A study of EFL learners' monitor-use based on type of learning task and rule difficulty

' ' : ' щ .PAİ?11^.ШÍ-ЯLLMШЧΓr Ш ■ ,\·

Η

,ІШ тмёш»йі' ÓF ' І Щ

Ш

Ш

- ' ' ί^ΝβϋΑβΙ

ЬАЙАЙ: 30^* ■

ABSTRACT

The use of a learner's conscious knowledge, i.e. monitor in Krashen's term, has an important role in language acquisition- The use of this conscious knowledge is claimed to be influenced by the type of learning task the learners are given and the difficulty level of the grammar rules they are taught. Many studies have been conducted on monitor use, inquiring about its effect in language learning and language teaching. Almost all of these studies are carried out in ESL settings. This study aims at providing an insight into EFL learners' monitor use by taking the factors such as task-type and the difficulty level of particular grammar rules into consideration.

The main question investigated in this study was whether accuracy increases depending on the learners' monitor use in a particular task and at what level of rule difficulty. To get an answer to this question, 20 native Turkish subjects from Gazi University in Ankara were taught four morphemes at two levels of learning difficulty (rather than linguistic difficulty): present progressive morpheme and copula as simple rules; regular past tense marker and third person as complex rules. This instruction was given by a native Turkish instructor. After that instruction subjects were given a discrete-itern test and following this test they were required to write two sets of compositions on

conditions- The first compositions were communication- based , that is, the subjects were asked to focus on the message they were communicating rather than grammatical accuracy. In the second composition task, though, they were particularly asked to focus on linguistic accuracy. Thus, a set of discrete-itern test and two sets of compositions were obtained as the data- After the scoring of the discrete-itern tests and the compositions, mean scores in the discrete-item test, for the items grouped into the two levels of difficulty, were compared and contrasted by running a t-test. For compositions, the mean differences of the type of condition (communicative vs- monitored) and the level of difficulty (simple vs- complex) were calculated by running a (2x2) two-way factorial analysis of variance- The results of the data analysis showed that there was no significant relationship between the students' use of their monitor and the accuracy of both simple and complex morphemes in compositions- However, the data revealed that the difficulty level of the morphemes in both discrete- item test and in compositions significantly affected students' accuracy. These conclusions reaffirm the findings of many past studies on morpheme acquisition: some structures, although simple in terms of linguistic complexity, are acquired late, that is why they are

difficult (e.g. -ed and z^)- Some structures, on the contrary, are acquired earlier (e.g- -inq and be),

In this study, the findings of non-significant use of monitoring in different tasks and the importance of the difficulty level of grammar rules increasing accuracy, are expected to attract the attention of EFL teachers, teacher trainees as well as curriculum developers

-OF LEARNING TASK AND RULE DIFFICULTY

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES OF BILKENT UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

BY BAHAR GUN AUGUST 1991

ь

4оЬ^>

» о '>

BILKENT UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES MA THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORM

July 31, 1991

The examining committee appointed by the

Institute of Economics and Social Sciences for the thesis examination of the MA TEFL student

BAHAR GUN

has read the thesis of the student. The committee has decided that the thesis

of the student is satisfactory.

Thesis title : A study of EFL learners'

monitor— use based on type of learning task and rule difficulty

Thesis Advisor Dr. Lionel Kaufman

Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program

Committee Members Dr. James C. Stalker

Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program Mr. William Ancker

Ill

We certify that we have read this thesis and that in our combined opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality as a thesis for the degree of Master of

Arts . Lionel Kaufman (Advisor)

0

m

L

a

GhcL·.

Approved for the

Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES... ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY... 1

1.1 Overview of the Chapter... 1

1.2 Statement of the Topic and the Problem... 1

1.3 Definitions... 3

1.4 Variables of the Problem... 4

1.5 Statement of the Hypotheses... 5

1.6 Statement of Purpose... 6

1.7 Statement of Limitations... 8

1.8 Organization of the Study ... 8

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 9

2.1 Overview of the Chapter... 9

2.2 Theory... 9

2.2.1 General Cognitive Theory... 9

2.2.2 "Monitor·· Theory... 12

2-3 Morpheme Acquisition Studies... 21

2.4 Linguistic Domain of the Monitor... 27

2.5 Task-dependent Monitor Use... 30

2- 6 Conclusion... 35

3 METHODOLOGY... 37

3.1 Introduction... 37

3.2 Definitions of the Structures Used in the Study ... 39

3.3 Subjects... 39

3- 4 Materials... 40

3.5 Procedures/Data Collection... 41

3-6 Analytical Procedures... 42

4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA... 44

4.1 Introduction... 44

4 - 2 Scoring... 45

4.3 Presentation of Data... 46

4.4 Analysis of Data... 55

4.5 Discussion... 57

CONCLUSIONS... 60

5.1 Summary of the Study... 60

5.2 Assessment of the Study... 62

5.3 Pedagogical Implications... 64

5.4 Implications for Future Research... 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 69 APPENDICES... 72 Appendix A ... 73 Appendix B ... 79 Appendix C ... 81 Appendix D ... 82 Appendix E ... 83

V l l

4.1 TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Frequency Distribution of Scores for Four Morphemes

in a Discrete-item Test PAGE 47 4.2 4.3 4.4 4-5 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4,11

Comparison of the Means of Two Difficult Morphemes with Two Simple Morphemes in a

Discrete-i tern Test ... 47 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme -inq

in Communicative Compositions ... 48 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme bie

in Communicative Compositions ... 49 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme -ed

in Communicative Compositions .... 50 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme ,-s

in Communicative Compositions ... 50 Mean Scores for Morpheme

Accuracy at Two Levels of Morpheme Difficulty in

Communicative Compositions ... 51 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme -inq

in Monitored Compositions ... 52 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme b^

in Monitored Compositions ... 52 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme -ed

in Monitored Compositions ... 53 Frequency Distribution of

Scores for the Morpheme

4 . 1 2 Mean Scores For Morpheme Accuracy at Two Levels of Morpheme Difficulty in

