A Critical Analysis of Krashen’s Monitor Theory
Transcript of A Critical Analysis of Krashen’s Monitor Theory
The Monitor Theory
Eng. 526Trends in Educational Linguistics
Term Paper
A Critical Analysis of
Krashen’s Monitor Theory:
Implications for Foreign
Language Teaching
Written by:Enas Al.Musallam
Second semester 2005/2006
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1
The Monitor Theory
The most ambitious as well as the most controversial theory which attempts to provide an
overall account for SLA is Krashen’s Monitor Theory. This theory has had a large impact on
all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s; thus, received extensive
attention in the professional literature. Yet despite this impact, it received a great deal of
criticism. For these reasons, I attempt to provide a critical analysis of the theory’s five main
hypotheses in this paper. In addition, I aim to address what I consider to be some of the
theory’s implications for current ES/FL teaching by drawing on my own experiences in the
classroom as a teacher and as a student of English language.
1. The Monitor Theory:
Krashen has frequently changed some elements in his theory; which was actually not a
theory at all but merely a model in the beginning, and which has undergone quite few stages
of subsequent development culminating in the full-grown theory of the 1980s (Binnema, n.d.).
Without diving too deep into all these developments and refinements, a description of the five
main hypotheses of Krashen’s theory in its mature stage will be given.
1.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis holds that “adults have two distinct and
independent ways of developing competence in a second language: acquisition, which is
subconscious, and learning, which is conscious” (Gregg, 1984:79). Language acquisition is a
subconscious process similar to the way a child learns his first language—i.e. acquisition
takes place through natural language interactions. Language acquirers are not consciously
aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but may self-correct only on the basis of a
feel for grammaticality. Language learning, on the other hand, refers to the conscious
knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to
Enas I. Al-Musallam
2
The Monitor Theory
talk about them. Therefore, language learning takes place predominantly in formal instruction.
Krashen claims that the two shall remain disparate (Krashen, 1981).
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis indicates that adults do not lose the ability to
acquire languages the way that children do, since krashen claims that adults can access the
same natural language acquisition device (LAD) that children use. He also assumes that
learning does not turn into acquisition (Stewart, n.d.; Larsen-Freeman &Long, 1991).
1.2. The Natural Order Hypothesis:
The Natural Order Hypothesis states that the acquisition of grammatical structures
proceeds in a predictable order. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be
acquired early, others late without regard to the first language of a given learner, his age, and
conditions of exposure. A series of research studies investigating morpheme acquisition
orders provided evidence for the Natural Order Hypothesis (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman,
1975; Makino, 1980 as cited in Schutz, 2005). Although the agreement between individual
acquirers was not always 100% in these studies, there were statistically significant similarities
that reinforced the existence of a natural order.
This natural order does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form, yet it could be
altered by forcing another sequence in the teaching process. This natural order dictates the
way in which a language is acquired, but learning might follow another order (Gitsaki, 1998;
Wilson, 2000).
1.3. The Monitor Hypothesis:
The Monitor Hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning, and
defines the influence of the latter on the former. This hypothesis holds that formal learning
has only one function which is as a monitor for the learner’s output, whereas the acquired
Enas I. Al-Musallam
3
The Monitor Theory
system is the utterance initiator. The monitor functions properly when three specific
conditions are met: 1. there is sufficient time, 2. the focus of the interaction is on form rather
than meaning, and 3. the learner knows the rule in question (Krashen, 1981; Schulz, 1991;
Schutz, 2005). This monitoring involves self-correction on the base of learned language rules
and is completely different from the monitoring during acquisition; where no explicit rules
need to be involved.
Krashen (1981) suggests that there is individual variation among language learners
regarding 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners who use the 'monitor' all the time
(over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious
knowledge (under-users); and those learners who use the 'monitor' appropriately when it does
not interfere with communication (optimal users). Optimal monitor users can use their learned
competence as a supplement to their acquired competence. Most of the time, however,
Krashen suggests leaving the monitor unemployed; and concentrating upon meaning rather
form.
1.4. The Input Hypothesis:
The Input Hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops
competency over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at “level I” must receive
comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” In other words, we acquire only when we
understand language which contains structure that is 'a little beyond' our current level. This is
achieved with the help of context or exralinguistic information (Gitsaki, 1998; Wilson, 2000).
Evidence for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech
from an adult to a child, teacher-talk from a teacher to a language student, and foreigner-talk
from a sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer (Krashen, 1981). This
Enas I. Al-Musallam
4
The Monitor Theory
hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the first second language utterances of adult
learners are often very similar to those of infants in their first language. Krashen also provides
the so-called ‘silent period’ as evidence for this hypothesis—i.e., children learning a second
language commonly speak very little in the target language for the first several months
(Romeo, 2000).
