krashen's monitor hypothesis teaching strategies

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Second Language Acquisition: Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Approach

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

The second language can be defined as any other language which is learned or acquired after their first language or their mother tongue. Learning or acquiring a second language can be a difficult task for anybody that wishes to speak or write in a language other than their first language. Teachers should have the basic knowledge of second language acquisition theories to provide a comprehensive teaching and learning environment to students. One of the most applied and well-accepted theories is Stephen’s Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition. The present study was carried out as an observation on students to address the importance of Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Approach in the stages of second language development to ensure effective teaching of the second language. The findings show that the cause of the input factor should be taken into consideration when teaching a second language/foreign language. The findings also indicated that cooperative learning can be ...

Related Papers

Hilal Peker

Merrill Swain, who coined the Output Hypothesis, has been one of the important figures in the Second Language Acquisition field. She propounded her theory as complementary to Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis suggesting that learners cannot attain full grammatical competence merely through input processing in a language. The Output Hypothesis has been quite successful in terms of shedding some light on unanswered questions related to output. However, there are still some deficiencies in interpreting what the hypothesis intended to explain. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to critically review the Output Hypothesis by concentrating on the deficiency of an operational definition of comprehensible output, scarcity of output instances and problems arising from forcing learners to produce language.

melisa Perea

Jenrich Vrolijk

Milena Manchola

RECIE. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa

REVISTA RECIE

Today’s societies are characterized by cultural and linguistic diversity and schools are places where different groups meet. Two similar proposals in the United States and Latin America have emerged in this regard: Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) and Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE). This work of bibliographical review compares both paradigms using the Comparative Method. Specifically, it contrasts their goals, historical backgrounds, and language teaching aspects concerning the Second Language Acquisition field. There were found strong differences in all areas. Regarding the goals, CRT is mostly concerned about school performance, while IBE focuses on political-cultural revindications. About the historical background, CRT has been close to academia and IBE is mainly a result of social mobilization. In language teaching, CRT possesses a strong research tradition and solid scientific foundations. IBE presents scientific weaknesses and dispersion, as well as a lack of consensus. Regarding SLA, both paradigms are influenced by Commin´s notions of BICS and CALP and immersive bilingualism, Krashen’s hypotheses, and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural perspective and Zone of Proximal Development. The findings point out that these differences are related to the groups involved in the historical development and the way they emerged. Both paradigms should establish a dialog to strengthen each other.

Journal of Modern Languages

Ehsan Abbaspour

Whether corrective feedback is effective in L2 writing has always been a controversial issue among Second Language Acquisition (SLA) scholars despite a vast body of research investigating the issue. This conflict is rooted in the fact that different researchers subscribe to different theories of SLA which are at times contradictory in nature. The present article reviews and investigates major SLA theories with respect to their views and stance toward the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and error correction in second language writing. Many of these theories do not address the role of corrective feedback explicitly or merely focus on the role of oral feedback. Polio (2012) and Bitchener and Ferris (2012) have partially investigated the issue at stake reviewing a number of SLA theories. In this study, however, attempt is made to shed light on the role of WCF especially in the theories which are not directly concerned with L2 writing.

Foreign Language Annals

Francis John Troyan , Kristin Davin

jarrah al-jarrah

The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the EFL learners’ practices and understand their experiences with SNSs (social networking sites) as a tool for English language learning. The study was conducted in richer information and a deeper insight was gained through a qualitative case study. In the qualitative phase, 12 participants were purposefully selected and interviewed in order to explain further the statistical results, develop a rich descriptive picture of their lived experiences using social networking to improve their English language learning, and identify the factors and barriers that influence their practices. This study was guided by the following research question: How do these Facebook practices affect their language learning experiences? The results revealed that most participants felt comfortable using Facebook in English language learning. However, less than half of them used Facebook on a regular basis to learn English. In addition, they tended to read...

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the perceptions of ESL teachers regarding the use of educational mobile applications to help ESL elementary school students develop their language skills. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews from eight ESL teachers from different schools in Carbondale. Participants reported positive perceptions of using educational mobile applications to develop the language skills of students. This study provides some recommendations for the successful integration of technology in English learning and teaching. Article visualizations:

Professor Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara

What is The Monitor Hypothesis and Why Does it Matter?

Published on, june 29, 2022, november 15, 2022, this article may contain affiliate links.

The Monitor Hypothesis is one of many ideas developed by Professor Stephen Krashen to help people learn a second language more effectively. What is this powerful idea about self-correction and how can it help you in your speaking?

Table of contents

Professor Stephen Krashen is one of the most respected researchers in the field of linguistics. He is best known for his five hypotheses related to language learning.

If the word ‘ linguistics ’ sounds scary, don’t worry! Professor Krashen’s work is very practical and easy to understand.

