How do Krashen's Hypotheses apply to the SL/FL
classroom?
Explanation of Hypothesis
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 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 learner’s 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 not impact
acquisition directly but rather prevents input from
reaching the language acquisition part of the brain.  the affective filter.  To learn more about creating
Application for Teaching
According to this theory, the optimal way a langu
learned is through natural communication.  As a s
language teacher, the ideal is to create a situation
language is used in order to fulfill authentic purpo
is turn, will help students to ‘acquire’ the languag
of just ‘learning’ it.
As an SL teacher it will always be a challenge to
balance between encouraging accuracy and fluenc
students. This balance will depend on numerous v
including the language level of the students, the c
language use and the personal goals of each stude
balance is also known as Communicative compet
According to this hypothesis, teachers should be a
certain structures of a language are easier to acqu
others and therefore language structures should be
in an order that is conducive to learning. Teachers
start by introducing language concepts that are rel
easy for learners to acquire and then use scaffoldi
introduce more difficult concepts.
This hypothesis highlights the importance of usin
Target Language in the classroom.  The goal of an
language program is for learners to be able to com
effectively.  By providing as much comprehensib
as possible, especially in situations when learners
exposed to the TL outside of the classroom, the te
able to create a more effective opportunity for lan
acquisition.
In any aspect of education it is always important t
safe, welcoming environment in which students c
In language education this may be especially imp
since in order to take in and produce language, lea
need to feel that they are able to make mistakes an
risks.  This relates to directly to Krashen’s hypoth
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.
classroom environment, click here.
It is important to involve reading in the language
classroom to increase knowledge of the language
way it is used in real-life contexts.

Overview
The five hypotheses that Krashen proposed are as follows:

 The input hypothesis. This states that learners progress in their knowledge of the language
when they comprehend language input that is slightly more advanced than their current
level. Krashen called this level of input "i+1", where "i" is the learner's interlanguage and
"+1" is the next stage of language acquisition.
 The acquisition–learning hypothesis claims that there is a strict separation between
acquisition and learning; Krashen saw acquisition as a purely subconscious process and
learning as a conscious process, and claimed that improvement in language ability was only
dependent upon acquisition and never on learning.
 The monitor hypothesis states that consciously learned language can only be used to
monitor language output; it can never be the source of spontaneous speech.
 The natural order hypothesis states that language is acquired in a particular order, and that
this order does not change between learners, and is not affected by explicit instruction.
 The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners' ability to acquire language is
constrained if they are experiencing negative emotions such as fear or embarrassment. At
such times the affective filter is said to be "up".

Input hypothesis
If i represents previously acquired linguistic competence and extra-linguistic knowledge, the
hypothesis claims that we move from i to i+1 by understanding input that contains i+1.
Extra-linguistic knowledge includes our knowledge of the world and of the situation, that is,
the context. The +1 represents 'the next increment' of new knowledge or language structure
that will be within the learner's capacity to acquire.[3]

The comprehensible input hypothesis can be restated in terms of the natural order hypothesis.
For example, if we acquire the rules of language in a linear order (1, 2, 3...), then i represents
the last rule or language form learned, and i+1 is the next structure that should be learned.[4] It
must be stressed, however, that just any input is not sufficient; the input received must be
comprehensible.[3] According to Krashen, there are three corollaries to his theory.

Corollaries of the input hypothesis

1. Talking (output) is not practicing.

Krashen stresses yet again that speaking in the target language does not result in language
acquisition. Although speaking can indirectly assist in language acquisition, the ability to
 speak is not the cause of language learning or acquisition. Instead, comprehensible output is
the effect of language acquisition.[3][5]
2. When enough comprehensible input is provided, i+1 is present.
If language models and teachers provide enough comprehensible input, then the structures
that acquirers are ready to learn will be present in that input. According to Krashen, this is a
better method of developing grammatical accuracy than direct grammar teaching. [3]
3. The teaching order is not based on the natural order.
Instead, students will acquire the language in a natural order by receiving comprehensible
input.[3]

Acquisition-learning hypothesis
In modern linguistics, there are many theories as to how humans are able to develop language
ability. According to Stephen Krashen's acquisition-learning hypothesis, there are two
independent ways in which we develop our linguistic skills: acquisition and learning.[3] This
theory is at the core of modern language acquisition theory, and is perhaps the most
fundamental of Krashen's theories.

