Sunday, July 20, 2008

Cultural factors

Do cultural factors need to be discussed separately or do you think they can all be subsumed under ‘individual differences’? Present your case.

Brown (2000, p.177) defines culture as “a context of cognitive and affective behaviour, a template for personal and social existence” which establishes how a cultural group defines the world, and determines what is valued in terms of behaviour, relationships, and attitudes. Brown (2000, p.179) points out that, “cross-cultural research has shown that there are indeed characteristics of culture that make one culture different from another” (see also Wierzbiecka, 1991). Since “language is a part of a culture, and a culture is a part of a language” (Brown, 2000, p.177) cultural factors affecting SLL need to be considered in their own right, and not simply as they relate to individual learner difference. Since any ascribing of cultural values is necessarily normative, cultural factors should not be used to stereotype individual students; rather the impact of cultural factors on SLL is valuable for both teachers and students to consider in a spirit of enquiry rather than as a simple explanatory mechanism. This essay will explore three types of impact:

1) Effects on SLL of the L1 culture’s attitudes towards the target language and culture

Attitudes of a particular culture/language group towards another can influence the integrative and instrumental motivation of target language learners. The high status of English is reflected both in the growing number of people around the world who are motivated to become proficient English users because of its necessity “in the world of work and in practical communication” (Chambers, 2000, p.71), and in the declining interest of English native speakers in learning an SL (see e.g. Graddol, 2006; Clyne, 2005), so that SL teachers in Australia now need to advocate proactively the benefits of SL learning to counteract community disinterest.
However high status languages are not universally appealing. Minority groups in countries or cultures that have been colonised (e.g. Australian indigenous peoples), due to a “history of brutal subjugation and denigration of their way of life”, may reject “the values of the dominant group and … its educational system” (Mangubhai, 1997, p.39), and consequently also its language.


2) Effect of learners’ understanding of culture on SL proficiency

For many learners, SLL involves exposure to how the embedded cultural values, behaviours and norms of the L2 culture differ to those of their own. Misunderstandings, disorientation, frustration, and anxiety are all possible features of ‘culture shock’ (Brown, 2000; Schumann, 1986) and, as Mangubhai (1997) writes, if the issue of cultural differences is left unaddressed, it may lead to a decrease in learners’ motivation and a possible rejection of SL learning.
Cultural similarity or congruence between two cultures can facilitate SLL through increased social contact (Spolsky, 1989) and positive transfer from the L1. For example, the formulae for beginning meals in German and French (Guten Appetit; bon appétit) emphasises that “eating is fundamentally a social event and an event to be shared with others” (Crozet and Liddicoat, 1997, p.10) and the lack of such a formula in English may make cause French or German people to think negatively towards the seeming lack of politeness in English-speaking cultures. Even when similar phrases exist in different languages, their pragmatic meaning may differ. Although all the above countries use a greeting followed by a health inquiry (Hello. How are you?/ Hallo. Wie geht’s?/ Allo, ça vas?), Crozet and Liddicoat (1997) point out that while it has a ritual function in Australian English, in French and German it is used as a genuine inquiry and as such can cause upset or confusion when not used sincerely.

The scope for misunderstanding is exacerbated when two cultures are very different. For example, Scollon and Wong-Scollon (1991, p.113) conclude that the Asian use of “inductive, or delayed, introduction of topics leaves Westerners confused about what the topic is”, while Western ‘deductive’ ways which “introduce topics early in a conversation” strike Asians as “abrupt or rude”. Western style academic writing, which as Mangubhai (1997, p.26, citing Matalene, 1985) points out, “values authentic voice, self-expression, stylistic innovation, …directness…, a stance, and the citation of evidence to prove one’s case” can also cause problems for students from cultures where critically evaluating ‘expert’ texts can be seen as self-promoting criticism “contributing to disharmony” (Mangubhai, 1997, p.26).
If such conflicts are not explicitly addressed in the classroom, and students gradually encouraged to adapt to and incorporate new behaviours, values, ways of thinking, and patterns of expression, students may have negative experiences (e.g. social isolation, low marks, failure to progress) which will negatively impact on their motivation to continue SLL. More positively, the SL classroom can serve as an excellent place for the exploration of the target culture, one’s own culture, and the demarcation of a ‘third place’ from which to negotiate meaning across cultures (Lo Bianco, Liddicoat and Crozet, 1999). The teacher is instrumental in assisting students to be able to “function in the new environment” (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1997, p.4) without abandoning their own cultural values and identity.

