Chapter 2. The Stages of Second Language Acquisition We have all seen children move through the stages of acquiring their first language —from babbling to one-word utterances, two-word phrases, full sentences, and eventually, complex grammar. Students learning a second language also move through stages. One of the most important things you should know about each of your English language learners (ELLs) is which stage of acquisition they are in. Knowing and understanding the stage and its characteristics are critical for effectively differentiating instruction for these students. Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell first explored stages of second language acquisition in their 1983 book, The Natural Approach . Figure 2.1 lists the five stages of language acquisition, along with the characteristics, approximate time frames, and appropriate teacher prompts for each stage.
Figure 2.1. Stages of Second Language Acquisition
Approximate Stage Preproduction
Characteristics The student
Early Production
Does not verbalize
Nods “Yes” and “No”
Draws and points
The student
Speech Emergence
Has limited comprehension
6 months –1 year
Teacher Prompts
Show me...
Circle the...
Where is...?
Who has...?
Yes/no questions
Either/or questions One- or twoword answers
Produces one- or two-word responses
Participates using key words and familiar phrases
Lists
Labels
Why...?
How...?
Explain...
Uses present-tense verbs
The student
0 –6 months
Has minimal comprehension
Time Frame
Has good comprehension Can produce simple sentences Makes grammar and pronunciation errors Frequently misunderstands misunderstands jokes
1 –3 years
Phrase or shortsentence answers
Intermediate Fluency
The student
3 –5 years
Has excellent comprehension
Makes few grammatical errors
Advanced
The student has a near-native
Fluency
level of speech.
5 –7 years
What would happen if...? Why do you think...?
Decide if...
Retell...
Source: Adapted Source: Adapted from Krashen and Terrell (1983).
The Preproduction stage lasts from zero to six months and is al so known as ―the silent period,‖ because it's likely
you won't hear students speak any English at all during this stage. At the next level, Early Production, students begin using single words or two-word phrases, yes/no responses, names, and repetitive language patterns (e.g., ―How are you?‖). At the Speech Emergence stage, students are able to say simple sentences (e.g., ―I walked home‖). Eventually, at the Intermediate Fluency stage, students can use sentences of increasing length and
complexity, until finally, at the Advanced Fluency stage, they demonstrate a near-native level of fluency. All students acquiring English will pass through these stages. Although Figure 2.1 provides an approximate time frame for each stage, the length of time students spend at each level will be as varied as the students themselves. Krashen and Terrell's early work linked cla ssroom activities with the stages to ensure that teachers did not expect utterances from ELLs that were beyond or beneath their stages of acquisition. Imagine, for example, a student in the Preproduction stage being asked ―how‖ or ―why‖ ques tions or a student in the
Intermediate Fluency stage being asked to perform a Preproduction-stage task, such as pointing to an object. The so-called ―Ramirez Report‖ (Ramirez, 1992) found that in all the language programs studied, including immersion as well as early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education, teachers tended to ask low-level questions. By knowing the stages of language acquisition and the stage-appropriate questions, you can engage students at the correct level of discourse. In addition, when appropriate questions are asked, content knowledge can be assessed alongside language proficiency. Knowing the level of language acquisition also allows you to work within the student's ―zone of proximal development‖—that area between what the student is capable of at the moment and the point you want the
student to reach next (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Vygotsky, you can work in a student's zone of proximal development by ―scaffolding‖ language development, or providing the support a studen t needs as she
progresses. Scaffolding is essentially a way to nudge a student toward a higher level of performance. With language development, this can be done by modeling correct grammar or pronunciation, asking challenging questions, or providing direct instruction. For example, if a student is in the Preproduction stage, he will be successful a t stageappropriate tasks such as pointing, finding, or circling a p icture. However, you can scaffold further development by supporting him as he attempts tasks characteristic of the Early Production stage, such as answering yes/no or either/or questions or providing one-word responses. Recognizing the level of language acquisition is also a factor when setting language objectives. This can best be explained by Krashen's input hypothesis (i (i + 1), 1), which builds upon the scaffolding approach described above (i (i = = actual level and i + 1 = potential level of language development; Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Krashen's hypothesis states that a speaker will move to the next level of acquisition when the experience of the target language (the input) includes some of the structures that are part of the next stage of acquisition, and the speaker i s encouraged to use language that reflects that more advanced stage.