A result of this hypothesis is that language students should be given an initial ‘silent
period’ during which they can build up acquired competence in the language before beginning
to produce it. Krashen states, “In accordance with the Input Hypothesis, speaking ability
emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and
understanding” (as cited in Gregg, 1984, p. 90). Moreover, Krashen suggests that natural
communicative input is the key to design a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner
will receive some i+1 input which is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic
competence.
1.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis:
The Affective Filter Hypothesis embodies Krashen’s view 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, a high
affective filter inhibits acquisition, whereas a low affective filter promotes it. According to
Krashen, this filter is present in adults but not in children, and accounts for the failure of a
Enas I. Al-Musallam
5
The Monitor Theory
learner in acquiring a second language. (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; The Monitor Model,
n.d.)
These five hypotheses of second language acquisition can be summarized as: 1.
Acquisition is inevitable and more important than learning. 2. In order to acquire, two
conditions are necessary. The first is comprehensible input containing i+1—i.e., structures a
bit beyond the acquirer’s current level, and second, a low or weak affective filter to allow the
input in (Wilson, 2000).
2. A Critique of the Monitor Theory:
Now that we have become acquainted with the basic features of Krashen’s theory, it is
important to take a closer look at the criticisms that have arisen considering his theory. I
believe that these criticisms stem from several issues. First, Krashen’s theory was one of the
first theories developed specifically to explain SLA. Second, his theory made a large number
of claims about a wide array of SLA phenomena, many of which seemed empirically
falsifiable, which thus attracted researchers critical of the idea. Finally, Krashen’s theory was
closely tied to recommendations for classroom practice; as a result, it seemed important to
test.
Serious concerns were first expressed by McLaughlin (1978), who acknowledges
Krashen’s attempt to develop an extensive and detailed SLA theory, but finds it inadequate in
that some of its central assumptions and hypotheses are not clearly defined. As a result, they
are not readily testable (Gitsaki, 1998). McLaughlin (1987, p. 56) states that, “Krashen’s
theory fails at every juncture...Krashen has not defined his terms with enough precision, the
empirical basis of the theory is weak, and the theory is not clear in its predictions” (as cited in
Binnema, n.d.). McLaughlin (1987) points out that Krashen never adequately defines
Enas I. Al-Musallam
6
The Monitor Theory
acquisition, learning, conscious or subconscious; without such clarification, it is extremely
difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language
(Romeo, 2000).
Seliger (1979) also criticizes Krashen’s theory pointing out that it is too complex in that
it asks us to believe that human language users have two completely separate systems: one for
acquisition and one for learning— presumably each with its own neuro-physiological basis.
Although the idea of two separate linguistic systems is possible, it is improbable because such
a set up would be an inefficient way to store information (Low & Morrison, n.d). Moreover, I
believe that Krashen fails to explain the process of acquisition, or why learned information is
not accessible in the same way as acquired information is.
Gregg (1984) notes that Krashen’s use of the LAD gives it a much wider scope of
operation than Chomsky’s application. Krashen’s insistence that “learning” cannot become
“acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized grammar
that was previously consciously memorized. Drawing on my own experience in learning
English, I believe that at least some rules can be acquired through learning. For example, I
learned the rules of subject-verb agreement by memorizing charts provided by my teacher;
like most of my classmates, I produced predominantly error-free sentences within a few days
with no input other than some drills.
According to Gregg (1984), “If ‘learning’ cannot become ‘acquisition’, and if…most of
our knowledge of a second language is necessarily unconscious, then it makes little sense to
call ‘learning’ one of two distinct and independent ways of developing competence in a
second language” (p. 81). Indeed, Krashen did not provide any real evidence that people
require two completely separate systems in order to learn a language (The Monitor Model,
Enas I. Al-Musallam
7
The Monitor Theory
n.d.). Furthermore, if two different systems for learning a language did exist, people would
not be able to master a language in a formal setting only, yet many do just that. The Saudi
context services as a prime example; many students succeed in learning English although they
are exposed only to the foreign language in the formal classroom setting.
Krashen further claims that language acquirers may self-correct only on the basis of a feel
for grammaticality, whereas language learners do so on the basis of grammar rules. Drawing
on my own experience as an English teacher, I once asked my students to judge two sentences
—Pick the book up/Pick it up*(1)— in order to provide them with the particle movement rule.
Surprisingly, some students said that the second sentence was incorrect. When asked why it
was incorrect, they responded that they felt that it was incorrect, although they did not know
the rule. It is important to note that my students are learners— not acquirers— according to
Krashen’s definition of language learning. Thus, Krashen’s view on self-correction must be
questioned.
