Stephen Krashens Five-Point Theory of Second-Language Acquisition - Case Study Example

Dr. Stephen Krashen is Emeritus of Learning and Instruction at the of Southern California. He is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition.  Recently Dr. Krashens research has focused on reading and its effects on language acquisition and academic success. In the late 1970s, Dr. Krashen began promoting the "natural approach" to language teaching, which he laid out in a landmark text he co-wrote with Tracy Terrell. His ideas about the difference between learning and acquisition have strongly influenced the field of ESL/EFL for several decades. He has published hundreds of books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 500 lectures at universities throughout the United States and the rest of the world. In the past five years, Dr. Krashen has fought to save whole language and bilingual education in the United States and, more recently, has been lobbying for "recreational reading" and better stocked school libraries because of research relating both to higher achievement. In deciding how to develop language teaching methods and materials, one can take three approaches: make use of second language acquisition theory, make use of applied linguistics research, and make use of ideas and intuition from experience. These approaches should in fact support each other and lead to common conclusions. This book incorporates all three approaches, with a hope of reintroducing theory to language teachers. While "most current theory may still not be the final word on second language acquisition," it is hoped that teachers will use the ideas in this book as another source alongside of their classroom and language-learning experiences. Second Language Acquisition Theory There are five key hypothesis about second language acquisition: 1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis According to Ellis (1986), this is the essential component to Krashen’s 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 learner’s 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 Krashen’s 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 Krashen’s input hypothesis to be very similar to that of Vygotsky’s 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 learner’s 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. The first of Krashen’s hypotheses is the learning-acquisition hypothesis, which differentiates the two titular terms.  According to Krashen, “acquisition” refers to the implicit knowledge we have of a language, whereas “learning” refers to explicit knowledge about a language.  Implicit knowledge refers to command of a language as if it were one’s native language; explicit knowledge is what we unfortunately gain in most foreign language classes.  One good example of this in Spanish is the phrase “me llamo,” which literally means “I call myself” but is usually translated by Spanish teachers as “my name is.”  While this is the most comprehensible translation for native English speakers, the syntax of the two expressions is too different for a beginner to use the Spanish properly.  Possibly the most common error that new Spanish students commit is saying, “me llamo es…” (“es” meaning “is” in English).  They assume that to say “my name is…” the Spanish word for “is” must be used and therefore commit this error.  A native speaker, however, has only ever learned that to state his name, he must say “me llamo…”  There is no error during transference between the two grammatical systems because an interlocutor’s implicit, acquired knowledge need never be transferred.  The explicit, learned knowledge of a Spanish student has not ascended to the natural ability level of a native speaker; he must still make a conscious effort to communicate in his second language.  This postulate is Krashen’s central idea and directly influences each of the four remaining hypotheses.             The second hypothesis is called the natural order hypothesis.  This theory expresses that, during first- or second-language acquisition (though not necessarily second-language learning), the beginner will master grammatical structures in a specific, inflexible order.  To give an example, one of the first English structures that a beginner acquires is the creation of a plural noun by adding the letter “s” to the end of the singular form.  By contrast, the correct use of subject and object pronouns takes a fairly long time to master.  The natural order hypothesis basically states two things.  The first of these is that the order in which these structures is acquired is constant and unchangeable among all people.  Secondly, the order is completely rigid; no matter who the learner is, he cannot master the use of a structure without having acquired all structures that precede it.  For example, no student of English who has yet to acquire the plural noun structure will be able to speak in the past tense; the latter builds on the knowledge on which the former is based.             The third hypothesis is called the input hypothesis and is one of the two most important for second language instructors.  Krashen puts forth the idea that acquisition of a language depends almost entirely on the student’s being exposed to comprehensible genuine input.  This exposure can take many forms – conversation, television, movies, books, newspapers – virtually any means of presenting the language to the student in a communicative manner.  It is important to note that language textbooks generally do not constitute genuine input; although there may be brief segments such as short stories or letters in a beginners’ text, most often it is a tool for learning, not acquisition.  One reason for the failings of a textbook in assisting in second-language acquisition is Krashen’s concept of i + 1.  I + 1 is a mathematical representation of the next level of linguistic skill that the student is ready to attain.  I stands for the student’s current skill level in terms of comprehension (both reading comprehension and oral comprehension).  Naturally, then, i + 1 refers to a slightly elevated level of discourse that the student almost, but not quite completely, comprehends.  Input at the student’s i + 1 level is the most beneficial to his development as a second-language interlocutor because he must make a mental effort to infer the meaning of the sentence; this effort reinforces the meaning of unknown words and grammatical structures in the student’s mind.  After enough repetition at this heightened level of discourse, the i + 1 becomes the new i level.  