Paying attention to teacher prompts that accompany the levels i s one way for a student to move to the next level of English proficiency. If you adapt the way you prompt, students will respond according to both their current stage and the stage just beyond. A common question teachers ask is, ―How long does it take an English language learner to pass through the stages of language acquisition so that he can perform as well as a native English speaker in school?‖ In answer
to this question, let's take a look at Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2. Surface and Deeper Level of Language Proficiency Not available for electronic dissemination. Source:Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy
Picture the English language as an iceberg divided into two parts: conversational language and academic language. The tip of the iceberg—the small part that is visible above water—is conversational English, or basic interpersonal communicative skills. This is the language of normal e veryday speech, including pronunciation, grammar, and basic vocabulary. It is the ability to understand and speak informally with friends, teachers, and parents. This conversational ability is not especially demanding intellectually. It is the language that non-Englishspeaking children develop after about two years of living in an English-speaking country. Because they have developed a conversational ability, these children sound fluent to many people. They understand the teacher's questions, converse with classmates in English, and even translate for their parents. However, their daily schoolwork and exams may not reflect this fluency. Frustrated parents and teachers, faced with this contradiction, often conclude falsely that such students have learning disabilities, are poorly motivated, or are just plain lazy. Let's go back to the iceberg. If we apply the iceberg metaphor to our fluent but underachieving students, we are likely to see that they have only de veloped the tip (i.e., conversational English). They have not developed academic English—the large portion of the iceberg that is hidden under the sea. Academic English, or cognitive academic language proficiency, is the language of the classroom—the language of isosceles triangles, complex compound sentences, and photosynthesis. Students must master academic English to understand textbooks, write papers and reports, solve mathematical word problems, and take tests. Without a mastery of academic English, students cannot develop the critical-thinking and problem-solving skills needed to understand and express the new and abstract concepts taught in the classroom. However, academic language takes at least five to seven years to develop, and it can take even longer for a student who was not literate in her primary language when she started in a U.S. school (Collier & Thomas, 1989). In the chapters that follow, you will find examples of instructional strategies that have been modified to meet the needs of ELLs according to their language acquisition level. You will also find examples of how t o engage these students in whole-class activities by asking tiered questions associated with their level of language acquisition. Each chapter features an example of how an instructional strategy c an be adapted for Preproduction, Early Production, Speech Emergence, and Intermediate and Advanced Fluency students. By providing stageappropriate adaptations of instructional strategies, we hope to help you achieve the greatest possible success with your ELLs.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/106009/chapters/The-Stages-of-Second-LanguageAcquisition.aspx
Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning SLA Topics SLA Bibliography Vivian Cook SLL and LT
Krashen's own website:
Krashen's Five Hypotheses The Natural Order 'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order' Hypothesis The Acquisition/ 'adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in Learning Hypothesis second languages .. acquisition, that is by using language for real communication ... learning .. "knowing about" language' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) The Monitor 'conscious learning ... can only be used as a Monitor or an editor' Hypothesis (Krashen & Terrell 1983) The Input 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding Hypothesis messages or by receiving "comprehensible input"' The Affective Filter 'a mental block, caused by affective factors ... that prevents input Hypothesis 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
Evidence for the Input Hypothesis (chiefly Krashen 1985a) i) ii)
people speak to children acquiring their first language in special ways people speak to L2 learners in special ways
iii) L2 learners often go through an initial Silent Period iv) the comparative success of younger and older learners reflects provision of comprehensible input v) the more comprehensible input the greater the L2 proficiency vi) lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition vii) teaching methods work according to the extent that they use comprehensible input viii) immersion teaching is successful because it provides comprehensible input ix) bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provide comprehensible input
Academic reactions to Krashen Ellis (1990, p.57): 'the lucidity, simplicity, and explanatory power of Krashen's theory'. Lightbown (1984, p.246): 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, p.126): 'The concepts of 'understanding' and 'noticing a gap' 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, p.94): '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, p.56): '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, p.266): the Monitor Model 'poses serious theoretical problems regarding the validity of the 'acquisition-learning' distinction, the operation of Monitoring, and the explanation of variability in languagelearner 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 3. Production 'emerges' 4. Acquisition activities are central, though some Monitoring may be useful for some people sometimes 5. Lower the Affective Filter: they won't learn if their affective barrier is too high (6. Speech emerges in stages. Terrell et al 1997) (7. Group work encourages speech. Terrell et al 1997) (8. Speech emergence is characterized by grammatical errors. Terrell et al 1997) Techniques (all acquisition activities) a) Affective-Humanistic activities
dialogues – short and useful - 'open' dialogues interviews – pairwork on personal information personal charts and tables preference ranking – opinion polls on favourite activities etc revealing information about yourself – e.g. what I had for breakfast activating the imagination – e.g. give Napoleon advice about his Russian campaign
b) Problem-solving activities
task and series – e.g. components of an activity such as washing the car charts, graphs, maps – e.g. busfares, finding the way developing speech for particular occasions – e.g. What do you say if … advertisements
c) Games, e.g. What is strange about … a bird swimming?' d) Content activities, e.g. academic subject matter such as maths
SOME ANTI-KRASHEN OPINIONS FROM CALIFORNIA, taken from KrashenBurn (see end) Alice Callaghan (Episcopal priest), „...a parasite on the backs of poor Latino children.‟ Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat „...more than 2.5-million kids statewide have not made it as a result of bilingual education. What an atrocious situation, and Krashen helped create this."
Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat, „I discovered that Dr. Krashen has done no research. It is purely a theory. There is no test data, there are no schools where it's been proved, and it's based on thin air.‟ Christine Rossell "Krashen denied having ever criticized that study. He will say anything to win over a room." David Tokofsky, "This is how every administrator in the state got promoted from assistant principal to principal, or from teacher to bilingual coordinator, or from regional supe to district supe: By chanting the Mantra of 'Rama, Rama, Krashen, Krashen, Rama, Rama.' one stunned non-educator in the audience: "An impromptu receiving line formed of teachers lining up for a chance to touch their guru, their Pied Piper. It was eery. It was the Church of Krashen." Krashen's own website: http://www.sdkrashen.com/ References (& see web links below) Barasch, R.M. & Vaughan-James, C. (eds) (1994), Beyond the Monitor Model , Heinle & Heinle Gregg, K. (1984), 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor', Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79100 Krashen, S. (1979), 'The Monitor Model for second language acquisition,' in R. Gingras (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, CAL Krashen, S. (1981), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning,Pergamon Downloadable
fromhttp://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisitio n_and_Learning/index.html Krashen, S. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Pergamon Krashen, S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, Longman Krashen, S. (1985), Language Acquisition and Language Education, Alemany Press Krashen, S. (1993), The Power of Reading, Libraries Unlimited Inc, Englewood Colorado Krashen, S. & Biber, D. (1988), On Course: Bilingual Education’s Success in Califormia, California Association for Bilingual Education, Sacramento Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natural Approach, Pergamon McLaughlin, B. (1987), Theories of SecondLanguage Learning, Edward Arnold, London
Exercises/data Acquisition versus Learning Exercise
Ask your partner 1. to describe an L2 (or L1) rule they learnt consciously 2. to say how they used it to start with 3. to say the extent to which they use it now 4. to evaluate how useful they found it 5. to say what they can do in an L2 they did not learn but acquired 6 to remember how they acquired this 7. to say how important they found it
Do you agree with acquisition versus learning? Rate these teaching activities on a scale from 1-10 as involving comprehensible input:
- repetition of sentences in a dialogue - reading a story aloud followed by questions - students exchanging their views about their
favourite music - students listening to grammatical explanation - studying a poem together - learning lists of vocabulary with their translation - listening to how an activity should be done and then carrying it out - acting out going by train
An Italian being interviewed by an English speaker (ESF project) (slightly tidied)
Is Andrea using acquired or learnt knowledge? How can you tell? I: Had you seen this film before? Andrea: No never. I: Have you seen other Charlie Chaplin? Andrea: Ya [long pause] mm [long pause] its okay. I: I think so. Andrea: [laughs] after - Charlie Chaplin er take the coon [/?] cuneos [=T wedge] the piece of wood er. I: mhm. Andrea: er under the boat. And the boat go into the sea I don't know. I: Mhm mhm. Andrea: Er he has finished - the < > [laughs] the work. I: Ya. Andrea: Your your job. Ya? I: mhm. Andrea: He working only for I don't know for ten minutes [laughs] and er and he go go outside er this er er cantieres [=T shipyard] ? I: outside the? Andrea: cantieres [=T shipyard]. I: canteen? Andrea: building construction. I: mhm. Andrea: of the the boat. I: outside the docks you mean. Andrea: the docks. ya.
