You are on page 1of 13

Vygotsky and Krashenial history and being a return of it.

The distinct con cepts in


Krashens acquisition system and Vy! gotskys sociocultural theory are complementary in
providing resources for language teaching methodology. By explaining human language
development and cognitive development, Vygotskys social-interactionist theory serves as a
strong induction for the modern trends in use linguistics. It lends support to less structured and
more natural, communicative and experiential...If you essential to

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition


Assimilao Natural -- o Construtivismo no Ensino de Lnguas
Source: http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
Ricardo Schtz

"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules,
and does not require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen

"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural


communication - in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their
utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding." Stephen
Krashen

"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low
anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These
methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to
produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying
communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting
production." Stephen Krashen

"In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to
help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen

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.

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 AS DUAS HIPTESES MAIS IMPORTANTES DA
hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the TEORIA DE KRASHEN, E SUA INTERRELAO
most widely known among linguists
A hiptese acquisition-learning e a
and language practitioners. hiptese monitor representam a essncia da teoria
de Krashen.
According to Krashen there are two
independent systems of second De acordo com sua teoria, acquisition
language performance: 'the acquired responsvel pelo entendimento e pela capacidade
system' and 'the learned system'. The de comunicao criativa: habilidades desenvolvidas
subconscientemente. Isto ocorre atravs da
'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the familiarizao com com a caracterstica fontica da
product of a subconscious process very lngua, sua estruturao de frases, seu vocabulrio,
similar to the process children undergo tudo decorrente de situaes reais, bem como pela
when they acquire their first language. assimilao das diferenas culturais e adaptao
It requires meaningful interaction in the nova cultura.
target language - natural
Learning depende de esforo intelectual e procura
communication - in which speakers are produzir conhecimento consciente a respeito da
concentrated not in the form of their estrutura da lngua e de suas irregularidades, e
utterances, but in the communicative preconiza a memorizao de vocabulrio fora de
act. situaes reais. Este conhecimento atua na funo
de monitoramento da fala. Entretanto, o efeito deste
monitoramento sobre a performance da pessoa,
The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the depende muito de cada um.
product of formal instruction and it
comprises a conscious process which Veja aqui mais sobre os conceitos
results in conscious knowledge 'about'
the language, for example knowledge of de acquisition e learning.
grammar rules. According to Krashen
'learning' is less important than A hiptese monitor explica a relao
entre acquisition e learning ao definir a influncia
'acquisition'. (Veja o texto ao lado e deste ltimo sobre o primeiro. Os esforos
tambm outra pgina em portugus espontneos e criativos de comunicao,
sobre Acquisition/Learning). decorrentes de nossa capacidade natural de
assimilar lnguas quando em contato com elas, so
The Monitor hypothesis explains the policiados e disciplinados pelo conhecimento
consciente das regras gramaticais da lngua e de
relationship between acquisition and suas excees.
learning and defines the influence of the
latter on the former. The monitoring Os efeitos deste monitoramento sobre pessoas com
function is the practical result of the diferentes caractersticas de personalidade sero
learned grammar. According to vrios. Pessoas que tendem introverso, falta
Krashen, the acquisition system is the de autoconfiana, ou ao perfeccionismo, pouco se
beneficiaro de um conhecimento da estrutura da
utterance initiator, while the learning lngua e de suas irregularidades. Pelo contrrio, no
system performs the role of the caso de lnguas com alto grau de irregularidade
'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' (como o ingls), podero desenvolver um bloqueio
acts in a planning, editing and que compromete a espontaneidade devido
correcting function when three specific conscincia da alta probabilidade de cometerem
erros.
conditions are met: that is, the second
language learner has sufficient time at Pessoas que tendem extroverso, a falar muito,
his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form de forma espontnea e impensada, tambm pouco
or thinks about correctness, and he/she se beneficiaro de learning, uma vez que a funo
knows the rule. de monitoramento quase inoperante, est
submetida a uma personalidade intempestiva que se
manifesta sem maior cautela. Os nicos que se
It appears that the role of conscious beneficiam de learning, so as pessoas mais
learning is somewhat limited in second normais e equilibradas, que sabem aplicar a funo
language performance. According to de monitoramento de forma moderada. Mesmo
Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or assim, numa situao real de comunicao, o
should be - minor, being used only to monitoramento s funcionar se ocorrerem 3
condies simultaneamente:
correct deviations from 'normal' speech
and to give speech a more 'polished' - Tempo suficiente: que a pessoa disponha de
appearance. tempo suficiente para avaliar as alternativas com
base nas regras incidentes.
Krashen also suggests that there is - Preocupao com a forma: que a pessoa
individual variation among language concentre ateno no apenas no ato da
learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He comunicao, no contedo da mensagem, mas
distinguishes those learners that use the tambm e principalmente na forma.
- Conhecimento da regra: que a pessoa tenha
'monitor' all the time (over-users); those conhecimento da regra que se aplica ao caso.
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 in the studies. In fact, he rejects
grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

