Thursday, August 31, 2006
The Krashen Revolution
By Peter McKenzie-Brown
About 25 years ago, a psychologist named Stephen Krashen transformed language teaching. He had been developing his
ideas over a number of years, but several books he published in the 1980s received widespread acceptance. They quickly became the most
widely accepted way to explain the twin processes of language teaching and learning. Also, with Tracey Terrell, he developed the natural
approach to language teaching. One of his books is available on the web.
Much has been made of Krashen's theory of second language acquisition, which consists of five main hypotheses: The acquisition-learning
hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis. Before we turn to these
ideas, though, it is worth noting that by no means do they pertain exclusively to second language acquisition. As you read the following
explanation of Krashen's five hypotheses, ask yourself whether his ideas are not equally applicable to an individual who has only one language.
It seems to me that Krashen's ideas work equally well to describe how an adult native-speaker would improve her English, say, as they do to
describe the process for the second language learner.
The Natural Order Hypothesis. Based on a powerful analysis of research results, Krashen’s natural order hypothesis suggests that the acquisition
of language, especially the rules of language, follows a predictable natural order. For any given language, some grammatical structures tend to
be acquired earlier than others. This idea reflects Noam Chomsky’s revolutionary notion that we all have a built-in Language Acquisition Device
(LAD), which within the first year of our lives begins to enable us to understand and acquire language.
Because of the nature of the LAD, we tend to learn different structures at different levels as young children. Researchers have found that the
same pattern occurs for older learners – not a surprise to seasoned language teachers! This is the “predictable natural order” of this hypothesis.
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis. The distinction between acquisition and learning is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in
Krashen's theory, since it suggests that language comes to us in two rather different ways. Acquisition is one. You acquire language by using it
for real communication. Learning, which he describes as “knowing about” language, is quite a different thing.
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 concentrate not on the form of their
utterances, but in the communicative act. Learning, on the other hand, provides conscious knowledge “about” the target language. It is therefore
less important than acquisition for basic communication, but it still plays an important role in language learning. To oversimplify a bit, learning
is likely to occur in the “study” segment of an English lesson, while acquisition takes places during language activation.
The Monitor Hypothesis. The fundamental distinction between acquisition and learning leads directly to the next hypothesis. The monitor
hypothesis relegates language learning (that is, a student’s responses to what the teacher teaches) to a secondary place in the scheme of language
learning.
The monitor hypothesis is the idea that conscious learning – that is, the outcome of grammar instruction and other activities that were the
traditional stock in trade of the language teacher – serve only as a monitor or an editor for the language student. Real acquisition takes place as
“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 Input Hypothesis. The input hypothesis suggests that people acquire language in only one way: by understanding messages, or by receiving
‘comprehensible input’. According to the input hypothesis, learner’s progress by receiving second language input that is one step beyond their
current stage of linguistic competence. Acquisition for learners with language knowledge “i” can only take place if they are exposed to
comprehensible input at a slightly higher level, which Krashen describes as level “i + 1”.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Finally, the Affective Filter Hypothesis proposes that a mental block caused by affective or emotional factors
can prevent input from reaching the student’s language acquisition device. The affective filter hypothesis says that affective variables like selfconfidence and anxiety play a role in language acquisition. When the filter is up – that is, when negative emotional factors are in play – language
acquisition suffers. When the filter is down, it benefits.
Taken together, these hypotheses offer a practical, elegant and appealing theory of language acquisition and learning.
Putting Krashen’s Ideas to Use.
Tracy Terrell worked with Krashen to create the nuts-and-bolts practical applications of the natural approach. He borrowed widely from many
methods, adapting them to meet the requirements of natural approach theory. “What characterizes the Natural Approach is the use of familiar
techniques within the framework of a method that focuses on providing comprehensible input and a classroom environment that uses
comprehension of input, minimizes learner anxiety, and maximizes learner self-confidence.”
He held students to a high level of accountability. They must be clear about their goals, take active roles in ensuring that input is
comprehensible, make decisions about when to start producing speech, and even contribute to choices about the amount of time to be spent on
grammar, for example. The teacher is a central figure in the natural approach classroom, however – the primary source of comprehensible input,
and responsible for creating a friendly and encouraging class atmosphere. Also, of course, the teacher must find and introduce a rich mix of
classroom activities to make the approach work.
The focus is always on introducing a little more English usage to what the students already have – i + 1, in Krashen’s formulation, – and to do so
in a warm and receptive classroom. The method makes wide use of realia, props and visuals (typically magazine pictures) to introduce new
vocabulary and practice comprehensible input.
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.
Show all extra text
Second language learning
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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 contrast to structured decoding programmes (usually designated
phonics) in which children learn to read by sounding out the various parts of words.
[More]
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.
[More]
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 problemsolving 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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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 and that naturally entail researching, thinking, discussing, reading and writing or presenting.
[More]
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 §§.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
[More]
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.
References - Krashen
Krashen's website. It contains links to the full text of two of his early books about second language acquisition as well as to numerous journal
articles: http://www.sdkrashen.com/.
Wikipedia article about Krashen. Its main focus on Krashen's involvement in the debate about bilingual education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen.
Second language acquisition
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Developments in SLA Research (Monograph). Retrieved from http://www.aaal.org/download/ellis.pdf
Feyerabend, P. (1981). Problems of Empiricism. Philosophical Papers, 2.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Harris, R. (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research. In
Criticism and the Growth (p. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams, Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (2006). SLA: Breaking the siege. Problems in SLA. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Arnold.
O'Grady, W. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: HarperCollins.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Sampson, G. (2005). The Language Instinct Debate. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Schumann, J. (1993). Some problems with falsification: An illustration from SLA research. Applied
Linguistics, 14, 295-306.
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Copley Publishing Group.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden, Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp.
235-256). New York: Newbury House.
Understanding Stephen Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis
Stephen Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis can help instructors who teach foreign languages and ESOL to better understand and assist their
students.
By
Kristin Krogh
on Apr 18, 2011
Login to post a comment
Ads by Google
Google AdWords
Subscribe today to turn Rp.150K into Rp.600K with Google AdWords!
www.Google.com/AdWords
In 1982, Stephen Krashen published Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. His theories have been well-known throughout the
teaching world and have contributed to the many philosophies and theories of how to best instruct students who are acquiring a second language.
Krashen designed the book to complement the real-life experiences of English-language teachers while reintroducing them to theories of
language acquisition and research about applied linguistics. According to Krashen, the main idea of the book can be summarized as follows:
“The best methods [for second language acquisition] are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing
messages that students really want to hear” (14).
Affective Filter Hypothesis
One of the five key hypotheses of second language acquisition that Krashen discusses is the “Affective Filter Hypothesis.” In this hypothesis,
Krashen shows that motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety all play a prominent role in language acquisition. These factors become crucial in
the process of language acquisition, either heightening or interfering with a student’s ability to progress.
Krashen shows that students who are highly motivated, have a strong sense of self, and enter a learning situation with a low level of anxiety are
much more likely to be successful language acquirers than those who do not. Students who have a low level of motivation, low self-esteem, and
high anxiety will encounter a wall when it comes to acquiring language and will not be able to progress as naturally or as quickly as their peers
who are not blocked by these factors.
Affective Filter Is Key but Not Sufficient on Its Own
In his hypotheses, Krashen strongly distinguishes between language learning and language acquisition, explaining that language learning is a
conscious process focused on the grammatical rules of a language while acquisition is more of a subconscious process that allows production of
a language over time with less focus on rules. Krashen shows that the affective filter hypothesis is most effective when we are dealing with
students who are acquiring language rather than memorizing rules.
Krashen goes on to explain that although a low affective filter is crucial to acquiring language, by itself it is not enough. The learner must also be
provided with “comprehensible input.” This means that the information coming in (vocabulary and content knowledge) must be understandable
to the student. When the input is understandable, but slightly outside of the student’s current level of ability to spontaneously produce it, this is
when the most language is acquired.
How to Lower the Affective Filter in the Classroom
In order to lower students' affective filters, teachers can provide a variety of activities and modes of instruction that will motivate students and
reduce their anxiety levels. Some of the ways that teachers can lower the affective filter are as follows:






Provide both oral and written instructions when possible. This will double a student's chances of completing the task correctly, thereby lowering
anxiety.
Provide activities that are interesting and intriguing. For example, discussing world events, popular culture, or new technology can be great ways to
draw students in.
Provide materials that relate to the students' real lives when possible. For example, if the students are part of a specialized program such as an auto
mechanic program or a cooking program, teachers can provide information that is related to these topics to keep students engaged.
Allow for jokes and relaxed conversation at certain times
Refrain from orally correcting students. Oral correction is generally not very effective, and it has the negative side-effect of creating a classroom
climate where students are reluctant to share ideas and answers out of a fear of being wrong.
Allow students to submit answers anonymously. They can write them on 3x5 cards or use whiteboard markers (or chalk) to put answers on the
board. When this strategy is used, incorrect answers can be corrected without embarrassing the student who made the error. This allows each
students to see that he/she is "normal" - each person in the class is growing and developing and still makes mistakes, just like they do. This strategy
also helps give students a feeling of success because they can also be praised for the originality and content of their submissions.

Reinforce the idea that language acquisition and development takes time and that students are not expected to be perfect in the beginning stages.
Keep in mind that lowering the affective filter can be a delicate balance sometimes. Providing an activity that is engaging to the students but is
too difficult may result in feelings of failure for the students and providing activities that are comprehensible but outside the students' realm of
interest may result in lowered motivation. Thus, providing activities that will build on students’ knowledge AND challenge them at an
appropriate level is the best combination because it will build motivation and confidence.
Using Krashen's Theory to Create an Effective and Productive Classroom Environment
Overall, Krashen’s theory provides reinforcement for what most teachers already do in their classroom: engage students at an appropriate level
and push them to acquire more knowledge. The Affective Filter Hypothesis thus provides a good starting place for teachers who are looking to
refine their teaching techniques and make the classroom experience more enjoyable and productive for their students. Knowledge of the affective
filter can assist teachers in heightening their students’ self confidence and motivation, thereby increasing language development, and leading to a
consistently positive classroom experience for English language learners.
Sources



Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Web. 18 April 2011.
Schütz, Ricardo. "Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition." 2007. English Made in Brazil. Web. 18 April 2011.
Wilson, Reid. A Summary of Stephen Krashen's Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 2000. LanguageImpact.com. Web. 18 April
2011.
The wrong and right way to learn a foreign language
By Valerie Strauss
This was written by linguist Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, is an educational researcher and
activist. He has written hundreds of articles and books in the fields of second language acquisition, bilingual education, and reading.
By Stephen Krashen
In a recent issue of the Washington Post Express, Andrew Eil, a staffer who works at the U.S. State Department on international climate change,
recommends that foreign language students start with “boot camp:” Study grammar very hard, drill vocabulary every day, and force yourself to
talk. This regimen, he claims, put him in a position to develop high levels of competence in several languages; he now speaks Russian and
French fluently and can converse in Mandarin and Kazakh.
Most of us who have taken foreign languages classes that emphasize heavy grammar instruction and memorizing vocabulary would disagree
with his recommendations, and so does the research.
The results of studies done over the last few decades by a wide variety of researchers and published in scientific journals support this view: We
do not master languages by hard study and memorization, or by producing it. Rather, we acquire language when we understand what people tell
us and what we read, when we get “comprehensible input.” As we get comprehensible input through listening and reading, we acquire (or
“absorb”) the grammar and vocabulary of the second language.
Studies show repeatedly that intensive grammar study and memorizing vocabulary are of limited value: Students in classes that provide lots of
comprehensible input (e.g. methods such as TPRS) consistently do better than students in traditional grammar-based classes on tests that involve
real communication and do just as well, and often better, on grammar tests. These students have acquired the grammar and vocabulary of the
language naturally, and can use what they have acquired in real communicative situations. They are also more likely to continue foreign
language study.