Didactics - 5 : Critique of Krashen I
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis A : Recap We have seen that
according to Krashen, learning an L2 is very much like learning an L1. No conscious effort needs to be made to focus on the language as such, but if people pay attention to the sense of what they are hearing or reading, the ability to speak and to write will come more or less of their own accord . We looked at an interesting experiment - Canadian primary school - French through immersion - producing children who had a nativelevel comprehension both in listening and reading, who had an excellent accent and who were favourable to the community whose language they had studied. But - it did not seem to give them the firm grasp of grammatical structures that were necessary for the production of well-formed utterances and of texts at native-speaker level. This seems to stem from the fact that :
- the children were not expected to speak in full sentences - the teachers and other pupils could always interpret what they meant by reference to the context. - they did not have the formal French lessons that would have drawn their attention to the need for correct syntactic form.
So - this suggests that Krashen is wrong in at least two of his hypotheses.
a) The Input hypothesis - productive behaviour on the part of the learner is not necessary to language acquisition. If we mean by acquisition the ability to produce correct utterances, both orally and in writing, we suspect that he is wrong. b) Also seems to be wrong when he suggests that learned language - the rules of grammar - are only of much use when writing - people do seem to need the rules in order to speak in well-formed sentences. This may lead us to believe that the first hypothesis itself - that of the distinction between learning and acquisition - is an oversimplification.
Nevertheless, if we look at Krashen's hypotheses, they may provide us with a framework within which a number of crucial questions can be asked.
B : The Acquisition/Learning hypothesis We have seen that this has been criticised as an oversimplification. We can ask the question :
'How is language stored in the brain, and in particular, how is a second language stored in the brain?'
Krashen does not really tell us :
a) what the process of acquisition is . (How does the learner build up a usable model of second language behaviour from input alone?) b) why learned information is not accessible in the same way as acquired information
It is feasible that the distinction between learned and acquired knowledge is in fact more properly a distinction between two stages of the learning process . We are ready to agree with Krashen that the two are distinct kinds of knowledge because we have usually forgotten how we ourselves shifted knowledge from the conscious to the unconscious domain. A rival hypothesis about learning comes from the work of Anderson , and other cognitive scientists . According to this perspective, learning is a process of assimilation whereby new information is processed by the brain in such a way as to be incorporated in already existing knowledge. We may conceive of the brain as having two different types of memory :
1. Short term memory - or working memory - a finite storage space We use it to carry information while we make use of it. The information may come from external input - a telephone number, that we memorise long enough to make the phone call or from 2. long-term memory - items are stocked in associative networks - thus the word 'home' will carry with it a whole series of associations - depending on our experience, our culture and so on.
For learning to occur, the information that is in short term memory must be incorporated in the network system. This may occur by simply adding it to a set of already existing associations :
- the child learns that Eskimos live in igloos, and adds that to the conception that he has of home.
- or it may need a major reassignment of links between different concepts
- when we learn that nearly 50% of murders take place within the home or are committed by members of the family, our concept of home changes radically, is linked to the possibility of violence and conflict, rather than simply the old log fire and mum cooking something nice in the kitchen.
Anderson distinguishes also between two different kinds of knowledge : 1. Declarative knowledge This is conscious, and is stored as a series of statements or images. It is knowledge about the world - who is the President of France, for example, or the fact that 'move' is a verb, whereas 'movement' is a noun. 2. Procedural knowledge This is unconscious, and consists of routines or procedures that allow us to bring declarative knowledge into use. Thus, our procedural knowledge of our mother
tongue permits us to construct grammatically correct sentences without consciously thinking about it.
For Anderson, learning takes place in three stages : 1. the Cognitive Stage - learner receives instruction, or watches an expert, or studies the question on his own - conscious effort, and - knowledge is formulated in a series of rules - conscious factual statements which Anderson refers to as ' declarative knowledge'.
For L2 learning, this would include the rules of grammar and lists of vocabulary, as well aschunks of useful language that can help us out in specific situations. At this stage, the learner can describe the rules, but does not use them skilfully - performance is hesitant, and there are many errors. For Anderson, the model of L2 learning is the classroom, and the Cognitive Stage corresponds to being instructed by a teacher - the expert. You may also think of learning to drive, with an instructor. You learn how to use the clutch, how to learn the gear-lever, how to use the brakes and so on. The knowledge is there, but the learner may not be able to use it. Thus, as Rod Ellis suggests, the learner may know that the word 'drowned' consists of 'drown' + 'ed', but not be able to construct the word in conversation. 2. The Associative Stage - two things occur : a) errors in the declarative statements are detected and eliminated b) connections between the different elements of the skill are strengthened
This implies that, from being declarative, the knowledge becomes procedural. Thus the learner's knowledge abut 'drown' and 'ed' will be linked to his knowledge of 'save' and 'ed' and will be subsumed under a single production rule for producing the past tense - and indeed, the rule may be overgeneralized and used to produce 'goed', for example.
The initial declarative representation is not always lost - we still remember the rules - but we no longer need to apply them consciously. This may be why Krashen can point to the existence of two separate systems - the old system, taken on board at the first stage of learning, remains, but is not directly used in language production. Performance begins to resemble expert performance, but may be slower. Instead of thinking of the clutch, the gear-lever and the brakes separately, we now mould them together into a non-verbalised procedure. 3. The Autonomous Stage :
- skill becomes virtually automatic and errors disappear. It can now be executed without attention - driving a car and having a conversation at the same time. With a complex skill, this stage takes a long time to reach. At this point, the conscious declarative knowledge may be lost - if you ask a competent driver to tell you how he drives, he may be unable to tell you which is why we have specially qualified driving instructors, and also why the fact that you are a speaker of French does not qualify you as a teacher of French as a foreign language! The acquisition of the skill - like any other skill - depends on learning and practice - in this, Anderson differs radically from Krashen. For Anderson - the rules which we learn when acquiring a second language = rules of grammar as taught in class. However, other observers have pointed out that this is hardly likely to be the case.
1. First of all, many people learn foreign languages without going to classes and without begin presented with the formal rules. 2. Secondly, the rules that are presented in class are by no means all the rules that are needed to speak a foreign language well. 3. Finally, not all foreign language classes actually present the rules of grammar, and yet members manage to acquire the language.
So what does happen? It seems that individuals generate their own rules. Thus what is needed, it may be claimed, is not a class in which rules are dictated and learnt by heart, but what Gagné refers to as 'cued performance' and opportunities for practice. This involves :
- modelling by an expert - the expert shows how it is done - the language teacher shows how to produce correct and/or comprehensible statements. - active attempts by the learner to produce the activity himself - with the instructor cueing him at moments when he forgets the rules - think of the father running alongside the child who is riding a bicycle for the first time, and shouting instructions
The learner tries out the activity before possessing it completely. She is thus able to learn from her successes and her mistakes - learning by trial and error. This is formalised as the construction and testing of hypotheses. Based on input, or on her understanding of the rule pronounced by a teacher, or whatever, the student makes a prediction about the effect of using a rule that she has generated. She can then test this through : 1. Reception - compares the hypothesis to further input. 2. Production - uses the hypothesis to generate language, and then assesses the result. 3. Metalingually - consults a native speaker, or a grammar book.
4. Interactionally - makes an intentional error to elicit a repair from a native speaker.
It will be seen that this view is in opposition to Krashen's input hypothesis. It is not sufficient for the learner to simply accumulate input - he or she must actively engage with the activity. There are also problems with this account - in particular, the claim that is made in this tradition of cognitive science is that the learner proceeds through trying out hypotheses and receiving feedback. However, as we have seen - this is certainly not the case in FLA , where children do not tend to copy their parents' speech, and where parents do not inform their children when they have made a grammatical error. Furthermore, the model has not as yet demonstrated how rules of language can be stored in a way that makes them usable by normal procedures - Chomskians argue that this failure is due to the fact that linguistic knowledge is not structured in the same way as other forms of knowledge. Finally, these models rely on repetition and strengthening of the knowledge networks - but the child manages to learn the rules of her language with very little repetition. Furthermore, it does not explain why children and adult learners of an L2 make predictable, sequenced errors, which they have never heard, nor how it is that children avoid errors, when they have heard no evidence to suggest that the structures not employed are erroneous.
C : Conclusion We have seen two models of SLA. One of these, which its author claims is based upon Chomsky's account of FLA, and central to which is the idea that language learning is a special skill, posits that SLA is similar to, if not exactly the same as FLA, and that the learner does not have to direct any conscious effort towards the language itself. Language lessons should, in fact, be about something else something that the student wants to study, in which he is interested. This approach underlies the growing movement in educational establishments to have courses in one or other subject area given in a foreign language. As we have seen, in Canada, this means young anglophones learning French through doing maths. In Scandinavian universities, all science teaching is done in English. The other model also assumes that SLA is similar to FLA - but does not agree that language learning is in any way different from other kinds of learning. Moreover, it suggests that work on the formal aspects of language is necessary, and that the learner needs to be given the rules of the language. Students need to be encouraged to build up their own rules, and to pack them into networks, where they will become available for work by procedural routines. This may leave the impression that speaking a language is effortless - but the conscious effort is mainly made during the first phase of learning. In Anderson's model, and in particular in the work of those who have followed it up, the learner is expected to do the work for him or herself, and thus it is that the
learner needs to be encouraged to develop specific learning strategies. We shall return to this question later on in the course. Next week, we shall look more closely at the second of Krashen's hypotheses - that is the idea that the grammar of a language is learnt in a natural order.
http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L5_Acquisition_L earning.htm
11. Krashen and Acquisition Krashen is probably popular among teachers because he writes in a clear English style and refers to practical teaching situations. The evidence of the English Block seems to support his ideas where they are based on practical experience. But there are features of the Kenyan situation which differ from Krashen's situations. The East Africans were learning English at the same time as getting a general education. This is a good deal more complex than someone learning a language who already is educated in his mother tongue. Krashen's theories are probably much influenced by the kind of students he has seen and the teaching situation he has been in, so that they are not necessarily of universal application. His books suggest that he has worked with students already in the United States and who are therefore surrounded by native speakers. Most of these are probably people already educated in their mother tongues. The East African situation where the mother tongues are not used for literate education is quite different.
Krashen postulates a need for what he calls meaningful input and also has proposed a mechanism of learning - the Monitor hypothesis - in which he distinguishes what he callslearning from acquisition.
Krashen distinguishes 4 stages of acquiring a language. Of these, the first two stages seem to be sensible though I think the second two are more debatable. In the real world I think it would be wise to remember that such things are a continuum so that argument about exactly which stage a person is at should be avoided. Stage one consists of language teaching to beginners, which he says, should provide meaningful input from the first - that is, the teacher can (though he argues that most classes don't) provide nothing but comprehensible language from the first lessons.
In The Input Hypothesis# (14) he says, to criticise those classes which don't work:
...while much 'language teaching' seems to go out of its way to prevent second-language acquisition, several excellent methods already exist that provide comprehensible input to beginners in a low anxiety situation and in an organised way, and comparative research has confirmed their efficacy. (P.7 0)
However, in the same book he argues that the aim of the language teacher should be to produce students with enough basic knowledge to emerge as Intermediate level people able to continue learning (acquisition, he says) on their own.
In my view, the goal of the language class is to bring the student to the point where he or she can use the language outside the classroom in understanding and communicating with native speakers. If the student reaches this level of competence, he or she can continue to improve from the comprehensible input received 'on the outside'. The language class thus need not produce students who speak the second language at native levels, but only 'intermediates', students who can use the language for real communication with its speakers. Students need not acquire the entire language in the language class; when they finish the class, they will still make mistakes. Their acquisition will continue as they interact with and receive comprehensible input from native speakers. (Ibid. P. 70)
The English Block project was concerned with what students need when they are past the beginning stage. The Kenyan primary school was doing the work which Krashen calls stage 1 (though it did it so inefficiently that after 3 years - at that time English began in Standard 4 - the students still only had a vocabulary of between 1500 and 2000 words and a shaky knowledge of structures). The English Block had some of the characteristics which Krashen describes in the Canadian method of teaching French through immersion - teaching ordinary school subjects through the medium of the second language. (Of course in a Kenyan secondary school this was the situation anyway as English was the medium of instruction).
But the English Block also provided experience in other modes of language use genres - which would not be found in a subject immersion class. He calls this a sheltered classbecause it does not expose the student to the full range of the language - vocabulary, idioms and social situations - while still providing enough meaningful input to allow the student to enlarge his repertoire.
Krashen's Stage 3, which he calls the Limited Mainstream, is the stage when the student can understand much of what he hears but lacks background knowledge in many areas of subject-matter so that some of what he hears will be misunderstood. It may correspond to the stage of university students needing ESP. Krashen argues that in this stage the student should deal mainly with language in the areas of his special interests - such as in his own specialty if he is an adult learner. However, he argues that a wide range of genres at this stage is less useful than a period of what he calls narrow input, concentrating mainly on his own specialty or interest. This is debatable, as different people have different needs. Nevertheless he argues that if a student is made to do Stage 3 work when he hasn't done stage 2 he will be in
trouble. This is certainly the reason for many university students' inability to cope with university work. Krashen is more useful to us here than Swales(15), who points out the strategies inadequately prepared students used in Khartum - using cribs, getting others to do their work, cheating and so on - but fails to identify the cause or specify a suitable remedy - which is to provide students with the work they need even this means that the institution must adapt to the needs of the students. English Block work, at least at Kakamega where it was done only in Forms one and two, corresponds here more to Stage 2 than to Stage 3. #(14) Stephen D. Krashen The Input Hypothesis (Longman) 1985
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/dissertation/krashen1.html
Rabu, 05 Mei 2010 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY STEPHEN D. KRASHEN (CHAPTER 2) A. Summary of Five Hypotheses about Second Language Acquisition Second language acquisition theory seeks to quantify how and by what processes individuals acquire a second language. The predominant theory of second language acquisition was developed by the University of Southern California’s Steven Krashen. Krashen is a specialist in language development and acquisition, and his influential theory is widely accepted in the language learning community. There are five main components of Krashen’s theory. Each of the components relates to a different aspect of the language learning process. The five components are as follows: • The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis • The Monitor Hypothesis • The Natural Order Hypothesis • The Input Hypothesis • The Affective Filter Hypothesis 1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis This hypothesis actually fuses two fundamental theories of how individuals learn languages. Krashen has concluded that there are two systems of language acquisition that are independent but related: the acquired system and the learned system. The acquired system relates to the unconscious aspect of language acquisition. When people learn their first language by speaking the language naturally in daily interaction with others who speak their native language, this acquired system is at work. In thi s system, speakers are less concerned with the structure of their utterances than with the act of communicating meaning. Krashen privileges t he acquired system over the learned system. The learned system relates to formal instruction where students engage i n formal study to acquire knowledge about the target language. For example, studying the rules of syntax is part of the learned system. 2. The Monitor Hypothesis The monitor hypothesis seeks to clarify how the acquired system is affected by the learned system. When second language learners monitor their speech, they are applying their understanding of learned grammar to edit, plan, and initiate their communication. This action can only occur when speakers have ample time to think about the form and structure of their sentences. The amount of monitoring occurs on a continuum. Some language learners over-monitor and some use very little of their learned knowledge and are said to under-monitor. Ideally, speakers strike a balance and monitor at a level where they use their knowledge but are not overly inhibited by it. Krashen also suggests that there is individual variatio n among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are underusers, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'. 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis This hypothesis argues that there is a natural order to the way second language learners acquire their target language. Research suggests that this natural or der seems to transcend age, the learner's native language, the target language, and the conditio ns under which the second language is being learned. The order that the learners follow has four steps: • They produce single words. • They string words together based on meaning and not syntax.
• They begin to identify elements that begin and end sentences. • They begin to identify different elements within sentences and can rearrange them to produce questions. 4. The Input Hypothesis This hypothesis seeks to explain how second languages are acquired. In its most basic form, the input hypothesis argues that learners progress along the natural order only when they encounter second language input that is one step beyond where they are in the natural order. Therefore, if a learner is at step one from the above list, they will only proceed along the natural order when they encounter input that is at the second step. This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not t o learning. Krashen claims that people acquire lang uage best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that 'comprehensible input' (that is, i + 1) should be provided. The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'. The 'input' should also be in sufficient quantity. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis This hypothesis describes external factors that can act as a filter that impedes acquisition. These factors include motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. For example, if a learner has very low motivation, very low self-confidence, and a high level o f anxiety, the affective filter comes into place and inhibits the learner from acquiring the new language. Students who are motivated, confident, and relaxed about learning the target language have much more success acquiring a second language than those who are trying to learn with the affective filter in place. B. Critical Review of Stephen D. Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisitio n Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: 1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Krashen, in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA) suggests that adults have two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and learning. There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. Acquisition is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, and learning, which is a conscious process that results in knowing about the rules of language. Related to the real situation, the acquisition-learning hypothesis tells us that we should balance class time between acquisition activities and learning exercises. It is important to realize that students or any human being cannot both learn and acquire at the same time because one can focus on only one thing at a time, either on form or on meaning. Therefore, there must be a separation between acquisition and learning activities in FL classes and the relative weight of acquisition classes should be over that of learning classes. The natural approach instructor does not expect student s at the end of a part icular course to have acquired a 'specific grammar point'. Instead s/he does expect them to display their comprehension. It is necessary and inevitable, as has been mentioned earlier, to employ two separated classes: Input and grammar classes (i.e., acquisition and learning classes). In input classes, students are given as much comprehensible input as possible. In grammar classes, however, grammar rules are presented deductively or inductively depending on the age of the students (also on whether they are fieldindependent or field-dependent). The role of grammar classes is to produce 'optimal monitor users' and to aid comprehension indirectly. Therefore, the core of the natural approach is acquisition activities which have a purpose other than conscious gr ammar exercises such as audiolingual drills and cognitive learning exercises. 2. The Monitor Hypothesis As is mentioned, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. The first is acquisition which is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. The monitor is an aspect o f this second process. It edits and makes alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Krashen believes that fluency in second language performance is due to what we have acquired, not
