M.cheraghi Krashen-monitor model -BICS and CALP

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
M.Cheraghi Shehni

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
Overview
Section one:
Krashen Monitor model
Section two:
Cummins’ Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
(BICS)
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
FYI

Section one
The Monitor Model
Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is 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. Since 1980, he has published well over
100 books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 300
lectures at universities throughout the United States and
Canada.

Section one
The Monitor Model
Monitor Model
The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge
underlies this theory. According to Krashen, learn knowledge is
completely separate and cannot be converted into acquired
knowledge. This position is also known as 'Non-Interface
Position’.
Ellis (1994)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Order
Krashen's Five Main Hypotheses in SLA:
1-The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
2-The Monitor Hypothesis
3-The Natural Order Hypothesis
4-The Input Hypothesis
5-The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Section one
The Monitor Model
Krashen's Five Main Hypotheses on SLA
According to Krashen 's acquisition-learning hypothesis
two independent ways to develop our linguistic skills:
1- Acquisition
2- Learning

Section one
The Monitor Model
This theory is at the core of modern language acquisition theory, and is
perhaps the most fundamental of Krashen's theories in SLA
Acquisition Learning
Hypotheses
Acquisition:
Sub-consciously
Learning:
consciously

Section one
The Monitor Model
There are two independent systems of second language performance:
Acquired system :
Acquisition is a product of sub-conscious processes ( like
acquire L1)
Needs natural communication in the target language
Informal situations
Depends on attitude
Uses grammatical “feel”

Section one
The Monitor Model
Acquired system :
Inductive approach in a student-centered setting leads to
"acquisition"
Needs meaningful interaction
 In non-technical language, acquisition is "picking-up" a
language

Section one
The Monitor Model
Learned system:
Learning is a product of formal learning
It comprises a conscious process which results in conscious
knowledge about the language(for example knowledge of
grammar rules)
Formal situations
Depends on aptitude
Uses grammatical “rules”

Section one
The Monitor Model
Learned system:
 A deductive approach in a teacher-centered setting produces
"learning“


Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
It is difficult to accept the idea of a fully operational Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) in adults, since adults are well past
the age of puberty.
McLaughin (1978, 1987) and Gregg (1984)
Acknowledge the limited accessibility of LAD in adults but not
in children.
LAD declines as you age
The older you get, the limited access you have towards LAD
Chomsky (1975)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
Feels the needs of an accurate definition for the vague
terminology of that Krashen used i.e. acquisition/learning,
conscious/subconscious etc.
McLaughlin (1978, 1987)
Difficult to perceive how acquisition and learning ‘housed’ in
two separate linguistics systems, could be put into use by L2
learners.
Gass and Selinker (1994)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
Acquisition could be better understood when described as a
process enriched by the learned system.
Instead of drawing a borderline separating acquisition and
learning into two discrete disciplines, the cross-currents at both
are constantly at work in SLA are to be acknowledged and
explained.
Zafar (2009)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Acquisition
Subconscious process
Picking up the learning
Results in accuracy and fluency
Formal, traditional teaching does not helps
Available for Automatic production

Section one
The Monitor Model
Learning
Conscious process
Knowing the rules
Results in accuracy
Formal, traditional teaching helps
Available for correction

Section one
The Monitor Model
Explain the relationship between acquisition and learning. The
acquisition is the utterance initiator, while the learning system
performs the role of the monitor or the editor.
Learned competence (The monitor)
Acquired Output
Competence
Krashen,1982

Section one
The Monitor Model
Three specific conditions:
1- Time
A second language performer should have enough time to
consider and use conscious rules efficiently
2- Focus on Form
The performer should also be focused on style or thinking
about correctness
3- Know the rule
Learn all the rules they are presented with.

Section one
The Monitor Model
Individual variation in Monitor use:
Over-users: are learners who attempt “monitor "all the time.
(introvert)
Monitor Under-users: are learners who prefer not to use their
conscious knowledge (extrovert)
Optimal Monitor users: are learners who use the "monitor”
appropriately
According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is or should be
minor.
(Krashen, 1982)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
It is often difficult to use the monitor correctly since the rules of
a language can be extremely complex. Most normal
conversation simply does not provide enough time to activate
the Monitor System. As a result, learners might prevent
themselves from speaking due to the fear of making mistake in
their utterances.
Zafar (2009)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Grammatical morphemes seem to be acquired in natural
order. Some structures are acquired earlier and some later.
The hypothesis posits that those aspects of a language that are
seemingly the easiest to acquire at first.
(Krashen, 1985)

Section one
The Monitor Model
This order is derived from an analysis of empirical studies of second language acquisition (Krashen,1977)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
The natural order hypothesis fails to account for the
considerable influence of the first language on the acquisition
of a second language.
The results of other studies indicate that second language
learners acquire a second language in different orders
depending on their native language.
(Wode 1977, Zobl, 1980, 1982).