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 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 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.

Veronica Nolan
Source: http://si.unm.edu/Web%20Journals/articles2001/VNOLAN~1.HTM

Summer Institute 2001

Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition

When I enrolled in the Summer Institute, I was aware of the different second
language acquisition theories. As my time in the courses progressed, I was
continually amazed to learn about the many different theories and how they
apply to classroom instruction. I found Stephen Krashens Monitor model
interesting and wanted to know more about it. I chose Krashens theory
because it is multi-faceted and very interwoven.

In this paper, I will briefly explore the different hypotheses of Krashens


theory. In addition, I will provide examples of my classroom philosophy and
how I recognize Krashens theory already in place. In the future, I am sure I
will encounter many more experiences to demonstrate the different hypotheses.

Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Stephen Krashen has published over 100 books and articles within the past
twenty years dealing with second language acquisition
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html). Krashens widely accepted
second language acquisition theory contains five central hypotheses. A brief
discussion of each follows.
The Five Hypotheses of Krashens Theory

1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

According to Ellis (1986), this is the essential component to Krashens theory.


For this hypothesis, the term learning relates to specifically to language and
refers to the ways in which children develop first language competence
(Krashen, 1994, p. 53). According to Richard-Amato (1996), the acquisition
aspect of this hypothesis is subconscious, while the learning portion is a
conscious effort by the learner.

Language acquisition occurs subconsciously while participating in natural


conversations or communications where the focus is on meaning. The learning
of a language occurs separately where grammar, vocabulary, and other rules
about the target language are explicitly taught. There is a focus on analyzing
errors and correcting them. The focus in the aspect of learning is not on the
content or meaning of the conversation or book, but rather on the structure of
the language.

2) Natural Order Hypothesis

This portion of the theory states that students acquire (not learn) grammatical
structures in a predicable order with certain items being learned before others
(Krashen, 1994, p. 52). This order seems to be independent of the learners age,
the conditions of exposure, and the background of the L1 development
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html). According to Krashen
(1994), natural order patterns of second language acquisition do not follow
those of the first language acquisition patterns. Nonetheless, there are patterns
to L2 development.

However, the L2 acquisition patterns of a child are very similar to the L2


learning patterns of an adult. Krashen (1994) points out that the existence of
the natural order does not imply that we should teach second languages along
this order, focusing on earlier acquired items first and acquired items later (p.
53). In most of the Spanish classes offered at the middle and high school, I
would say the primary mode of instruction could be based upon this
hypothesis. Except that instructors may be focusing on the learning as
opposed to the acquisition of their students. Basic elements of the language
were taught first and then gradually progressed to the more complex elements.

This is evident in learning verb conjugations, as well as in learning the different


vocabulary and semantics.

In many ways, this approach to instruction may be helpful to many students. It


provides a strong foundation in language mechanics. However, I think it may
also hinder the student in that many times they may find themselves thinking
about which rule to apply when speaking and this may often negatively affect
the proficiency and flow of communication. At the same time, some one could
argue that this is an example of the over use of the Monitor model. In reality,
both apply to this situation. This influences my curriculum on a daily basis. I
agree that at first a foundation needs to be laid and then the house of language
can be built. I use this to ensure that my students are not only taught in this
manner, but also engage in many other language experiences in a more holistic
manner. Examples will be discussed later in this paper.

3) Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitory Hypothesis of Krashens theory proposes that there is a monitor


which functions to help the person to, in essence, filter his/her language. The
person uses the monitor to apply rules to the already learned knowledge, such
as which verb tense to use or which form of speech to use. Krashen (1994)
explains that in order to use a monitor well, three factors must be met: (1) time;
(2) focus on form; and (3) knowledge of the rules.

Krashen also proposes that the use of the Monitor varies among different
people. There are those who use it all of the time and are classified as over-
users. There are also learners who either have not learned how to use the
monitor or choose to not use it and they are identified as under-users. The
group in between these ends of the spectrum are the optimal users. These
people use the Monitor appropriately and not to either extreme. A psychological
profile of the language user is helpful to determine in what group they belong.
(http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash.html)

4) Input Hypothesis

I find Krashens input hypothesis to be very similar to that of Vygotskys Zone


of Proximal Development. The Input Hypothesis poses the concept represented
by i+1; where the i represents the distance between actual language
development and i+1 represents the potential language
development(Richard-Amato, 1996, p. 42). The learner is unable to reach the
i+1 stage without the assistance of others. An example of assistance would be
that found in a peer-tutoring situation. For example, when I have had my
students interview people, I pair them so that their language proficiency levels
are different. This provides the opportunity for students to construct
comprehensible input for each other. For instance, if one of the students is
struggling to express him/herself, the other student can provide the
comprehensible language in a meaningful context. I find that children
consistently have a quick and natural way of conveying their meaning to their
peers. I also think that because it comes from their peers, it assists with
lowering the affective filter as well.

There are three key elements to this hypothesis. First, language is acquired, not
learned, by the learner receiving comprehensible input that has arrangements or
structures just beyond the learners current level of mastery (i+1). Next, speech
should be allowed to emerge on its own. There is usually a silent period and
speech will come when the acquirer feels ready. The readiness state arrives at
different times for different people(Krashen, 1994, p.55). It should not be
taught directly and a period of grammatically incorrect speech is typical.
Finally, the input should not deliberately contain grammatically programmed
structures. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, i+1 is
automatically provided(Krashen, 1994, p. 57)

5) Affective Filter Hypothesis


Dulay and Burt (1977) proposed the idea of the Affective Filter being
something which determines to what degree a person learns in a formal or an
informal situation (as cited in Baker, 1996). Affect is defined as the effect of
personality motivation and other affective variables on second language
acquisition (Krashen, 1994,p.57). Krashen applies this theory to language
learning and looks at its influences on the rate of second language acquisition
in three areas: anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence.

If a learner has low anxiety, high motivation, or high self-confidence, s/he is


said to have a low affective filter. This in turn assists with allowing in more
information and providing a fertile venue for learning. On the contrary, if a
person has high anxiety, lower motivation, or a lower self-esteem, the affective
filter will be higher and does not provide the learner with as many
subconscious language acquisition (Krashen, 1994, p. 58) opportunities as
that of a person with a low affective filter.

Personal Philosophy and How It Compares To Krashens Theory

I taught first and second grades at an elementary school in the South Broadway
area of Albuquerque, New Mexico. I taught at this elementary school for six
years. I enjoy teaching in culturally diverse settings and would not trade
anything for the experience that my teaching has provided me.

The population of this elementary school was predominantly Mexican and


Hispanic, with the next largest population being African American. Anglo and
Native American students made up the smallest percentage of the student
body. This elementary school is a Title I school and continues to receive
funding for Bilingual Education services. The majority of the student body
received free or reduced meals.

The most important aspect of my teaching philosophy is that my classroom is a


community where everyone is a valued member. In the beginning of the year, I
spend the first month establishing the classroom rules, consequences, and
general procedures. The children assist in constructing the rules. I limit the
rules to four items and there are four consequences. The rules focus on respect
and caring for one another and their surroundings. There is positive
recognition built into the behavior management system, as with all of my
instruction.

