STEPHEN KRASHENS THEORY: MONITOR MODEL

Stephen Krashens Monitor Model is one of

the influential and discussed theories of
language learning/ acquisition.
Adults have two distinct ways to develop
competence in a second language: acquisition
(which is a subconscious process), and
learning (which is conscious).
Acquisition is similar to the process by which
children acquire their native language.
Learning involves a conscious knowledge of
rules.
For acquisition to take place, the learner must be motivated, have a good self-image
and be free from anxiety.
Error correction should be minimized in the classroom, where the main purpose of
instruction should be to provide comprehensible input.
We acquire new structures only when we are exposed to comprehensible input.
This theory describes five central hypotheses: 1) The acquisition- learning distinction;
2) the natural order hypothesis; 3) the monitor hypothesis; 4) The Input Hypothesis;
5)The Affective Filter Hypothesis.

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.

KRASHEN'S THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION CONSISTS OF FIVE MAIN

HYPOTHESES:

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis:

Adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing competence on a second
language: acquisition, which is a subconscious process similar, if not identical, to the way
children develop ability in the first language ; and learning, which refers to conscious
knowledge of the rules of grammar of a second language and their application in production.

The Natural Order hypothesis:

The acquisition of grammatical structures(primarily morphemes) proceeds in a predictable

1
 order when the acquisition of knowledge is natural (i.e. not via formal learning)

The Monitor Hypothesis:

Acquisition is the sole initiator of all second language utterances and is responsible for
fluency, while learning (conscious knowledge of rules) can function only as editor or
monitor from the output.

The Input hypothesis:

The Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this
hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses 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'. We can then define 'Comprehensible Input'
as the target language that the learner would not be able to produce but can still understands.
It goes beyond the choice of words and involves presentation of context, explanation,
rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual cues and meaning negotiation. The meaning
successfully conveyed constitutes the learning experience.

The Affective Filter hypothesis:

Krashen states 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.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE:

The author also suggests certain implications for classroom practice:

1)The main function of classroom may be to provide comprehensible input in an
environment conducive to a low affective filter (i.e. high motivation low anxiety)

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.