Acquisition versus learning

Stephen Krashen has a monitor theory which contains five hypotheses. The first one; The acquisition-learning hypothesis states that acquisition is a subconscious process. You can compare it to the way a child learns its first language. By learning a language the process takes place in a conscious state of mind. You learn rules and grammar and Krashen says that learning cannot lead to acquisition.

The second hypothesis is the monitor hypothesis. It tells that the things we learn about a language can only be used as a monitor. What he means by that is that our knowledge about a language can be used to correct our own writing and speaking. But in a realistic conversation situation it's not likely that we have time to monitor our own speaking.

The natural order hypothesis tells that acquisition of grammatical structures comes in a predictable order. Some structures come early others late.

The input hypothesis speak of acquisition. Comprehensible input is very important. The learner must be exposed to input on an slightly higher level than he is presently at. This is a formula called i+1. The i stands for current level of competence and the 1 stands for a level just above the level of competence. The importance of comprehensible material is emphasized. The learner has to understand the meaning first, and then they acquire a new language. Fluency emerges over time if you are exposed to it on a right level and in right amount. Another important side of this hypothesis is the learners already existing knowledge. If a learner has knowledge of a topic it becomes more comprehensible.

The last hypothesis is the affective filter. It tells of the learners emotional state and that it can block or pass different input. The learner has to be motivated and have self-confidence to be able to really acquire something. If a learners affective filter is raised he won't learn anything. That is why it is so important to make the learners feel comfortable and don't make them do anything they're not ready for. By pushing people to do something they find scary you may rise their affective filter and they won't learn a thing.

So to summon it up; learning cannot lead to acquisition. Your knowledge can be used as an error controller but it won't make you speak a language more fluently. You can only improve your fluency by being exposed to a language over time and this is a subconscious process.

The reason why I'm writing this is to help me understand and remember. I know I'm summoning up the topics in the book. But by writing it down it's easier to sort out the differences in the topics. And things make more sense than if I just read it. So this is kind of my middle stage. I try to make reason out of these theories and print them into my mind.

It's amazing how the mind starts processing the minute you get different kinds of input. By writing, reading and resting and by putting it down on paper I have already developed new thoughts about the topics. It's fascinating to read Chomsky's theory about how we are born with an ability to learn language and understand grammar to a certain point. But is it really so easy when it comes to learning a second language and even a foreign language. It is said that some languages are more similar to each other. Some languages are easier to learn if they can be linked together in certain areas. If these "boxes" match at several points, the languages may be quite similar. I guess it's like swedish and danish for Norwegians. In the language boxes the patterns are similar and because of that we can understand each other and learn the other ones language quickly.

The theory states that the learner is not active in this process. The person simply learns the language by being exposed to it. It could work in reality if you moved to a place where they only spoke a foreign language and you were exposed to it constantly over a long period of time. When you learn a language this way i think you acquire it. You understand the language in a completely different way than if you only learn the rules and theory of the language. That's the difference between native speakers and speakers that have the language as their second language or foreign language. When we learn English for example we get a lot of input from our teachers. We learn grammar and practice our knowledge. This is different from acquisition because we actively learn something. At the same time we get input in a passive way. By listening to english music and watching english movies and series we acquire knowledge without even knowing it. By combining these to ways of both active and passive learning and also by being in the right environment you can speed up the learning process.

Getting to know English Didactics

What do I know about English didactics? What have I learned by now?

The main topics so far has been different learning theories made by different people during the last thirty to forty years. These theories tell us about the human ability to learn a foreign language. To be honest my memory has not saved a lot of it, even though some of it did make sense and I managed to understand it. The job that lies ahead of me now, is to get these theories organized and separated. In that way I can draw parallels between the different theories and think for myself what can or cannot work in a realistic teaching situation. In need to really understand it and make it my own.

I need to know the theories of Chomsky, Vygotsky, Krashen, Ausubel and McLaughlin.

What I now know something about is Chomsky's "LAD" theory: Language acquisition device, the "black box" we humans are born with. Our language develops naturally when we are exposed to it and this faculty is known as Universal Grammar. The theory connects the way a child learns its native language to the way a person can learn a second language. It states that we are able to learn a second language simply by being exposed to it. The learner is not active in the process. Vygotski took the theory further. He meant that social interaction is the most important way to learn a language. Role models like parents or teachers are important when a child is developing its language. By asking questions and demonstrating the child learns faster. Children imitate what is said around them, but on the other hand that does not explain the ability they have to form their own words. The irregular verbs are a good example of that ability. They learn certain words and learn how they end. Because of that the irregular verbs get a regular ending even though they most likely have not heard these words from any adult. That means that there must be an ability in all of us which we are born with that helps us form words naturally.

Another theory I have to learn and understand is Krashen's Five Hypotheses. I will come back to you when I have studied it better...