Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stephen Krashen'S Theory: "Monitor Model"
Stephen Krashen'S Theory: "Monitor Model"
The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses
of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and
1980s. The input hypothesis was first published in 1978
STEPHEN KRASHEN (born 1941) is a linguist, educational researcher, and political activist and
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. Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language
acquisition has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since
the 1980s.
1
order when the acquisition of knowledge is natural (i.e. not via formal learning)
2) The classroom is useful for beginners and foreign language students who do not have
input sources outside of class or those whose competence is so slow that they are unable
to understand the language from the outside world.
3)The requirements for optimal inputs are: a) comprehensible; b)interesting and relevant ;
c) not grammatically sequenced, d) provided in sufficient quantity to supply i+1, and
e)delivered in an environment where students are off the offensive.
4) Error correction should be minimal in the classroom; it is of some limited use when the
goal is learning, but of no use when the goal is acquisition. Error correction raises the
effective filter and should, therefore, not be used in free conversation or when acquisition
is likely to take place.
5) Students should never be required to produce speech in the second language unless
they are ready to do so. Speaking fluency cannot be laught, but emerges naturally in
2
time with enough comprehensible input.
CRITICISM
Some critics, for instance, have questioned his use of generalizations in describing the model.
Munsell and Carr (1981) questioned the distinction between learning and acquisition and
the notion of conscious and unconscious. They also seem to object to the implications that
language learning is distinct from other kinds of learning. We cannot imagine trying to learn
basketball simply by watching people do it, trying it, and creatively constructing the rules. It is
much easier to start with conscious exposition of the rules and build ones skill upon that
foundation.
McLaughlins objections are toward a more cognitive perspective. His objections to Monitor
Theory are summarized in the following five points:
1- McLaughlin (1987) points out that Krashen never adequately defines acquisition, learning,
conscious or subconscious which makes it extremely difficult to independently determine
whether subjects are learning or acquiring language.
2- Krashen has had to place more and more restrictions on the conditions under which this
theory would be used effectively, but these restrictions are of limited usefulness in explaining
a learners conscious knowledge of grammar.
3-The Natural Order Hypothesis is quite weak due to methodological problems.
4- McLaughlin believes the Input Hypothesis is also unstable since no clear definition is given of
comprehensible input.
5- The Affective Filter Hypothesis is also questionable because Krashen does not make any
serious attempts to explain how and why this filter develops.
In conclusion, some of Krashens Monitor Theorys central assumptions and hypotheses are
not clearly defined and, thus, are not readily testable or falsifiable.