Monitored Compositions 55

4 . 1 3

4 - 14

Mean Sores for Morpheme Accuracy at Two Levels of Morpheme Difficulty under Monitored and Communicative Conditions ... Results of Two-way ANOVA

56 57

1 X

2.1 The Acquisition-Learning

Distinction ... 15 2-2 The Difference Between the

Average Order of Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes for English

as a First and Second Language ... 24 2.3 Difficulty Order of Second Language

Learners Found by Dulay and Burt ... 24 2.4 Morpheme Order Obtained in a

Writing Task under a Monitor— free

Condition ... 32 2-5 Morpheme Order Obtained in a

Writing Task under a Monitored

Condition ... 32 4.1 ANOVA Means for Two Main

Effee·* 5 and Marginals ... 57 4.2 Means of Monitored and

Communicative Condi tions

Indicating No Interaction Effect ... 58 LI S T OF F I GURES

I lAjould like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor Dr- Lionel Kaufman for his invaluable guidance and efforts throughout this study- I also want to extend my gratitude to the committee members Dr- James C- Stalker and Mr- William Ancker for their helpful suggestions

-My thanks are also due to my classmates in the MA TEFL program and to my roommate Nazan Haydarı for their support and

encouragements-CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1-1 Overview of the Chapter

One of the more controversia1 issues in applied linguistics concerns the role of conscious and subconscious processes in second language learning. Subconscious learning plays a central role in most recent communicative methods like the Natural Approach and Suggestopedia, and the issue of conscious vs.

subconscious learning is of concern to most EFL/ESL researc hers today.

An important point in communicative methods is the matter of the explicit teaching of grammar. The place of explicit grammar knowledge in a communicative

syllabus is a matter which is still under discussion. Most research results agree that language learning is mostly subconscious (i.e. implicit), but that does not mean that conscious, or explicit, rule learning is something to be ignored. Conscious rules serve an important function as acquisition facilitators but it is possible that they also function as output control mechanisms in the learner's internal grammar.

1.2 Statement of the Topic and the Problem

Language learning is invisible. It takes place inside the mind of the language learner. Depending on the research data, only inferences can be made about the mental processes involved in second language

internal factors that operate as people learn a second language, as noted in Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982).

One of them is what is called the "monitor", which is the part of the learner's internal system that consciously processes information. If one consciously applies the rules he has explicitly learnt he is said to be using the monitor. The term "consciousness", then, is closely associated with the term "monitor". According to Seliger (1979), monitoring is an observable activity beyond its theoretical sense- We all do it- Seliger claims that adults and children, monolinguals and bilinguals, and those with or without instruction monitor their output under specifiable conditions.

Krashen (1982) emphasizes the importance of this conscious processor, the monitor, in second language learning. His theory, called the Monitor Hypothesis, has significantly influenced the fields of ESL and EFL.

According to Felix (1981), successful foreign language teaching needs to take into consideration the internal processes which appear to be a manifestation of people's ability to acquire language- If these processes are ignored, mastery of the L2 will most likely remain unsatisfactory- The crucial point,then, is that the role of monitor use in second language

classrooms may be of considerable importance in foreign language learning environments.

This research studies the variation in EFL learners' monitor use in an EFL setting depending on factors such as task types and rule difficulty. The main problem investigated in this thesis is: What is the relationship between the students' use of their monitor and their accuracy in use of grammar rules?

Another problem investigated is: How is this relationship conditioned by the type of learning task and by the difficulty level of the grammar rules (complex vs- simple) used in these tasks? Evidence of monitor use will be observed in the students' correction strategies while writing compositions.

1-3 Definitions

Linguistic Task: This is a type of task which "focuses the student's attention on performing the conscious linguistic manipulation required by the task" (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982, p. 62). This type of task provides information about a learner's metalinguistic awareness.

Communicative Task: This type of task is "the one where the focus of the student is on communicating an idea or opinion to someone rather than on the language forms themselves" (Dulay,Burt and Krashen, 1902, p- 62). It is claimed that in such situations grammar rules

convey a message. Thus, such tasks provide insights into the acquisition of communicative skills-

Difficulty Level of Rules: Here learning difficulty is distinguished from linguistic difficulty. Learning difficulty "refers to the degree of difficulty a learner experiences in acquiring a structure whereas linguistic complexity refers to the amount of linguistic knowledge in a structure" (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982, p- 58). This study focuses only on

learning difficulty.

Monitoring: The monitor, as defined in Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), "is the part of the learner's internal system that consciously processes information"

(p. 46 ). If a person consciously applies the rules he has learnt he is said to be "monitoring".

1.4 Variables of the Problem

Dependent Variable: Accuracy in use of selected grammatical rules (~inq, be, -ed and -s),

Independent Variable: The type of task (Communicative vs- Monitored composition writing task), which will activate the subjects' use of their conscious monitor- Moderator Variable: The difficulty level of rules (Complex vs- Simple

rules)-Control Variables: Age and L2 proficiency level of the subj ec ts.

There are two directional hypotheses tested in this study:

1. There is a positive relationship between the students' use of their monitor in composition writing (communicative vs. monitored compositions) and accuracy in use of both simple and complex grammatical rules. That is, as monitor use increases, so does accuracy in use of grammar rules.

2. There is a negative relationship between the difficulty level of grammar rules (simple vs. complex rules) and the accuracy of these rules under both monitored and unmonitored conditions. That is, the subjects' grammatical accuracy will decrease with more complex rules.

The null hypotheses of the study, then, are:

1. There is no relationship between the students' use of their monitor in composition writing and the accuracy in use of both simple and complex grammatical ru1e s .

2. There is no relationship between the difficulty level of grammar rules and the accuracy of these rules under both monitored and unmonitored conditions.