3) Effect of cultural factors in teaching and learning

Hofstede (1986) suggests four categories of cultural norms that may impact on teaching and learning. I find the first two most useful and convincing but that may reflect Australia’s position at a polar end in these two categories (see http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions). The examples given have been observed in my ESL classes in Australia:
- Individualism versus collectivism – students from countries with a tendency for collectivism (e.g. Japan, Korea, China) may speak out less in class than students from countries where individualism (e.g. Australia, Italy, France, Germany) is valued, so I need to be aware not to let the European students dominate in class and ‘teach to’ them. Debates and discussions have to be framed and organised carefully to encourage participation.
- Power Distance - students from countries with high PD (e.g. Malaysia, China, Indonesia) may be accustomed to teacher-centred classes and resist ideas of self-directed and peer learning. I came across this in delivering a TESOL teacher training course to Chinese teachers that I had constructed around the notion of us ‘exploring’ topics and learning with and from each other. The Chinese teachers resisted this saying that I was the teacher so I should teach them. After changing the structure of the course to include more ‘lectures’, I found, somewhat paradoxically, that they became more receptive to asking and answering questions and offering personal observations.
- Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which people are threatened by a lack of structure or by uncertain events. Students from countries with high U.A. (e.g. Japan, France, Korea) may prefer more structured classes and activities and expect teachers to provide them with ‘right’ answers.
- Masculinity versus femininity depicts the degree to which ‘masculine’ traits such as competition and the importance of success in work and academia, are preferred to ‘female characteristics’ such as cooperation and negotiation. Japan is supposedly the most ‘masculine’ country but this value is not particularly observable in the Japanese students I teach – possibly because of their youth or the fact that they are outside of (and perhaps outsiders within) Japan. This shows the importance of neither considering nor presenting cultures as monolithic, static, and stereotyped, as variations within and across cultures need to be recognised and explored.

From this brief discussion, it can be seen that cultural factors impact on SLL in a sufficiently wide range of ways to make them necessary of consideration in their own right and not simply in the context of individual learner difference.

Is motivation the best answer for explaining the success or failure of second language learning?

Is motivation the best answer for explaining the success or failure of second language learning?

Motivation has been recognised by teachers and researchers as “one of the key factors that influence the rate and success of second/foreign language (L2) learning” (Dörnyei, 1998, p.117). It can be said to be the key to success in learning a second language for the following reasons:
· Motivation is needed to start and continue the “long and often tedious process” of SLL and other individual factors generally ‘presuppose’ some form of motivation (Dörnyei, 1998, p.117)
· It is possible for a teacher to influence students’ motivation in a positive way whereas other determining factors such as intelligence, aptitude, and age are less susceptible to a teacher’s influence.
· Even the most able learners will not succeed without motivation, while high motivation on the other hand, can make up for deficiencies in aptitude and learning conditions (Dörnyei, 1998).

Recent research into psychological theories of action-control, expectancy-value, self-worth, goal orientation and setting, self-determination (see Dörnyei, 1998, for an overview) emphasises the complex character of motivation as a individual factor that is not static or stable, but rather a dynamic, cyclic process of continuous change with “at least three distinct phases” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.140). This three-phase taxonomy (pre-actional, actional, and post-actional) will be used to discuss the centrality of motivation within the various stages of the SLL process.