Frequent, comprehensible input at the student’s i + 1 level is the most useful tool that a teacher can utilize; it is thus important to have at least a rough idea of each student’s capabilities and aim instruction at a level of discourse that will benefit the majority of students.  Remedial work may be necessary for students whose skills fall behind their peers’, but in a well-run classroom this should be minimal.             The fourth hypothesis is the monitor hypothesis, which explains why Krashen believes that the difference between learning and acquisition is so crucial.  Krashen’s monitor refers to a cognitive mechanism that students of more traditional foreign language classes rely on, much to their detriment.  The monitor is the students’ constant, conscious self-check for grammatical correctness.  It is based on explicit (learned) knowledge about a language’s grammatical rules, which are applied to what the student says before he says it.  However, there are two limitations placed on the monitor that diminish its effectiveness.  The first is that the interlocutor must know the rules that are necessary to correct his mistakes; the second is that he must have sufficient time to apply them.  While the first is not a greater problem for learners than acquirers, the second most certainly is.  During natural speech, there are many opportunities to commit grammatical errors – too many for the monitor alone to prevent all of them.  Therefore, in many cases the speaker must make a sacrifice; either he must resign himself to committing errors, or he must speak intolerably slowly.  It is clear that neither of these approaches is acceptable if the interlocutor wants to achieve better-than-average competence in the language, and so he cannot depend on explicit knowledge alone for communication.  Acquisition (and thus, a communicative classroom setting) is necessary for true mastery of a second language.             The final hypothesis in Krashen’s theory is called the affective filter hypothesis, and it is the second that foreign language teachers need to keep in mind always.  It is in many ways the simplest of the five, but it is extremely important at the same time.  The affective filter hypothesis simply states that a student’s acquisition of a second language is directly related to his attitude toward acquiring it.  This outlook may be influenced by several factors – societal opinion of the language and its students, positive or negative classroom experience, nervousness, sense of self-esteem – but in the end, the sum of positive versus negative attitudinal factors will strongly correlate wth the student’s success with the language.  For this reason, second language teachers need to keep in mind that it is their responsibility to maintain a classroom environment that provides for a low affective filter to maximize language acquisition.  Teachers should always maintain a positive, constructive attitude, especially toward errors that their students commit.  Though it may seem counterintuitive to traditionalists, correcting a student’s mistakes is detrimental to his development.  Teachers should suppress the urge to do so and instead provide a model for the students to emulate; after enough exposure to the teacher’s correct example, the students’ errors should adjust themselves. Error Correction Hypothesis- While the above theories and hypotheses focus on the learner’s experience, the error correction hypothesis focuses on an important aspect of the instructor’s role in language learning. Building on Krashen’s hypotheses above, error correction is seen to be an instructor role that can be an important factor in raising or lowering a learner’s affective filter. This hypothesis describes three forms of feedback that can be likened to a street light signal. Providing non-corrective feedback to an ELL’s verbal message signals to the learner that his/her message is understood and to can continue with their communication (green light). Corrective feedback in the form of error corrections indicates to the ELL that his/her message is not understood and to reattempt to convey the message. Varied levels of error correction then represent the yellow or red lights of the signal and lead the speaker to restate his/her message or to stop trying altogether. In this way, error corrections can be a factor in raising or lowering an ELL’s affective filter. Thus, like communication in a first language, where errors are rarely corrected unless they affect the meaning of the message, some experts suggest there should be little or no error correction in learning a second language, while others argue that some amount of error correction is important for ELLs. One concern around complete avoidance of error correction is “fossilization.” Fossilization occurs when an ELL is so accustomed to an error that he/she does not “hear” the correct use. Thus, the optimal mix of error correction is determined by a student’s language development, their ability to convey a message. Furthermore, a teacher must be aware of the manner in which the error correction is done, keeping in mind the individual’s affective filter and the natural order of language acquisition. One way to approach error correction is to focus on “global” errors, those errors that hinder comprehension of the message, rather than focusing on “local” errors – those that affect a single element of a sentence and do not affect the message. In considering whether to correct an error, a teacher may also identify those that are persistent and may largely be shared by the entire class. This can be done effectively through mini-lessons on speaking or during the editing phase of the writing process. Such error corrections can be beneficial to ELLs’ language development. However, it is important to realize that even after an error is corrected or a grammar rule is taught, ELLs should not be expected to immediately or consistently demonstrate the correct form. The production of errors often persists long after the student has “learned” a particular grammar rule. Krashen’s Theories and Teaching- The ways in which children communicate in their home cultures are critical to the development of written language models of reading and writing. The home language of students provides the foundation for the emergence of reading and writing behaviors. If there is a mismatch between the structures, values, and expectations of the home language and school language, children may be at a disadvantage for success in early reading tasks, and thus spend their entire school careers attempting to catch up. As long as the number of families immigrating to