KRASHEN`S COMPREHENSION HYPOTHESIS MODEL OF L2 LEARNING
KAREN LIZETH ÁLVAREZ CASTILLO
PROFESORA:
LILIANA GÓMEZ
PROYECTO SÍNTESIS IV
LICENCIATURA EN LENGUAS EXTRANJERAS INGLÉS-FRANCÉS
FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN
SANTIAGO DE CALI
SEPTIEMBRE 01 DE 2008
Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning
Krashen’s Five Hypotheses:
* The Natural Order Hypothesis: ‘we acquire the rules oflanguage in a predictable order’
* The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis: ‘adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages … acquisition, that is by using language for real communication … learning .. «knowing about» language’ (Krashen & Terrell 1983)
* The Monitor Hypothesis: ‘conscious learning … can only be used as a Monitor or an editor’ (Krashen &Terrell 1983)
* The Input Hypothesis: ‘humans acquire language in only one way – by understanding messages or by receiving «comprehensible input»‘
* The Affective Filter Hypothesis: ‘a mental block, caused by affective factors … that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device’ (Krashen, 1985, p.100)
Acquisition | Learning |
implicit, subconscious | explicit, conscious|
informal situations | formal situations |
uses grammatical ‘feel’ | uses grammatical rules |
depends on attitude | depends on aptitude |
stable order of acquisition | simple to complex order of learning |
COMBINED MODEL OF ACQUISITION AND PRODUCTION
EVIDENCE FOR THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS (CHIEFLY KRASHEN 1985A)
1) | People speak to children acquiring their first language in special ways |2) | People speak to L2 learners in special ways |
3) | L2 learners often go through an initial Silent Period |
4) | The comparative success of younger and older learners reflects provision of comprehensible input |
5) | The more comprehensible input the greater the L2 proficiency |
6) | Lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition |
7) | Teaching methods work according tothe extent that they use comprehensible input |
8) | Immersion teaching is successful because it provides comprehensible input |
9) | Bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provide comprehensible input |
ACADEMIC REACTIONS TO KRASHEN
* Ellis (1990): ‘the lucidity, simplicity, and explanatory power of Krashen’s theory’.
* Lightbown (1984): a combination of ‘a linguistic theory(through its «natural order» hypothesis), social psychological theory (through its «affective filter» hypothesis), psychological learning theory (through its acquisition-learning hypothesis), discourse analysis and sociolinguistic theory (through both the comprehensible input hypothesis and the «monitor» hypothesis)’.
* Mitchell & Myles (1998): ‘The concepts of ‘understanding’ and ‘noticing agap’ are not clearly operationalised, or consistently proposed; it is not clear how the learner’s present state of knowledge (‘i’) is to be characterised, or indeed whether the ‘i+1′ formulation is intended to apply to all aspects of language, from lexis to phonology and syntax.’
* Gregg (1984): ‘each of Krashen’s hypotheses is marked by serious flaws: undefinable or ill-defined terms,unmotivated constructs, lack of empirical content and thus of falsifiability, lack of explanatory power’
* McLaughlin (1987): ‘Krashen’s theory fails at every juncture … Krashen has not defined his terms with enough precision, the empirical basis of the theory is weak, and the theory is not clear in its predictions)
* Ellis (1985): the Monitor Model ‘poses serious theoretical problems regarding thevalidity of the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction, the operation of Monitoring, and the explanation of variability in language-learner language’
THE NATURAL APPROACH (KRASHEN & TERRELL, 1983; TERRELL ET AL, 1997)
General premises
1. The goal is ‘the ability to communicate with native speakers of the target language’
2. Comprehension precedes production – the Silent Period…