Pre-actional phase or choice motivation

This relates to the initial motivation of why someone is learning an SL and also includes learners’ beliefs, perceptions, ‘linguistic self-confidence’ and goal direction (what they think they can achieve, or how they will cope). Attitudes towards an SL community, its people and language, may initiate, increase or inhibit integrative motivation SLL (Gardner, 1985). Instrumental motivation (i.e. to learn the language as a means to an end such as career advancement, academic research etc) may be more important in certain contexts (Lukmani, 1972, cited in USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008), so it is important for teachers to be aware of, and encourage, both integrative and instrumental motivations of students. Some students begin with a strong integrative or instrumental motivation, some develop this over time (revealing the importance of actional phase motivation), and some never develop either, nearly always resulting in them fossilising or dropping out of study. It is therefore important to get to know my students so that I can find ways to encourage the development of both integrative motivation (e.g. by organising language exchange conversation classes; using interesting authentic materials; presenting different aspects of the culture through music, movies, discussion topics etc. that fit with learners’ ages and interests), and instrumental motivation (e.g. pointing out opportunities for them to further their goals, working with them to break down larger goals into smaller more easily attainable goals, and incorporating learning activities that fit with their goals).

Actional phase or executive motivation


Dörnyei (2001, p.116) agrees with Keller (1983) that motivation is the "neglected heart" of our understanding of how to design instruction, with the teacher bearing primary responsibility for motivating or demotivating students. Even students with high initial motivation can lose their motivation if the actual learning process does not provide the following (using criteria from Crookes, 2003, citing Keller, 1983):
1) Interest – Crookes (2003) emphasises the importance of providing variety, stimulation, and explanatory mapping when beginning lessons and framing activities, and avoiding too-regular patterns of classroom routines, so that “learners’ curiosity is aroused and sustained” (p. 130).
2) Relevance – a “prerequisite for sustained motivation requires the learner to perceive that important personal needs are being met by the learning situation” (Crookes, 2003, p.130). These are not only instrumental needs, but also needs for “power, affiliation, and achievement” (Crookes, 2003, p.132). Although different cultures value these needs differently (see Q. 5), cooperative learning structures appear to reduce anxiety and increase self-confidence and motivation compared to competitive or individualistic structures of learning (Dörnyei, 2001). It is also important that learning occur within a relaxed and supportive atmosphere (Good and Brophy, 1994), with sufficient structure to ensure that the environment feels safe and non-threatening.

3) Expectancy – learners who think that they are likely to succeed and who attribute success or failure to their own efforts are more highly motivated (Crookes, 2003). Learner autonomy seems “to foster intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy, all of which are critical components of ‘continuing motivation’” (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996 p. 477). As Cooke (2003, p.130) writes, “(i)ntrinsic motivation can be closely related to expectancy, meaning that the teacher should ensure that materials and how they are used are pitched at the level of the learners so as to be sufficiently challenging without being frustrating and de-motivating.

Post-actional or motivational retrospection

This relates to how learners “evaluate how things went” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.175), which influences their future actions and motivations in SLL. In an educational setting this self-evaluation may largely be determined by marks/grades, feedback or praise. Dörnyei (2001) suggests the importance of:
· fostering the belief that competence is a changeable aspect of development (e.g. by connecting students with students/community members who have successfully achieved similar goals; dialoguing with students regarding learning strategies)
· providing regular experiences of success to promote favourable self-conceptions of L2 competence (breaking large tasks down into more easily achieved smaller tasks; having students set and record weekly or even daily goals in their language learning journals so they have a sense of moving forward)
· promoting attributions to effort rather than to ability (“I can see that you’ve really been working to build up your vocabulary and you’ve been able to express more complex ideas as a result – well done” cf. “You’re good at writing”)
· providing motivational and specific feedback
Crookes (2003, p.133) adds that “teachers may need to discourage a concern with grades because otherwise unsolicited participation and risk taking will be low”.

In conclusion, it can be seen even from this very condensed discussion of its varied and interconnected impacts, that motivation is central to learner success at all stages of the SLL process. Teachers may appreciate the student who is intrinsically motivated to learn, but they cannot rely on all students possessing such motivation, nor that any initial enthusiasm for SLL will continue if students find the process itself boring or unrewarding. It is therefore essential for an SL teacher to recognise and nurture the diverse motivations learners bring to and develop both in and outside of the SL classroom.


Reference List

Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170-190). London: Arnold.

Crookes, G. (2003). A practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 31, 117–135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477-86.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

University of Southern Queensland. (2008). LIN8001 Principles of second language learning study book. Toowoomba: USQ.

Cognitive styles

Role and importance of cognitive styles

Cognitive styles can be seen as an application of cognitive abilities that have developed in a person, and are “preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning” (Oxford, Holloway and Horton-Murillo, 1992, p.440). Cognitive styles are typical tendencies that influence how a person perceives his/her surroundings and makes sense of the world, serving as a basis for how the person gathers, organises and processes information when learning.

Applied to a classroom situation, this means that if content and learning materials are presented in a way that is at odds with an individual’s cognitive style, the individual may not be able to gather, organise and process the information in an effective way and this may “affect students’ learning potential and their attitudes toward English and toward learning in general” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.439). Cognitive style appears to be a relatively stable trait within an individual that is connected to their personality (Brown, 2000) and may also have a cultural component (Cook, 2001).

Positive effects of knowledge of cognitive styles

There are three main aspects as to how a knowledge of learners’ cognitive styles can assist a teacher to be effective in the classroom.

Style awareness

To avoid possible conflicts and enhance classroom relations and teacher-student rapport, the teacher has to be aware of his/her own cognitive style and how this may be reflected in his/her teaching style and “try to ‘overcome’ their own style tendencies because of the students’ needs” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.450) by consciously planning for the inclusion of different styles within the holistic-analytic and verbal-imagery dimensions.

It is important not just for a teacher to know her own style and the preferred styles of learners, but also for learners to develop an increased awareness of both ‘their style’, and alternative styles. This can lead them to:
· Take more responsibility for their learning through:
o Understanding and applying the learning strategies best suited to them (e.g. a visual learner producing vocabulary cards with pictures and words)
o Trying to use non-preferred styles that may be appropriate in certain situations (e.g. ‘levellers’ paying particular attention to word order or the different use of synonyms, ‘reflectives’ working on being more spontaneous in conversations and brainstorming tasks)
· Be aware of and accept differences in peers and teachers enabling them to:
o Learn from each other
o Work cooperatively and inclusively
o Reconsider when ‘failure’ can be attributable to a dissonance between their learning style and the teacher’s teaching style.

Style matching

Knowing the different cognitive styles of learners gives teachers the opportunity to increase classroom efficiency by presenting material in many different ways, in order “to offer a myriad of multisensory, abstract and concrete learning activities that meet the needs of many different learning styles” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.452). It is an aspect of a teacher’s responsibility to “modify the learning task they use in their classes in a way that may bring the best out of particular learners with particular learning styles” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.176),

In analysing my own cognitive style, I tend to be process information visually and verbally, sharpen rather than level information, construct knowledge in a holistic type way, and alternate between analytic and relational type conceptualisation of information. So, in the classroom, I need to be aware, for example, of a tendency to analyse language beyond the point of usefulness to learners, and of an over-reliance on verbal processing, when a picture, diagram, or mindmap may be of more use. (In a recent dictagloss activity, a group of learners asked if they could draw the information and speak about their drawing, rather than write out a written composition; when they completed the task, I could see that their comprehension and language production was excellent, which I may not have seen if I had insisted on a written composition as I have done in the past.) When I am in relational mode, I can jump too quickly between tangentially related ideas meaning that I lose the understanding and attention of learners who need a sequential and serialist approach. Over time, I have also come to see the benefits of incorporating plenty of activities that cater for a haptic style of learning which I tend to avoid for myself. Although a haptic style is mainly associated with children and generally thought to become less important with age, Reid’s (1987) cross-cultural study (cited in Oxford et al., 1992, p.445) found that many ESL students, particularly “Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Thai students”, show a tendency for this style. Therefore ‘hands on’ activities such as singing, dancing, drama, games, creative arts, and ‘reality-like’ tasks, are a valuable addition to what can often be the predominantly visual and auditory verbal activities of the adult learner classroom.

