Kristina Smith Page 1 of 14. The Noticing Hypothesis, Monitor Model, and Pedagogical Implications!

Transcription

1 Kristina Smith Page 1 of 14 The Noticing Hypothesis, Monitor Model, and Pedagogical Implications! In 1981, Stephen Krashen wrote an article explaining his monitor theory. This theory consisted of five hypotheses that covered a range of requirements for learning (Krashen, 1981). Krashen's theory was widely spread and generally accepted until Richard Schmidt wrote a paper opposing this view. He called this the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1983). Since then, there has been an ongoing debate in the SLS field concerning whether language learning and acquisition is a conscious or subconscious process. This paper will discuss both sides of this argument in addition to the pedagogical implications of these theories. The development of these two opposing hypotheses has made major changes I n the development of teaching methods in the second language classroom." Monitor Model! The Monitor Theory was first published in the 1970's by Stephen Krashen. He proposes that five hypotheses must be in place in order for language learning to take place. These hypotheses are based on the ideas of Chomsky and first language acquisition (Lightbrown, 2006)." Natural Order Hypothesis! The idea that second language acquisition, similar to first language acquisition, occurs in a predictable order. In order for this hypothesis to work, learning needs to be divided into logical steps that flow from one to the next. As a student progresses to the next level, it is assumed that they have mastered all of the previous levels (Krashen, 1981). "

2 Kristina Smith Page 2 of 14 Input Hypothesis! This idea follows the natural order hypothesis in that it relies on the previously divided steps to learning. The input hypothesis takes this one step further in that it assumes a student will naturally progress to the next level assuming that they are exposed to input that is one step above their current level. Krashen represents this level of input as I + 1 (Krashen, 1981). In this equation, I is the student s current level of linguistic knowledge and mastery and + 1 is the step slightly above their level (Krashen, 1981). " Monitor Hypothesis! This idea recognizes a student s ability to monitor their own output and take the appropriate steps towards improvement based on their own metalinguistic awareness and appropriate feedback. This monitoring utilizes a mechanism within the brain, which is specialized to monitor grammar and language use (Krashen, 1981). " Affective Filter Hypothesis! This hypothesis promotes the idea that, in highly stressful situations, a barrier is put up within the brain to inhibit the learning process. This is done by an additional mechanism that will filter out any new information if certain requirements are not met (Krashen, 1981). " Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis! Krashen s final hypothesis of Monitor Theory combines aspects of all the rest. If learning occurs in a natural order and implicit instruction is not required if given the proper comprehensible input, in a relaxing environment and the

3 Kristina Smith Page 3 of 14 students are monitoring their own output, the learning acquisition is a subconscious process. Only language acquired is the only linguistic knowledge that is immediately recalled. Explicit instruction leads to language learning, instead of acquisition, and the language learned is not readily accessible in real time conversation. Language learning never transfers over to language acquired unless it is subconsciously absorbed (Krashen, 1981). " Response! Schmidt argued that language learning and acquisition are one and the same and that in order for learning to occur, the learner must notice the aspects being learned (Schmidt 2010). Awareness of form is a crucial part of language acquisition. It is also very questionable what exactly constitutes comprehensible input or natural order since students learn via different processes and at different rates. Furthermore, there is little evidence of the existence of monitor mechanisms or affective barriers within the brain, and there is no reason why these mechanisms would apply only to grammar and language acquisition (Gass, 2005)." Incidental vs. intentional! Schmidt describes two types of learning in contrast to Krashen's conscious vs. unconscious learning (previously stated about his language learninglanguage acquisition hypothesis). Language learning that occurs without conscious effort towards it is described by Krashen as language acquisition, but Schmidt argues that in order for learning to occur, a learner must first notice what is being learned, and therefore conscious attention is necessary. Even if

4 Kristina Smith Page 4 of 14 language learning is not the focus of the activity, language learning may still occur (Schmidt, 2010)." An example he used was that when reading, learning vocabulary is not usually the focus or intent. The focus is usually on learning new information or reading simply for pleasure, but lexical knowledge improves nonetheless (Schmidt, 2010). Krashen would describe this as unconscious language acquisition (Krashen, 1981). Schmidt, on the other hand, sees that in order to acquire this new knowledge, the learner must first notice the new word, so this language learning is 'incidental' regardless of intent (Schmidt, 2010)." The other side of the coin being that when a student sits down in a language class or reflects on their own use of language in a conversation that specific attention is being paid to form and structure. Krashen would call this language learning, which by extension never becomes language acquisition and language learned in these sessions would not be available during natural conversation (Krashen, 1981). Schmidt considers this to be intentional learning, which is a crucial step towards fluency. Without at least some attention to form, some aspects of language and input will never be fully noticed or acquired. The question of "does all learning require attention?" can never be answered, but there is certainly a noted relationship that more attention leads to more learning (Schmidt, 2010). " Noticing Hypothesis! As stated earlier, Schmidt's hypothesis requires that students notice what is being learned before they learn it. Noticing alone does not guarantee that the form will be learned, but it is a crucial step towards fluency (Lightbrown, 2006)."

5 Kristina Smith Page 5 of 14 Measuring noticing! An area that the noticing hypothesis seems to have struggle is that it is very difficult to measure what aspects of the language are being noticed and which ones aren't. Uggen overviews two of the processes that have been used in the past to judge noticing. One task has been an underlining task where learners were meant to underline forms that seemed important; the issue with this method is that some noticed forms remained unmarked. Another method has been to have participants "think aloud." This activity is more difficult for some students than it is for others, but overall, both of these methods accurately convey that there is a positive relationship between language acquisition and awareness of forms. Just because a student cannot recall a new form does not mean that the form was not noticed (Uggen, 2012)." In 2003, Lindgren and Sullivan worked on a study based on keystroke analysis of two female learners in writing activities as yet another way to measure noticing. The goal was to study whether students responded better to teacher or student interventions in corrections. They performed writing tasks and then given a chance to revise on their own before being asked to perform more tasks and revisions with help from students and teachers (Lindgren, 2003). " On the first day of writing, students were given an opportunity to work independently with a text. On another day, they were offered an opportunity to make revisions. When another person assists the revisions, more revisions are made than is made through independent work. The first set of revisions is done with the assistance of the teacher (Lindgren, 2003). "

6 Kristina Smith Page 6 of 14 The third day, another writing task is assigned, but this time is done with the assistance of another peer. On the last day, one more task of revisions is assigned, and the two students work together on these revisions (Lindgren, 2003)." When students were required to pay attention to form, they made more revisions than when making corrections on their own. This was true whether the guidance came from fellow peers or from the teacher (Lindgren, 2003). " We could argue that this is in line with his monitor and input hypotheses. The trouble with this argument is that not only were the students assisted in noticing the incorrectness of the output, no additional input was given to the task. " Educational Settings! A paper by Inger Lindberg points out that much of the research on the noticing hypothesis takes place in very similar educational settings. Most of the schools that housed the studies were either university level or immersion schools. This would mean that the participants had a fairly extensive educational background and that they would respond better to awareness to linguistic form, whereas a learner who is not familiar with these learning styles would not be quite so impacted. After further research, Lindberg discovers that no matter how much or little exposure to educational settings, that learners do, in fact, respond positively to metalinguistic awareness (Lindberg, 2003). " Onset-rime and phoneme awareness! The symbolic representations, or graphemes, of sounds in English are not consistently represented phonologically making them more difficult to acquire

7 Kristina Smith Page 7 of 14 when reading. Therefore, they often take just as long to acquire as do the onset and rime of mono-syllabic words. Studies that focused on the early child education, beginning in kindergarten to the second grade found that neither one emerged before the other(haigh, 2011). " The French grapheme- phoneme representation is more consistent, because of this consistency, it is easier for students to become familiar with these phonemes. It is easier for learners to notice phonemes that they are already familiar with, therefore phoneme awareness is more likely to predict reading acquisition in young learners. Onset-rime becomes a more likely predictor in grade three (Haigh et al 2011). " Krashen would argue that this falls under the affective filter hypothesis. Because the students are not familiar with the phonemes, their mind automatically filters them out. However, once students are explicitly taught the forms, they notice them more often in the input." Individual variation! Brooks and Kempe later did a study of 77 adult learners of Russian. Their focus was on grammatical gender agreements. Some of the students had prior exposure to languages that also used a gender agreement system. They discovered that these students tended to perform better on tests of these skills. Even if the language of exposure was a second language, that knowledge was carried over into Russian to give the student a higher probability of success (Brooks and Kempe 2013)."

8 Kristina Smith Page 8 of 14 Some of the students were naturally more adept at picking up patterns in general. These students were able to pick up on gender agreement fairly quickly as well. Once they were able to notice the pattern, they were able to repeat it (Brooks and Kempe 2013)." Brooks and Kempe also noted that there was a significant increase in success rate in learners who were able to accurately repeat non- words. The theory is that because these students are able to break down words into their relevant parts and repeat them correctly, that they are able to also break down parts of words and properly reorganize them into correct gender agreements. This set of students had a better understanding and control of their attention and awareness. This heightened level of awareness lead to more success in learning (Brooks and Kempe 2013)." Again, the monitor theory would label this in accordance with the input and monitor hypotheses. If students are able to use a level of language that they are already familiar with and monitor their use to add on new knowledge to that previously existing knowledge, they very clearly are using I + 1. On the other hand, it should not fall under I + 1 if it is between two separate languages." Case studies! These individual case studies show learners who have overcome the affective barrier, and other learners who do not seem to possess the motivation to put the monitor control into use." " "

9 Kristina Smith Page 9 of 14 Wes! Wes is a Japanese national that has immigrated to Honolulu, Hawaii. During his language learning, he had lots of interaction with native speakers. He had very good pronunciation and listening comprehension. Wes did not have time to attend formal classes; therefore he very rarely paid much attention to form and grammatical structure. A majority of his learning occurred through conversation. He demonstrates command of pragmatics and strategic Learning, but he never gained consistent use of grammar, morphology, or syntax. At first, Wes's motivation and aptitude were called into question, but his hurdle was that he was relying too much on implicit learning. He was learning from interaction, which alone does not allow for much attention to form or reflection on structure. Wes is a prime example to show that completely unconscious learning is not possible (Schmidt 1983). " Brazil! Richard Schmidt also used himself in a case study during his five-month stay in Brazil. In that time, he only took five weeks of classes, but after that, all of his learning was via communication and interaction. He kept a daily journal of his language learning and additionally recorded audiotapes each month to monitor his progress. He found that the classroom instruction was crucial, but that communication outside of class was more important. He found in his audio recordings that several forms that were common in the input were never actually acquired until he put forth the conscious effort to notice the form. Occasionally,

10 Kristina Smith Page 10 of 14 he was corrected in communicative exchanges but did not notice that he was being corrected, so he never made the connections to pay attention to that form. " Julie! Julie is a prime example that learning is possible without explicit instruction, but the learning is not possible without awareness to form. Julie immigrated to Cairo, Egypt at the age of 21. She is a native English speaker, but she learned to speak Arabic to nearly a native level. She received no formal instruction, and all of her learning was interactional. " She has been compared to Wes in that she started with very good pronunciation and had very little inhibitions about talking to native speakers. Both were skilled in conversation and pragmatics, but Julie showed more initiative to pay attention to form. She kept a daily notebook of observations about the language. This book included word lists of verbs and nouns, phrases repeated from native speakers, and grammatical notes. Julie genuinely appreciated corrections and feedback, whereas Wes tended to ignore corrections. A combination of innate talent and attention to form led to Julie's success as a language learner." Motivation! Early childhood language acquisition occurs through implicit learning and does not rely on aptitude, but adult language acquisition is different. It requires explicit learning and therefore, because cognitive abilities are involved, aptitude is a major factor. Not everyone will be as lucky as Julie and have a natural talent for language acquisition. However, this can be overcome with motivation. A

11 Kristina Smith Page 11 of 14 motivated learner will learn more than one who is not, but why? "Motivated learners are active learners," and active learners pay more attention and notice more than just the content information of the input. They also notice the structure and grammar of the input. Paying attention leads to more noticing which, in turn, leads to more learning. Motivated learners simply try harder." Changes to teaching methods! At the time of Krashen s publication, there were mainly two teaching methods. The first, known as the classical method, is an age-old method that was used as far back as Ancient Rome in teaching Latin and Greek to privileged students. This method, also known as the grammar- translation method, has existed for so long because it does work. It requires little more than a black board and vocabulary lists. This method does not require communicative skills and focuses on producing perfect grammar. Its strong suit is to teach students to read ancient texts such as the Iliad and Odyssey. I, myself, learned Latin via this method of translating portions of text from the Odyssey. It was a very effective method for reading, but not for speaking." The second method was known as the Audio- Lingual method. It was first introduced in the fifties by Skinner, a major influence in the development of behaviourism. His method requires the use of repetition to form good habits in language use. This method was adopted by the US military and widely spread for several decades and still exists in many independent language learning software, such as Rosetta Stone. Because of its focus on drills and repetition and the military s adoption of the method, it has also been called the Army

12 Kristina Smith Page 12 of 14 method. The rigidness of these drills does not allow for the creativity and fluidity that is present in actual language use." After Krashen s publication, the Communicative Approach was developed in language classrooms. There are a number of different styles under this approach, but they all generally focus on language use rather than form. So long as the main idea is understood by the interlocutors, there is no need for the teacher to intervene and correct the students. This approach was later supplemented by the Task Based approach and the Learner Strategy approach. " Schmidt does not necessarily disagree with any one of these approaches, but rather suggests that an appropriate blending of the approaches is necessary for learning. For this reason, the Integrated approach was created. The main theme behind the integrated approach is that elements from more than one approach are blended into a single coherent lesson. This is now the most common approach of all, as opposed to 70 years ago when the most common approach was the Grammar- Translation method." A modern L2 classroom! Modern day lesson plans in second language classrooms generally follow the above described Integrated approach to accommodate a variety of learner types. Additionally, there is a set procedure to follow when it comes to organizing a lesson. This procedure requires that the class begins with an awareness raising activity followed by some kind of appropriation. Then each class should be ended with an activity that demonstrates learner autonomy (Thornbury, 2005). " Awareness!

13 Kristina Smith Page 13 of 14 Awareness activities involve the three processes of attention, noticing, and understanding. Teachers begin the class by pointing the student's attention to what is being taught that day. When students notice the form, it is important for teachers to check their understanding because if the students do not understand, then the attention is pointless (Thornbury, 2005)." Appropriation! Following the awareness activity, it is important that the students have some guided or controlled practice. Often this mimics exercises from the grammar translation or audio lingual method, but only for this part of the lesson. If the lesson ended here, this would not be an appropriately integrated lesson. Pair work is often an essential tool at this stage of the lesson (Thornbury, 2005)." Autonomy! Finally, students must demonstrate their understanding of the lesson through autonomous activities. The only way to measure this is through some productive task, such as writing or presentation. If the goal of the lesson was to develop receptive skills, a task based portion would be an important integration into the lesson so that student development could be judged based on the completion of the task (Thornbury, 2005). " Conclusion! The ongoing debate about noticing and conscious vs unconscious learning has stemmed a variety of teaching methods over the past three decades. What has been discovered through this debate is that the learners benefit when aspects of both theories are carefully combined to create a single cohesive lesson."

14 Kristina Smith Page 14 of 14 Works Cited " Brooks, P. J. (2013). The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory Cognition, 2, " Flowerdew, J. M. (2005). Second Language Listening. New York: Cambridge University Press." Haigh, C. S. (2011). The role of phoneme awareness and onset-rime awarenss in second language reading acquisition. Journal of Research in reading, 34, " Krashen, S. D. (1981). The "fundamental pedagogical principle" in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35, " Lindberg, I. (2003). Second Language Awareness: what for and for whom? Language Awareness, 2, " Lindgren, E. S. (2003). Stimulated Recall as a Trigger for Increasing Noticing and Language Awareness in the L2 Writing classroom: A case study of two young female writers. Language Awareness, 12 (3&4), " Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Proceedings of Classic (pp ). Singapore: National University of Singapore." Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, Acculturation, and the Acquisition of communicative competence: a case study of an adult. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, " Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62,