stephen krashen 6 hypothesis

All you need to know about teaching English abroad!

Blog / TEFL Information » An Overview of Stephen Krashen's Theories of Second Language Acquisition

Shirin Sophy

TEFL Information Teaching Ideas

An Overview of Stephen Krashen's Theories of Second Language Acquisition

Table of Contents

The acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, the reading hypothesis, are you ready to teach english abroad or online, related articles:, check out what our course grads say in our many video testimonials.

According to Krashen, in terms of foreign language performance, there are two fundamental approaches labeled as acquisition and learning. The acquisition seems to be an authentic and natural process of languages like the way one acquisition his/her native language as a child through authentic exposure and natural communication, while the term learning refers to the process in which individuals make efforts to learn a second language through mastery over 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 just listen and receive direct or indirect input on 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 that gradually leads to a viable ability to communicate through simple questions and replies in the third step, known as speech emergence. The next 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 native level.

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. An example of this can perhaps be the widely_observed necessity of getting familiar with past simple before learning past perfect tense, for instance, or present simple before present perfect. This practical order needs to be taken into consideration in order to avoid frustration for both teachers and students who obviously need to be ready to go to the next step of the learning process.

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. The learner requires to be focused, take his/her time, and know the language rules in order to be able 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.

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 own language levels. To put it another way, L+1 needs to be taken into account since providing a higher level or lower level of input does not seem to be of great use for learners and may result in anxiety, demotivation, and disappointment. Additionally, when the input does not require any attempts to be comprehended, no learning takes place.

This hypothesis puts emphasis on the value of self-confidence, motivation, and a positive self-image on second language acquisition. This premise also embodies the devastating impact of anxiety and stress in the language learning process. Evidently, lack of motivation and assertiveness, in addition to high levels of anxiety, form a filter or mental block that spontaneously afflicts the language production and the quality of the output.

A sixth theory, known as the reading or input hypothesis, has also been promoted by Stephen Krashen, who puts value on the input learners receive through extensive reading. This hypothesis indicates that learners can gradually expand and enrich their vocabulary and unconsciously increase their exposure to structures, collocations, grammatical orders, and so forth through reading.

To sum up, perhaps the point that may be neglected in this theory can be the paramount importance and effects of a learner's native language on his/her 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 apparently is much more than just a way of communication.

In fact, languages may well form a huge part of individuals' ideology and perform like a monitor which spontaneously adapts the Second language output with grammatical rules, order, and collocations of one's first language. This admittedly increases the necessity of starting a language learning process at an early age so as to broaden the horizons and enable the potential learners to think out of the box.

Apply now & get certified to teach english abroad!

Speak with an ITTT advisor today to put together your personal plan for teaching English abroad!

Send us an email or call us toll-free at 1-800-490-0531 to speak with an ITTT advisor today.

• Top 10 Cities in Europe with the Highest Demand for English Language Teachers
• 5 Reasons To Take A TEFL Course Right Now - Even If You Are Not Leaving Yet | ITTT | TEFL Blog
• All the Documents You Will Need to Teach English Abroad
• The Impact of Positive Motivation on an ESL Classroom
• You're Never Too Old to Change Your Life and Do a TEFL Course | ITTT | TEFL Blog
• Getting Student Placement Right - The Best Desk Arrangements for EFL Students

Want to live & work abroad? Get certified in TEFL/TESOL with ITTT.

Online, in-class, combined courses. apply today and get a 10% discount.

Do you want to be contacted to receive more information? Fill out the form, a member of our staff will contact you by phone.

All compulsory fields must be completed!

Login to your ITTT Online Course:

Was Krashen right? Forty years later

• Foreign Language Annals 54(2):1-23

• Binghamton University

• Michigan State University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Zhazira Suleimenova
• Shynar Kenesbayeva
• Gulden Tussupova
• Assel Kaliyeva

• David Zabner
• Richard Cozzens
• Eric Bartolotti

• Elisabeth I. Levi
• Mieko Sperbeck

• Dewi Kumalasari

• HISPANIA-J DEV INTER
• Bill VanPatten
• Megan Smith
• Susan M. Gass
• Lydia White

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

A Complete Overview of Steve Krashen's Theory of Language Acquisition

Steve Krashen’s theory of language acquisition is a widely discussed and influential theory in the field of linguistics. Krashen’s theory has been praised for its simplicity and applicability, as it offers a practical approach to language learning that can be utilized by anyone regardless of their age, educational background, or language learning experience.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Monitor hypothesis, natural order hypothesis, input hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis, implications for language learning, criticism and limitations.

Krashen’s theory is based on five main hypotheses that describe the different components of language acquisition. These are the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis. Each of these hypotheses plays a key role in understanding how language acquisition works and how language learners can maximize their learning potential.

The acquisition-learning hypothesis is the foundation of Krashen’s theory. According to this hypothesis, there are two ways to develop language skills: acquisition and learning. Acquisition refers to the subconscious process of acquiring language through immersion and exposure to the language. Learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process that involves studying grammar rules, vocabulary lists, and other formal aspects of language. Krashen argues that acquisition is the most effective way to learn a language, as it allows learners to naturally internalize the language without having to focus on the mechanics of the language.

The monitor hypothesis is a corollary to the acquisition-learning hypothesis. It suggests that the learning system, or the conscious knowledge of the language, acts as a “monitor” that can be used to check for accuracy in language production. The monitor is not responsible for generating language, but rather for correcting errors that are made during language production. Krashen argues that the monitor is not essential for language acquisition and can even hinder the acquisition process if overused.

The natural order hypothesis is based on the observation that language learners tend to acquire language in a predictable sequence. Krashen suggests that language learners acquire language in a natural order that is independent of age, first language, and instructional context. This natural order can be observed in the way that language learners tend to acquire certain aspects of language, such as syntax and morphology, before others, such as phonology and pragmatics.

The input hypothesis is perhaps the most influential hypothesis in Krashen’s theory. According to this hypothesis, language acquisition occurs when the learner is exposed to language that is comprehensible, or just beyond the learner’s current level of competence. This means that language learners need to be exposed to language that is slightly above their current level of understanding in order to progress in their language acquisition. Krashen argues that comprehensible input is the most important factor in language acquisition, as it allows learners to gradually internalize the language without the need for explicit instruction.

The affective filter hypothesis is based on the observation that language learners are more successful when they are in a low-anxiety, relaxed state. Krashen argues that affective factors, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a significant role in language acquisition. A high affective filter, caused by anxiety or stress, can hinder language acquisition by blocking input and preventing the learner from acquiring new language structures.

Krashen’s theory has important implications for language learners and language teachers. For language learners, Krashen’s theory suggests that they should focus on acquiring language through natural exposure and immersion rather than relying solely on formal instruction. Learners should also focus on obtaining comprehensible input that is just beyond their current level of understanding in order to progress in their language acquisition.

For language teachers, Krashen’s theory suggests that they should focus on creating a low-anxiety, relaxed learning environment that promotes natural language acquisition. Teachers should also focus on providingcomprehensible input that is just beyond the learners’ current level of understanding, and should avoid over-reliance on explicit instruction and grammar drills.

Krashen’s theory has also led to the development of new language teaching methods, such as the communicative approach and the natural approach. These approaches focus on providing learners with authentic communication opportunities and exposing them to language in a natural, meaningful context.

Krashen’s theory has been subject to criticism and debate, particularly regarding the role of explicit instruction in language acquisition. Some critics argue that Krashen’s theory places too much emphasis on input and not enough on the role of explicit instruction and grammar instruction in language acquisition.

Additionally, some language researchers have suggested that Krashen’s theory may not be applicable to all language learners and that there may be individual differences in the way that language learners acquire language. For example, some learners may benefit more from explicit instruction, while others may benefit more from natural immersion.

In conclusion, Steve Krashen’s theory of language acquisition is a widely influential and practical theory that has had a significant impact on language learning and teaching. The theory emphasizes the importance of natural language acquisition through immersion and comprehensible input, while also acknowledging the role of affective factors in language learning.

While there may be some limitations and criticisms of the theory, it remains an important framework for understanding how language acquisition works and how language learners can maximize their learning potential. By incorporating the principles of Krashen’s theory into their language learning or teaching approach, learners and teachers can improve their language skills and achieve greater success in their language learning goals.

Achieve fluency with ListLang—it's free!

Krashen's Theory in Action: Implications for Modern Language Learning

Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis is a cornerstone of second language acquisition theory. His idea, suggesting that comprehensible input is critical for language learning, has profound implications for educators and learners alike. This article delves into the crux of Krashen's theory and how it has been translated into practical language teaching methods.

Understanding Krashen's Input Hypothesis

Krashen proposed that language acquisition occurs when learners understand language input slightly above their current proficiency level (often denoted as 'i+1'). In simpler terms, learners need to be exposed to content that's just challenging enough — not too easy, yet not overwhelmingly difficult.

