Friday, August 19, 2011

Could Krashen's "Monitor Model" have been 25% correct?

Clip art: Clker
Here is an article that begins with a quote from Krashen (1982) that states his initial articulation of the "Monitor Model," arguing, among other things, that attention to form or correction in L2 acquisition is not effective or productive, at best. Following on from recent posts, you can see how he had captured a critical dimension of the process but was tossing out even the possibility of any directed, modality-mediated monitoring of spontaneous speaking (that is, modulating attention appropriately to learner cognitive style profile among the four senses or modalities), as we have been exploring for some time now. I'm sure I am not the first to suggest that "Krashen's Error" was that he was  just slightly "out of touch" . . .

1 comment:

Bill Acton said...

Was just asked to clarify that post. (For any who are not HIP insiders!) My point was that Krashen was correct to emphasize just how counter-productive conscious monitoring of can be. What HIPoeces seeks to develop are other, primarily haptic-integrated approaches that assist the learner in bringing into spontaneous communication what has been learned in class or homework. In addition, the kind of monitoring that Krashen was referring to was primarily visual-centered, grammar and pronunciation that had been foregrounded by the structuralist methodology of the time. In other words, assuming that type of correction strategy by instructors, we'd have to agree with him--but there are any number of other ways to achieve such integration, other than just "seeing" the problem and trying to watch for it in spontaneous speaking.

Post a Comment