Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Theories of second language learning


Published on

Published in: Education

Theories of second language learning

  1. 1. Theories of second-language learning- Krashen’s theories Based on Barry McLaughlin: Thoeries of Second-language Learning (Edward Arnold, 1987) Lightbown and Spada: How Languages are learned (OUP,1993)
  2. 2. Krashen, five central hypothesis <ul><li>The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Monitor Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Natural Order Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Input Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul>
  3. 3. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis <ul><li>Learning- conscious, Acquisition-unconscious </li></ul><ul><li>“ Learning” does not turn into “acquisition”, says Krashen </li></ul>
  4. 4. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
  5. 5. Claims <ul><li>Sometimes there is Acquisition without Learning- people can speak without knowing rules consciously </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes learning never becomes acquisition- knows the rule but always breaks it </li></ul><ul><li>No-one knows anywhere near all the rules </li></ul>
  6. 6. LAD – Language Acquisition Device <ul><li>Krashen, Chomsky </li></ul><ul><li>Do adults have it too? </li></ul>
  7. 7. The Monitor Hypothesis <ul><li>Learning has only one function, that is as a Monitor or editor </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisition initiates the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for Fluency </li></ul>
  8. 8. 3 conditions for Monitor use <ul><li>Time </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on form/ correctness </li></ul><ul><li>Know the rule </li></ul><ul><li>All these are problematic, difficult to demonstrate </li></ul>
  9. 9. Krashen explained the individual differences on the Monitor concept <ul><li>Monitor over-users </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor under-users </li></ul><ul><li>Optimal monitor users </li></ul>
  10. 10. Adults vs. Children <ul><li>Children are better learners because they do not use the Monitor </li></ul><ul><li>The second explanation is related to the “affective filter”, discussed later </li></ul>
  11. 11. Problems <ul><li>Acquisition-learning distinction not clearly defined </li></ul><ul><li>The theory that learning will not become acquisition can’t be tested empirically </li></ul><ul><li>It is only in the phonological development that children do better! </li></ul><ul><li>We simply cannot unequivocally identify the source of any utterance! </li></ul>
  12. 12. The Natural Order Hypothesis <ul><li>We acquire rules in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early and others late. </li></ul><ul><li>The order of rules is not determined by its simplicity and is independent of the order in which rules are taught </li></ul>
  13. 13. The Natural Order Hypothesis, problems <ul><li>…is based on the “morpheme studies”, which, by focusing on the final form, tell us little about the acquisition process </li></ul><ul><li>It can be accepted, but in a weak form: some things are learned before others, but not always </li></ul>
  14. 14. The Input Hypothesis <ul><li>People learn in only one way, by understanding messages, getting “comprehensible input” </li></ul><ul><li>Speaking is a result, not a cause. </li></ul><ul><li>If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Krashen tried to explain his theory by the <ul><li>“Silent period” </li></ul><ul><li>Problems: </li></ul><ul><li>No answer to how language is acquired </li></ul><ul><li>There may be other explanations for the silent period (anxiety, personality, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>How do we learn, if in the beginning we know nothing? </li></ul>
  16. 16. The Input Hypothesis doesn’t explain <ul><li>How learners progress form understanding to acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>What is “comprehensible input”, not clear </li></ul><ul><li>… just beyond the syntactic complexity of what he knows at present… - impossible to define clearly </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusion <ul><li>Acquisition is caused by understanding the input but internal factors are given little emphasis </li></ul><ul><li>The importance of output is de-emphasized </li></ul><ul><li>A more balanced view is required </li></ul>
  18. 18. The Affective Filter Hypothesis <ul><li>There might be a mental block that prevents learners form fully profiting form “comprehensible input” </li></ul><ul><li>If the filter is UP, the input is blocked </li></ul>
  19. 19. filter up down INPUT LAD Language acquisition device Acquired competence The operation of the “affective filter”, Krashen, 1982
  20. 20. The Affective Filter theory was used <ul><li>To account for he individual differences in language learning </li></ul><ul><li>Def.: “ The filter is that part of the processing system that subconsciously screens incoming language based on… “motives, needs, attitudes, emotional states.” </li></ul>
  21. 21. The filter is described as having 4 functions, determining <ul><li>Which language model will we select </li></ul><ul><li>Which part of the language will be attended first </li></ul><ul><li>When the language acquisition effort should cease </li></ul><ul><li>How fast we can acquire the language </li></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>Though most of the researchers agree that affective variables play a critical role, there role and existence of the “affective filter” is not clear </li></ul>
  23. 23. Problems with the theory <ul><li>No coherent explanation for the filter’s development </li></ul><ul><li>Can’t be studied </li></ul><ul><li>Vague in its origin and its function </li></ul><ul><li>No connection wit first language acquisition, why? </li></ul><ul><li>What about the children? </li></ul><ul><li>… it can’t explain the individual differences completely! </li></ul>