Most English teachers know his work and use his concepts in their teaching. Here, I would like to take one of these concepts and put it in the hands of independent learners!

Krashen’s Five Ideas about Language Learning

For an overview, let’s look at some of Professor Krashen’s five ideas.

He considers language learning and language acquisition to be two different things. He says that you learn language when you study it and learn the rules, but you can acquire language outside of the classroom (like how a baby acquires its first language).

He also claims that you will acquire language faster from content that is fun or interesting.

As an example, I have often seen my students struggling to read a newspaper article that they picked at random on a topic that they have no interest in.

I always recommend that they ditch the article and choose something fun instead. It could be an article on football or fashion - whatever the student is interested in.

Professor Krashen claims that language acquisition can be affected by our emotions. Hence, a teacher must make the classroom environment as stress-free as possible.

Many learners face issues with self-confidence, anxiety or motivation. These need to be addressed before a person can acquire language effectively.

These are logical, practical, common-sense ideas that can help teachers and learners.

My focus today, though, is Professor Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis.

What exactly is the monitor hypothesis?

Let’s imagine that you take all of the rules that you have learned about English and call them ‘ the monitor ’.

These include spelling rules, pronunciation rules and grammar rules. They also include rules on usage and formality, such as what to write when you sign a letter or when to say ‘please’.

Now, let’s imagine that you take all the words and phrases that you have acquired and call them your ‘ acquired language ’. Your acquired language could include language you acquired from school, from watching TV, from listening to podcasts or from anywhere else.

When you speak freely in a conversation, you use the words and phrases from your acquired language .

But, just before speaking, you use ‘ the monitor ’ to review what you are going to say.

And, just after speaking, you use ‘ the monitor ’ once again to check that what you just said was correct.

Do you use ‘the monitor’?

Reading the description of the monitor hypothesis, you were probably wondering… “Do I do that?”

You probably don’t do it in your first language because the rules of the language have become internalised (so natural that you need not think about them).

How much you monitor and self-correct yourself in English depends upon what kind of learner you are.

But before we look at that, let’s look at the monitor hypothesis from the viewpoint of its critics.

Criticism of the monitor hypothesis

You may have noticed that we are talking about the monitor hypothesis and not the monitor theory .

Confusingly, in everyday English, a theory is an unproven idea we have about something. While in science, a theory is an idea which is tested and proven to be true!

So when a TV detective says that he has a theory about who the murderer is, he means he can’t prove it yet.

But when a scientist talks about a theory (like the theory of gravity), he means that it has been tested and found to work.

Professor Krashen originally talked about the monitor theory . However, he changed the name to monitor hypothesis when it was challenged by other linguists. (A hypothesis is an unproven theory.)

Does this mean that the monitor hypothesis is not true or of no value to us? No! Linguists and other scientists argue over their theories all the time!

As a teacher (and language learner), I personally find the monitor hypothesis to be a useful tool to help you speak more fluently and accurately.

Let me explain why.

The battle between fluency and accuracy

Fluency is the ability to speak freely without hesitation. Accuracy is the ability to speak without making mistakes. For a language learner, it is difficult to do both!

I have noticed that some of my students speak very quickly without seeming to care whether they make a mistake or not.

In fact, they even make mistakes with basic grammar, such as the past tense. Or they make a mistake in something we just learned ten minutes ago!

These students might be fluent, but not accurate.

Other students have the opposite issue. They speak very slowly and with a lot of hesitation because they are anxious about making a mistake. In fact, if they are not sure if the grammar is correct, they may not say the sentence at all!

These learners might be accurate but they are probably not fluent. I have to admit that I am in this category myself when speaking a foreign language!

So we can say that there is a battle between fluency and accuracy. What we need to do is to find a balance between the two things.

We can sacrifice a little fluency to improve accuracy or we can sacrifice a little accuracy to gain fluency.

The monitor hypothesis can help us to do this.

Practical application of the monitor hypothesis

My first suggestion is to think about what kind of English speaker you are.

If you speak fluently, but make a lot of mistakes, then you need to focus on accuracy.

Some learners don’t like grammar. Some feel that it is unimportant. This is absolutely not true. Learning all the various English tenses, for example, allows you to express yourself more precisely.

If you ever have a job where you need to write in English, good grammar suddenly will become much more important. And since English is being used more and more widely, there is a strong chance you will need to write in English in the future for your work.

Some learners use a ‘listen and repeat’ method when speaking. That is, they repeat pieces of language that they have acquired without ever thinking about the rules. Again, this kind of learner will make a lot of mistakes.

The solution is actually fairly easy, but requires a major change in your behaviour.

The first step is to speak just a little bit slower. You can think much faster than you can speak , so a small reduction in speed gives you a lot more thinking time.

