KRASHEN`S COMPREHENSION HYPOTHESIS MODEL OF L2 LEARNING
KAREN LIZETH ÁLVAREZ CASTILLO
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)
1. The goal is 'the ability to communicate with native speakers of the target language'
2. Comprehension precedes production – the Silent Period...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.