Perceptual saliency (competition model) Input frequency (connectionist and social interactionist models) Syntactic complexity Cognitive transparency Artifact of methods and instruments used Native language influence
Acquisition-Learning Distinction Hypothesis Acquisition Learning
Subconscious – implicit learning A distinct process – can never become learning The way children learn the language Meaning focused Inductive Naturalistic settings
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen

12/29/2013
Criticisms on natural sequence hypothesis (contd.)



The sequences are not identical though similar – the items that are learnt in L1 are also learnt earlier in L2 Accuracy order is not acquisition order The morphemes studied are only a tiny part of the language Total disregard for grammar had negative results in Canadian immersion programs It has been shown that teaching can somewhat alter the sequence (noticeability – attention hypothesis)
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Monitor hypothesis
Three conditions: Knowledf time
Availability
12/29/2013

12/29/2013 Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Implications of Acquisition-Learning Distinction Hypothesis
based language teaching – total immersion is preferable. Provide meaningful contexts for understanding language Provide meaningful communication activities such as information gap activities.

Conscious – explicit learning A distinct process – can never become acquisition The way adults learn the language Grammar (form) focused Deductive Formal settings

12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Criticisms


Subconscious – conscious is a psychological process It is possible they are two endpoints in a continuum (for Krashen, learning cannot become acquisition and vice versa) Confusion between learning settings and psychological processes Problem in defining what a formal setting is Research shows that children are not the best language learners Experimental verification is impossible
12/29/2013 Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Implications of monitor hypothesis
Model
language and do not teach grammar explicitly.
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Monitor hypothesis
Grammar
focused learning leads to grammar focused production Children do not monitor so why should adults? Learning language is different from learning about language.
Content
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Natural (order) sequence hypothesis
Children
learn language in a predictable sequence. It is impossible to alter the course of development since language acquisition, be it L1 or L2 is a UG driven process. Grammar teaching is a waste of time.
hypothesis Natural sequence/order hypothesis Monitor hypothesis Comprehensible input hypothesis Affective filter hypothesis
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
12/29/2013
Current research opinion on acquisition – learning distinction
Krashen may be correct – neurobiological findings in the last 3 or 4 years indicate that there are two kinds of knowledge – declarative (what) and procedural (how). Originally they were considered to be two sides of the same coin. They have been shown to be two entirely different processes It is possible that children acquire language procedurally from the start whereas adults learn declarative knowledge and then try to convert it into procedural knowledge.
All
these names refer to the one and the same model
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Five hypotheses
Acquisition
– learning distinction
12/29/2013
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
Criticisms on monitor hypothesis
Children
do monitor Children are not the best language learners. The hypothesis is not falsifiable. Total disregard for grammar had negative effects in the Canadian immersion programs. Noticeability hypothesis – monitoring may in fact be good.
Dr. Swathi Vanniarajan, LLD 270 Krashen
12/29/2013
Implications of natural order hypothesis
Errors
are developmental and are a natural byproduct of learning – tolerate them. Allow learners to make errors and do not correct them