Grammar
The complexity of the grammatical system to be mastered makes it highly unlikely that it can be taught and learned: Linguists have not even
described the grammatical system of any language completely and many rules are forbiddingly complex, with numerous exceptions.
Even very complex rules, however, can be acquired (or “absorbed”) through comprehensible input, especially through reading. Here is one of
many examples from the research: In one study, English speakers who spoke Spanish as a second language were tested on their ability to use the
Spanish subjunctive in conversation. The subjunctive is of interest as it is considered a difficult structure to master. Researchers considered a
number of predictors of subjunctive proficiency: amount of formal study of Spanish, amount of formal study of the subjunctive, years of
residence in a Spanish-speaking country, and the amount of reading done in Spanish. The only significant predictor was reading in Spanish.
Vocabulary
There is a substantial research literature showing that vocabulary knowledge comes largely from comprehensible input, especially reading, in
both first and second languages. Many second language speakers acquire enormous vocabularies, and it is highly doubtful that they did it
through vocabulary study: In one study, it was reported that speakers of Spanish as a second language who were avid readers in Spanish had
larger Spanish vocabularies than native speakers of Spanish who did not do a lot of reading.
Forced speech
Should language students force themselves to talk, as Eil advises? Research informs us that at beginning stages, highly successful second
language acquirers often experience a substantial “silent period,” a time when they produce little or no language. The silent period is nearly
universal for children acquiring a second language, and there are entire cultures in which second language acquirers are expected to experience a
silent period. Also, successful comprehensible-input based methods do not force students to speak.
Forcing language students to speak before they are ready not only makes them extremely uncomfortable but does nothing for language
acquisition. Speaking doesn’t cause language acquisition; rather, the ability to speak is the result of comprehensible input.
Comprehensible input at all stages
Andrew Eil has clearly done well in foreign language acquisition, and he acknowledges the value of the experiences he had during his residence
in Russia, Kazakhstan, France and China over several years, from the reading he did, the movies he saw, the many conversations he had with
others, and other kinds of “informal, friendly interaction.” In other words, he improved thanks to comprehensible input.
Current research strongly suggests that comprehensible input is the way we acquire language at all stages. The kind of “boot camp” Eil
recommends is neither necessary nor desirable.
-Sources:
Comprehensible input: Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Heinemann.
Effectiveness of comprehensible-input based instruction: Krashen, op. cit.; TPRS studies: Varguez, K. 2009. Traditional and TPR Storytelling
instrution in beginning high school Spanish classroom. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1): 2-11; Watson, B. 2009. A
comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the high school level. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5
(1): 21-24.
Acquisition of Spanish subjunctive: Stokes, J., Krashen, S., and Kartchner, J. 1998. Factors in the acquisition of the present subjunctive in
Spanish: The role of reading and study. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 121-122:19-25.
Highly successful second language acquirers often experience a substantial “silent period”; Krashen, S. 2000. What does it take to acquire
language? ESL Magazine, 3(3), 22-23. (available at http:www. sdkrashen.com)
Cultures in which a silent period is expected: Sorenson, A. 1967. Multilingualism in the northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist, 69 (6),
670-684.
Avid readers of Spanish: Rodrigo, V. 2009. Vocabulary size and reading habit in native and non-native speakers of Spanish. Hispania, 92.3, 580592.
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 language (i.e. the grammar or form).
Krashen states that this is often the product of formal
language instruction.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. According to
Krashen the affective filter can be prompted by
many different variables including anxiety, selfconfidence, motivation and stress.
The Reading Hypothesis
This hypothesis basically states that the more we
read in a SL the greater our vocabulary will be.
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 they are
able to make mistakes and take risks. This relates to
directly to Krashen’s 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.
What do Krashen's Hypotheses look like in the classroom?
Look at the cartoon and decide which of Krashen's Hypotheses apply to this
student. Explain your answers.