Acquisition of language is a natural, intuitive, and subconscious process of which individuals

need not be aware. One is unaware of the process as it is happening and, when the new
knowledge is acquired, the acquirer generally does not realize that he or she possesses any
new knowledge. According to Krashen, both adults and children can subconsciously acquire
language, and either written or oral language can be acquired.[3] This process is similar to the
process that children undergo when learning their native language. Acquisition requires
meaningful interaction in the target language, during which the acquirer is focused on
meaning rather than form.[6]

Learning a language, on the other hand, is a conscious process, much like what one
experiences in school. New knowledge or language forms are represented consciously in the
learner's mind, frequently in the form of language "rules" and "grammar", and the process
often involves error correction.[3] Language learning involves formal instruction and,
according to Krashen, is less effective than acquisition.[6] Learning in this sense is conception
or conceptualisation: instead of learning a language itself, students learn an abstract,
conceptual model of a language, a "theory" about a language (a grammar).

Monitor hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis asserts that a learner's learned system acts as a monitor to what they
are producing. In other words, while only the acquired system is able to produce spontaneous
speech, the learned system is used to check what is being spoken.

Before the learner produces an utterance, he or she internally scans it for errors, and uses the
learned system to make corrections. Self-correction occurs when the learner uses the Monitor
to correct a sentence after it is uttered. According to the hypothesis, such self-monitoring and
self-correction are the only functions of conscious language learning.[3]

The Monitor model then predicts faster initial progress by adults than children, as adults use
this ‘monitor’ when producing L2 (target language) utterances before having acquired the
ability for natural performance, and adult learners will input more into conversations earlier
than children.[citation needed]

Three conditions for use of the monitor

According to Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully used, three conditions must be met:

1. The acquirer/learner must know the rule

This is a very difficult condition to meet because it means that the speaker must have had
explicit instruction on the language form that he or she is trying to produce. [3]
2. The acquirer must be focused on correctness
He or she must be thinking about form, and it is difficult to focus on meaning and form at
the same time.[3]
3. The acquirer/learner must have time to use the monitor
Using the monitor requires the speaker to slow down and focus on form. [3]

Difficulties using the monitor

There are many difficulties with the use of the monitor, making the monitor rather weak as a
language tool.

1. Knowing the rule: this is a difficult condition to meet, because even the best students do not
learn every rule that is taught, cannot remember every rule they have learned, and can't
always correctly apply the rules they do remember. Furthermore, not every rule of a
language is always included in a text or taught by the teacher. [3]
2. Having time to use the monitor: there is a price that is paid for the use of the monitor- the
speaker is then focused on form rather than meaning, resulting in the production and
exchange of less information, thus slowing the flow of conversation. Some speakers over-
monitor to the point that the conversation is painfully slow and sometimes difficult to listen
to.[3]
3. The rules of language make up only a small portion of our language competence: Acquisition
does not provide 100% language competence. There is often a small portion of grammar,
punctuation, and spelling that even the most proficient native speakers may not acquire.
While it is important to learn these aspects of language, since writing is the only form that
requires 100% competence, these aspects of language make up only a small portion of our
language competence.[3]

Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommends using the monitor at times when it does not
interfere with communication, such as while writing.[3]

Natural order hypothesis

See also: Order of acquisition

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire a language in roughly the same
order. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be
taught; some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom
setting, but are not typically acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. This
hypothesis was based on the morpheme studies by Dulay and Burt, which found that certain
morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second-language
acquisition.

Affective filter hypothesis

The affective filter is an impediment to learning or acquisition caused by negative emotional
("affective") responses to one's environment. It is a hypothesis of second-language
acquisition theory, and a field of interest in educational psychology.

According to the affective filter hypothesis, certain emotions, such as anxiety, self-doubt, and
mere boredom interfere with the process of acquiring a second language. They function as a
filter between the speaker and the listener that reduces the amount of language input the
listener is able to understand. These negative emotions prevent efficient processing of the
language input.[3] The hypothesis further states that the blockage can be reduced by sparking
interest, providing low-anxiety environments, and bolstering the learner's self-esteem.

According to Krashen (1982),[7] there are two prime issues that prevent the lowering of the
affective filter. The first is not allowing for a silent period (expecting the student to speak
before they have received an adequate amount of comprehensible input according to their
individual needs). The second is correcting their errors too early on in the learning process.

Reception and influence

The model has been criticized by some linguists[who?] and isn't considered a valid hypothesis
for some[who?][citation needed]. It has, however, inspired much research, and many linguists praise its
value.[citation needed]

According to Wolfgang Butzkamm & John A. W. Caldwell (2009), comprehensible input,

defined by Krashen as understanding messages, is indeed the necessary condition for
acquisition, but it is not sufficient. Learners will crack the speech code only if they receive
input that is comprehended at two levels. They must not only understand what is meant but
also how things are quite literally expressed, i.e. how the different meaning components are
put together to produce the message. This is the principle of dual comprehension. In many
cases both types of understanding can be conflated into one process, in others not. The
German phrase "Wie spät ist es?" is perfectly understood as "What time is it?" However
learners need to know more: *How late is it? That’s what the Germans say literally, which
gives us the anatomy of the phrase, and the logic behind it. Only now is understanding
complete, and we come into full possession of the phrase which can become a recipe for
many more sentences, such as "Wie alt ist es?" / "How old is it?" etc. According to
Butzkamm & Caldwell (2009:64) "dually comprehended language input is the fuel for our
language learning capacities".[8] It is both necessary and sufficient.

The theory underlies Krashen and Terrell's comprehension-based language learning

methodology known as the natural approach (1983). The Focal Skills approach, first
developed in 1988, is also based on the theory.[citation needed] English as a Second Language
Podcast was also inspired by Krashen's ideas on providing comprehensible input to language
acquirers.
 The most popular competitors are the skill-building hypothesis and the comprehensible
output hypothesis.[9] The input hypothesis is related to instructional scaffolding.

Applications in language teaching

Krashen designates learners into beginner and intermediate levels:[3]

Beginning level

Class time is filled with comprehensible oral input

 Teachers must modify their speech so that it is comprehensible

 Demands for speaking (output) are low; students are not forced to speak until ready
 Grammar instruction is only included for students high school age and older

Intermediate level

 Teaching uses comprehensible input drawn from academic texts, but modified so that
subject-matter is sheltered, or limited. (Note that sheltered subject-matter teaching is not
for beginners or native speakers of the target language.)
 In sheltered instruction classes, the focus is on meaning, not form.

As a practical matter, comprehensive input works with the following teaching techniques:

1. The teacher should slow down and speak clearly and slowly, using short sentences and
clauses.
2. The teacher needs to prepare and use graphical or visual aids.
3. Courses should use textbooks or supporting materials that are not overly cluttered.
4. For students above 2nd grade, a study guide is useful.
5. Classes should make use of multi-modal teaching techniques.
6. Students may read aloud, with other students paraphrasing what they said.
7. A small set of content vocabulary used repeatedly will be more easily acquired and allow
students to acquire language structures.

Hipotesis Stephen Krashen

1.      Hipotesis pemerolehan dan pembelajaran (The Acquisition – Learning hypothesis)

Krashen membedakan pemerolehan bahasa (language acquisition) dengan pembelajaran
bahasa (language learning). Pemerolehan bahasa menurutnya merupakan proses seseorang
secara tidak sadar dalam memperoleh bahasa kedua. Pemerolehan bahasa terjadi seperti
seorang anak kecil yang memperoleh bahasa pertama, ia dengan tidak sadar mengetahui
aturan-aturan maupun fitur-fitur bahasa karena ia hanya sadar jika ia menggunakan bahasa
untuk berkomunikasi. Menurut Krashen dalam pemerolehan bahasa ini, kita tidak selalu
sadar tehadap aturan-aturan bahasa yang kita peroleh tetapi kita memiliki ’rasa’ untuk
 melakukan pembenaran (Krashen, 1982). Pemerolehan bahasa terjadi karena adanya
interaksi secara natural dengan menggunakan bahasa kedua untuk berkomunikasi.

Pembelajaran bahasa merupakan proses sadar seseorang dalam belajar bahasa. Lain
halnya dengan proses pemerolehan bahasa, melalui pembelajaran bahasa seorang anak
secara sadar mengetahui/mempelajari aturan-aturan maupun fitur-fitur bahasa. Proses
pembelajaran ini diidentikan dengan proses pembelajaran bahasa yang dilakukan di kelas
dimana fokusnya pada bentuk dan aturan dari bahasa target (Mitchell dan Myles, 2004).

Hipotesis pemerolehan dan pembelajaran bahasa ini mendapat kritik dari Michell dan
Myles (2004), menurut mereka definisi sadar ( concious) dan tidak sadar (subconcious) yang
diajukan oleh Krashen tidak jelas karena kita tidak dapat membedakan atau menentukan
secara jelas bahwa produksi bahasa pemelajar merupakan hasil dari proses sadar atau tidak
sadar.

Dalam kaitannya dengan pembelajaran di kelas, pengajar semestinya sadar bahwa proses
yang terjadi adalah proses pembelajaran bahasa ( learning language)., terlebih dalam konteks
bahasa Inggris sebagai bahaasa asing di Indonesia dimana bahasa tersebut masih jarang
digunakan di luar kelas. Sehingga dapat dikatakan aturan-aturan bahasa dipelajari secara
sadar, namun dengan konsep pemerolehan bahasa ( language acquisition) yang didasari oleh
proses natural penggunaan bahasa untuk berkomunikasi, kita dapat menggunakan cara
tersebut dengan menciptakan suasana belajar yang mendekati natural. Bahasa digunakan
untuk berkomunikasi tanpa menitikberatkan pada aturan bahasa kemudian setelah
berkomunikasi, pemelajar diarahkan untuk mengetahui aturan-aturan bahasa yang
digunakan dalam berkomunikasi.

2.      Hipotesis Urutan Alami (The Natural Order Hypothesis)

Krashen mengatakan bahwa pemerolehan bahasa melalui urutan yang alami, beberapa
aturan bahasa diperoleh lebih dulu daripada aturan bahasa yang lain. Penelitian yang
dilakukan oleh Brown (dikutip dalam Krashen, 1982) terhadap pemerolehan bahasa Inggris
sebagai bahasa pertama pada anak menunjukkan bahwa anak-anak cenderung memeroleh
morfem gramatikal tertentu atau fungsi kata dibandingkan dengan yang lain, contohnya
pembentuk kata progresif (kata kerja +ing) pada “ He is playing baseball” dan penanda
bentuk jamak (penambahan s) pada “two dogs” merupakan bentuk morfem yang lebih
dahulu diperoleh, sedangkan penanda orang ketiga (penambahan akhiran s pada kata kerja)
pada “He lives in New York” dan bentuk posesif (penambahan ‘s pada subjek) seperti “John’s
hat” diperoleh belakangan, setelah 6 bulan sampai satu tahun setelahnya.
 Walaupun penelitian yang dilakukan oleh Brown berdasarkan proses pemerolehan pada
bahasa pertama, namun menurut Dulay dan Burt (dikutip dalam Krashen, 1982),
pemerolehan morfem gramatikal pada pemelajar bahasa inggris sebagai bahasa kedua juga
menunjukkan adanya uturan alami. Hipotesis urutan alami ini mendapat kritik antara lain
karena tidak semua pemelajar bahasa kedua mengadopsi urutan yang sama pada
pemerolehan bahasa targetnya (McLaughlin,1987 dalam Zafar 2009). Selain itu hipotesis
urutan alami Krashen hanya didasari pada morfem bahasa Inggris (Gass dan Selinker, 1994;
McLaughlin, 1987 dalam Zafar 2009).