Style stretching

Although it is important to provide classroom activities within a learner’s learning style, it is also necessary to help students explore other learning styles, thus promoting flexibility and opportunities for success in tasks and in contexts for which their preferred style is not naturally suited. Once students have developed some awareness of their own style, I sometimes work with them on analysing a task’s demands in order to decide what aspects of their cognitive style need to be ‘forged’ or ‘tethered’ (concepts borrowed from Johnston, 1996). For example, students who are analytic and reflective may prefer “highly structured, deductive classes with frequent corrections of small details” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.443). However, this approach will not be beneficial when brought to tasks of indeterminate structure and requiring spontaneity, such as initiating and maintaining a conversation. In this situation, I encourage learners to develop tether strategies such as “Don’t try to understand every word” and forge strategies “Listen to the key stressed words to help you get the general meaning”/ “Nod and pretend you understand even if you’re not sure” which they can then evaluate for effectiveness. Further, if all students are aware that all cognitive styles have their strengths and limitations, they can work together cooperatively to encourage and assist each other. For example, in the example above, pairing the reflective student with a student who prefers active experimentation can help if the latter is aware of and supportive of efforts of the former to modify their natural style.

In conclusion, knowledge and awareness of cognitive style is most effective when it provides opportunities for ongoing dialogue between teacher-student and student-student regarding the most effective ways for learning.

Reference List

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.

Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170-190). London: Arnold.

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

Johnston, C. (1996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Oxford, R.L., Hollaway, M.E., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: research and practical considerations for teaching the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20 (4), pp. 439 – 456.

Krashen's Input Hypothesis

The ongoing influence of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

There are at least forty “theories” of second language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991). Of these theories, many look only at specific aspects of SLA and have followed on from research rather than preceded it. This research itself, arguably due to the complex and non-linear nature of SLA (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), is often inconclusive (Ellis, 1994). It is against this background that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis remains a seminal and influential theory of SLA. His theory is comprehensive, easily understood, incorporates suggestions for SL teachers, and has played “a crucial role in that it has led to research to validate or invalidate his claims” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.33). This essay will firstly outline Krashen’s five interconnected hypotheses that make up the Input Hypothesis, and then critically discuss his claims and evaluate their usefulness with regard to SL teaching practice.

Outline of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

Krashen (1985, p.6) summarises his own theory as implying that “language acquisition, first or second, occurs only when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not “on the defensive”…”. Contained within the theory are five hypotheses on which Krashen elaborates.

1. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis
Krashen (1982) assumes that knowledge of a second language (SL) is developed in “two distinct and independent ways” (1982, p.10). ‘Acquisition’ facilitates fluency and is a “subconscious process” (1982, p.10), whereby the learner ‘picks up’ the language in a natural, informal and implicit way. As in FLA, error correction has little or no effect. ‘Learning’ is a conscious process, with learners being aware of the rules and formal knowledge of a language. This ‘explicit learning’ is said to be capable of being used only for ‘monitoring’ and does not contribute to language fluency. Krashen (1982) does not consider that there is an interface between these two ways of developing SL knowledge, as “language cannot ‘become’ acquisition” (Brown, 2000, p.278).

2. The Monitor Hypothesis
Strongly related to the first hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis explains how acquired and learned language are used in speech production. Acquired knowledge ‘initiates’ utterances and is responsible for fluency, while learned knowledge only functions as a “Monitor, or editor” (Krashen, 1982, p.15) that checks the output of the acquired language, making alterations or corrections to its form. Necessary but not sufficient conditions for the effective use of the Monitor are a concern for correctness, knowledge of the rules, and sufficient time to employ this knowledge.

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
Based on the findings of Dulay and Burt (1974, 1975), Krashen (1982) claims that language rules and grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable, natural, and necessary order, which underlines the previous claim of acquisition being more central to SL learning, since a ‘natural order’ is “a result of the acquired system” (Gass and Selinker, 2001, p.199) and independent of instruction.

4. The Input Hypothesis
The assumption that SL acquisition proceeds in a ‘natural order’ through informal, implicit learning, means that language input, rather than language use, assumes centrality. Providing learners with input “a bit beyond (their) current level of competence (i+1)” that can be understood “with the help of context or extra-linguistic knowledge” enables them to acquire the underlying structures (Krashen, 1982, p.21). Krashen recommends that speaking not be taught directly as it will “‘emerge’ once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input” (Brown, 2000, p.278).