what we have learned: Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; (3) the learner must know the rule. There are many difficulties with the use of the monitor, making the monitor rather weak as a language tool. a) Having time to use the monitor: there is a price that is paid for the use of the monitor- the speaker is then focused on form rather than meaning, resulting in the production and exchange of less information, thus slowing the flow of conversation. Some speakers over-monitor to the point that the conversation is painfully slow and sometimes difficult to listen to. b) Knowing the rule: this is a difficul t condition to meet, because even the best students do not learn every rule that is taught, cannot remember every rul e they have learned, and can't always correctly apply the rules they do remember. Furthermore, every rule of a language is not always included in a text nor taught by the teacher . c) The rules of language make up only a small portion of our language competence: Acquisition does not provide 100% language competence. There is often a small portion of grammar, punctuation, and spelling that even the most proficient native speakers may not acquire. While it is important to learn these aspects of language, since writing is the only form that requires 100% competence, these aspects of language make up only a small portion of o ur language competence. Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommends using the monitor at times when it does not interfere with communication, such as while writing. 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis 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. 4. The Input Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis holds that language learners acquire properties of an L2 in a predictable order, going through a series of common transitional stages in moving towards target language forms. Krashen also suggests that the natural order is unaffected by instruction. (See interface/non-interface positions in sla, monitor model, morpheme acquisition studies.) (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. In this hypothesis, Krashen attempts to explain how the learner acquires a second language. It is an 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 t he key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in thi s way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence. Evidence for the Input Hypothesis (chiefly Krashen 1985a) • people speak to children acquiring their fir st language in special ways
• people speak to L2 learners in special ways • L2 learners often go through an initial Silent Period • the comparative success of younger and older learners reflects provision of comprehensible input • the more comprehensible input the greater the L2 proficiency • lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition • teaching methods work according to the extent that they use comprehensible input • immersion teaching is successful because it provides comprehensible input • bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provi de comprehensible input. Language acquisition is caused by learners understanding input which is slightly beyond their current stage of knowledge, by means of context and other extra-linguistic cues, and that, while we should not try to provide input which specifically aims at the next stage, ‘comprehensible’ input is particularly beneficial. In this article I will suggest that there are a number of problems with Krashen's input hypothesis, as currently formulated. Firstly, by concentrat ing on meaning and context, he misses the fact that certain aspects of grammar development in the learner are largely internally driven, and independent of context or meaning. Secondly, he overestimates the role and benefits of simplified input. Thirdly, Krashen feels that we can never really be sure what input is relevant to what stage, but this is due to the imprecision of his formulation: once one incorporates a detailed theory of language, it is possible to come up with a theory to identify precisely what aspects of input trigger development. Finally, there are circumstances where the secondlanguage (L2) input will not be able to show the learner how to retreat from certain non-target forms: the input hypothesis is geared to handling additions to intermediate grammars, rather than losses. I will argue that second-language acquisition theory should indeed include an input hypothesis, and, consequently, that we should try and tighten up Krashen's formulation to deal with these objections, rather than abandoning it. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis 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. The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen, is just like an adaptable filter which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter r eceive more input and interact with confidence. The filter is 'affective' because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state. Conclusion of Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning 1. The Natural Order Hypothesis: we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order 2. The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis: adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages acquisition. Acquiring, that is by using language for real communication, and learning , "knowing about" language' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) 3. The Monitor Hypothesis: conscious learning can only be used as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) 4. The Input Hypothesis: humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input" 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis: a mental block, caused by affective factors that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device
http://imandole.blogspot.com/2010/05/second-language-acquisition-theory.html
Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Ricardo Schütz Last revision: March 28, 2005 A. Introduction Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United States and Canada.
This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. B. Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: * the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, * the Monitor hypothesis, * the Natural Order hypothesis, * the Input hypothesis, * and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act. The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'. C. The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance. D.
Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (overusers); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'. 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 i n the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition. E. 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 i mproves 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. F. The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.
The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and
the teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students' participation the classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium. This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for the students' progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well. REFERENCES
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language . Cambridge University Press, 1997. Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition . Prentice-Hall International, 1987. Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988. Schütz, Ricardo. "Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition." English Made in Brazil . Online. 28 de março de 2005. http://perso.univ-lyon2.fr/~giled/050801Stephen%20Krashen's%20Theory.htm