Once you do this, you will have time to think about what you want to say before you say it. In particular, think about your weak areas, e.g. verb tenses or parts of speech.

Remember that the ‘monitor’ also works after you say something. If you find that you have just made a mistake, correct yourself .

Self-correction is a very powerful tool and can really help improve your accuracy over time.

You may face a situation where you say something, then wonder whether it is correct or not. For example, you say “proved” and then wonder whether you should have said “proven”*.

In this case, make a mental note and then Google it later. To understand the explanation, you may have to learn some new grammar words or rules. If so, good! This is independent learning.

* Both proved and proven are correct as past participles .

Let’s look at the other kind of English learner. This person speaks very slowly and with a lot of hesitation because they are afraid to make a mistake.

The advice for this kind of learner is simple: you need to get over your fear of making mistakes.

What you are doing is called ‘over-monitoring’ and it is preventing you from speaking fluently.

Yes, it’s not easy to fix because it involves changing habits and behaviour, but you can do it. 

For example, you could try speaking just a little bit faster and worrying a little bit less about mistakes. Take a small step at a time to achieve big changes in the long run.

Remember, most people speaking English around the world speak it as a second language . If you can read and understand this article, your English is better than most other people’s!

What if you get “stuck” and you just can’t think of the correct way to say something?

English is a versatile language. There are many ways to say whatever you want to say. Just use a filler phrase and take a few seconds to think of another way to say it.

Remember, even native speakers forget words sometimes!

But if you get stuck on a grammar rule, remember you can always take time to Google it later.

Finding the balance

To conclude, you need to find balance when you speak.

You shouldn’t “under-monitor” and ignore all those grammar rules that you learned at school.

Neither should you “over-monitor” and prevent yourself from speaking fluently.

Take the middle path and eventually you will be able to speak both fluently and accurately.

You might also like

Any Language You Want by Fabio Cerpelloni

What Is the Pareto Principle and How Can You Use It to Learn English More Effectively?

Why Learning In Context Is The Most Important Way Of Improving Your Vocabulary

Search Our Store:

Krashen’s hypotheses of language acquisition: introduction (#1 of 9).

In this series of posts we will explore each of Krashen’s major hypotheses and how they apply in the classroom.  Krashen’s is not the only model of learning teachers need to know, but due to their enormous influence, it is crucial that modern language teachers understand these hypotheses and how they apply in the classroom.

This is the same series of lessons I teach to my students to help them understand why I teach the way I do so they can cooperate fully and get the most out our time together.

The next post in this series (#2/9), which describes the first of Krashen’s Hypotheses, The Monitor Hypothesis , is found  here.

“Language acquisition does not require extensive use of

conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill.”

─Stephen Krashen, PhD, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (1982)

“The overwhelming number of teachers are unable to name

or describe a theory of learning that underlies what they do.”

─Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards (1993)

What Do You Already Know  ?                       

• What is the most influential of Krashen’s hypotheses of language  acquisition?

• What are Krashen’s 6 main hypotheses of language acquisition?

• How are these hypotheses different from the assumptions about  language learning in a traditional classroom?

• How do instructors apply Krashen’s hypotheses in the  classroom ?

To say that Stephen Krashen’s hypotheses of second language acquisition (1982, 2011) have had an influence on the way teachers think about language teaching is an understatement. Krashen’s work has revolutionized teaching practice in language classes by shifting the focus from a grammatical syllabus to a model of language learning that focuses on comprehensible input. His first five hypotheses, formulated in 1982, have stood the test of time over the last 30+ years and are supported by scores of  studies supporting comprehensible input-based teaching .

But change comes slowly. Traditional teaching methods are often grounded in nostalgia rather than research and change happens at a glacial pace. Even when teachers set out to use new methods the multiple demands of the classroom and school culture can cause even well-intentioned teachers to revert to the way they were taught and progress stalls.

Krashen’s hypotheses go against some aspects of conventional thinking. Academic peer pressure and tradition help to maintain the status quo. In order to overcome educational inertia and to apply this research-based understanding of SLA in the classroom a teacher may need to focus like a maniac .

As a mnemonic device, Krashen’s hypotheses can be arranged to form the acronym MANIAC :

• M = The Monitor Hypothesis
• A = The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
• N = The Natural Order of Acquisition Hypothesis
•  I = The Input Hypothesis
• A = The Affective Filter Hypothesis
• C = The Compelling Input Hypothesis (2011)

If this mnemonic does not seem respectful or serious enough to you, think about rearranging the letters like this when you present them to your students:

“ A CI MAN ” (an apt description of Dr. Krashen, the original C.I. man), “ CAIMAN ” (a South American crocodile, an exotic and interesting animal), or “ CAMINA ” (walks, in Spanish, which is appropriate as we stroll through some of the most important hypotheses in world education in the last 40 years.)

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Beelinguapp

Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

Unsplash Monica Melton

Interested in learning more about linguistics and linguists ? Read this way.

What is linguistics? Linguistics is the scientific study of language that involves the analysis of language rules, language meaning, and language context. In other words, linguistics is the study of how a language is formed and how it works.

A person who studies linguistics is called a linguist . A linguist doesn't necessarily have to learn different languages because they’re more interested in learning the structures of languages. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Stephen Krashen are two of the world’s most famous linguists.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen facilitated research in second-language acquisition , bilingual education, and in reading. He believes that language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language.”

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are 5 hypotheses to second language acquisition , which have been very influential in the field of second language research and teaching

Let’s take a look at these hypotheses. Who knows, maybe you’ve applied one or all of them in your language learning journey!

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously . This is similar to when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language . To use the Monitor Hypothesis properly, three standards must be met:

• The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
• The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. Although this is a tricky one, because in regular conversations there’s hardly enough time to ensure correctness of the language.

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way . There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

4. Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis places more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language is acquired rather than learned.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon as the student receives interesting and fun information .

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Acquiring a language is a tedious process. It can seem more like a chore, a game of should I learn today or should I just do something else? Sigh

But Dr. Krashen’s language acquisition theories might be onto something, don’t you think? Learning a language should be fun and in some way it should happen naturally. Try to engage in meaningful interactions like reading exciting stories and relevant news articles, even talking with friends and family in a different language. Indulge in interesting and easy to understand language activities, and by then you might already have slowly started acquiring your target language!

Related Posts

Red: learn “nonchalant” & other english words with taylor swift, 8 romantic movies to practice english, spanish and more, the many ways to say “i love you” in german, subscribe to our newsletter.

Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

The Monitor Hypothesis

Between the decades of the 70s and 80s, the linguist Stephen Krashen was developing his studies of five hypothesis of his theory of Second Language Acquisition . These hypotheses are  The input hypothesis, The acquisition-learning hypothesis, The monitor hypothesis, The natural order hypothesis, and The affective filter hypothesis. This article has as purpose talk about The monitor hypothesis and how it works. But first, we have to know what it is the purpose of this hypothesis.

According to Krashen(1982, p. 15-16):

The Monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition and learning are used in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition “initiates” our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor, or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after is has been “produced” by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction). […] The Monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited role in second language performance.

            As we know, we have two distinct ways to develop a second language. These are  acquisition and learning. Learning is when we develop the target language in a conscious way, in a formal way. It is when we learn the rules of grammar, the structures of the language in schools when he has a teacher to help us with our doubts. In other hand, the acquisition process is when we develop the target language in an unconscious way, in an informal way. It is when he has a frequent contact with the language, it is when we are not aware of the fact that we acquire, without knowing that we acquiring.

            In The Monitor Hypothesis, Krashen points to the learning process as a system which monitors and analyze our development of this second language. The monitor tends to show us our failures and errors, and fix our output. Krashen also points to the fact that we only will have a good use of our output if the student has a background of the structures and rules of grammar. Also according to Krashen (1982, p. 16), the process of developing the Second Language depends on three conditions, are they: time, focus on form and know the rule.

• Time (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

A second language performer needs to have sufficient time. For most people, the normal conversation does not allow enough time to think about and use rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i.e. a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is saying.

• Focus on form (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough. The performer must also be focused on form, or thinking about correctness (Dulay and Burt, 1978). Even when we have time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it.

• Know the rule (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 16):

Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed only to a small part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to.

            Krashen also pointed the monitor will depend on the three conditions and from the type of the users. He had pointed thee kinds of user, are they: Monitor Over-users, Monitor under-users, and The optimal Monitor user.

• Monitor Over-users (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language. As a result, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency.

• Monitor under-users (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Underusers are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a “feel” for correctness (e.g. “it sounds right”), and rely completely on the acquired system.

• The optimal Monitor user (KRASHEN. 1982, p. 19):

Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users, performers who use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere. […]In writing, and in planned speech, however, when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever corrections they can to raise the accuracy of their output.

By: M.V.N. Silva

Input Hypothesis. In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in:< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Monitor_hypothesis > Access on December 01, 2018.

Krashen, Stephen D. (1982).  Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition  (PDF). Oxford: Pergamon. Available in: < http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf > . Access in: December 1, 2018.

SCHÜTZ, Ricardo. “Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition.” English Made in Brazil. Available in: < http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html >. Access in: December 1, 2018.

Stephen Krashen. In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen#cite_note-USC_bio-1 >Access on November 30, 2018.

Share this:

Published by alkrashen

View all posts by alkrashen

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar