Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second

Language Acquisition
Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and
does not require tedious drill.

Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural

communication - in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances
but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.

The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety
situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not
force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they
are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and
comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production.

In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help
the acquirer understand are very helpful.

Introduction

Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of

linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his
recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition.
During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles and has been
invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United States and
Canada.

This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second
language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language
research and teaching since the 1980s.

Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;

the Monitor hypothesis;
the Natural Order hypothesis;
the Input hypothesis;
and the Affective Filter hypothesis.

1
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in
Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.

According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language

performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or
'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children
undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the
target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the
form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.

The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it comprises
a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for
example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important
than 'acquisition'. (Veja o texto ao lado e tambm outra pgina em portugus sobre
Acquisition/Learning).

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and
defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical
result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the
utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the
'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three
specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at
his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows
the rule.

It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language
performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor,
being used only to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give speech a more
'polished' appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with
regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time
(over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious
knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal
users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what
group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists
are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the
"monitor".

The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the
acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a
given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late.
This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background, conditions of

2
exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100%
in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence
of a Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the
implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should
be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing
when the goal is language acquisition.

The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second
language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second
language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with
'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and
progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is
one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner
is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible
Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of
linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative
input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive
some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view
that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second
language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image,
and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition.
Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the
affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being
used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition.
On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for
acquisition to take place.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View

According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general
educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in
their language programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity,
formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language
teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.

The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition
(and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and the target language
is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both teachers and
students are convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for second language
acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target
language so that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the

3
requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students" participation the
classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in
regard to the language of explanation, as the students" conscious efforts are usually on
the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium.

This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They
believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for the
students" progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the
message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well.

References

Crystal, David The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge

University Press, 1997.
Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International, 1987.
Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988.
the influential ideas of linguist Stephen Krashen, and the implications they
have for the language classroom.

Stephen Krashen and the acquisition of languages

Perhaps no-one has looked at the question more closely than the linguist Stephen
Krashen, who has introduced some of the most influential concepts to the study
of second-language acquisition.
In his input hypothesis, first proposed in an article published in 1977, and
expanded upon in later years, he makes the distinction between learning: the
conscious, traditional grammar-based process in the
classroom; and acquisition: essentially how we, as children, pick up our first
language. He says that our mistake is trying to teach languages in the same way
we teach science, history and mathematics. Instead, he believes that
learners should acquire second languages in the same way children learn their
first.
Krashen sums up the idea in a famous documentary on the subject called A child's
guide to learning languages, produced by BBC Horizon in 1983. In the
documentary, he says that acquisition is 'where the action is'. In other words, in
every successful example of language-learning an infant mastering a first
language, an adult learner of English scoring a band 9 on the IELTS test the
reason for their success is that they have 'acquired' rather than 'learned' the
language.
So, how do children and proficient adult learners perform the seemingly magical
trick of mastering a language, and what can teachers learn from this? Krashen
offers the following ideas:

4
 1. We acquire languages when we can understand messages
Learners need to be exposed to what Krashen calls 'comprehensible input' that
is, exposure to interesting and understandable listening and reading material. In
Krashen's view, we acquire languages when we understand messages. He
stipulates that the emphasis should be on meaningful interactions and not on form.
When parents speak to their children, for example, the emphasis is on meaning
rather than the correct use of grammar. If the child says, 'Daddy fish water!', the
parent is likely to respond, 'Yes, you're right, there's a fish in the river', rather
than by correcting the child's grammar. The theory here is that exposure to
sufficient quantities of comprehensible input always results in acquisition.

2. Getting the right level is crucial

Krashen makes the important point that comprehensible input needs to be at the
right level for the learner, namely just higher than the learner's own. He calls this
theoretical level 'i + 1'. A good practical example of this in action are graded
readers. These are books that are specially created for learners of foreign
languages at various levels, such as A2, B1, C2, etc, on the common European
framework (CEFR).

3. The silent period

Children don't start speaking their mother tongue straight away. Until they utter
their first words, they are acquiring language, even if they are not using it. The
miraculous first words and sentences that quickly follow are the result of this
acquisition. Adult learners, both inside and outside the classroom, need this silent
period, too. Teachers shouldn't be afraid when their students don't participate in
debates in class perhaps they are simply acquiring the language. Moreover,
putting pressure on the learner to speak before they are ready will result in anxiety.

4. Anxiety is the students arch enemy

This brings me to one of Krashens most famous insights, namely the affective
filter. This means that the rate of acquisition decreases if we are under stress, or
if we experience anxiety. Luckily, most children have a virtually stress-free
language-learning environment at home with their mothers and fathers. But for
learners of a second language, the classroom can be a cause of anxiety, greatly
affecting the way they receive and process comprehensible input.
By contrast, a house party with lots of international guests is a great place to
practise languages, as everybody is relaxed and having a good time. Such an
environment offers the language learner plenty of comprehensible input, but
(hopefully) none of the anxiety. The lesson here for teachers is that they can create
a similar environment by turning the classroom into a sort of house party where
people feel comfortable and relaxed.

5. The monitor hypothesis

5
 According to Krashen, conscious language-learning cannot be the source of
spontaneous speech, it can only monitor output, i.e., production in speech or
writing. In other words, when learners freely formulate an utterance in the target
language, they can only draw upon their repertoire of acquired language to check
whether it is grammatically correct. This reduces errors as the learner can
apply consciously learned rules to an utterance before producing it, or after
production through self-correction. As many people place a high value on
accuracy, especially in formal situations, the existence of the 'monitor' could be
seen as a reason for retaining a grammar focus in a given lesson.
One way to apply this in the classroom would be to have learners notice
grammatical features in listening and reading texts using a guided discovery
approach. For example, if the learners were given a listening task to do on the
biography of a famous person who is still alive, the teacher could hand out the
transcript and get the students to underline all of the examples of the present
perfect tense. This might be followed by a short discussion, led by the teacher, as
to why the tense is being used in this particular situation, followed by
some concept-checking questions to ensure students understand how to use the
target language. However, Krashen is clear that the main focus of classroom
activity should be on giving learners as much comprehensible input as possible.
Teachers should base their lessons on meaningful interactions with plenty of
graded listening and reading input.

6. The natural order hypothesis

The grammar and vocabulary of a language are acquired in the same general
order, irrespective of who the learner is, which language they are acquiring and
the order of the grammar syllabus. You can teach students reported speech, such
as in the sentence, 'she mentioned that she had been at the shop that morning', but
learners wont acquire it unless they are ready to. Certain elements of grammar
are 'late-acquired', such as the third person '-s', and others are 'early-acquired'. This
explains why my little niece continues to say things like 'Daddy go to work every
day', even when she has already mastered more complex grammatical structures
such as a conditional sentence like, 'I would do it if I had time'. Evidence for this
'natural sequence' of language acquisition can be found in the morpheme
studies by Dulay and Burt. This casts doubt on the teaching of many points of
grammar too early, that is, before students are ready to acquire them, such as the
future perfect tense at intermediate level.

The advantages children have over adult learners

Before looking at the classroom implications of Krashens insights, we should
remind ourselves of some of the advantages that children learning their first
language have over adults learning a second language. One of the principle
advantages is that children are exposed to copious amounts of comprehensible
input at just the right level, and there is no pressure on them to speak until they
are ready to do so. Children can also take their time and wait until they feel

6
 confident before attempting to speak. Moreover, they often have lower
expectations of themselves and this helps to ensure that their anxiety levels are
low, which, in turn, increases their rate of acquisition.
One of the most surprising things is that when children acquire a language, the
language acquisition itself is not their objective. Rather, it is a by-product of the
achievement of some other purpose, such as making friends in a school
playground. Moreover, they pick up the elements of their first language in
its natural order. They are not 'force-fed' grammar too early before their language
acquisition devices are ready for it. Instead, they acquire the language first and
then consider its structure after acquisition has already taken place. Finally, they
learn the elements of a language in the natural order.

The practical implications of Krashen's ideas for the classroom

From Krashen's theories, and having looked at the advantages that children have
over adults when it comes to learning languages, we can draw certain conclusions
about what conditions make for a successful learning environment. First, class
time should be taken up with as much comprehensible input as possible. Second,
classes should be stress-free environments where students are encouraged to relax
and acquire the language by having fun with it.
One particularly important implication of Krashens findings is that students,
particularly at lower levels, should have lower demands made on them to speak,
and materials and teacher talking time should be modified for each student's level.
Furthermore, grammar instruction should be done on a need-to-know basis, and
only with older learners. Last, but perhaps most important, lessons should not be
based on grammar points, but rather on the exchange of meaning.

An introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen

This page contains an introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen, Emeritus Professor
of Linguistics and Education at the University of Southern California. It was written in
advance of Dr. Krashen's visit to Frankfurt International School (FIS) in October 2009 to
lead the school's two-day professional development.

The page as shown initially contains a brief synopsis of Krashen's work in the fields of
second language learning, free voluntary reading, bilingual education, whole language,
cognitive development and writing. Each synopsis is followed by comments and a
summary of implications for mainstream teachers of ESL students.

At various points in the page you can click to see quotations from Krashen's books
and articles. Teachers who are interested in further information about the various issues
can click [More] at the end of each section.

Second language learning

7
Krashen believes that there is no fundamental difference between the way we acquire our
first language and our subsequent languages. He claims that humans have an innate ability
that guides the language learning process. Infants learn their mother tongue simply by
listening attentively to spoken language that is (made) meaningful to them. Foreign
languages are acquired in the same way.

Krashen synthesizes his theories of second/foreign language learning in what is usually

referred to as the Monitor Model. The Monitor Model has 5 components:

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

There are two ways of developing language ability: by acquisition and by learning.
Acquisition is a sub-conscious process, as in the case of a child learning its own language
or an adult 'picking up' a second language simply by living and working in a foreign
country. Learning is the conscious process of developing a foreign language through
language lessons and a focus on the grammatical features of that language.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

Language is acquired in a predictable order by all learners. This order does not depend
on the apparent simplicity or complexity of the grammatical features involved. The
natural order of acquisition cannot be influenced by direct teaching of features that the
learner is not yet ready to acquire.

The Monitor Hypothesis

We are able to use what we have learned (in Krashen's sense) about the rules of a language
in monitoring (or self-correcting) our language output. Clearly, this is possible in the
correction of written work. It is much more difficult when engaging in regular talk.

The Input Hypothesis

We acquire language in one way only: when we are exposed to input (written or spoken
language) that is comprehensible to us. Comprehensible input is the necessary but also
sufficient condition for language acquisition to take place. It requires no effort on the part
of the learner.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Comprehensible input will not result in language acquisition if that input is filtered out
before it can reach the brain's language processing faculties. The filtering may occur
because of anxiety, poor self-esteem or low motivation.

8
Comments

Krashen's Monitor Model has attracted enormous attention from psychologists, fellow
linguists and educators. His theories have been criticised for a perceived lack of scientific
rigour and for his downplaying of the importance of language output and grammar
instruction. Nevertheless, the Monitor Model has been extremely influential in language
teaching pedagogy, and it is the basis for ESL instruction at Frankfurt International
School.

Implications for mainstream teachers

Firstly, if teachers make their classroom instruction comprehensible, then not only will
the ESL students learn the subject content but they will be acquiring English at the same
time. All teachers of non-native English students should regard themselves as teachers of
language too.

Secondly, ESL students are often anxious in mainstream classes. Teachers should seek
ways to reduce the students' affective filter in order that they can profit from the
comprehensible input they receive.

Free voluntary reading

Free voluntary reading (FVR) is the reading of any book (newspaper, magazine or comic)
that students have chosen for themselves and is not subject to follow-up work such as
comprehension questions or a summary. Krashen (2003) makes the claim that Free
voluntary reading 'may be the most powerful educational tool in language education'. It
serves to increase literacy and to develop vocabulary.

Extensive voluntary reading provides non-native students with large doses of

comprehensible input with a low affective filter, and thus is a major factor in their general
language acquisition.

Comments

Krashen's research has led many schools to implement in-class reading programmes such
as SSR (Sustained Silent Reading). Investigations conducted by the US National Reading
Panel (2000) did not find clear evidence that these programmes made students better
readers or encouraged them to read more. Some educators (see Klump, 2007) believe that
SSR is not the most productive use of instructional time. Krashen's response is that the
NRP's research was flawed and that SSR does indeed result in better readers and more
reading.

9
Implications for mainstream teachers

It is desirable that students develop the habit of regular reading in each discipline, even if
teachers prefer not to use instructional time to enable this. They may wish, therefore, to
assign self-selected reading as occasional homework and have students report back on
anything they feel worthy of sharing with the rest of the class. Teachers can collaborate
with the librarian to stock the library and the classrooms with interesting materials.
Students can be given lists of recommended websites.

Bilingual education

Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in the number of non-native speakers of
English in the classrooms of Great Britain, the USA and other English-speaking countries.
Educators in this period have been debating how best to meet the special needs of these
students. In broad terms there are two opposing approaches: 1. maximize the learner's
exposure to English; 2. provide instruction in the mother tongue as well as in English.
Krashen is a strong advocate of the second approach, which finds its implementation in
one of the forms of bilingual education.

Comments

Bilingual educational is a highly contentious issue, particularly in the USA. The strong
arguments from research that mother-tongue support for non-native English students is
beneficial for both their English language and their academic development have not been
found convincing by much of the general public. Politicians have seen the issue as a way
to gain voter popularity. Indeed, the whole question has become subsumed in volatile side
issues such as race, immigration and poverty. The proponents of bilingual education,
Krashen included, have been subject to intemperate personal attacks.

Implications for mainstream teachers

The dispute about optimal programme support for ESL students does not have a direct
impact on mainstream teachers. However, research in the fields of second language
acquisition and bilingual education has taught us that the first language is a very important
tool both in acquiring the second language and in learning content/skills in that second
language. The major reason for this is that judicious use of the mother-tongue serves to
make English input comprehensible.

Whole Language

Krashen is a strong advocate of the whole language approach to the teaching of reading,
and has written many articles in support of it. In essence, whole language proponents
claim that children learn to read most enjoyably and efficiently by exposure to interesting
stories that are made comprehensible to them through pictures and discussions. This is in

10
contrast to structured decoding programmes (usually designated phonics) in which
children learn to read by sounding out the various parts of words.

Comments

The whole language/phonics debate has become politicised and increasingly vitriolic.
Constant media reports about falling literacy standards have alarmed parents, many of
whom vehemently protest if they consider their child's school to have chosen the wrong
approach. The issue is further complicated by the involvement of publishing houses
which stand to make large profits if school districts can be persuaded to buy their
comprehensive sets of phonics-based materials. Such an entanglement of interests is
rarely conducive to making the best pedagogical decisions.

Implications for mainstream teachers

While this debate clearly has considerable implications for teachers of young children, it
has little or no direct impact on mainstream teachers at upper school level, the intended
audience of this web page. Nevertheless, teachers of older students (and parents) may
wish to have a little knowledge of such a contentious pedagogical issue.

Cognitive development

Krashen (2003) claims that cognitive development, including the acquisition of concepts
and facts, is more likely to occur through problem-solving than through deliberate study.
It is a confusion of cause and effect to teach facts and thinking skills in order that students
may then solve real problems. Instead, it is the case, Krashen says, that learning is the
result of working on real problems.

Writing that synthesizes knowledge gained from various sources, incorporates personal
insights, and presents these in a structured way is an excellent example of a problem-
solving activity that leads to cognitive development.

Comments

Krashen's theory of cognitive development is based in the holistic paradigm. This

paradigm has at its core the belief that teaching is most effective when it engages students
in authentic, complex tasks rather than discrete skill-building. The holistic approach,
which became popular in the 1960s, is now held responsible by some for what they claim
to be a general decline in educational standards. This reactionary movement is often
referred to as Back to Basics.

Implications for mainstream teachers

The most important implication is that teachers should seek out relevant, real (or realistic)
problems for their students to solve. In other words, problems that interest the students

11
and that naturally entail researching, thinking, discussing, reading and writing or
presenting.

Writing

Krashen's (1984) early work in this field draws the distinction between writing
competence and writing performance. Competence is the largely sub-conscious, abstract
knowledge of what constitutes good prose. Competence is acquired for the most part
through reading. Performance, on the other hand, refers to the conscious application of
strategies or rules that have been learned and practised. The distinction between
competence and performance in writing parallels that between acquisition and learning in
second language development.

In his later work Krashen (2003) investigates how writing can contribute to cognitive
development. He summarizes research that shows how various writing activities, in
particular note-taking and summary writing, are significant aids to learning .

Comments

The important insight from Krashen's work is that neither competence nor performance
is alone sufficient in the production of a good piece of writing. Extensive reading, regular
writing practice and the acquisition of writing skills and strategies are all necessary to
ensure a strong end product.

Implications for mainstream teachers

Students who take notes in class and make summaries learn more than those who do not.
Teachers should therefore consider requiring students to have a notebook and pencil at
the ready in every lesson. ESL students can be encouraged to use their own language in
noting down information and ideas. Teachers may also wish, from time to time, to have
the students write a short paragraph summarizing the essential content of the lesson or
section of it. Again, in the case of ESL students this summary could be in the mother
tongue.

Since reading is the essential ingredient in the development of writing competence,

teachers could encourage or require self-selected reading in their subject area.

Summary

Krashen's research and writings have inspired an enormous amount of attention over the
last three decades. The thousands of research studies, scholarly articles and books based
on Krashen's work are testimony to the major contribution he has made to advancing
knowledge and understanding in the fields of linguistics and education. Significant
numbers of teachers across the world have based their instruction on Krashen's theories,
to the benefit of the learners in their classrooms.

12
"Free voluntary reading may be the most powerful educational tool in language
education"

When in 1982 Stephen Krashen famously claimed that the written and spoken language
English language learners produce is a result of language acquisition vs. language study,
he caused mass uproar in the applied linguistics community. If input was all you needed
for language acquisition and successful learning, then what good were teachers and
structured language programs providing? Much of his theory has since been discredited
but the debate over best practices in teaching and learning is ongoing.

So when it comes to language, what is the difference between acquiring new words and
learning them? More importantly, how can you use the language acquisition vs. language
learning distinction to further your own study goals?

What is language acquisition?

Acquiring language is said to be a subconscious process. Its the act of internalizing

language to which you have been exposed without the deliberate memorization of a word
and its definition. With acquisition, you dont need to be aware of the learning process,
but it helps to be able to notice the unknown word in the first place.

Therefore, learners need to be able to parse speech to hear where a word starts and stops
and to decode the alphabet to see words on a page. Language input can then be turned
into language intake which is acquired and transferred from short to long term memory.
Note, without these decoding and parsing abilities, language acquisition may not take
place for language learners in an immersion setting.

What is learning?

Learning is a conscious activity. Its what we do when we look a word up in the

dictionary. Its also what happens when we learn rules about how language works or
purposefully study lists of vocabulary and grammar forms. There are certain intervals
which make learning new material more efficient and first meeting a word in context can
provide higher retention rates for learned material over time.

Acquisition vs. learning

Many English language learners are told that language acquisition vs. language
learning is more effective. Thats why most people believe immersion is guaranteed to
teach you a language. Immersion is essentially acquisition in its purest form. You rely on
the environment to provide input and language acquisition just happens magically with
repeat exposure to the target language.

13
Enrolling in a language class entails deliberate learning vs. language acquisition from
your surroundings. Sure, some language acquisition will happen as a by-product (posters
on the classroom walls, the teachers repeated use of a certain phrase) but most language
will be learned through memorization and direct study.

Taking a balanced approach

Understanding the language acquisition vs. language learning distinction can help you
choose tools and language programs that complement each other. The best approach is a
balanced one. A good language teacher knows this and always ensures the material you
work with is comprehensible input which makes language acquisition more likely. In this
way you can acquire new words and grammar from the comprehensible input and then
use deliberate study to reinforce your learning.

Its easy to find a good classroom learning program but simulating immersion that results
in language acquisition is more difficult in online language study. For starters, did you
know that for sources of language to be considered comprehensible input they must be at
i+1 or one step above your current level? A computer cant always know your exact level
and change its teaching materials the way a person can.

What are Krashen's Hypotheses?

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of six main hypotheses:

the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis

the Monitor hypothesis
the Natural Order hypothesis
the Input hypothesis
the Affective Filter hypothesis
the Reading Hypothesis

How do Krashen's Hypotheses apply to the SL/FL classroom?

Explanation of Hypothesis Application for Teaching

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
According to Krashen, there are two ways of
developing language ability. Acquisition
involves the subconscious acceptance of
knowledge where information is stored in the
brain through the use of communication; this is
the process used for developing native
languages. Learning, on the other hand, is the
conscious acceptance of knowledge about a
According to this theory, the optimal way a
language is learned is through natural
communication. As a second language
teacher, the ideal is to create a situation
wherein language is used in order to fulfill
authentic purposes. This is turn, will help
students to acquire the language instead of
just learning it.

14
language (i.e. the grammar or form). Krashen
states that this is often the product of formal
language instruction.
The Monitor hypothesis
This hypothesis further explains how
acquisition and learning are used; the
acquisition system, initiates an utterance and
the learning system monitors the utterance to
inspect and correct errors. Krashen states that
monitoring can make some contribution to the
accuracy of an utterance but its use should be
limited. He suggests that the monitor can
sometimes act as a barrier as it forces the
learner to slow down and focus more on
accuracy as opposed to fluency.
The Natural Order hypothesis
According to Krashen, learners acquire parts
of language in a predictable order. For any
given language, certain grammatical structures
are acquired early while others are acquired
later in the process. This hypothesis suggests
that this natural order of acquisition occurs
independently of deliberate teaching and
therefore teachers cannot change the order of a
grammatical teaching sequence.
The Input hypothesis
This hypothesis suggests that language
acquisition occurs when learners receive
messages that they can understand, a concept
also known as comprehensible
input. However, Krashen also suggests that
this comprehensible input should be one step
beyond the learners current language ability,
represented as i + 1, in order to allow learners
to continue to progress with their language
development.
The Affective Filter hypothesis
According to Krashen one obstacle that
manifests itself during language acquisition is
the affective filter; that is a 'screen' that is
influenced by emotional variables that can
prevent learning. This hypothetical filter does
As an SL teacher it will always be a
challenge to strike a balance between
encouraging accuracy and fluency in your
students. This balance will depend on
numerous variables including the language
level of the students, the context of language
use and the personal goals of each
student. This balance is also known as
Communicative competency.
According to this hypothesis, teachers should
be aware that certain structures of a language
are easier to acquire than others and therefore
language structures should be taught in an
order that is conducive to learning. Teachers
should start by introducing language concepts
that are relatively easy for learners to acquire
and then use scaffolding to introduce more
difficult concepts.
This hypothesis highlights the importance of
using the Target Language in the
classroom. The goal of any language
program is for learners to be able to
communicate effectively. By providing as
much comprehensible input as possible,
especially in situations when learners are not
exposed to the TL outside of the classroom,
the teacher is able to create a more effective
opportunity for language acquisition.
In any aspect of education it is always
important to create a safe, welcoming
environment in which students can learn. In
language education this may be especially
important since in order to take in and
produce language, learners need to feel that
15
not impact acquisition directly but rather
prevents input from reaching the language
acquisition part of the brain. According to
Krashen the affective filter can be prompted by
many different variables including anxiety,
self-confidence, motivation and stress.
The Reading Hypothesis
This hypothesis basically states that the more
we read in a SL the greater our vocabulary will
be.
they are able to make mistakes and take
risks. This relates to directly to Krashens
hypothesis of the affective filter. To learn
more about creating a positive classroom
environment, click here.
It is important to involve reading in the
language classroom to increase knowledge of
the language and the way it is used in real-life
contexts.
16