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
It is not sufficient for learners simply to receive comprehensible input, they also have to ‘let in’ the input for SLA to occur. Krashen (1985) claims that affective factors such as motivation, attitude, self-confidence and anxiety will affect not only the amount of comprehensible input that learners seek, but will also determine the strength of the filter, thus determining the amount of ‘comprehensible input’ reaching the LAD. Weakening of the affective filter (e.g. by strengthening self-belief, or decreasing anxiety) is therefore vital for SLA.
Krashen’s overall view of SLA
According to Krashen, learning an L2 is very much like learning an L1. No conscious effort needs to be made to focus on the language as such, since “(w)hen the filter is ‘down’ and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended) acquisition is inevitable” (Krashen, 1985, p. 4). Therefore, Krashen not only posits the existence of a Chomskyean LAD that is available for SLA, but also denies the existence of any Critical Period after which access to UG is restricted. Instead, the reason adults may be less successful than children in acquiring a second language is that their “affective filter” is higher and they more typically use (and may erroneously be encouraged to use) their abstract problem solving skills to consciously process the grammar of an SL.

Critical discussion of Krashen’s model and evaluation of its usefulness in SL teaching

I. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis
Krashen’s belief that comprehensible input will lead to acquisition is based on his belief that “adults can access the same ‘language acquisition device’ that children use” (1982, p.10). The extent to which adult learners can access UG is widely disputed (see Singleton and Ryan, 1994, p.191 for a review of competing viewpoints). The evidence appears contradictory: on the one hand there is Schmidt’s (1983, cited in Schumann, 1986, p.385) case study of Wes, an adult Japanese migrant to Hawaii, who received sufficient input in a ‘natural’ setting with extensive native speaker interaction, that “did not make him a grammatically proficient speaker of English”. Similarly, in my personal experience, I have had learners in my Japanese language class, who having spent years in Japan without formal study, communicate with a wide vocabulary but in an ungrammatical fashion. On the other hand, “many people learn foreign languages without going to classes and without begin presented with the formal rules” (Mason, L5). I have also met a few such people who have successfully acquired a language as an adult; interestingly, they have all grown up bilingual or trilingual, leading me to speculate as to whether this gives them some metalinguistic knowledge or awareness that enables them more easily “to generate their own rules” (Mason, L.5, and c.f. Schmidt’s, 1993, ‘noticing’ hypothesis).

Mason’s (L.6) point that Krashen’s acquisition-learning distinction is based mainly on the observation of people learning an L2 in use in the surrounding environment and that “in other situations one may expect classroom learning, of the conscious kind, to be important”, appears valid. Brown (1990, p.280) concludes that “Krashen’s ‘zero option’ (don’t ever teach grammar)… is not supported in the literature”. If learners are adults and learning an L2 in a non-L2 environment, some conscious learning combined with plenty of practice will arguably be of more value to them than it will for a child in an immersion environment. This fits with research in cognitive science and psychology that suggests that an interface between acquisition and learning exists as a process of restructuring or assimilation, whereby new information is incorporated into existing knowledge (see Mason, L.5). It is not sufficient for learners to accumulate input passively; instead the learner will need to “actively engage with the activity”, trying out hypotheses and receiving feedback (Gagné, cited in Mason, L.5).

While rejecting an interface between acquisition and learning, Krashen (1985) accepts that learning can contribute to SLA through the mechanisms of it increasing comprehensible input to the learner, either through the learner producing their own comprehensible input which is then acquired through the LAD; through the knowledge of the rules increasing learners’ access to comprehensible input; or in so far as language study meets students’ expectations, lowering learners “affective filter” again increasing their access to comprehensible input. These mechanisms, roundabout as they are, serve to reduce some of the ramifications of a too sharp distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’, but they shed no light on how to discern whether a learner’s output is the result of a conscious or unconscious process, nor indeed how to differentiate “what is conscious from what is unconscious” (McLaughlin cited in Brown, 2000, p.279), meaning that the hypothesis cannot be tested for falsifiability. However, despite these criticisms, SL teachers can often appreciate that at a simple level, the hypothesis reminds us that simply teaching students about the rules of a language will never produce competent users of the language, as can be typically witnessed when students, who have undergone years of L2 instruction that is predominantly explanation and translation via the L1, are unable to engage in even simple conversations. Instead, the teacher should maximise the use of the L2 in the classroom and engage learners in activities that focus mainly on meaning rather than simply on form.