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
Any language learners‟ behavior may vary. So a morpheme
present today may disappear tomorrow.
(Mason, 2002)

Section one
The Monitor Model
 The input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning.
 We acquire by understanding language that contains structure
beyond our current level of competence (i + 1).
This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic
information.
(Krashen, 1985)

Section one
The Monitor Model
 Communication is successful, when the input is understood and
there is enough of it, i + 1 will be provided automatically.
 Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly.

Section one
The Monitor Model

Section one
The Monitor Model
Lines of evidence for the Input Hypothesis:
 The silent period
 Age differences
 The effect of exposure
 Lack of access to comprehensible input
 Immersion and sheltered language teaching
 The success of bilingual programs
 The reading hypothesis

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to
define, just as the idea of i+1
How can we know which language data contains i+1 rather
than i+3
It is difficult to determine the learners' current levels due to
individual differences
McLaughlin (1987)

Section one
The Monitor Model
FYI
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.
-Internal Variation: Learners choose the simplest form to
convey the intended meaning.
-External Variation arises as a result of social factors that had a
speaker to select one form rather than another.

Section one
The Monitor Model
The concept of an Affective Filter was proposed by Dulay and
Burt (1977) and reviewed by Krashen(1981).
Affective Filters:
1- Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do
better in second language acquisition
2- Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a
good self-image tend to do better in second language
acquisition.

Section one
The Monitor Model
Affective Filters:
3- Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second
language acquisition, whether measured as personal or
classroom anxiety.
Dulay and Burt (1977)

Section one
The Monitor Model
Learners with a low affective filter:
 High motivation
 High self-confidence
 A good image
 A low level of anxiety

Section one
The Monitor Model
Criticisms:
If the absence of the filter can make children such effective
learners, how to explain the achievement of some adults who
attain native-like proficiency — what happens in their case is
left unexplained.
Affective filter hypothesis fails to answer the most important
question about affect alone accounting for individual variation
in second language acquisition.

Section one
The Monitor Model
To Conclude:
- Apart from Krashen’s ingenuity in an attempt to account for second language learning
process, much of his research lacks strong evidence in order to be regarded as valid.
- Some of the hypotheses postulated by Krashen contradict each other.
- SLA is a so complex field that no single theory or factor can account for it.
Consequently, despite Krashen’s (1982, p.2) claim that those hypotheses are “a
coherent theory” and the criticism directed for that by Gregg (1984), it is
preferable not to see his ideas as a unified and integrated theory but one of the
many models dealing with certain aspects of SLA, which, like other claims,
hypotheses or theories, even competing ones, makes its due contribution to
- SLA research in general.

Section one
The Monitor Model
To Conclude:
- Krashen’s SLA theory changed our concept of language teaching and has suggested
new ideas for communicative language teaching.
- The implications of this theory should be adapted according to the teacher’s
individual situation in order to obtain the best results.
- The years to come will give more shape to this theory, so that, together with
other teaching theories and approaches, it will improve our methodology and our
results.

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
Overview
Section one:
Krashen Monitor model
Section two:
(BICS)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Order
Interface
Cummins’ Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)
Common underlying (language) proficiency' (CUP/CULP)
The Iceberg Model

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Interface
In the field of bilingual education, the concepts of
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)
first proposed by Jim Cummins in 1984, are fundamental in
shedding some light on the development of language
proficiency by immigrant students.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Interface
Cummins (1979)
to draw attention to the disparate time periods that immigrant
children typically need so as to acquire:
basic interpersonal communicative fluency in their L2 in
contrast to
'grade-appropriate academic proficiency' in that language.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Interface
Cummins has developed this model which draws the
relationship between context and cognitive connection
in communicative events.
His model has an important connection to the Input
Hypothesis—adding context to it.
Context : Embedded or Reduced

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Order
Interface
(BICS)
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP)
Common underlying (language) proficiency’
(CUP/CULP)
The Iceberg Model

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Cummins’ Basic Interpersonal Communication
Skills (BICS)
- It refers to linguistic skills needed in everyday, social face-to-
face interactions.
- BICS is defined as language proficiency in daily
communication contexts.
- BICS is often accepted as “playground language,” which is
considered easy to learn in context-embedded, social
situations, and usually develops immediately.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Cummins’ Basic Interpersonal Communication
Skills (BICS)
- The language used in social interactions is
context embedded.
- It is meaningful, cognitively undemanding, and non-
specialized.
- It takes the learner from six months to two years to
develop BICS.
Example: A one-to-one social conversation with physical
gestures, or storytelling activities that include visual props