In ELT programs, in Turkey, as in many areas of the world, the sequencing of grammatical rules in EFL syllabuses does not take into consideration recent research findings in second language acquisition. Since teachers expect perfect performance of linguistically simple yet late-produced rules, these items are frequently placed at the beginning of the syllabus and taught first. According to Krashen (1986), this is due to a confusion between linguistic simplicity and order of acquisition- It is not the case that a linguistically simple item is acquired earlier- While designing a syllabus, learning comple .ity order should be taken into consideration

instead of linguistic complexity

order-In terms of monitor use, individual variation exists among second language learners- There are second language performers who do not seem to use the monitor to any extent, even when conditions encourage it (monitor under-users); there are some performers who monitor all the time (monitor over— users); and there are performers who use the monitor when it is appropriate, when it does not get in the way of communication (optimal monitor users)(Krashen and Terrell, 1983). According to Krashen (1986), the pedagogical goal is to produce optimal monitor-users,

performers who put conscious grammar in its proper place. An overemphasis on conscious grammar has the undesirable result of encouraging over-use of the mon i tor.

The most important aim of this study,therefore, is to make recommendations for curriculum designers in Turkey so that learning complexity and task types will be considered in designing EFL curricula (task-based syllabuses). This study also aims at making suggestions to EFL teachers to encourage their students to be optimal monitor users and to help them to use the monitor more efficiently depending on particular types of tasks. Thus, the outcomes of this study could

affect EFL instruction and curriculum design. One possible implication of the study could be to stress the importance of exp1icit1y-1earned rules in composition writing and the use of monitoring.

Since many past studies related to monitor use have been conducted in ESL rather than EFL settings, this investigation in an EFL setting is expected to provide further insights. Future second language researchers may choose to compare these findings with those in ESL settings.

a

The following are limitations of the study:

a- The study is limited to EFL teachers and students and to English Language Teaching but the findings still may be applicable to the teaching of other foreign

1anguages-b- Since this study is conducted in a Turkish setting with all Turkish subjects, many of its conclusions may not be genera 1izab1e to EFL learners of other native

1anguages.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The first chapter is an introduction to the study. It includes the statement of the problem, hypotheses, purpose, limitations, as well as the organization of the

study-The second chapter is a review of the related professional 1iterature.

The third chapter explains the methodology used for collecting and analyzing the data.

The fourth chapter includes the results of the analysis of the data.

The fifth chapter consists of conclusions drawn from the study, some implications and suggestions for further research.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Overview of the Chapter

The monitor, one of the internal processors which operates within human organisms, has an important role to play in language learning. The use of the monitor by language learners significantly affects their progress in second or foreign language learning- What is the theoretical basis of the monitor? Why do learners monitor? When do they monitor? How do they monitor? These are the questions which this study will focus on- To find out the answers of these questions, a review of the professional literature is crucial. This chapter, in that sense, aims at

reviewing the literature under the following headings: General cognitive theory and monitor theory, morpheme acquisition studies, linguistic domain of the monitor and task-dependent monitor use.

2.2 Theory

2.2.1 General Cognitive Theory

As Finocchiaro (1974) claims, if we are going to teach other people to understand and to speak a second or a third language, we should start by asking ourselves what language really is. For that reason, it is extremely important to have a theoretical foundation in second language acquisition- It is a fact that

nobody knows how learning takes place- Since it is very difficult to learn exactly what mental processes are involved in language acquisition, researchers have resorted to studying verbal behaviors- For that reason, well-established theories in psychology and in linguistics are limited. Chomsky (1985) points out that cognitive processes are of great importance and the primary goal of linguistic and psychological investigation of language must be to characterize these processes

-There are two current theories about how language is learned: "cognitive theory" and "behavioristic theory". Cognitive theory emphasizes the importance of the individual's mental organization. Chomsky (1985) believes that certain abstract and specific principles of organization are characteristic of all human languages; they are intrinsic and they play a central role in perception as well as in production of sentences, thus providing a basis for the creative aspect of language

use-Researchers are recently becoming more interested in exploring the cognitive processes used by adults engaged in learning second languages. Many studies have been conducted to identify the role of cognition in second language acquisition. The term "cognition", basically, refers to a learner's engaging in working

out the rules of the language to which he is exposed. It involves the capacity to abstract, classify and generalize the language input gained- Through a cognitive development process, a learner reaches a cognitive level that permits the formulation of certain kinds of judgments about the language; that is, his capacity for extensive metalinguistic awareness (the capacity for grasping the conscious representations of abstract linguistic rules) improves. "Cognition” is intrinsic, therefore invisible; and this makes studies on cognitive development quite difficult. As pointed out by O'Malley and Chamot (1990), studies on cognition have been theoretical and there has never been a comprehensive analysis of cognitive

processes-Many theorists have expressed different views about cognition- According to McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod (1983, cited in O'Malley and Chamot, 1990), the learner is seen as an active organizer of incoming information and his cognitive system is central to processing- The learner can store and retrieve information as fast as information is processed. Similarly, McLaughlin et al- (1983, cited in O'Malley and Chamot, 1990), drew on cognitive theory in suggesting that learners may achieve automaticity in second language acquisition. There are many other suggestions about cognitive theory, because as asserted by O'Malley and Chamot

(1990), "...second language acquisition could not be understood without a description of the interaction

between language and cognition" (p. 54). 2.2.2 "Moni tor" Theory

"Monitoring" is a cognitive phenomenon. As Seliger (1979) notes, in a general, non-theoretica1 sense, monitoring is an observable activity that everybody does. As explained by Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), anybody, who tries to learn a rule by reading about it in a grammar book or by attending a class session where the teacher explicitly describes the rule, is engaging in conscious language learning: "Whenever conscious linguistic processing takes place, the learner is said to be using the monitor" (p. 59). The lingi»istic knowledge that one gains through monitoring can be used

to consciously formulate sentences and to correct one's own speech and writing. When a student attempts to edit compositions and correct ungrammatica1 sentences in language test items, the editing function of the monitor comes into play. This editing function is also in effect when the students spontaneously self-correct errors made during natural conversation. Klein (1986) claims that monitoring or virtually simultaneous control over our speech enables us to modify ongoing speech production. In a way, our speech production and comprehension monitor is always in action. In

everyday communication we are not particularly aware that such a control agency is continuously in operation; the process of communication tends to occupy our attention. Klein (1986) says "these self­ corrections may be due to a concern for correctness in substance, or else in grammatical form. The tendency to undertake such self-repair is evidence enough of the underlying se1f-contro1" (p. 143). In brief, monitoring is an editing or self-repairing process.

The theoretical aspect of the monitor has had a great influence in the field of ELT. The effect of Krashen's Monitor Theory in the ELT literature can not be ignored. It carries important implications for language instruction.

Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis is based on a set of hypotheses about second language acquisition. One of them is the Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis which is described by Krashen and Terrell (1983) as two distinct ways of developing competence in second languages. According to Krashen and Terrell (1983), one way of developing competence in second languages is via "acquisition" which is using the language for real communication without being aware that one is communicating. In other words, as Klein (1986) notes, "the learner is oriented not to the form but to the content and effect of his utterances, remaining unaware

of the linguistic rules and structures used in the process” (p .

28)-They define "learning”, on the other hand, as knowing about a language or formal knowledge of a language. In that sense language learning is a conscious process and refers to "explicit” knowledge of rules. This is unlike acquisition which refers to "implicit” knowledge. Felix (1981) says "learning” a second language in a naturalistic environment obviously favors unconscious learning, i.e. acquisition in Krashen's terminology, while formal language

instruction emphasizes conscious learning processes. According to Krashen's (1986) Monitor Hypothesis, conscious learning has an extremely limited function in adult second language performance, and can only be used as a monitor or editor- He claims that when we produce utterances in a second language, the utterance is "initiated” by the acquired system, and our conscious learning only comes into play later. What Klein (1986) considers as the crucial point of the theory is that 'learning' is always affected through a 'monitor', or an effort on the part of the learner to control his language output and to self-correct it whenever necessary: "The monitor controls the learner's language knowledge in the same way as a rider controls a horse” (p. 28). Krashen's major claim in that

hypothesis is that, "learning" only functions as a monitor and it can never become acquisition- They are totally independent of each other. Krashen and Terrell (1983) note that the Monitor Hypothesis does not say that acquisition is unavailable for se1f-correction - In both first and second languages, self-correction or editing is used via acquisition- The Monitor Hypothesis claims that "--- the conscious learning

process has only this function, that it is not used to initiate production in a second language" (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p. 31).

The summary of characteristics of acquisition and learning are illustrated in Figure 2-1

15

Acquisition

Similar to child LI acq. "Picking up" a language Subconscious

Implicit knowledge

Formal teaching does not help

Learning Formal knowledge of 1anguage "Knowing about" a 1anguage Conscious Explicit knowledge Formal teaching hel ps

Figure 2-1 The Acquisition-Learning Distinction (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p-

27)-Similarly, Stevick (1980) describes the distinction between acquisition and learning as:

"Learning" is what has been consciously abstracted from experience, concentrated on and corrected, grasped, and stored against future need. By contrast, what has been "acquired" is what has come in as one part of total experience, frequently at the edge of attention rather than at its center (p- 270).

The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge is not emphasized by Krashen only. There are other scholars who also consider that distinction as quite significant. For example Odlin (1986) defines

two distinct types of knowledge as follows:

Explicit linguistic knowledge contains all the conscious facts the learner has about the language and the criterion for admission to this category is the ability to articulate those facts. Implicit knowledge is the intuitive information upon which the language learner operates in order to produce responses (comprehension or production) in the target language (p. 123).

Bialystok (1979) defines explicit vs. implicit knowledge as follows: "Those rules which can be consciously entertained by the learner are stored in

'explicit knowledge'; those rules which are honored without attention to the rule or even an ability to state it are stored in 'implicit knowledge'" (p. 82). The idea of limited function of explicit knowledge is shared by both Krashen and Bialystok (cited in Odlin,

1986). They believe that explicit knowledge contributes little to communicative competence because such knowledge is primarily awareness of forms. According to Bialystok (1980, cited in Odlin, 1986) none of the functions of explicit knowledge is communicative. In her study, Bialystok found that subjects were more successful in identifying the parts of speech and the rule when they were given more time.

However, there was no improvement in performance in grammatica1ity judgement tasks though they had extra time. This conclusion is consistent with her hypothesis that subjects rely on implicit knowledge to make grammatica1ity judgments and that identifications of parts of speech and rules require consulting explicit knowledge. To conclude, Gdlin (1986) says that "the object of explicit knowledge is language, and the object of implicit knowledge is the world"

(p. 138).

Related to the acquisition-1earning distinction, Lawler and Selinker (1971, cited in Krashen, 1981), propose that for rule interna1ization one can postulate two distinct type^ of cognitive structures:

1. those mechanisms that guide 'automatic' language performance, that is, performance, where speed and spontaneity are crucial and the learner has no time to consciously apply linguistic mechanisms... and 2. those mechanisms that guide puzzle or problem­ solving performance... (p. 35).

Krashen created his model by incorporâting the results of studies conducted by Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974, 1977), Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974, cited in Dirven, 1990) and other researchers on morpheme acquisition sequence- According to these studies, there is a fixed order in the acquisition of second language morphology and grammar. This finding would seem to confirm the hypothesis of the "Language

Acquisition Device". Depending on these findings, Krashen's Monitor Model, which emphasizes the long­ term superiority of acquisition, came into being. Krashen (1986) claims that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited role in second language performance. He emphasizes that second language performers can use conscious rules only when three conditions are met: sufficient time in order to think

about and use conscious rules effectively, focusing on form i-e., thinking about correctness and knowing the rule.

Blanche (1989) thinks that Krashen's Monitor theory is highly reliable because it is the only L2 theory that addresses self-assessment directly- His model accounts for the discrepancies in oral and written second language performance- Certain students display a firm grasp of the structure of the target language; some students, on the contrary, do poorly on structure

tests but they are able to communicate quite well.

□n this point Krashen (Krashen and Terrell, 1983)) makes a distinction between learners with respect to the degree to which conscious monitoring is used-According to that distinction, there are three types of monitor users: over-users are those who monitor all the time, constantly checking their output with their learned, conscious knowledge; under-users are those who

do not seem to use the monitor to any extent, appearing to be uninfluenced by most error correction; and optima 1-users are those who use the monitor when it is appropriate, when it does not get in the way of communication- Krashen (1986) believes that "our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal monitor users"

(p- 19).

Although Krashen's Monitor Theory has been quite influential, it has been criticized by many people in the field of second language acquisition and support for his view has declined in recent years- Many people think that this theory is an incoherent theory of second language acquisition. For example, Gregg (1984) sees each of Krashen's hypotheses as "marked by serious flaws: undefined or ill-defined terms, unmotivated constructs, lack of empirical content and

thus of falsifiabi1ity, lack of explanatory power"

(p- 94). He claims that Krashen seems to equate the LAD with unconscious acquisition of any sort- This is, normally, not the case in linguistic theory. Chomsky, inventor of the term, argues that the LAD is one of the 'mental organs' that interact with each other and with input data to produce linguistic competence. In any case, it intends to describe the child's initial state,

before being presented with primary linguistic data. It is not immediately clear how this concept of LAD can

be applied to an adult, so Gregg thinks it is not enough merely to say that adults have a language acquisition device, without specifying what that device does .

Krashen's Acquisition vs- Learning Hypothesis is criticized as being inconsistent- Gregg (1984) argues that "if 'learning' cannot become 'acquisition', and if most of our knowledge of a second language is unconscious, then it makes little sense to call

'learning' one of two distinct and independent ways of developing competence in a second language" (p- 81)- Ellis (1984) agrees with Gregg on this point regarding the inconsistency between learning vs- acquisition and the Monitor Hypothesis. He says this is a view which is rejected even by those who accept a dual competence model of second language development (e-g- Sharwood- Smith, 1981, p. 153 cited in Stevick, 1980)- They argue that explicit knowledge can become implicit over time providing it is sufficiently

practiced-Since learning never becomes acquisition, according to that model, grammar should not be taught explicitly- For Dirven (1990), this is a negative conclusion of the Monitor Model- The most critical weakness in Krashen's (and Bialystok's) characterization of explicit knowledge, according to Odlin (1986), is in "treating explicit knowledge as an awareness of linguistic forms

divorced from the communicative value of the forms" (p- 132).

The model is also criticized because of the self­ correction, or editing, function of the monitor. Rivers (1983) argues that the theory is unsatisfactory because from the psychological point of view it is difficult to distinguish between se1f-correction by "feel" and self-correction by "rule". Krashen, in the sense he uses these terms, is not clear enough on this d istine tion.

2-3 Morpheme Acquisition Studies

It is generally believed that students learn structures in the order in which they are taught. As noted by Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), teachers have noticed that no matter how much they drill or correct certain errors, students keep making them. This brings us to the subject of the natural acquisition order, which is the focus of Krashen's 'Natural Order Hypothesis'. "The Natural Order Hypothesis", which is related to the Monitor Hypothesis, states that some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while

others are acquired late (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). English morphology is one of the best studied parts of grammar in language acquisition. As Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) claim, these items have been targeted for study because grammatical morphemes are easily

elicited and it is easy to determine whether they are used correctly- The first study on morpheme acquisition was published by Roger Brown in 1973. Brown found a common order in children's first language morpheme acquisition. Following that study, several second language studies have been conducted- All the studies of that type revolve around one major question: Is there an acquisition order for certain English structures which is characteristic of L2 learners? Nearly every well-established study has answered this question in the affirmative. Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974) found that adults also show a natural order of grammatical morphemes. Later, Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), showed that 'the contours for the acquisition sequences of the children and adults are very similar" (p- 209). Several other studies have

investigated acquisition sequences for adults from different language backgrounds- Larsen-Freeman (1976)

found in her study that language background did not have a significant effect on the way ESL learners order English morphemes. Other studies (Krashen, Houck, Giunchi, Bode, Birnbaum and Strei, 1977; Fuller, 1978; Christison, 1978; and Kessler and Idor 1979, cited in Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982) confirmed Bailey, Madden and Krashen's findings.

language acquisition is also supported by Van Patten (1984). Van Patten thinks that

if the distinction between acquisition and learning is correct, and so far this distinction has proved to be a powerful explanatory device in language acquisition studies, then it is quite possible that if we tap acquired

language, rather than learned language, we might see some similarities in LI and L2 development (p. 90).

As a result, the order of acquisition for first and second language shows clear similarities but they cannot be said to be exactly the same. There are some differences in terms of difficulty order. To explain that difference, Dulay and Burt (cited Robinett and Schächter, 1983) note that the order of acquisition posited for older learners is not affected by the cognitive and conceptual development the undergoes while learning his first language. Thus, we see that acquisition order and difficulty order do not refer to the same type of sequence. Figure 2.2, presented by Krashen and Terrell (1983), illustrates an "average” order of child and adult second language acquisition

and shows just how the first language order differs. 23

(in first language) ING PLURAL ARTICLE IRREGULAR PAST REGULAR PAST I I I-SINGULAR POSSESSIVE -s COPULA AUXILIARY (in second language) ING (progress!ve) PLURAL

COPULA (to be) AUX-(progressive) ARTICLE (a, the) IRREGULAR PAST REGULAR PAST

III. SINGULAR POSSESSIVE -s

Figure 2.2 The difference Between Average Order of Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes for English as a First and Second Language (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p- 29)

Figure 2.3, presented by Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974, cited in Robinett and Schächter, 1983) illustrates the difficulty order of second language

learners found by Dulay and Burt (1973).