The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable
order. Gregg (1984) argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes
from, for example, phonology or syntax. In addition, if individual differences exist, as
discussed in 1.2, then the hypothesis is not provable or falsifiable and is, in the end, not
useful.
The insufficiencies of this hypothesis become more apparent when examining it in terms
of comprehension and production. Many studies into the order of acquisition, especially those
in first language acquisition, are based on production. The fact that a learner uses a specific
grammatical feature does not necessarily mean that he uses it appropriately, or that he
1 The asterisk (*) indicates incorrect sentence.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
8
The Monitor Theory
understands how it works (McLaughlin, 1978, as cited in Romeo, 2000). Further, it is not
clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two processes
differ in order, it is not clear how they would interact.
The Monitor Hypothesis holds that learning has only one function, which is to monitor
the learner’s output. McLaughlin (1978, as cited in Romeo, 2000) points out that restricting
learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension. In fact, Krashen
fails to take into account the role that monitoring plays in the reception of language.
Throughout my experience in learning English, learning has played a role in both
comprehension and production. My claim is supported by the fact that teachers monitor
students’ output and learners monitor the output of their colleagues.
Furthermore, Krashen not only does not explain how this monitor operates, but he also
fails to prove that acquisition has no role in monitoring. McLaughlin raised these points in his
criticism, but Krashen (1979) did not answer them in his reply (Romeo, 2000). In addition,
Gregg points out that, by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in
production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor
Hypothesis contradictory. It is difficult to reconcile the contradiction since Krashen offers no
evidence for either of these hypotheses.
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis has also been criticized. McLaughlin claims that the concept
of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i+1 is (The Monitor
Model, n.d.). I believe that educators also face difficulty in applying this rule in the classroom
since individual differences comes into play when determining the learners’ current levels.
Krashen did not provide solutions regarding this issue. Furthermore, many structures such as
passives and yes/no questions cannot be learned through context alone.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
9
The Monitor Theory
The Input Hypothesis maintains that increased input will result in more language
acquisition, and that increased output will not. However, no clear evidence exists for this
assumption. Romeo (2000) indicates that output of some kind is seen as a necessary phase in
language acquisition. On the one hand, teachers need students’ output in order to be able to
judge their progress and adapt materials to their needs. On the other hand, learners need the
opportunity to use the L2 because when faced with communication failure, they are forced to
make their output more precise. These arguments suggest that, if comprehensible input is
necessary, then so is comprehensible output. Yet this goes against Krashen’s hypothesis.
Researchers note several problems with the Affective Filter Hypothesis as well. Krashen
seems to indicate that the affective filter manifests itself at around the age of puberty.
However, he does not make any serious attempts to explain how and why this filter develops
only with the onset of puberty. Further, he does not explain how this filter would selectively
choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (Low & Morrison, n.d). Laser-Freeman and
Long (1991) state that “to provide…empirical content, Krashen would need to specify which
affect variables, singly or in what combinations, and at what levels, serve to ‘raise the filter’”
(p. 247). Clearly no explanation exists as to how this filter works. For example, is it sufficient
for one aspect of a learner’s affective state, such as motivation, to be positive, or do all
aspects have to be positive in order to lower the filter—and if so, to what degree? People who
are unmotivated, stressed, or worried will not learn as well. In fact, this idea is not just
applicable to language learning, but for any kind of learning. However, unlike Krashen, I
believe that this idea applies to prepubescent children as well.
In conclusion, some of Krashen’s Monitor Theory’s central assumptions and hypotheses
are not clearly defined and, thus, are not readily testable or falsifiable. In this vein, Gregg
Enas I. Al-Musallam
10
The Monitor Theory
(1984) states that “each of Krashen’s five hypotheses is marked by serious flaws: undefined
or ill-defined terms, unmotivated constructs, lack of empirical content and thus of
falsifiability, lack of explanatory power” (p.94). However, I believe that, despite the various
criticisms, Krashen's Monitor Theory of second language acquisition has had a great impact
on the way second language learning is viewed, and has initiated research seeking to discover
the order of acquisition.
3. Implications for Foreign Language Teaching:
Krashen’s Monitor Theory’s influence on language education research and practice is
undeniable. I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the theory’s
implications for contemporary ES/FL teaching by drawing on my own experience in the
classroom as a teacher and as a student of English language.
According to Krashen, classroom teaching benefits students when it provides the
necessary comprehensible input to those students who are not yet at a level that enables them
to receive comprehensible input from “the real world” or do not have access to “real world”
language speakers. Classroom teaching can also help by providing students with
communication tools that enable them to make better use of the outside world, and when it
provides beneficial conscious learning for optimal monitor users (Schulz, 1991).