When I was exposed to Vygotsky, I immediately agreed with his Zone of


Proximal Development (ZPD) theory. The ZPD is the difference between the
childs capacity to solve problems on his own, and his capacity to solve them
with assistance (http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-vygot.html). Basically,
this means that the childs actual level of development indicates what the child
can accomplish without assistance. The ZPD, on the other hand, refers to the
activities and functions that the learner can accomplish only with the help of
another person. Learning is built upon experiences through a process often
refereed to as scaffolding and the person who acts as a guide through the
ZPD can be a teacher, parent, caretaker, or another student.

I believe that this is how all people learn because learning does not occur in a
vacuum. I believe that when learning transpires, there is always an influencing
factor, such as a guidebook, a teacher, a peer, or an instruction sheet present.
Guidance needs to take place in order for learning to follow. If a student is
presented with information that is not the slightest bit comprehensible and no
assistance for understanding is provided, chances are that the student will
struggle and likely give up.

In my own teaching I have witnessed students giving up because the


assignment or task was not understandable to them. The topics have ranged
from math to science to writing. The reason that various students gave up was
because the input was not comprehensible to them and the appropriate
assistance was not offered at the crucial time of need. As Krashen (1994)
mentions in his article, every person is at a different i+1 state or if I were to
look at it form the Vygotskian viewpoint, everyone has a different ZPD. My
personal challenge over the past years has been to focus on each students
individual level and how to best meet his/her own ZPD needs.
The use of peer tutoring is one of my strongest teaching strategies. Along with
my philosophy of every class member being an integral part of the whole, I
strongly believe that I am not the only teacher nor the only student in the
classroom. The students are all skilled in a multitude of aspects and I utilize
those strengths to assist their peers with learning new concepts. Not only do I
have peer tutors within the classroom, I have often paired up with different
classes in the school for various activities. Thinking back to my observations of
my students, I have witnessed many instances of students clarifying
information for their peers. Through the clarifications, the language experience
is thus enriched. This in turn provided more opportunities for acquisition of
language as defined by Krashen in his Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. With
the conversations being authentic, this further enables the acquisition because
the focus of the conversation is on meaning.

Another constant in my classroom was conversation. I strongly encouraged my


students to discuss everything. My philosophy is that as long is there is
learning occurring, there will be discussion. As Vygotsky stated, Thought is
not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them
(Vygotsky, as cited in Guerra & Schutz). Through spoken modeling on my
behalf, my students learn methods which help them in their peer tutoring and in
their own learning.

As for the Monitor Hypothesis, I can confirm to this aspect of Krashens theory
as being supported in my classroom as well. Through my efforts of providing
that crucial wait time after I have asked a question, I am allowing my students,
L1 learners as well as L2 learners, the time to use their Monitor if they wish, to
construct a response or to contribute to the discussion. All of my students
make mistakes when speaking at one point or another and I have listened to
them process their own corrections or help other students correct their speech.
This process helps everyone involved to learn and provides the needed
ingredient for the i+1 aspect of Krashens theory.

Conclusion

I have found that in addition to second language learning in my classroom,


Krashens theory applies in general to all learning. The students acquire
knowledge in different ways than they do when they are specifically taught
skills. As the learner progresses on his/her path of language acquisition, there
are various stages which are like the stages of a butterfly. All of this learned
material is put to use, most of the time being processed through a filter of sorts,
which Krashen calls the Monitor. This is where the rules are applied and the
form is checked. If it is not right, it is corrected to fit the rules. All of this
information is useful, but without assistance and a low affective filter, the
student cannot achieve the i+1 place in learning.

The study of Krashens theory has helped me to further understand how a


person acquires a second language. This information will not only help me to
be a better teacher for my L2 learners, it will make me a better teacher.

References:

Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism, second


edition. Bristol, Pennsylvania: Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R. (1986). Theories of second language acquisition. Making it happen:


Interaction in the second language classroom. From theory to practice(pp.390-
417). White Plains, New York: Longman.

Guerra, C. and R. Schutz. Vygotsky. Retrieved June 19, 2001 from the World
Wide Web:

http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-vygot.html.
Krashen, S.D. (1994). Bilingual education and second language acquisition
theory. In bilingual Education Office (ed.) Schooling and language-minority
students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 47-75). Los Angeles: Evaluation
Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

Richard-Amato, P.A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second


language classroom. From theory to practice. White Plains, New York:
Longman.

Stephen Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved June 19,


2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-
krash.html.

You might also like