Krashen Monitor Model

1. PRESENTED TO MOONEB ALI

2. .
KRASHEN

3. Group members
 Mohsina Ashraf
 Maria Rafique
 Nadia Neelam
 Sabahat Shahzadi

4. .
CONTENT LIST
1. STEPHAN KRASHEN
2. KRASHEN’S MONITOR MODEL
3. THE FIVE CENTRAL
HYPOTHESIS
4. VARIABLES
CONCLUSION:

5. Background and Main
Representative
 Staphen Krashen is an expert in the field of linguistics,
specializtion in theories of language acquisition and
development.
 Krashen’s widely known and well accepted theory of
second language acquisition had a large impact in area
of second language research and teaching since 1980.

6. Introduction
 According to Krashen’s acquisition learning
hypothesis, there are two independent ways to develop
our linguistic skills: acquisition and learning.

7. The Five Central Hypothesis
 .
The acquisition-learning hypothesis
The natural order hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis
The input hypothesis
The affective filter hypothesis

8. The acquisition learning hypothesis
Acquisition Learning
 Sub-conscious process
 Meaningful interaction
 Individual is not aware
 Natural way
 Conscious process
 Formal
 In the form of rules and
grammar
 Less effective.

9. According to Brown:
“Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able
to use it in communicative interactions”.
(Brown,2000)

10. The acquisition learning hypothesis
 The process of internalizing new language, to storing
this knowledge ,and to use it in actual performance.

11. .

12. Acquisition learning hypothesis
Strength
Language is learned
through natural
communication.
Weaknesses
Time consuming
Learning formally is not an
effective way.

13. .
WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT??

14. The natural order hypothesis
 The acquisition of grammatical structures follows a
“natural order” which is predictable.
 English is perhaps the most studied language as far as
natural order hypothesis is concerned.

15. The natural order hypothesis
Human acquires language in only way ,by
understanding messages or by receiving
comprehensible input and learners improve and
progress along “the natural order”.

16. The Monitor hypothesis
 The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship
between acquisition and learning.
 “Conscious learning can only be used as a monitor or
an editor”.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983)

17. The monitor hypothesis
Three specific conditions
 Time
 Focus on form
 Know the rule

18. The input hypothesis
Input hypothesis is only concerned with acquisition
not learning.
 Structure that is “a little beyond” where we are now.
 “Going for meaning” first.
 Speaking fluency cannot be taught directly.
 Provide comprehensible input.

19. The Input hypothesis
 Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause.
 If input is understood,and there is enough of it, the
necessary grammar is automatically provided.
(Krashen,1985,p.2)

20. .Strength and Weakness
Strength
 The more comprehensible input, more L2 proficiency.
 Teaching methods are dependent on comprehensible
input.
Weakness
 Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of
linguistic competence at the same time, we are unable
to define the level of i andi+1.
 Grammar generalization(making errors)

21. The affective filter hypothesis
 Learners feelings or attitude as an adjustable filter that
freely fairs , impress or block input necessary to
acquisition.
 3 kinds of variables that affect the filter.
1. Motivation high
2. Self-confidence high
3. Anxiety low

22. Strengths
 Teacher’s try to reduce learner’s negative feelings.
 Learners have higher competence when they receive
comprehensible input.

23. .

24. Causative Variables Taken Into
Account In The Monitor Model
 ROLE OF L1
 APTITUDE
 ROUTINES AND PATTERNS
 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
 AGE

25. Aptitude
 The learner’s aptitude predicts how well he will
perform on grammar-type tests that provide the right
conditions for the operation of the Monitor

26. Role of the L1
 The use of the L1 as a performance strategy.
 Learner falls back on his L1 when he lacks a rule in the
L2.
 He initiates an utterance using his L1 and then
substitutes L2 lexical items.

27. Routines and patterns
 The formulas play a performance role only by helping
the learner to outperform his competence.
 Acquisition catches up with the routines and
patterns; that is, the structural knowledge contained
in the formulas is developed

28. Individual differences
 There is a variation in the rate and the extent of
acquisition as a result of the amount of
comprehensible input received, and the strength of
the affective filter.
 Three types of monitor users:
1. Over-users.
2. Under-users.
3. Optimal-users.

29. AGE
 It affects the amount of comprehensible input that is
obtained; younger learners may get more than older
learners

30. Acquisition learning distinction
 Methodological: The acquisition-learning hypothesis
is not acceptable, because it cannot be tasted in
empirical investigation.
 When learnt knowledge is automatized through
practice it becomes acquired.
 The monitor model is still a black box theory.

31. The monitor
 The only evidence for monitoring is trying to apply
explicit rules.
 Critical faculty enables us to become critically aware of
what we have created and hence allows us to control it.
 Monitoring is limited to syntax, but in fact learners
and users have the ability to edit their pronunciation,
lexis, and, perhaps most important all, their discourse.

32. Variability
 It proposes that the learner’s knowledge of the L2,
which is reflected in variable performance, is best
characterized in terms of two separate competences
acquisition and learning.
 The kinds of performance that results from focusing
on form and meaning are best treated as aspects of a
single but variable competence which contains
alternative rules for realizing the same meaning, in
much the same way as does the native speaker’s
competence.

33. CONCLUSION
 KRASHEN’s monitor model and five other hypothesis
are a model of teaching for the learning of second
language
 They all are based off of the natural way a first
language is learned