Section Two
BICS and CALP
(CALP)
- Focuses on proficiency in academic language or language
used in the classroom in the various content areas.
- Academic language is characterized by being abstract,
and specialized.
- Acquiring the language, learners need to develop skills
such as comparing, classifying, synthesizing, evaluating,
and inferring when developing academic competence.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
(CALP)
- CALP is actively developed by tasks that advance from their
current ability to the next, an application of Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development.
- Academic language tasks are context reduced, and also the
language develops into more cognitively demanding.
- It may take children with no prior instruction or no support in
native language development at least five years to develop
CALP
Collier and Thomas (1995)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Four Quadrants Model
Cummins explained about the BICS/CALP differences
regarding two overlapping fields that emphasized the range of
contextual support and cognitive demands engaged in specific
language tasks.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Four Quadrants Model
Cummins (1984)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
The major criticisms CALP / BICS
-The conversational/academic language distinction reflects an
autonomous perspective on language that ignores its location
in social practices and power relations (Edelsky et al., 1983;
Wiley, 1996).
-CALP or academic language proficiency represents little more
than “test- wiseness” - it is an artifact of the
inappropriate way in which it has been measured
(Edelsky et al., 1983).

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Common underlying (language) proficiency (CUP/CULP)
- Cummins also believes that in the course of language
learning, students acquire a set of skills as well as implicit
metalinguistic knowledge that can lend themselves well to
working in another language.
- By introducing CUP, he tried to show the promotion of
cognitive academic skills through cross-lingual proficiencies.
- CUP refers to the interdependence of concepts, skills and
linguistic knowledge found in a central processing system.
.
Cummins (1986)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Common underlying (language) proficiency (CUP/CULP)
For supporting this hypothesis, he later presents the work of
many other researchers to claim that:
bilingualism and continued development in the first language
enhances metalinguistic skills and development in proficiency
in the second language.
This theory lends itself well to reason why learning even
additional languages assumes to be easier and easier.
Cummins (2000)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
The Iceberg Model
Iceberg model of bilingualism, which is another representation
of CULP.
It assumes the transferability across languages of merely
cognitive and literacy skills named CALP.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
The Iceberg Model
Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) (Cummins, 2008)

Section Two
BICS and CALP
The Iceberg Model
The two icebergs represent:
The two languages overlapping and sharing a common
underlying operating system with the water as their deep
structure; although they share in some concepts, outwardly,
both languages are separate.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
The Iceberg Model
The Dual-Iceberg Representation of Bilingual Proficiency (From
Cummins, 2005, September) In fact, although the surface aspects of
different languages (e.g. pronunciation, fluency, etc.) may be different,
there is an underlying cognitive/academic proficiency that is common
across languages. Therefore, this hypothesis posits that learning one
language will facilitate the learning of the other.

Section Two
BICS and CALP
Implications for mainstream teachers
We should not assume that non-native speakers who have attained a
high degree of fluency and accuracy in everyday spoken English have
the corresponding academic language proficiency.
This may help us to avoid labelling children who exhibit this disparity
as having special educational needs when all they need is more time.
The non-native speakers in your classes, who have exited from
the ESL program, are still, in most cases, in the process of
catching up with their native speaking peers.

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
References
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
Cummins, J. (2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to critiques of the conversational/academic language distinction. In J.
Cenoz, & U. Jessner (Eds.),English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (PP.54-83). Clevedon: Multilingual matters
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopediaof
language and education (2nd ed.), (pp. 71-83). New York: Springer.
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language foracademic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 617-642.
Ellis, R., (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
DULAY, H. and BURT, M. (1977) Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finnochiaro
(Eds.) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents. pp. 95-126.
Edelsky, C, Hudelson, S., Altwerger, B., Flores, B., Barkin, F., &Jilbert, K.(1983). Semilingualism and language deficit.Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1-22.
Gass, S. and Selinker, L. 1994. Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79-100. Systems.

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
References
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. Harlow: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1997). The Comprehension Hypothesis: Recent Evidence. English Teachers' Journal, 51, 17-29. Retrieved from
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/English/Publications/ETJFocusonProjects
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann. Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004).
Is
Form-Focused Vocabulary Instruction Worthwhile? RELC Journal, 35(2), 179-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500206
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of second language learning, NY: Edward Arnold.
Wiley, T. G. (1996).Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

The Monitor Model
BICS and CALP
It is the mark of an educated mind to be
able to entertain a thought without
accepting it.
Aristotle

M.cheraghi Krashen-monitor model -BICS and CALP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to M.cheraghi Krashen-monitor model -BICS and CALP

Similar to M.cheraghi Krashen-monitor model -BICS and CALP (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

M.cheraghi Krashen-monitor model -BICS and CALP