His theory fundamentally comprises five main hypotheses:

• The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis : There's a distinction between acquired knowledge (subconscious) and learned knowledge (conscious). Acquired knowledge is more crucial for fluency.
• The Monitor Hypothesis : Conscious learning acts as a "monitor" or editor to what has been subconsciously acquired.
• The Natural Order Hypothesis : Grammatical structures are acquired in a specific order, which doesn't necessarily align with the order often taught.
• The Input Hypothesis : The cornerstone of Krashen's theory — language is acquired through comprehensible input (i+1).
• The Affective Filter Hypothesis : Emotional factors like motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence can impact language acquisition. A low affective filter facilitates learning.

Real-world Application of Krashen's Theory

Many modern language programs and apps embrace the principles of Krashen's theory, emphasizing understanding over rote memorization. For instance, immersion programs — where students are placed in environments where they must use a foreign language to communicate — resonate with the Input Hypothesis. These environments naturally provide the i+1 level of challenge, pushing students to incrementally advance their language skills.

Another manifestation of Krashen's theory in action is the use of graded readers. These are books written with limited vocabulary and grammatical structures tailored to a learner's proficiency level. As the learner progresses, they can move to more complex books, constantly receiving the comprehensible input Krashen advocated for.

Krashen's theory, though introduced decades ago, remains a foundational element of effective language instruction. By focusing on comprehensible input and understanding the difference between acquisition and learning, educators and learners can better navigate the path to language proficiency.

For those keen on exploring more about advanced language learning methodologies, you might find The Role of Context in Language Learning and Interactive Video Case Studies: Transforming Language Learning enlightening.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Unraveling the Power of Krashen’s Theory: Exploring Second Language Acquisition

Table of contents, introduction, background of krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, five hypotheses of krashen’s theory, 1. input hypothesis, 2. acquisition-learning hypothesis, 3. monitor hypothesis.

The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production . When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis

5. affective filter hypothesis, application of krashen’s theory.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory

While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.

Implications of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

What are the five hypotheses of krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, what is an example of krashen’s theory, how does stephen krashen describe language acquisition vs. language learning, what does krashen’s theory of second language acquisition say about explicit vs. implicit language teaching, what criticism is addressed to krashen’s ideas about implicit language learning.

Search Our Store:

The input hypothesis (krashen’s hypotheses series, #5 of 9).

(Previous post in this series: The Natural Order of Acquisition)

The next post in this series, The Affective Filter Hypothesis (#6/9) is found here .

Focus like a MAN I AC

I: the i nput hypothesis.

This is the big one

“Comprehensible input is the cause of language acquisition.”

The term ‘comprehensible input’ (C.I.) means messages in the target language that the learner can understand. C.I. is the “Goldilocks” level of input—not too hard, not too easy. It is input at the student’s current level of acquisition and just slightly above it, what Krashen calls the “ i + 1 ” level, where “ i ” is the level of acquisition of the student and “ +1 ” is a wee bit above it. Input that is too simple (already acquired) or too complex (out of reach at the moment) is not useful for second language acquisition.

Even input that is perceived by the student as very simple can have value, as the brain needs time to sort out the complex rules of grammar. Rules that are imperceptible to the  conscious mind can be refined with seemingly simple input.

Comprehensible Input Can Be :

• Understanding messages in the language at your level, and just a bit above it. Krashen calls this i + 1 . The “ i ” in this formula is the student’s current level of acquisition, plus just a little bit more.

The i + 2/3/4… levels would be language that is not understandable to the student for some reason, be it unknown vocabulary, grammar the student has not heard before, unfamiliar topics, or subjects that are familiar but too deep for the current language level of the student.

• Independent reading in the TL at the 95% or better comprehension level.

• Listening to and understanding almost everything said in the TL. This understanding can be with the aid of gestures, body language, context and pictures.

• But, there is a problem…  The idea of comprehensible input has become widespread in the last few years, which is a double-edged sword. It is being used so often in educational circles that the original meaning has become diluted by so many pouring their own meanings into it. Many seem to think it means teachers  are using language that they (the teachers) understand, or that students get the general gist of. An alternate term that keeps the original meaning fresh is one coined by Terry Waltz: comprehended input . The input must be comprehended by the student. If what you say is not understood it is virtually worthless for acquisition.