1 . plural 2- progressive ~ina 3. contractible copula 4. contractible auxiliary 5. articles a, the 6. past irregular

7. third person singular 8. possessive

Figure 2.3 Difficulty order of second language learners found by Dulay and Burt (Robinett and Schacter, 1983, p. 317)

The results of this study by Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974), lent support to the view that “adults learning English as a second language will show agreement with each other in the relative difficulty of

functors in English" (p. 317). Another study involving adult performance on the SLOPE test by Krashen, Sferlazza, Feldman and Fathman (1976), also confirmed and extended Bailey, Madden and Krashen's finding that child and adult ESL learners do not differ significantly with respect to which aspects of English grammar they find hard and which aspects they find easy

-Although natural order studies provided significant findings, they were criticized by some people. For example, Dirven (1990) thinks that "it is almost unbelievable that a whole theory of language acquisition vs- learning and a theory of rejecting

formal grammar teaching has been bu. 11 on such a small range of data from the complex structural networks of a language" (p- 10). Gregg (1984) also criticizes the point that natural order concerns a very limited set of morphological forms only. Van Patten (1984), on the other hand, believes that the acquisition of morphemes has only been explained in purely linguistic terms, and that the "communicative" aspect has been ignored- Thus the acquisition of morphological and grammatical structures may need to be examined in light of their role in communication and how learners process them during communicative interaction.

The pedagogical implications of this research are 25

evident in syllabus design and in the concept of the "natural syllabus". It is possible to establish an instructional sequence based on the learner's natural order of acquisition of structure as emphasized by Krashen and Seliger (1975). Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974) also agree that "the most effective instruction is that which follows the observed order of difficulty, one with a 'natural syllabus'" (p. 324). On this point, however, there is an important thing to be considered. As pointed by Krashen, Sferlazza, Feldman, and Fathman (1976), since the difficulty order found in their study on adult performance on the SLOPE test is the "optimal" teaching syllabus, one must consider the possibility that this order may not be manifested in all language use situations.

The study of grammatical morphemes has been particularly fruitful for understanding the mechanisms involved in second language acquisition by adults. Krashen (1981) notes that aside from merely telling us in what order certain structures are in fact acquired, these studies have also been of value in "...revealing the domain of the acquired and learned grammars, when performers appeal to conscious learning and when they do not" (p . 51).

2-4 Linguistic Domain of the Monitor

One of the three conditions for efficient monitor use is "knowing the rule". Conscious monitor users apply the rules they "learned“ while completing a task.

Does the word "rule" here refer to any kind of rule in English? The answer is no, because, as noted by Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), the linguistic domain of the monitor in most second language learners is limited to lower-level rules. Lower-level rules are those which are easy to conceptualize and do not require mental gymnastics. Thus, the monitor seems to do better with some parts of the grammar than with others- These are the rules which can be characterized as "simple" in two different ways as claimed by Krashen (1986). ’.hey are,

first, rules that do not require elaborate movements and rules that are syntactically simple (mostly include bound morphology). Difficult rules, then, are those that require elaborate movements (e.g. wh- questions). Second, rules can be easy or difficult due to their semantic properties. For instance, English articles are formally simple, but very difficult to describe.

In brief, the effective use of the monitor is limited to lower-level morphological rules. Krashen and Terrell (1983) point out that monitor use is called for in the case of rules that are easy and not yet acquired

Neverthe1ess, Krashen (1986) makes a distinction between linguistic simplicity and order of acquisition. He says, "it is not at all the case that the more linguistically simple an item is, the earlier it is acquired; some very "simple" rules may be among the last to be acquired" (p. 91). That means a rule can be formally simple, but "complex" in terms of acquisition. Krashen also says only 1 ate-acquired and formally simple rules are learnable by most people. In that sense, the English third person singular is ideal for the conscious monitor. It is easy to describe and learn but it is one of the last of the grammatical morphemes to acquire. Optima1-users of the monitor, then, will be able to use the monitor to produce

learned but not yet acquired rules.

As a result, it is said that conscious, learned knowledge is used with "simple" rules, but subconscious, acquired knowledge is superior when

"complex" rules are involved. Krashen (1980, cited in Long, 1983) claims formal instruction results in "learning"; that is, it is the result in conscious knowledge of "easy" rules of a second language. The

"learnabi1ity" of a morpheme, then, is not related to linguistic simplicity but to learning "simplicity".

Reber's study (1976, cited in Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982), which focuses on implicit

(suibconsc ious) vs- explicit (conscious) learning, also suggests that complex rules (according to learning complexity) are subconsciously acquired whereas very easy rules (ones that are first acquired) may be consciously learned- Blanche (1989) concurs with this point and states:

A growing body of research clearly shows that acquisition as opposed to learning, is responsible for most second language performance- Acquisition results in acquired linguistic competence and this result is also subconscious- We are never completely aware of the rules we have acquired (p-

331)-These conclusions, especially the notion that complex aspects of grammar are difficult to teach through rule, have important implications for curriculum dev lopers and second language classroom teachers- Ellis (1984) thinks that even the best pupils can only "learn" a small subset of what has been taught: "There are cognitive limitations on the extent to which pupils can consciously attend to formal rules-

If the teacher tries to exceed these limits, successful second language development is not likely" (p. 137)- Because language teaching has traditiona11y been directed at learning and not acquiring, Blanche (1989)

thinks teachers should know "---when and how self­ rating can in fact help to promote acquisition in the classroom" (p-

To conclude, the linguistic domain of the monitor should never be ignored and it has to be taken into consideration very carefully. As Krashen (1986) notes "...a very worthy goal of applied linguistics is to attempt to describe the set of 1ate-acquired, but learnable rules" (p. 116).

2-5 Task-dependent Monitor Use

According to the Monitor Model, the states of consciousness and subconsciousness in second language learning affect the learners' behaviors. Krashen (cited in Ellis, 1984) conceives of two types of language behavior:

(1) Spontaneous or 'normal' language behavior. This occurs when the learner is focused on meaning rather than form and is

the result of 'acquired' knowledge.

(2) Monitored behavior. This occurs when the learner is focused on form and is the result of learner's using his meta1inguistic

knowledge of L2 rules (p. 163).

