Krashen’s Theory of

Language Learning
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.
 STEPHEN KRASHEN’S
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
THEORY
This theory states that acquisition and learning are
two separate processes. Learning is to know about a
language - formal knowledge; acquisition is the
unconscious mind related activity that occurs when
the language is used in conversation. Krashen
embodies the following hypotheses in his theory:
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTsduRreug&feature=related
According to Krashen’s acquisition-learning
hypothesis, there are two independent ways to develop
our linguistic skills: acquisition and learning.

This theory is at the core of modern language

acquisition theory, and is perhaps the most fundamental
of Krashen's theories on second acquisition.
 Acquisition
 Subconscious process where individual is not aware. One is unaware of
the process as it is happening and when the new knowledge is acquired,
the acquirer generally does not realize that he or she possesses any new
knowledge.

 According to Krashen, both adults and children can subconsciously

acquire language, and either written or oral language can be acquired.
This process is similar to the process that children undergo when learning
their native language.

 Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language, during

which the acquirer is focused on meaning rather than form.
 Learning
Learning a language, on the other hand, is a conscious
process, much like what one experiences in school.
New knowledge or language forms are represented
consciously in the learner's mind, frequently in the form
of language "rules" and "grammar" and the process
often involves error correction. Language learning
involves formal instruction, and according to Krashen,
is less effective than acquisition.
 The Acquisition – Learning Distinction

Sub-conscious
by environment
Acquisition (Ex: games,
Picking up words

Movies, radio)

SLA

Conscious by
Knowing about
Learning instructors
Correct errors
Grammar rules

Material created by Sonia Albertazzi, Milagro Azofeifa y Gabriela Serrano for Educational Purposes
Natural Order: Natural progression/order of language
development exhibited by infants/young children and/or second
language learners (child or adult).
Level l: Pre-Production Stage (Silent Period): Minimal
comprehension, no verbal production.
Level II: Early Production Stage. Limited Comprehension;
One/two-word response.
Level III: Speech Emergence Stage. Increased comprehension;
Simple sentences; Some errors in speech.
Level IV: Intermediate Fluency Stage. Very good comprehension;
More complex sentences; Complex errors in speech.
 Monitor
Learning (as opposed to acquisition) serves to develop a
monitor- an error detecting mechanism that scans
utterances for accuracy in order to make corrections. As a
corollary to the monitor hypothesis, language acquisition
instruction should avoid emphasis on error correction and
grammar. This might inhibit language acquisition,
particularly at the early stages of language development.
The Monitor hypothesis explains the
relationship between acquisition and learning.

The monitoring function is the practical

result of the learned grammar. According to
Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully
used, three conditions must be met:
The acquirer/learner must know the rule: This
is a very difficult condition to meet because it
means that the speaker must have had explicit
instruction.

The acquirer must be focused on correctness:

He or she must be thinking about form, and it
is difficult to focus on meaning and form at the
same time.

Having time to use the monitor: The speaker

is then focused on form rather than meaning,
resulting in the production and exchange of
less information.
Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommends using
the monitor at times when it does not interfere with
communication, such as while writing.
Affective Filter: Optimal input occurs when the "affective
filter" is low. The affective filter is a screen of emotion
that can block language acquisition or learning if it keeps
the users from being too self-conscious or too
embarrassed to take risks during communicative
exchanges

The Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view

that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative,
but non-causal, role in second language acquisition.
These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and
anxiety.
Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating
anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and
form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible
input from being used for acquisition. In other words,
when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition.

Krashen claims that learners with high motivation,

self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of
anxiety are better equipped for success in second
language acquisition.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-
confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety
are better equipped for success in second language
acquisition.
 THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

We acquire language only when we understand language that contains structure that is “a
little beyond” where we are now.

This is possible because we use more than our linguistic competence to help us understand.

Material created by Sonia Albertazzi, Milagro Azofeifa y Gabriela Serrano for Educational Purposes
In addition, the Cultural Adaption / Cultural Shock cycle for students, upon
introducing themselves to a new language and its culture is to experience the
following:

1.Honeymoon: The sojourner is intrigued by the differences she or he perceives and is excited
about everything.

2. Disintegration: The differences between the cultures lead to confusion, isolation and
loneliness. New cultural cues are misread and withdrawal and depression can occur.

3. Re-integration: The new cues are re-integrated but even though the individual has an
increased ability to function in the new culture, he rejects it and experiences anger and
resentment and acts hostile and rebellious.

4. Autonomy: The person is able to see the differences between the two cultures in a more
objective way, is able to deal with them and therefore feels more self-assured, relaxed and
confident.

5. Independence: The social psychological and cultural

differences are accepted and enjoyed (ibid.). And the person is able to function in both the old
and the new culture; he has achieved bi- culturality.
 THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
Input needs to be comprehensible. Input + 1/Zone of
Proximal Development- Input/instruction that is just above the students' abilities. Instruction that is embedded in a meaningful context, modified
(paraphrasing, repetition), collaborative/interactive and multimodal.

We acquire language only when we understand language that contains structure that is “a little beyond” where we are now.

This is possible because we use more than our linguistic competence to help us understand.
The input hypothesis says that we acquire by “going
for meaning” first, and as a result, we acquire
structure.

It also states that speaking fluency cannot be taught

directly. It emerges over time, on its own.
The best way to teach speaking, according to this
view, is simply to provide comprehensible input.

Early speech will come when the acquirer feels

“ready:” It is typically not grammatically accurate.

Accuracy develops over time as the acquirer hears

and understands more input.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Krashen, Stephen D.  Principles and Practice in Second
Language Acquisition.  Prentice-Hall International, 1987.
Krashen, Stephen D.  Second Language Acquisition and
Second Language Learning.  Prentice-Hall International,
1988.