APPLYING THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Discard listen and repeat. Remember that for acquisition there is little-to-no place for the traditional “Listen and Repeat” strategy. Listening with understanding is often enough. Students sometimes do enjoy “practicing” sounds, but this does not help them to acquire the language or help them to hear it.

• Limit forced output. Since language is acquired by input, there is little role for forced output above the level of acquisition. Give students tools to respond in the form of rejoinders. Allow students to respond but, in general, do not force them to speak until they are ready.

• Allow and encourage output–but do not force it. There is a balance. Students feel like they are part of the club when they can speak. They want to express themselves. So provide them with tools and set up situations where they can express themselves simply and often, just do not force spontaneous discourse when they are neither ready nor able. Rejoinders are one way to encourage output, awareness of levels of questioning is another.

• Be sure it is “Comprehended Input”   This is a genius term originated by Terry Waltz and it makes the meaning of what is valuable input clearer. The teacher speaking in the TL alone is not enough. Sometimes teachers think that if they are speaking the language slowly, clearly and accurately, it MUST be comprehensible input to the students. But students need to understand what is being said. Even if the teacher is speaking the target language perfectly, it does not count if students do not understand. Language only counts as helpful for acquisition when it is comprehended by the students.

Lack of understanding = It is not Comprehensible Input.

Only input that is comprehended by students counts for acquisition.

• Use clear language with interesting topics. Teacher and students have an equal part in the dance of acquisition: the teacher’s job is to speak clearly in the target language about interesting topics. The students’ job is to show you when you are not using language they can understand. If students do not demonstrate when they are understanding, you may not be doing your job and not even know it.

• Check often to be sure it is actually comprehensible. The language we speak in class must be comprehensible to all students, not just the top students that are responding all the time. The above average students may well be giving you a false reading on your degree of clarity.

Tell your students this often:

“My job is to give you clear, interesting language.

Your job is to let me know when I am not doing my job.”

They need to let me know when I am not being clear (speaking TL that they understand). If we are not checking in with students to be sure they understand, we may be busy, but not actually doing our jobs.

• Make sure all students understand.  Discard the traditional practice of asking questions and plaintively waiting for the occasional hand to go up by the the boldest and brainiest. The Ferris Bueller  model (‘Anyone? Anyone?’) was out of date and mocked in the movie 30 years ago. Don’t revive it.

Ask a variety of questions, and ask often.

Assign a student the task of counting how many questions you ask during the class period. Asking one question per minute of class is not too much.

• Use differentiated comprehension checks questions to be sure individual students understand at different levels. Know who your slower language processors are, who your medium language processors are, and who your faster processors are (this week). Ask them questions that are appropriate for their level. Throw each student the right pitch, the right level of question, for their level.

• Create a classroom culture where NOT understanding is OK. Avoid putting students in situations in class where they have only limited comprehension of the language—this can be extremely frustrating. Reward those that let you know when they do NOT understand. This is the opposite of a traditional classroom where students raise their hands to give an answer and show they know the answer.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Monitor Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 21, 2018, 8:00 am

Stephen Krashen is an educator and linguist who proposed the Monitor Model as his theory of second language acquisition in his influential text Principles and practice in second language acquisition in 1982. The Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism. The following sections offer a description of the third hypothesis of the theory, the monitor hypothesis, as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Monitor Hypothesis

The third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-learning hypothesis by claiming that the only function of learning within second language acquisition is as an editor, or Monitor, for language use produced by the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical forms not yet acquired. The Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance either prior to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via self-correction. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the acquired system.

However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language rule is not sufficient for the utilization of the Monitor; a language user must also have an adequate amount of time to consciously think about and apply learned rules. Additionally, the three conditions required by the Monitor—time, focus, and knowledge—are, as Krashen asserts, “necessary and not sufficient,” meaning that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a language user may not utilize the Monitor.

Criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis

The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the acquisition-learning hypothesis. According to the monitor hypothesis, the main purpose of language learning is to function as a Monitor for output produced by acquired system. However, as critics reveal through deeper investigation of the acquisition-learning distinction, to separate language learning clearly and adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently, determining that the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise impossible to prove.

Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after production invites further criticism of the hypothesis; second language learners can and do use the learned system to produce output as well as to facilitate comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore, invalidate the central claim of the monitor hypothesis.

Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language acquisition, the third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course , 3rd edn. New York: Routledge. Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28(2). 309-332. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

language acquisition language learning monitor hypothesis monitor model

The Natural Order Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

The Input Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism