Krashen's Input Hypothesis Theory of Language Learning - Essay Example

Krashen Input Hypothesis Theory of Second Language Learning Your name Institution Tutor Date Krashen Input Hypothesis Theory of Second Language Learning Krashen input hypothesis was developed by Stephen Krashen a linguistic expert especially in the field of second language acquisition. Krashen developed six hypotheses in an effort to explain how people learn a second language, and his propositions have gained wide popularity in terms of acceptability and criticism alike. These hypotheses include acquisition-learning, monitor, natural order, input, affective and reading hypotheses. Initially, input hypothesis was one of the hypotheses developed by Krashen; however, with time scholars and some works of Krashen have made suggestions that Krashen input hypothesis stands for the entire (six) hypothesis. This paper will focus on input hypothesis theory (comprehensible input) as one of the six hypothesis developed by Krashen. To understand the input hypothesis it is important to begin by looking at other hypothesis within the Krashen theory of second language learning because at the end of the study the input hypothesis aggregates the other entire five hypotheses. The acquisition-learning hypothesis asserts that there are two methods of developing language ability. Acquisition entails subconscious reception of knowledge where communication is used to store information in the brain, as in the process of native languages development. Learning, on the contrary is a conscious knowledge acceptance concerning a language either grammar or form. According to Krashen, learning is the product of teaching formal language. Monitor hypothesis advances the use of acquisition-learning by advancing that, while acquisition instigates a word or speech, learning scheme ‘monitors’ the word or speech to scrutinize and spot on errors. Monitoring to an extent contributes to the accurateness of an utterance; however, its application should be limited.  According to Krashen (1985) ‘monitor’ can occasionally become a barrier because it forces the learner to hold back and concentrate more on accurateness, rather than fluency. Natural order hypothesis puts that second language learners acquire language parts in a knowable order. In all languages, some grammatical structures are acquired early in the learning process and others are acquired much later in the learning process. According to natural order hypothesis, natural order of acquisition takes place autonomously of premeditated instruction and as a result teachers do not have a way of changing the order of a grammatical teaching progression. Affective filter is one of the greatest impediments in the process of language acquisition as a “mirror” that is determined by emotional variables that is capable of preventing learning. The “filter” does not directly influence the acquisition process; however, it hinders the process of getting input into the brain acquisition segment (Krashen, 1985). The affective filter is determined by different variables such as anxiety, stress, self-confidence or motivation. The reading hypothesis suggests that the more the learner reads in a second language the greater the vocabulary becomes. The Input Hypothesis The input hypothesis asserts that acquisition of language takes place when learners get messages that they cannot comprehend or understand. This concept is also called comprehensible input. However, this comprehensible input should be ahead of the learner’s existing ability in the language, and so it is represented as i +1to enable learners to progress in the process of language development. The input hypothesis therefore suggests that learners acquire knowledge through one way; understanding messages or through reception of “comprehensible input.” The comprehensible input (CI) is at the centre of input hypothesis as it is based on the CI that is predisposed to the learners. Compprensible unit +1 is the current level of the second language known by the learner. (i+1) shows the next stage that the learner is occupying in language development along the natural order. Therefore, 1 can be described as the gap existing between the current level of the learner and the next stage. This i+1 is an oral written input that can have a significant role in the development process of learner’s language (Wenquan, 2010, p.137). From the explanation of Krashen, input hypothesis concentrates on “acquisition” as opposed to “learning”. The hypothesis suggests that the learner perks up and advances along the “natural order” when the leaner accepts “input” of the second language that is a step ahead of the present stage of linguistic competence. For instance, when a learner is at ‘i’ stage then acquisition occurs when the learner is predisposed to ‘comprehensible input’ that fits in to level ‘i+1’. All learners cannot be at the same point of linguistic competence all at once; it is then essential to consider that the most important aspect of designing a syllabus is a natural communicative input. This will guarantee that all learners in the session acquire a form of ‘+1’ input which is suitable for their present level of linguistic competence (Krashen, 1985). The ability to understand spoken and written language input is apparently the main mechanism that can lead to increased fundamental linguistic competence; while language output does not seem to have any impact on the ability of learners. According to Krashen, linguistic competence is only groomed when the second language is acquired subconsciously, and further advocates that conscious learning is not reliable as a basis of spontaneous language production (Wenquan, 2010, p.139). Still in this model, learning process is considered to be heavily reliant on the learner’s mood because the learning process is impaired when the learner is anxious, stressed or unwilling to learn the language. In a nutshell, the main corollaries of the input hypothesis can be summarized into three main points. Talking, which acts as output is not practicing because speaking the second or the target language does not lead to language acquisition. Speaking can also contribute to language acquisition indirectly; however, speaking ability is not entirely the main cause of learning second language or language acquisition. In this case, comprehensible output emanates from language acquisition. Secondly, there is presence of i+1 when there is adequate provision of comprehensible input. If models and teachers for the language feed the learners with sufficient comprehensible input, then the necessary structures that the learners are required to acquire are present in the comprehensible input. Therefore Krashen advocates that comprehensible input is a superior method of developing grammatical precision compared to direct teaching of grammar. Finally, the hypothesis stands for the argument that the teaching order is not founded on the natural order. On the contrary, learners acquire the second language in a natural order by acceptance of comprehensible input. A closer look at the input hypothesis shows that the theory aggregates the elements of other five hypotheses. This is through its propositions that by means of comprehensive input, a trigger of the second language acquisition development occurs and the learners acquire the target language through a subconscious process within a natural order (natural order hypothesis) provided that the affective filter of the learner is low (affective filter hypothesis). It is possible to stir up deviant acquisition orders when the monitor (monitor hypothesis) brings in learned instructions from learning/instruction (reading hypothesis) via natural order (Krashen, 1985). Evaluation of Krashen Input Hypothesis Theory Krashen argues that teaching does not necessarily contribute to the learning of the second language, and if teaching has to contribute to second learning language it should be through comprehensible input. From the propositions of Krashen, this comprehensible input tends to be acquired through a natural process. The input hypothesis theory also presents the dilemma on whether there is a difference between children and grown-ups in second language learning. The theory tends to suggest this learning process is also applicable for children who are learning both the first and second language in spite of the fact there is a difference between learning process of children and adults. For instance, children can reach a point of completeness for a language; however, adults rarely get to completeness when they have already learnt one native language. However, this can also justify the working of input hypothesis through the fact that children tend to get higher comprehensible input that contributes to higher acceptance of the target language. Therefore, the propositions of input hypothesis can also be evidenced when people communicate to children, they can easily acquire the first language through some special ways. Input hypothesis emphasizes that second learning language is facilitated by understanding of the meanings as opposed to teaching or speaking the language. In this case, children are not taught how to speak, however they end up learning their first language when people speak to them. This acquisition can be explained by the fact that children continue to understand things as people speak them (comprehensible input) and then it becomes easy to speak words fluently. When people do not like a language or do not create an atmosphere for taking in the meanings of various utterances or words they lack the ability to consciously or unconsciously acquire knowledge. Then it becomes difficult for such persons to learn the second language. On the same case of L2 learners, it is possible to speak to them in certain special ways; however they in most instances experience an initial silent period (Xu, 2009, p.58). This silent period among L2 learners can also be compared to the silent period in the womb when the baby is listening to the voice of the mother and learns those things and when they come out continue to understand them until they begin uttering the words. Existing evidence shows that the higher the comprehensible input for second language learners, the higher the proficiency in the language in both writing and speech (Abukhattala, 2013, p.129). For instance, in the case where the L2 learner has stayed in an environment where the language is commonly used, he or she begins to acquire knowledge on various objects, process and people and it then becomes easy to trigger utterances in the same language because they have an understanding of what they want. In other cases, where there is absence or delay of the comprehensible input there is corresponding delay in language acquisition. This is also evidenced by the fact that it is more difficult to teach L2 learners who have not been exposed to the language outside the classroom. In the teaching process, the validity of the comprehensible input concept has also been relied on to teach a second language. The teaching techniques are functional to the extent that they can utilize comprehensible inputs. Also in the case of immersion teaching, it only passes knowledge to an extent to which they make use of comprehensible input. If the tutor is using a second language, the students will only understand to a point where they can interpret the content in the minds, after which the teaching will not achieve its targets. In the same process of teaching, courses that make use of bilingual programs only achieve passing of knowledge only to an extent that they can provide comprehensible input. It is not possible to establish the comprehensible input using testable hypothesis. For instance, when Krashen says that the tutor should give knowledge that will be in the form of i+1. It is difficult to determine this i+1 and the theory does not provide means for establishing and is therefore left to assumptions. This makes this theory appear ambiguous and unrealistic especially in i determination. The teacher can facilitate comprehensible input through various processes such as demonstrations, pictures, realia and gestures. According to input hypothesis, these aids should be adequate in facilitate understanding and speech of the language. However, the challenge comes when the theory presents confusion whether it is wrong for a teacher to ask the learner to speak or read a text in the second language. This theory simply implies that the teacher should not use such ‘output’ methods, and when the student has gone silent during the classes, they are either learning or in the ‘silent period’ (Xu, 2009, p.58). This makes this theory unrealistic as well in the teaching process. However, comprehensible input is also a concept that is not well developed for most scholars in linguistics. Krashen argues that all learners need to do is to listen and begin to absorb and understand the processes of the target language (Xu, 2009, p.59). However, it is not clear to explain how this absorption of the language processes occurs; it remains a ‘special way’. The fact that Krashen says that there is a need to understand in the process of acquiring knowledge. The problem is to balance how to ensure that the content is not too easy or too hard to facilitate learning process. Applicability of Input Hypothesis Theory in the Teaching Process This theory provides some invaluable insights that will be crucial in the learning process for second language. After the evaluation of the input hypothesis testing it is apparent that input testing hypothesis cannot be used on its own in the teaching process. One of the most important aspects of the theory is the comprehensible input that facilitates the acquisition of the second language. It is important for the teacher to ensure that the content presented in the learning process has comprehensible input to facilitate easier learning process (Zheng, 2008, p.55). Input hypothesis theory also brings about the idea of using bodily and facial expressions, gestures and presentation to enhance comprehensible input. It also brings about the concept of using pictures as used in the case of small babies to enhance this input during the learning. Besides pictures and gestures, this theory also suggests to the use of ‘strange language’ to L2 learners as used for babies in the growing stages. However, the extent of the application of these techniques to enhance CI is limited (Abukhattala, 2013, p.130). For instance, it must be supplemented by output methods such as speaking and reading to enhance ability to learn the second language. As a teacher, there is also a need to reform the learning materials that are used in this learning because it determines the amount of comprehensible input. For instance, the comprehensible unit will be used to balance the content of the materials so that they are not too easy to understand so that learners will gain nothing from it. The material can also be so difficult where the content is too difficult. In addition to the content of materials required for the second language learning, the comprehensible input will also help in the arrangement as well as continuity of the reading materials. CI will enable arrangement through consideration of natural order that is required for the functioning of the CI. To provide a step by step comprehension, there should also be a step by step nature order (Wenquan, 2010, p.139). CI is also crucial in continuation of the learning materials. As introduced earlier, it is important to ensure a sequence of i+1 to ensure that the content is beyond the current level of knowledge by 1 (Zheng, 2008, p.54). This sequence also follows the nature order that should follow i+1 pattern to ensure that the natural order between one stage of learning the language and the next. When the learner reaches one stage, the materials should ensure flow of input in the next stage. References Abukhattala, I. (2013). Krashen's five proposals on language learning: Are they valid in libyan EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 128-131. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1288357879?accountid=1611 Krashen, S. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman Wenquan, W. (2010). The Application of Input Hypothesis to the Teaching of Listening and Speaking of College English. Asian Social Science, 6(9), 137-141. Xu, F. (2009). Comprehensible input and listening comprehension. US-China Foreign Language, 7(7), 56-60. Zheng, D. (2008). Krashen's Input Hypothesis and English classroom teaching. US-China Foreign Language, 6(9), 53-56 Read More

Affective filter is one of the greatest impediments in the process of language acquisition as a “mirror” that is determined by emotional variables that is capable of preventing learning. The “filter” does not directly influence the acquisition process; however, it hinders the process of getting input into the brain acquisition segment (Krashen, 1985). The affective filter is determined by different variables such as anxiety, stress, self-confidence or motivation. The reading hypothesis suggests that the more the learner reads in a second language the greater the vocabulary becomes.

The Input Hypothesis The input hypothesis asserts that acquisition of language takes place when learners get messages that they cannot comprehend or understand. This concept is also called comprehensible input. However, this comprehensible input should be ahead of the learner’s existing ability in the language, and so it is represented as i +1to enable learners to progress in the process of language development. The input hypothesis therefore suggests that learners acquire knowledge through one way; understanding messages or through reception of “comprehensible input.

” The comprehensible input (CI) is at the centre of input hypothesis as it is based on the CI that is predisposed to the learners. Compprensible unit +1 is the current level of the second language known by the learner. (i+1) shows the next stage that the learner is occupying in language development along the natural order. Therefore, 1 can be described as the gap existing between the current level of the learner and the next stage. This i+1 is an oral written input that can have a significant role in the development process of learner’s language (Wenquan, 2010, p.137). From the explanation of Krashen, input hypothesis concentrates on “acquisition” as opposed to “learning”.

The hypothesis suggests that the learner perks up and advances along the “natural order” when the leaner accepts “input” of the second language that is a step ahead of the present stage of linguistic competence. For instance, when a learner is at ‘i’ stage then acquisition occurs when the learner is predisposed to ‘comprehensible input’ that fits in to level ‘i+1’. All learners cannot be at the same point of linguistic competence all at once; it is then essential to consider that the most important aspect of designing a syllabus is a natural communicative input.

This will guarantee that all learners in the session acquire a form of ‘+1’ input which is suitable for their present level of linguistic competence (Krashen, 1985). The ability to understand spoken and written language input is apparently the main mechanism that can lead to increased fundamental linguistic competence; while language output does not seem to have any impact on the ability of learners. According to Krashen, linguistic competence is only groomed when the second language is acquired subconsciously, and further advocates that conscious learning is not reliable as a basis of spontaneous language production (Wenquan, 2010, p.139). Still in this model, learning process is considered to be heavily reliant on the learner’s mood because the learning process is impaired when the learner is anxious, stressed or unwilling to learn the language.

In a nutshell, the main corollaries of the input hypothesis can be summarized into three main points. Talking, which acts as output is not practicing because speaking the second or the target language does not lead to language acquisition. Speaking can also contribute to language acquisition indirectly; however, speaking ability is not entirely the main cause of learning second language or language acquisition. In this case, comprehensible output emanates from language acquisition. Secondly, there is presence of i+1 when there is adequate provision of comprehensible input.

If models and teachers for the language feed the learners with sufficient comprehensible input, then the necessary structures that the learners are required to acquire are present in the comprehensible input.

Read More