Dalam kaitannya dengan pengajaran bahasa di kelas, hendaknya pengajar tidak

mendasari pengajaran bahasa pada urutan tata bahasa. Bahkan Krashen (1982) menyarankan
agar tidak mendasari penyusunan silabus pada urutan gramatikal seperti hasil penelitian
Brown (mendahulukan bentuk progresif ’ing’ kemudian bentuk orang ketiga ’s’).

3.      Hipotesis Monitor (The Monitor Hypothesis)

Dalam hipotesis ini Krashen menyatakan bahwa pembelajaran ( learning) dan
pemerolehan bahasa (acquisition) digunakan dalam cara yang berbeda dalam perfomasi
bahasa kedua. Dalam hipotesis ini fungsi pembelajaran hanya untuk mengontrol atau
memperbaiki suatu ujaran bahasa. Sedangkan pemerolehan bahasa berfungsi sebagai
inisator ujaran yang berpengaruh pada kelancaran berkomunikasi (Krashen, 1982).
Pemelajar hanya dapat melakukan kontrol jika memenuhi 3 kondisi yaitu: (1) waktu.
Adanya waktu yang cukup untuk melakukan kontrol. Namun dalam percakapan normal
umumnya, waktu untuk melakukan kontrol tidaklah cukup, (2) fokus pada bentuk. Selain
adanya waktu yang cukup untuk melakukan kontrol, pemelajar juga harus fokus pada bentuk
maupun aturan bahasa yang benar, dan (3) mengetahui aturan. Selain kondisi 1 dan 2,
pemelajar juga harus mengetahui aturan bahasa yang benar dalam mengontrol bahasanya
sehingga menghasilkan bentuk bahasa yang benar.
Hipotesis ini mendapat kritik dari McLaughlin (1987) yang menyatakan bahwa kontrol
yang berlebihan akan menghambat pemelajar dalam memproduksi ujaran. Pemelajar akan
terfokus pada aturan-aturan sehingga dapat menimbulkan kecemasan akan memproduksi
bahasa yang salah.
Dalam kaitannya dengan pengajaran di kelas, seorang pengajar hendaknya memberikan
input yang cukup dan baik agar pemelajar dapat memprodiksi ujaran yang benar. Namun
hal yang terpenting ialah, seorang pengajar jangan terlalu fokus dan mengharuskan
pemelajar untuk memproduksi bentuk aturan yang benar khususnya pada kemampuan lisan
dan pada pemelajar pemula atau anak-anak, untuk menghindari ketahukan pemelajar dalam
 memproduksi bahasa. Selain itu, pengajar juga sebaiknya mempertimbangkan kriteria dalam
penilaian. Jika pengajar menginginkan fokus penilaian pada pemahaman terhadap struktur
atau aturan-aturan bahasa, maka hendaknya ia menciptakan kondisi yang sesuai seperti
yang telah disebutkan di atas.
4.      Hipotesis Input (The Input Hypothesis)
Dalam hipotesis ini Krashen mengajukan 3 hal penting yaitu (1) bahwa pemelajar
memeroleh bahasa dengan memahami input yang berisi struktur yang sedikit diatas
kemampuan pemelajar saat ini, yang dirumuskan dengan (i+1) dimana ‘i’ adalah
kemampuan pemelajar saat ini. Memahami ‘input’ dalam hipotesis ini berarti pemahaman
terhadap makna dari suatu ujaran (meaning).
Pemelajar tidak memeroleh struktur bahasa dalam pembelajaran pertama kali melainkan
memahami makna suatu ujaran sehingga struktur dengan sendirinya diperoleh, (2) Krashen
mengatakan bahwa kita tidak mengajarkan keterampilan berbicara, melainkan kita
memberikan pemelajar input yang komprehensif ( comprehensible input) dengan begitu
maka ketrampilan berbicara akan diperoleh dengan sendirinya, dan (3) input yang terbaik
bukanlah input yang terstruktur secara gramatikal namun jika pemelajar mengerti input yang