the United States continues to grow, many children will be entering school with a language other than English. Literacy may be defined in light of language variety. That is, literacy should be defined in terms of what it takes to function in ones culture on a daily basis rather than solely upon an indefinable standard language. Thus, literacy is much more than simply being able to read and write; rather, it is a set of complex tasks and behaviors that may, for some individuals, encompass the use of several languages and ways of being literate. Given this definition of literacy, learning to read in the language that encompasses those things familiar and meaningful is critical to success in learning to read in a second language. Research shows that language-minority students face many challenges in school. For example, they are 1.5 times more likely to drop out of school than native speakers . English-language learners also receive lower grades, are judged by their teachers to have lower academic abilities, and score below their classmates on standardized tests of reading and math. The best way to assist students as they learn English as their second language continues to be hotly debated. I assert it is a mistake to believe that the first thing students must learn is English, thus isolating the language from a broad complex of other issues. Much of the debate rests exactly here: Should students know English before they are allowed to join their peers in classrooms? Both cognitive development and academic development in the first language have been found to have positive effects on second-language learning . Academic skills, literacy development, concept formation, subject knowledge, and strategy development learned in the first language transfer to the second language. However, because literacy is socially situated, it is equally critical to provide a supportive school envirornment that allows the academic and cognitive development in the first language to flourish. Research strongly supports the idea that native language use is advantageous in English-language acquisition . This use is defined within a range from commitment to a bilingual program to programs in which almost all instruction takes place in English and the native language is used to clarify and extend students understanding. Second-language students make sense of the second language by using many of the same strategies that worked so well in acquiring the first language. What is different, however, is that second-language students already have an understanding of the meanings, uses, and purposes of language; they now must now go on to learn how the second language--oral and in print--expresses those purposes, uses, and meanings . It is important to understand the consequences of various program designs for students learning English. In U.S. schools where all instruction is given through the second language (i.e., English), non-native speakers with no schooling in their first language take seven to ten years to reach age- and grade-level norms. Immigrant students who have had two to three years of schooling in their first language (in their home countries) take at least five to seven years to reach age- and grade-level norms . Non-native speakers schooled in a second language for part or all of the day typically do reasonably well in early years; from fourth grade, however, when academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly, students with little or no academic and cognitive development in their first language fail to maintain positive gains. Students who have spent four to seven years in a quality bilingual program sustain academic achievement and outperform monolingually schooled students in the upper grades. Environments filled with print examples in both languages are important to successful acquisition. For example, childrens literature in both languages should be in classroom and school libraries for children to access at both school and home; newspapers and other examples of community literacy should be available in both languages at home and at school; signs in classrooms should be in both languages, as appropriate. It also is important that a variety of opportunities to read and write in both languages be available in the classroom. Learning to read and write in the first language supports success with reading and writing in the second language. Also, literacy skills related to decoding tasks of reading have been found to transfer between languages. However, these skills must be contextualized within meaningful instructional contexts for full transfer to occur. English vocabulary is a primary determinant of reading comprehension for second-language readers. Those students whose first language has many cognates with English have an advantage in English vocabulary recognition, but they often require explicit instruction to optimize transfer for comprehension. Clearly, it is important for educators to find a potential for reciprocity between the two languages. Many studies support a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English. A balanced literacy program provides a balance of explicit instruction and student-directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaning-based curricula. However, there is no one best way to teach English-language learners. Different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity of conditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of English learners with literacy and schooling in their first language. . Conclusion             Stephen Krashen’s five-point theory of second-language acquisition is widely accepted as the most scientifically sound basis available for a system of genuine bilingual education.  However, there are various factors that prevent it from being successfully implemented in our schools.  One of the most prominent is the pressure on teachers to find objective methods of evaluating students, which can be extremely difficult to do if they heed Krashen’s advice.  The price that students pay for steady grading is, unfortunately, genuine competence in their chosen language, and it is far too high.  The pending change in second-language teaching is often called an “incomplete revolution” because the educational establishment refuses to implement the system despite its acknowledged merits, choosing instead to languish in the mediocrity we face today. 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 Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved June 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.viavale.com.br/english/sk-krash Read More