PFLT lectures 11 -12 What do teachers bring to

PFLT(lectures 11 -12) What do teachers bring to the teaching-learning process? 1. 2. 3. Teachers’ beliefs about learners and learning. Teachers’ beliefs about themselves. Krashen’s Theory of SLA.

The teacher as a reflective practitioner. A reflective teacher needs a kind of educational technology which does more than extend her capacity to administer drill and practice. Most interesting to her is an educational technology which helps students to become aware of their own intuitive understandings, to fall into cognitive confusions, and explore new directions of understanding and action. So, teachers should subject their everyday professional practice to ongoing critical reflections and make clean their own particular world view by means of such considerations.

Teachers’ beliefs about learners and learning. Teachers’ deep-rooted beliefs about how languages are learned will pervade their classroom actions more than a particular methodology they are told to adopt. Meighan suggest that learners may be construed metaphorically as: -resisters -receptacles -raw material -clients -partners -individual/democratic explorers

Resisters T. Sees learners as people who do not want to learn punishment Receptacles Learners are seen as mugs to be filled with knowledge. Raw-material Shaping learners according to teacher’s wishes Clients Identification of educational need Partner Taking on the role of student amongst students ind. /dem. Explorer/ Facilitator learners explore for themselves

Teachers’ beliefs about themselves. A teacher who lacks self-esteem will find it impossible to build the self-esteem of others (the same is with dignity and respect) Quality which is central to the humanistic approach is that of permissiveness. A very special way was ‘permission to be oneself’ , to pursue interest and curiosity in search of meaning in one’s life, as well as the freedom to have ideas and beliefs.

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Contents 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Introduction: Who IS Stephen Krashen? Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory Conclusion References

introduction n 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. n During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles the most recent being Power of Reading; Condemned Without A Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Education; Three Arguments Against Whole Language and Why They Are Wrong; and Foreign Language Teaching: The Easy Way. n This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980 s. Dr. Stephen Krashen motivates thousands of professional educators and administrators with his entertaining style and expert methods for effective second language acquisition. Dr. Krashen is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards including the Distinguished National Leadership Award and the Outstanding Book in Second Language Acquisition Award. n n

Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Input hypothesis, • and the Affective Filter hypothesis. 1. n n n

The Acquisition-Learning n n n distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act. The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.

Acquisition-Learning He claimed that adults have 2 means for internalizing the target language. 1. ‘acquisition’ – subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language. 2. ‘learning’ – conscious, in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, generally aware of their own process. Fluency in SL performance in due to what are have acquired, not what we have learned.

Acquisition Learning implicit, subconscious explicit, conscious informal situations uses grammatical 'feel' uses grammatical rules depends on attitude depends on aptitude stable order of acquisition simple to complex order of learning

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. n The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is, n the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal n he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, n and he/she knows the rule. n

n n n It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance. Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that 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 that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimalusers). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.

The Natural Order hypothesis n is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. n This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L 1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. n Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

The Input hypothesis n is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.

Important condition for language acquisition to occur: 1) 2) 3) 4) If an acquirer is at stage or level I, the input he understands should contain i+ 1 ( far enough beyond their current competence) The input should neither be so far beyond their reach ( i+2) , nor so close to their current stage that they are not challenged at all ( i+0) Speaking should not be taught directly or very soon in the language classroom. Speech will emerge once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input ( i+1) The best acquisition will occur in low ‘affective filter’, where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent.

It is important to distinguish between input and intake Second language learners are exposed to potentially large quantities of input, only a fraction of which become an intake. Certain learners are what we call them HIG (high input generators) – people who are good at initiating and sustaining interaction, or generating input from teachers, learners and others. LIG – passive learners who do little to stick their necks out to get input directed toward them.

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis n 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. n 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. n 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, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place. n

Criticisms of Krashen: 1. 2. 3. Students do not all begin at the same starting point (i) and then progress to i+1 and so on - there is far more variation. Mc. Laughlin : Krashen's conscious vs. unconscious distinction lacks credibility. Chomsky: Krashen's notion of comprehensible input is ridiculous. Language has nothing to do with input, but rather it is a biological precondition for a human being. Kaplan's evaluation of Krashen's Monitor Theory: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Definitional Adequacy - no, Krashen never defines what he means by learning and acquiring as well as how comprehensible input progresses. Explanatory Power - no, many variables are left unexplained. Parsimony - no, his theory is unclear - how to apply " i + i "? Falsifiability - no, this theory is fruitless, e. g. one person's' 'i + 1" is another's "i + 501, Pragmatic Significance - yes, it has some relevance in an ESL classroom as to what ideas and theories lack credibility and why.

Conclusion n Krashen's hypotheses were interesting, and provided some insights into the way we might present a foreign language. However, they suffer from under-definition and over-generalisation, and we need to recognise that they cannot represent the last word on language teaching. It is our opinion that they had the merit of directing teachers' attention to the need for varied and interesting input, to the need to take care over such questions as error-correction, meaningful communication, and the provision of a learnercentred classroom that encourages learning, rather than punishing failure.

Krashen's Five Hypotheses Matching exercise Match the items on the right with the items on the left The natural order hypothesis The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis 'a mental block, caused by affective factors. . . that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985, p. 100) 'conscious learning. . . can only be used as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) 'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order' 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input" 'adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages. . acquisition, that is by using language for real communication. . . learning. . "knowing about" language' (Krashen & Terrell 1983)

check The natural order hypothesis The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis 'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order'' 'adults have two distinctive ways of developing competences in second languages. . acquisition, that is by using language for real communication. . . learning. . "knowing about" language' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) The Monitor Hypothesis 'conscious learning. . . can only be used as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) The Input Hypothesis 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input" The Affective Filter Hypothesis a mental block, caused by affective factors. . . that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985, p. 100)

• • n n n References: http: //web. ku. edu/tesl/ct 822_lesson 5. htm www. geocities. com/pan_andrew/sla. htm - 58 k Krashen, S. D. (1983). Practical Applications of Research. Psycholinguistic Research ACTFL Yearbook. Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook. P. 54 -65. Gregg, K R. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, pp. 79 -100. Higgs, T. V. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: an inside look. Foreign Language Annals, 18 (3), 197 -203. Mc. Laughlin, B. (1990). "Conscious" Versus "Unconscious" Learning. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Winter, pp. 617 -634. Krashen, S. D. (2006). Did Reading First Work?