in the language areas and is available for controlled rather than automatic processing. Acquired and learnt linguistic knowledge are, thus, stored separately. Acquired knowledge has a far greater impact on the comprehension and production of language whereas learnt knowledge is used only by what is known as the ‘monitor’. (Ellis, 1985, p. 261)

According to Krashen (1982, p. 10), some experts believed that children acquired languages while adults learnt them. However, in Krashen’s model and contrary to the critical period hypothesis, the ability to acquire or ‘pick up’ a language still remains after the onset of adolescence.

In the natural order hypothesis, acquisition of grammatical structures occurs in a predicable order. According to the hypothesis, it follows that when the learner is engaged in natural communicative tasks, he will acquire structures in a natural order. In contrast, when the learner is engaged in learning rather than acquiring, the structures will be obtained in a different order. (Ellis, 1985, p. 262) Krashen (1982, p. 12) provides support for the concept of natural order. Firstly, he cites Brown (1973) who found that in L1 acquisition, children had a tendency to acquire particular grammatical morphemes earlier than others. Secondly, Dulay and Burt (1974) discovered that regardless of first language, children, acquiring a second language, showed a natural order in picking up grammatical morphemes. Although the order differed from first language order, children with different first languages showed strong similarities.

The monitor hypothesis relates to a device that learners use to edit their performance. It uses learnt linguistic knowledge by modifying speech generated by acquired knowledge. This process can take place either before or after the learner speaks. In Krashen’s view, monitoring is not of great usefulness in affecting performance even for older learners. With that in mind, there are three conditions for its use. Firstly, learners must be given sufficient time. Secondly, the focus should be on form rather than meaning. Thirdly, the user must have sufficient knowledge of the rule. (Ellis, 1985, p. 262)

The input hypothesis states that acquisition occurs in a natural order when the learner comprehends input which is ‘one step’ beyond or a little more advanced than their current level of competence. (Ellis, 1985, p. 262) As de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005, p. 36) point out, it answers the question: “If the learner does not acquire a language by consciously studying the grammar of a language, how does he acquire it?” They explain that acquisition occurs when, for example, a learner at stage ‘i’ is exposed to ‘Comprehensible Input’, which is at ‘i’ + 1’. Mackey (2006, p. 435) defines comprehensible input as being, “… input in the target language that is understandable in a particular context of use but slightly more advanced than the learner’s current level of ability”. The learner’s current level is represented by ‘i’ and the slightly more advanced input as ‘+ 1’. de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005) add that Krashen himself recommends that since any given group of learners are not all at the same level that classes should allow for natural communicative input. This ensures each learner receives some ‘i + 1’appropriate to their level. As previously stated, acquisition is believed to occur naturally and in a similar fashion to L1 acquisition but with exposure to the comprehensible input and with affective filters set at low.

 Krashen (1982, p. 9) claims that the input hypothesis may be the most important idea in the study of second language acquisition. He explains this is so because its significance lays in the fact that it tries to answer the question of how a second language is acquired and it may allow us to solve many of the problems in teaching second languages. Schumann (1986, p. 385) concludes that communicative competence is enhanced through ‘i + 1’ but it is doubtful whether the same is true for grammatical competence.

The affective filter hypothesis is to do with how affective filters play a role in SLA. There is some overlap here with the acculturation model of SLA. The affective filter controls how much input the L2 learner comes into contact with and how much is acquired as language. Factors which affect the strength of the filter are such things as self confidence, boredom, and motivation. Learners with high amounts of confidence and motivation have a lower filter and so access more input and, in turn, acquire more language. The reverse is true for learners lacking motivation and esteem. The filter seems to affect the speed of acquisition but not the sequence of structures. (Ellis, 1985, p. 263)