diberikan maka sebaiknya pemelajar diberikan input i+1 (Krashen dalam Long dan Richard,
1987).
Hipotesis ini dikritik oleh Mitchell dan Myles (2004) yang mengatakan bahwa tidak jelas
menentukan tingkat i maka bagaimana caranya menentukan level i+1. Kritik terhadap input
juga datang dari Swain yang mengatakan bahwa input saja tidaklah cukup untuk pemelajar
agar dapat memiliki ketrampilan berbicara. Ia mengatakan bahwa memahami bahasa dan
memproduksi bahasa adalah dua hal yang berbeda. Memproduksi bahasa tidak cukup hanya
dengan diberikan input melainkan dengan mendorong pemelajar untuk memproduksi atau
berlatih menggunakan bahasa target. Hipotesis dari Swain tersebut dikenal sebagai hipotesis
’Output’ (Swain: 1985 dalam Johnson: 2001).
Dalam pengajaran bahasa di kelas, hendaknya pengajar mengetahui kemampuan terkini
pemelajar sehingga dapat memberikan input yang sesuai (i+1). Mengetahui kemapuan
pemelajar dapat dengan cara melakukan tes pada awal pembelajaran. Selain itu, pemelajar
juga harus diberikan kesampatan untuk menggunakan input yang telah diberikan melalui
berbagai latihan karena kemampuan berbahasa seseorang dapat ditingkatkan melalui
banyak latihan.
5.      Hipotesis Penyaringan Afeksi (The Affective Filter Hypothesis)
Hipotesis ini berkaitan dengan hipotesis input. Krashen berpendapat bahwa dengan
memberikan input yang komprehensif saja tiak cukup, pemelajar juga harus membiarkan
agar input tersebut dapat diterima dan dimengerti (Krashen dalam Mitchell dan Myles: 2004).
Krashen berpendapat bahwa faktor afeksi dapat mempengaruhi penerimaan input serta
pemerolehan bahasa kedua (Krashen, 1982). Variabel faktor-faktor afeksi terdiri dari 3
kategori yaitu: (1) Motivasi. Pemelajar dengan motivasi yang tinggi umumnya menunjukkan
performa yang lebih baik diandingkan yang memiliki motivasi yang lemah, (2) percaya diri.
Sama halnya dengan motivasi, pemelajar yang memiliki rasa percaya diri tinggi cenderung
lebih baik dalam memeroleh bahasa kedua, dan (3) kecemasan. Pemelajar yang memiliki
kecemasan yang tinggi akan menghambat proses pemerolehan input, sebaliknya pemelajar
yang memiliki kecemasan yang rendah atau bahkan tidak memiliki kecemasan dengan
mudah akan memeroleh input.
Kritik terhadap hipotesis ini datang dari Zafar (2009) yang tidak setuju dengan pendapat
Krashen bahwa tidak ada saringan afeksi pada anak-anak. Zafar berpendapat bahwa anak-
anak pun dapat terpengaruh oleh faktor personal seperti rasa tidak aman, kecemasan, dan
kurang percaya diri. Terebih lagi jika orang dewasa memiliki saringan afeksi yang tinggi lalu
mengapa ada orang dewasa yang memiliki kemampuan bahasa seperti penutur jati?
McLaughlin juga tidak setuju dengan pendapat Krashen yang menyatakan bahwa pada masa
pubertas saringan afeksi pemelajar sangat tinggi sehingga dapat menghalangi masuknya
input, McLaughlin berpendapat sebaliknya bahwa pada masa pubertas, pemelajar memiliki
rasa ingin tahu yang sangat tinggi sehingga sikap terhadap input-inout yang diberikan pun
berdampak positif.
Merujuk pada hipotesis ini, hendaknya pengajar dapat memberikan input yang
komprehensif dan menciptakan suasana belajar yang nyaman bagi pemelajar sehingga
faktor-faktor yang dapat menghambat pemerolehan input atau bahasa kedua dapat
dikurangi.