"Focusing on form" is another condition for effective monitor use. Studies by Larsen-Freeman (1975) and Dulay and Burt (1973) concluded that this particular condition is more important than time availability and knowing the rule, because as Krashen (1978) points out, even with sufficient time, many subjects will not monitor because they are interested in what they are saying, not how they are saying it. Many of the studies conducted on monitor use seem to support the finding noted in Dulay, Burt and Krashen

(1982): “Tasks which focus on linguistic manipulation seem to encourage monitoring, while those which focus on communicating do not" (p. 61).

This finding brings up an important issue: The nature and focus required by the task being performed. In that sense, the type of task affects the degree to which the monitor is used. A linguistic manipulation task focuses the learner's attention on the form of the language, thus allowing the student to apply the consciously available learned rules, so the monitor is used to a greater extent- A communicative task, on the contrary, directs the student's attention to conveying

the message. In that case, the learner subconscious1y uses the acquired grammar rules.

The natural acquisition order of morphemes found seems to vary according to the type of task. The results of a composition study supported this notion- Krashen, Butler, Birnbaum and Robertson (1978, cited in Krashen, 1978), found natural orders even when subjects had all the time they needed. They interpreted this as subjects' being less concerned with form and more concerned with communication. Similarly, in the Houck et al. (1977) study (cited in Krashen, 1978), natural orders were found despite the fact that the task asked subjects to correct their own written output. It was suggested, then, that “performers might need an extreme

discrete-point test to focus them on form" (p. 155). Only then is it possible to obtain an unnatural order. To prove this, Larsen-Freeman's (1975, cited in Krashen, 1986) study can be given as an example. In her study morpheme orders were presented for both monitored and unmonitored conditions- In the monitor-

free condition, she obtained the following order:

-inq copu1 a article aux i1iary short pi. regular past

third person sing, irregular past

long pi. possessive

Figure 2-4 Morpheme order obtained in a writing task under a monitor— free condition (Larsen-Freeman, 1975)

(Krashen, 1986, p- 101)

However, in a writing task, in the monitored condition, an "unnatural" order was found:

copu1 a aux i1iary

third person sing. -inq regular past irregular past ar tic 1 e long pi. short pi. possessive

Figure 2-5 Morpheme order obtained in a writing task under a monitored condition (Larsen-Freeman, 1975)

The interpretation of this result is that "the natural order reflects the operation of the acquired system alone, without the intrusion of the conscious grammar" (Krashen, 1986, p. 17). The results, also,

signal another important point: those orders differ largely due to the increase in relative rank of two morphemes, third person singular and regular past markers which are both late acquired. It is seen that when performers focus on form they can increase accuracy in unacquired but learned parts of grammar-For that reason, Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) explain this phenomenon as follows:

A student of ESL who has consciously learned the third person singular ending on regular verbs in English, but who has not yet subconsciously acquired it, can utilize this conscious knowledge on a grammar test and may perform relatively better in producing this item on a test than in a natural conversation (p -

62)-There are some others, like Long (1983) and Blanche (1989), who also agree on the point that the monitor is more effective in writing and prepared speech exercises and in discrete-point, paper-and-penci1 grammar tests. In these types of tasks, "complex" items (according to learning difficulty) such as third person

regular past marker tend to rise in accuracy. This phenomenon is taken to be evidence of subjects' use, via monitoring, of what they know consciously of second

language grammar.

The differential use of these two types of language competence (acquisition vs- learning) on a particular task should be identified carefully- Bialystok (İ979), on this point, thinks that it is obligatory to distinguish between language tasks which could be accomplished from implicit knowledge and those which would require additional information from explicit linguistic knowledge for any language

learner-It is clearly seen that there is a consensus among the researchers about the relationship between the monitor use and the task type- The findings obtained from research have important implications for second language education. One of the imp 1ications, according to Bialystok (1979), is that the learners must be trained to use their intuitions as well as appropriate strategies for consulting explicit knowledge. She thinks if the concentration is only on the formal aspects of the language and rule formation, important aspects of the language are excluded and the use of the learners' intuitive resources is

ignored-However, although the role of conscious learning in second language performance is a small one, the degree to which conscious knowledge is used differs from learner to learner (Houck, Robertson and Krashen, 1978). Some performers may be quite adept at using conscious rules in all situations, while others never

monitor at all. The conclusion of the Houck et al. (1978) study confirmed some earlier suggestions that the average foreign student tends not to use his conscious grammar unless he is deliberately focused on discrete points of grammar. Merely telling students to "rewrite carefully" or to "correct your errors" is not sufficient to bring significant monitor use. Maybe performers need to be focused on specific items or discrete points for this to happen. Therefore, a language teacher should be aware of these variations and should try to encourage optimal monitor-users.

Another important final point that must be kept in mind is related to the monitor use of foreign language performers as opposed to ESL students. Houck, Robertson and Krashen (1978) point out that "it is possible that foreign lantguage performers will show more use of the conscious grammar, as these students will have had less opportunity to acquire the target language and may rely on the conscious grammar more" (p. 338).

2-6 Conclusion

The role of cognitive processes in language learning has important implications for curriculum developers. The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge is crucial for grammar teaching. As Dirven (1990) notes "the most important requirement of formal grammar

teaching and of rule presentations is that they should promote cognitive insight into a given rule and the internalization of the rule” (p. 9). Since there is a close relationship between the task type and the

language learner's performance, the concept of a "task- based syllabus” should be considered. According to Beratta (1989), such a syllabus is intended to foster a preoccupation with meaning. That is, "not 'English

for communication' but 'English through communication'; not 'learn English so that you will be able to do and say things later' but 'do and say things now so that as a result you will learn English'” (Prabhu, 1980, p. 23, cited in Beratta, 1989). Thus, by taking the points mentioned above into consideration, teachers can achieve a better understanding and they may be able to give more informed advice to their students about how to integrate "knowing about" with "knowing" a 1anguage.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3-1 Introduction

Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis which is based on a learning vs- acquisition distinction has been quite influential in the field of ELT, although it has recently been strongly criticized by some researchers in the field- His hypothesis claims that subconscious acquisition appears to be far more important than conscious learning of a second or foreign language- According to Krashen the use of conscious knowledge has a limited function in the learning process.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the type of task language students perform and their use of monitoring and to inve*” tigate how this relationship is affected by the difficulty level of the grammatical rules used in the task- Thus, the independent variable is the type of task which will condition subjects' use of their conscious monitor and the moderator variable is the difficulty level of rules. The dependent variable is the accuracy in use of selected grammatical rules.