Some linguists such as, Kevin R. Gregg have mixed feelings concerning Krashen’s monitor theory. For example, Wallwork (1985 p. 177) quote him to demonstrate this. Gregg claims that the theory is not a coherent one and, so much so, that it is wrong to apply the name theory to it. Additionally, Gregg states that he strongly disagrees with Krashen on some points and that there is a lot that Krashen does not understand about language and language acquisition. However, despite this he agrees that Krashen is correct when concerned with major questions in language acquisition. For instance, most language learning undertaken is subconscious rather conscious, comprehensible input is central to acquisition, and affective considerations do promote or impede acquisition. Moreover, de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005, p. 137) quote a 1984 article Gregg in which he again claims that the model is disjointed and Krashen has failed to back up his claims with credible evidence. Interestingly, Gregg also points out that second language acquisition is perhaps too complicated to be explained by one single theory. He adds that this is in line with Chomsky’s line of reasoning, who suggested the same for first language acquisition.

de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005) believe that although the Krashen model has its flaws, it has been a catalyst to current SLA research. Mackey (2006, p. 436) explains that Krashen’s hypotheses despite being influential, do have detractors who point out theoretical and methodological weaknesses. She gives as an example the difficulty of determining the learners competence level (‘i’) and the appropriate level of comprehensible input (‘i + 1’). However, it seems researchers are making progress in overcoming this problem.

Ellis (1994, p. 356) points out that most experts would support Krashen’s distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge. However, there is disagreement over his claim that learnt knowledge is completely separate and cannot be converted into acquired knowledge. This is the ‘non-interface position’. Krashen sees acquisition occurring when the learner is focused on natural communication and does not believe that practice and error correction can lead to acquired knowledge. To defend his non- interface position against strong criticism, he gives the example of advanced learners consciously knowing the –s rule for 3 rd <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> person, but being unable to apply it in free speech.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Green and Hecht, in Ellis (1994, p. 360), found that learners are capable of attaining a great number of explicit rules, which counters Krashen’s belief that only a few basic rules are able to be learnt. Moreover, there is some evidence to show that, in some instances, having a rule taught explicitly can be more effective than acquiring it implicitly.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The debate over the non-interface position has led to some disagree over whether formal instruction or access to comprehensible input is more beneficial to acquisition. Ellis (1994, p. 617) explains that research has shown that a common sense view is more plausible – learners make better progress when they are exposed to both formal instruction and naturalistic comprehensible input. In addition, this appears to fit with studies of ‘good learners’, where learners, who showed success in acquisition, paid attention to language form and also sought opportunities for authentic exposure outside the classroom. (Ellis, 1994, p. 617)

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In, summary, when deciding upon what insights from Krashen’s model I can incorporate into my learning, I would follow Wallwork’s (1985, pp. 177-178) line of reasoning. He states that explicit or conscious learning being of use in SLA is a debatable point. Nevertheless, a teacher needs to be conscious in their approach to creating a context that allows for optimal opportunities for acquisition to occur taking into account individual learner differences and learning strategies. Even if as Krashen believes that language acquisition is primarily intuitive, it would be very difficult for a teacher to rely on comprehensible input alone and allow the student to assimilate input intuitively. While many agree that L1 acquisition is intuitive, it is improbable that the same conditions for acquisition can be replicated in L2 acquisition and so the teacher in SLA should not rely too much on students learning implicitly. The teacher has to asses to the best of their ability students language needs and apply methods that help meet this needs in an affective manner. For learners of a second language who have passed into adolescence and beyond, formal instruction incorporating explicit techniques and combined with other approaches is likely to help rather than hinder acquisition. (Wallwork, 1985, p. 178)

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In summary, as I see it, Krashen’s model presents what at first seems a logical and plausible explanation of SLA. As it is fairly straight forward and easy to understand, it does not seem too difficult to apply to my teaching. However, it appears caution should be exercised in following it blindly as some of its components remain unproven. Moreover, as Wallwork has pointed out, planning classes where explicit instruction is at a minimum is not as practical as some might believe. I agree with Ellis that both explicit and implicit learning are necessary. What really appeals to me are the notions of comprehensible input and the importance of implicit acquisition as I tend to agree that second language acquisition follows much like first language acquisition i.e. access to Universal Grammar is available. For me, I think applying the principles of this model would have a positive affect on my teaching, but I would do so with caution in line with some of the criticisms outlined above.