CHRISDEXIE CALAG BSEd-English 2

Stephen D. Krashen (born May 14, 1941) is an American linguist, educational

researcher, activist, and Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Southern
California. He moved from the linguistics department to the faculty of the School of Education
in 1994. This well-known theory, first presented by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s, is initially
based on 5 Hypotheses: The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the
Input Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Natural Order Hypothesis.

The five hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:
1. The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
2. The Monitor hypothesis
3. The Input hypothesis
4. The Affective Filter hypothesis
5. The Natural Order hypothesis.

The role of grammar in Krashen’s view

According to Krashen, the study of language structure can have general educational
advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in their language
programs. Any benefit, however, will greatly depend on the learner being already familiar with
the language. It should also be clear that analyzing the language, formulating rules, and setting
irregularities apart. Teaching complex facts about the target language are not language teaching
but somewhat “language appreciation” or linguistics, which does not lead to communicative
proficiency.

The only instance in which grammar teaching 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. The
teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so that the students
understand. In other words, the teacher’s talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input.
Perhaps, with the student’s participation, the classroom becomes an environment suitable for
acquisition. Also, the filter is low regarding the language of explanation, as the students’
conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, 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 the subject matter, grammar study, is responsible for the student’s progress.
Still, in reality, their progress comes from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter
that held their interest would do just as well.

This well-known theory, first presented by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s, is initially
based on five Hypotheses (The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, the Natural Order
Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, and the Affective Filter
Hypothesis).

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

According to Krashen, in terms of foreign language performance, there are two fundamental
approaches: acquisition and learning. The acquisition seems to be an authentic and natural
process of languages like people acquire their native language as a child through genuine
exposure and natural communication. At the same time, learning refers to the process in which
individuals try to learn a second language through mastery of the syntax and lexis in a
conscious process.
The natural process of language acquisition is divided into five steps starting from a silent
period during which students listen and receive direct or indirect input along the same lines as
the first years of an infant’s life. In the early production phase, some signs of production in the
form of short phrases and chunks may well be observed. This gradually leads to a viable ability
to communicate through simple questions and replies in the third step, known as speech
emergence. The following two stages, intermediate and advanced fluency, are probably
achieved somewhere after six to ten years of study when students’ output may be very close to
the native level.

2. The Natural Order Hypothesis

This hypothesis offers a potential order in which children presumably pick up their native
language. According to Krashen, the same predictable order appears to be applied by learners
of English as a second language. This practical order must be considered to avoid frustration
for teachers and students, who must be ready to go to the next step of the learning process. An
example is a widely observed necessity of getting familiar with past simple before learning past
perfect tense, for instance, or present simple before presenting perfectly.

3. The Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor Hypothesis suggests a tendency to monitor or self-correct one’s language
production based on the language rules and principles acquired by the learners. This would
seem to happen when some specific conditions are met. Learners must be focused, take their
time, and know the language rules to monitor their production. This appears to be more
applicable when it comes to writing since it can cause frequent pauses and an ever-rising
tendency to self-correction that inevitably leads to unnaturalness in speech.

4. The Input Hypothesis

This notion, also known as the comprehension hypothesis, indicates that the level of the
language the learners are exposed to is required to be higher than their language levels. To put
it another way, L+1 needs to be considered. Providing a higher or lower input level does not
seem to be of great use for learners. It may result in anxiety, lack of motivation, and
disappointment. Additionally, no learning takes place when the information does not require
any attempts to be comprehended.

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis emphasizes the value of self-confidence, motivation, and a positive self-image
in second language acquisition. This premise also embodies the devastating impact of anxiety
and stress on language learning. Lack of motivation and assertiveness, in addition to high
anxiety levels, form a filter or mental block that spontaneously afflicts language production and
output quality.
To recap, perhaps the most neglected critical point is the effect of a learner’s native language
on the second language learning/acquisition process. It might be hard for a person who has
never been a learner of English to assume that one’s native language is much more than just a
way of communication.
Languages may well form a considerable part of an individual’s ideology. They perform like a
monitor which spontaneously adapts to the second language output with grammatical rules,
order, and collocations of one’s first language. Admittedly, this increases the necessity of
starting a language learning process early to broaden the horizons and enable potential learners
to think out of the box.

What is the Difference Between Learning and Acquisition

 The main difference between learning and acquisition is that learning is a more
conscious and deliberate process than acquisition, which is more subconscious in nature. We
use both the terms learning and acquisition frequently when we are talking about learning
a language. Here, acquisition involves the non-conscious assimilation of a language, mainly
through first-hand exposure. On the other hand, learning involves studying it through formal
instruction and conscious comprehension.

MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
The first of Krashen’s hypotheses we will discuss here is the monitor. This is for two
reasons. First, every conversation among language teachers ends with a discussion about a
point of grammar. We like language and we like figuring out how it works. We went into
language teaching because we enjoy the nerdy side of it like debating the finer points of
obscure grammar.
The other reason is that whenever comprehensible input is mentioned concerns are raised
about the role of explicit grammar teaching. Putting the monitor hypothesis first helps to allay
the fear that students will not know any grammar or that you think it is unimportant.
Grammatical knowledge does not correlate completely with fluency, but it can be helpful
in some situations. Explicit grammar study can serve a purpose, but it is limited. When students
are consciously aware of grammar, they can sometimes monitor their language use and make
corrections as they write, and to a lesser extent, as they speak.
To work, three conditions must be met for this internal monitor or self-check. The student
must:

1. Know the rule

2. Be focused on the rule
3. Have time to apply the rule
These conditions rarely occur when using language outside of the classroom. They normally
happen only on tests in class that is focused on a particular aspect of grammar—and then
students promptly forget them.  Here is why these conditions are difficult to achieve in real-
world use outside of the classroom:

1. On knowing grammar rules: Language is so complex that even PhDs that study the
subject do not know all of the rules of grammar. New grammar rules are discovered
every year. Professional linguists would admit that no one knows all of the grammatical
rules of the language they use, but with use, the subconscious mind puts most of it
together.
2. On focusing on grammar rules: In real language use one rule is hardly ever the focus.
Many verb tenses and multiple aspects of grammar are used, even when talking with
young children.
3. On time to apply grammar rules: When you are speaking there is hardly ever a time to
think about the grammar formulas or rules—what you have acquired will come out. The
language that is acquired subconsciously comes out spontaneously.
Explicit grammar teaching tends not to stick with most students. Why? Because explicitly
taught grammar is rarely contextual or meaningful. Grammar rules have traditionally been
taught as units. The rule is presented, practiced, drilled, tested… and then quickly forgotten.
This is an ineffective strategy for long-term memory with language, let alone acquisition. The
human brain picks up language piece by piece and repeated it over time, rather than all at
once. Meaningful, comprehended, spaced repetition is what works; not all of one grammar
point in one lesson. Enjoying regular, nutritious, tasty meals rather than trying to eat a pickup
truck full of food once a month is what works to make your body healthy. The same thing goes
with acquiring language—learning little by little is best.
 Krashen and many other SLA researchers assert that language acquisition is mostly an
unconscious process, and therefore the use of the monitor is limited. Self-monitoring can be
helpful when there is time to reflect and edit one’s own work, as in writing a formal essay when
there is time to think, time to write, reread, think again and rewrite. The older students get and
the more fluent they become, the more conscious knowledge of grammar rules can help them to
monitor their own speaking and writing because they can think more abstractly. Formal
teaching of grammar has little place in beginning language classes or with elementary-aged
students. Grammar study can sometimes be helpful with upper-level high school students and
with college students because those students can analyze and compare grammar and have more
developed meta-cognitive abilities. But keep in mind that explicit grammar teaching is not
necessary to develop fluency.
One area where many teachers think that explaining a rule and drilling it may be
beneficial is in teaching advanced grammatical structures such as the subjunctive mood in
Spanish, French, Latin, and other languages. But Krashen’s research indicates that the only
factor that influences mastery of the Spanish subjunctive is the amount of reading of novels the
students have done, and not (surprisingly, to most students and instructors) the amount of
formal study, or even the time spent in another country (!).

What is “i+1” or a comprehensible unit?

Comprehensible input is that input that is slightly beyond the current level of competence
of the language learner. If i is the language learner’s current level of competence in the foreign
language, then i + 1 is the next immediate step along the development continuum. Therefore, if
the goal is to assist the language learner progress in their task, it is essential to provide the
student/learner with comprehensible input [i +1]. It is like teaching a child how to dance. Most
people would not enroll their infant who cannot yet walk in a ballet class with the hopes that by
simply immersing them in the environment they will jump to their feet and perform a saut de
chat. The child must first learn to crawl, stand, walk, and so on. With the Mango program, we
start the student off with a conversation in order to orient them to the context of what they are
about to learn. We then parse the conversation into smaller sentences. These sentences are then
broken down piece by piece into their “elemental components” and slowly built back up to
form the original sentence.

What is the “i” in the i+1 stand for?

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.
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.

Examples of Affective Variables

1. Inhibition
Students who have high levels of inhibition often choose not to participate. Inhibition is the
mechanism a person uses to protect themselves from exposure to others. Inhibited students usually
feel vulnerable or even less capable than their peers. Thus, inhibition has a negative impact on
performance but not necessarily on learning. For instance, due to the fact that Fernanda would
prefer to be back home, she feels vulnerable. While her peers participate in class, she remains
silent. Fernanda's refusal to participate means she's not practicing speaking and pronunciation
skills, but she still learns from what her peers say because she listens to them and the teacher.
2. Attitudes
A positive attitude towards anyone or anything that has to do with learning, can have a positive
effect in second language acquisition. Attitude includes the way a student feels about the teacher,
classmates, classroom, school, and even learning materials. For example, Fernanda likes her ELL
teacher, which can positively influence her learning. However, Fernanda hates the reading
textbook in her ELL lessons. She finds the material too complicated and boring. This, in turn,
negatively affects Fernanda's reading skills. Sometimes, ELL students dislike learning materials
because of the topic, the voice, and even the physical appearance.
3. Levels of Anxiety
Feelings of anxiety are obviously uncomfortable and our students in the process of second
language acquisition can feel anxiety due to diverse factors, such as immigration situation, social
pressure to academically perform, school tests, or assignments. For example, Fernanda often feels
unhappy because her father made it clear she must learn English to succeed in school. Meanwhile,
Fernanda's inhibition and negative attitude towards learning material in English are affecting her
academic performance.
4. Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is the self-confidence level and self-respect a person has and it can influence learning.
For instance, Fernanda doesn't have any confidence that her speaking abilities in English are good.
On top of this lack of confidence, Fernanda compares her low grades to others' in the class, which
affects her self-esteem. This whole scenario puts Fernanda academically behind her classmates.

In foreign language teaching, affective factors play significant roles. During the practice of
teaching a foreign language, the teacher can apply different methods to design the class in a more
relaxed and diversified way, so as to arouse the students’ interest, ease their tension, and help them
have the enthusiasm to learn the language. Students themselves can also do some research to learn
the affective factors. Bearing those factors in mind, they can have the awareness to avoid negative
influences and exert the intuitive subjectivity to study.
u

What is asserted in the “natural order hypothesis”

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a
language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition.
This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in
English, some features, such as third person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting
but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. Furthermore,
according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of
the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words, explicit teaching and learning cannot change the
natural order of acquisition. Put simply, what you teach is not what students acquire.