The findings of the literature review were used as a basis for constructing the study. According to the previous studies, the monitor is used effectively if the rules that are acquired early are involved; for more complex rules (ones that are last acquired).

subconscious learning is superior and monitoring will be

ineffective-The grammar points used in the study were taken from the morpheme acquisition studies conducted by Dulay, Burt, Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1973), and

Larsen-Freeman (1975). These studies showed that there seems to be a natural order for second language acquisition in unmonitored conditions (mostly in communicative tasks for which learners focus on communication rather than on the form); but an unnatural order is obtained if it is a monitored condition (mostly in discrete-point tests for which learners focus on the form of the language only) (See Chapter

II)-Four morphemes were chosen to be used in this study: The -inq and copu1a be were selected as simple rules, because research showed that these two are among the first acquired ones; the third person -s and requ1ar past tense marker -ed as complex rules because these are the ones that are last acquired. In this study, the use of these four morphemes were examined in monitored (a discrete-point test and a monitored composition) and unmonitored (a communicative composition) conditions.

3.2 Definitions of the Structures Used in the Study Progressive: -Inq in only present continuous tense-

(Gerunds not included).

Copula: for all singular and plural pronouns preceding a noun clause or an adjectival clause- The shortened form of i_s was not included, e.g. He's a fat boy .

Past Regular: All the allomorphes of the past regular (/t/, /d/, /id/) were scored.

Present Indicative: This was scored whenever a third person singular noun or pronoun appeared in subject position immediately followed by a main verb (Does and has used as main verbs were not included in this

category)-3.3 Subjects

Studen ts: The study was conducted at the Gazi University Education Faculty in Ankara. The subjects were 20 native Turkish students (8 males and 12 females) whose major was Turkish Language and Literature- All students were taking a general English class at the university. Their ages ranged from 17 to 21. All were at the lower— intermediate level of proficiency although they all took English in high school. They were volunteers and were selected by using "random selection technique".

Instrue tor: He was a 29 year-old male teacher, native of Turkey- He started to learn English in secondary school. He has never lived or worked outside of Turkey- He has been teaching as an instructor at Gazi University for three years- He graduated from Ankara University- He is currently a graduate student at Gazi Un iversi ty.

3-4 Materials

Materials included the textbook (English Structure Practice, Drummond, 1972) lessons of four discrete points of grammar. Certain grammatical points (-inq, copula, third person regular past tense marker) were reviewed explicitly by the instructor and

practiced. For the lesson plan used see Appendix A-Another material used was a discrete-point test developed by the researcher- The test was in fill-in the blank format- It was based on the grammar points that are explicitly taught and practiced. Examples of the questions used in the test are as follows:

Instruction: Fill-in the blanks with the correct form of the verbs given in the parenthesis.

)K My sister often ... (visit) her friends-♦ The pens ... (be)

green-)K It ... (rain) a lot yesterday-* Look 1 It ...

41 3-5 Procedures/Data Col lection

In this study, the researcher collected the data following these steps:

A- First day: The four morphemes (-inq, copula, third person -s, and regular past tense marker) were reviewed explicitly by the instructor in a traditional way; that is, the instructor wrote the grammatical rules on the use of these four morphemes on the board and explained how they are used in affirmative, negative, and in terг о д аtive sentences while students took notes. This took a 45-minute class period. In the second class period on the same day subjects were given a discrete-itern test concentrating on the four morphemes taught. This took a 15-minute class period. The collected papers were handed in to the researcher. This task was given in order to focus the subjects on form, as suggested by Houck et al- (1977) (see Chapter II ) .

In the rest of the class period (30 minutes), subjects wrote a composition on a given picture. It was a picture from Pic ture-Ta1 к (1988). For the original picture given see Appendix C. They wrote their compositions according to the following instrue tions:

"Write a composition about this picture. There will be no penalty for grammar or spelling mistakes. Your

composition should be a minimum of 300 words".

In this particular task, subjects were expected to focus on communication. The collected papers were given to the researcher afterwards.

B- Second day: Subjects rewrote their compositions on the same picture according to the following instruction:

"Rewrite your compositions. However, this time, correct your errors by referring to the grammar points you have learned. The length of your compositions is not important. Your compositions will be graded on the basis of grammatical correctness".

In this final task, subjects were expected to focus on form rather than communication. Again, they were given one-half hour to complete their task. The papers collected were given to the researcher.

For sample student compositions, see Appendix D. 3-6 Analytical Procedures

The data, which is presented and analyzed in Chapter IV, was used to investigate the relationship between the students' use of their monitor in composition writing and accuracy in use of both simple and complex rules- In addition, the relationship between the difficulty level of grammar rules and the accuracy of these rules under both monitored and unmonitored conditions was examined.

The data were analyzed following these steps: 1) Discrete-item tests and student compositions were scored by using the scoring method developed by Dulay and Burt (1974):

no morpheme supplied= 0 point

misformed morpheme supplied= 1 point correct morpheme supplied= 2 points

2) Mean scores for each morpheme (-inq, be, -ed and

- s ) in each task (discrete-item test, monitored and unmonitored compositions) were calculated.

3) Mean scores in the discrete-itern test for the items grouped into the two levels of difficulty were compared and contrasted by running a t-test.

4) Mean differences on the main effects of erudition (communicative vs. monitored) and difficulty level (simple vs. complex) and the interaction between the main effects were calculated by running a (2x2) two- way factorial analysis of variance.

The following chapter presents the data in tabular and textual form. It also includes discussion of the

findings.