II. Monitor Hypothesis
This hypothesis builds on the acquisition-learning distinction, allocating different functions to the separate systems. It has attracted similar criticism in that “it is frequently difficult to tell whether a person is monitoring using a ‘feel’ for the language (i.e. using the acquired system) or using the learned system (d’Anglejean, 1981; Rivers, 1980) thus making the hypothesis untestable” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008).

Krashen used the concept of the Monitor to explain individual differences in learners. While “optimal Monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence” without interference in communication (Krashen, 1982, p.20), the speech of ‘over-users’ is halting and non-fluent since they are overly concerned with accuracy, while that of ‘under-users’ will concentrate on speed and fluency without concern for errors. These claims also have intuitive appeal to teachers, as it is usually quite easy to recognise which students, because of personality, culture, or cognitive style, have a tendency to over-use or under-use monitoring, and need to be encouraged to adjust their behaviour accordingly (e.g. through the area of focus of feedback). The optimal use of the Monitor will also depend on the situation, for example, in everyday conversations, time pressures do not usually allow for the use of the Monitor, so teachers need to discourage students from being overly concerned with accuracy in conversation (e.g. by responding to the message and not correcting students’ grammatical errors in the course of a speaking activity), whereas in formal writing, the greater emphasis on accuracy means that Monitor use needs to be encouraged.

III. Natural Order hypothesis
This hypothesis has been criticised for being based almost exclusively on cross-sectional morpheme studies (longitudinal studies have not always found a similar progression, Rosansky, 1976, cited in USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008) that lack linguistic relationship between items and which reflect accuracy of production rather than acquisition sequences (Mason, L.6). Mason concludes that there is a stronger case to be made for the existence of 'developmental sequences' i.e. “the learner makes certain predictable mistakes at each stage in the learning process, and that these mistakes follow a similar order whatever the mother tongue of the learner” (L.6). However, “other studies have shown that the language backgrounds of learners may also affect the order” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.39).

Krashen uses the Natural Order hypothesis to support his arguments for providing only comprehensible input and not grammar instruction. In contrast, other commentators (e.g. Ellis, 1994; Gass and Selinker, 2001) note that formal, targeted learning can help learners to progress more rapidly through the stages. However, in keeping with Mason’s agreement with Krashen that “imposing the linguists' grammar on the learner - whether or not he needs it - does not have any appreciable effect on L2 acquisition” (L.6), it is useful for teachers to be aware of how textbooks may violate the order of acquisition (e.g. ESL textbooks tend to put the 3rd person present tense -s in the first part of an Elementary book whereas acquisition order studies reveal that 3rd person present tense –s is acquired at around the same time as the irregular past tense), and thus of the inappropriateness of spending too much time correcting such errors or waiting for the learner to ‘get it’ before moving on.

IV The Input Hypothesis
The term ‘comprehensible input’ means that input which is too simple (already acquired) or too complex (i+ 2/3/4…) will not be useful for SLA. While criticism has been made that the actual determining of level i and i+1 defies precision (Mason, L9), Krashen would not see this as particularly concerning in that “a deliberate attempt to provide i+1 is not necessary…it may even be harmful” (1982, p.22).

More controversial is Krashen’s claim that ‘input’ is not just more important than production, but is all that is necessary for acquisition. Krashen seeks support for his claim in FLA in children (caretaker language; delayed production) but the applicability to adult classroom learners is questionable. Mason (L.9) and Brown (2000) emphasise that ‘input’ is not sufficient because ‘output’ is a vital phase in language acquisition, with the active role of learners and their production being significant aspects of learner success (see Swain and Lapkin’s 1995 Output Hypothesis, cited in Brown, 2000). In summary of Mason (L. 9) points out that output enables the teacher to judge the learner’s progress, and choose and adapt learning materials appropriately; that producing language compels the student to “reorganise and elaborate upon his knowledge of the L2” and, through feedback, to test their hypotheses about the language system; and that input and output necessarily interact in negotiating meaning and extending learner’s linguistic knowledge. Output, and its link back to authentic input, can also give students a feeling of success from having engaged in genuine communication. For example, after suitable preparation, I send Japanese study tour students out on campus to do a simple survey on a topic of interest to them; although they are often nervous, they most often come back not only with a feeling of accomplishment from having engaged in meaningful communication, but also with new words and expressions to use.

Notwithstanding the value of output, it is also important to realise that students’ ability to produce output often lags behind their ability to comprehend input so for beginning students in particular, approaches such as TPR whereby students can respond in actions, gestures, drawing, can reduce the level of anxiety that the pressure to perform verbally may create.

V The Affective Filter
The concept of the ‘Affective Filter’ has been criticised for not delineating or explaining either the scope (e.g. variety and forms of motivation, self-confidence and anxiety – see Mason, L.11) or the process of what and how input is filtered out (Gass and Selinker, 2001). Krashen appears to use the affective filter as the default explanation of why SLA does not occur; for example he states there is a “strengthening of the affective filter around puberty” (1982, p.44) as the reason that children acquire languages more easily than adults whereas the reason may have more to do with changes in cognitive processes. McLaughlin (1987, p.56) concludes that Krashen has “provided no coherent explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual differences in language learning”.

On the other hand, the metaphor of the affective filter has been extremely influential in SLA, particular in its intuitive appeal to SL teachers to whom “experience suggests that high anxiety and low motivation do not produce good SL learning results” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.43). An awareness and consideration of affective factors affecting the classroom dynamic in general and individual students in particular is essential for all teachers, notwithstanding that their complexity, interconnectedness, and differential effects are greater than Krashen suggests (see for example the discussion of motivation in Q.4). Krashen’s evaluation of testing with reference to the effect it has on the classroom also makes sense to teachers whose efforts to introduce communicative activities are often frustrated in countries where assessment is weighted towards grammar and arcane language knowledge. “Tests have a huge impact on classroom behavior, and need to be selected to encourage students to engage in activities that will help them acquire more language” (1982, p.177).

Conclusion

Krashen deserves credit for attempting to offer a comprehensive theory of SLA that has in turn generated wide-ranging discussion and research. However, as Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p.225) point out, Krashen’s theory relies on constructs (i +1 and the Affective Filter) that are “untestable, and so unfalsifiable”. McLaughlin (1987) agrees saying that Krashen merely demonstrates how “certain phenomena can be viewed from the perspective of his theory” (p. 36). Krashen also seems to believe that SLA can occur in the same way for all learners regardless of age, background or context of learning, leading to many of his hypotheses seeming under-defined and overgeneralised.

Yet despite the theoretically shaky ground, even MacLaughlin (1987, p.57) is moved to comment that Krashen may not be wrong in his prescriptions about language teaching, since many researchers “agree with him on basic assumptions, such as the need to move from grammar-based to communicatively orientated language instruction, the role of affective factors in language learning, and the importance of acquisitional sequences in second language development”. In responding to Krashen’s theory, it is arguably most useful to play both “the believing game and the doubting game” (Brown, 2000, p.290), so that most importantly, a dialogue about these influential ideas remains in place.


Reference List

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. California: Laredo
Publishing Co Inc.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. New York: Longman.

Mason, T. (n.d.). Lectures in SLA and EFL: Second language acquisition theory. Retrieved June 14, 2008 from http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/Lecture-Mainpage.htm

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379–392.

Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Retrieved on June 10, 2008 from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/lib/unisouthernqld/Doc?id=10096140

University of Southern Queensland. (2008). LIN8001 Principles of second language learning study book. Toowoomba: USQ.