In fact, I believe the implications of this input factor are considerable for foreign
language teaching environments. The input factor points to the need for language proficiency
on the part of the teacher, who is frequently the only live source of input (other than that
provided by other learners) available to students. As a result, cooperative learning can be an
excellent way for foreign language students to acquire comprehensible input from their peers.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
11
The Monitor Theory
Second, the input factor points to the importance of instructional time in a conventional FL
program, suggesting that language institutions should increase program hours.
Moreover, the Input Hypothesis suggests language students should be given an initial
“silent period” during which they can build up acquired competence in the language before
beginning to produce it. However, I do not agree with Krashen on this point. Language
learners and acquirers should be encouraged to produce the target language gradually from the
beginning—i.e., students should be asked to produce words at the beginning, and
subsequently to form full sentences. To succeed in this process, language teachers must
provide production opportunities for their students from the first day.
Our pedagogical goals should not only include supplying comprehensible input, but also
creating a situation that encourages a low filter. The Input Hypothesis and the concept of the
Affective Filter have redefined the effective language teacher as someone who can provide
input and help make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation (Wilson, 2000). I believe
that the atmosphere of the language classroom must be congenial. Language teachers can
make a difference in students’ motivation, anxiety levels, and self-images, by respecting their
students, listening to them, and taking note of what they say.
Furthermore, a correlate of this theory is that, when teachers correct output, they do not
help the student. The lack of in-class correction is a direct reflection of both the Affective
Filter Hypothesis, which suggests creating a low anxiety learning environment, and the
Natural Order Hypothesis, which claims that the teacher allows the natural order to take its
place by allowing students’ errors to occur. I agree with Krashen on this point; language
learners lose their motivation if they are continuously corrected.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
12
The Monitor Theory
4. The Monitor Theory and the Saudi Curriculum:
In this section, I aim to examine briefly how Krashen’s theory influenced the design of
the Saudi curriculum. Thus, it is evident that Krashen’s theory had relatively little—if any—
impact on the Saudi curriculum. Krashen’s hypotheses led to the belief that conscious
teaching and learning were not useful in the language learning process and that any attempt to
teach or learn language in a formal way was doomed to failure. However, as has been
discussed in the early criticism, the situation of teaching English in Saudi Arabia contradicts
Krashen’s view.
In addition, Krashen proposed that second language learners follow the “natural” order
of acquisition for grammatical morphemes. However, he points out that the implication of the
Natural Order Hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on it. An
examination of the grammatical component of the Saudi curriculum indicates that this order
has been altered and is arranged according to simplicity of form.
Finally, Krashen claims that speech cannot be taught directly; instead, it emerges on
its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. However, the Saudi
curriculum does not follow this claim. In fact, it provides activities that directly enhance
speaking. “Each unit will include a lesson that provides speaking activities” (English for
Saudi Arabia, 1421H, p. 2). Clearly, this goes against Krashen’s view.
5. Conclusion:
Krashen’s Monitor Theory is an example of a macro theory attempting to cover most of
the factors involved in second language acquisition: age, personality traits, classroom
instruction, innate mechanisms of language acquisition, environmental influences, input, etc.
Despite its popularity, the Monitor Theory has been criticized by theorists and researchers
Enas I. Al-Musallam
13
The Monitor Theory
mainly on the grounds of its definitional adequacy. Yet despite these criticisms, Krashen’s
Monitor Theory has had significant impact on SL/ FL teaching.
References
Enas I. Al-Musallam
14
The Monitor Theory
Binnema, J. (n.d.). A closer look at the Monitor Model and some of its criticism. Retrieved
December 28, 2006, from
http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~w3spz/hull/KrashensMonitorModel.html
English for Saudi Arabia. (1421H). K.S.A: Ministry of Education, Educational Development.
Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation. Journal of
Communication and International Studies 4(2), 89-98.
Gregg, K.R. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.
England: Longman.
Low, G.& Morrison, D. (n.d.). Some new perspectives on monitoring and the language learner.
University of Hong Kong, Language Center.
Romeo, K. (2000). Krashen and Terrell’s “Natural Approach”. Retrieved December 28, 2006,
from http://www.stanford.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm
Schulz, R. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they fit? The
Modern Language Journal, 75, 17-26
Schutz, R. (2005). Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition. Retrieved January 1,
2006, from http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
Stewart, B. (n.d.). Critical perspectives on learning vs. acquisition in Krashen’s Monitor Model.
Retrieved December 28, 2006, from
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rs831494/stuff_from_school_mac/Bodie/Krashen_final.doc
Enas I. Al-Musallam
15
The Monitor Theory
The Monitor Model. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2006, from
http://www.auburn.edu/~keithcs/monitor.htm
Wilson, R. (2000). A summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition". Retrieved December 28, 2006, from
http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm
Enas I. Al-Musallam
16