Theories of Stephen Krashen

Stephen Krashen developed well-known theories about teaching and learning a second language. These theories advocate a “natural approach” to language education; one that emphasizes listening and reading for comprehension and questions emphasis on memorizing grammar and syntax as a route to fluency.

Krashen differentiated between what he called “acquisition” and “learning.” For Krashen, acquisition was “a subconscious process in which one ‘picks up’ a ‘feel’ for the language,” whereas learning was “conscious knowledge of the second language, knowing the rules, being able to talk about them” (Masciantonio, 1988, p. 53). Krashen also believed that language is always learned in a predictable order. He called this his “Natural Order Hypothesis.” For instance, we are programmed to learn simpler verb tenses before more complicated tenses (Masciantonio, 1988, pp. 53-54). This builds on Noam Chomsky’s idea that humans possess a Language Acquisition Device, or an innate ability to learn language (Krashen, 1983, p. 41). According to Krashen, a language teacher must be careful not to attempt to work against this natural order. Doing so “will only interfere with natural processes, focusing the student on form rather than meaning and thus hindering ability to communicate” (Rivers, 1986, p. 2).

Intrinsic to Krashen’s theories about language is the idea that acquisition occurs when we are presented with and understand language only slightly above our current level of comprehension. After we decipher the meaning being conveyed, we acquire the linguistic structure used to convey that meaning. Krashen called this idea his “Input Hypothesis” and called communication that results in language acquisition “comprehensible input.” Delivering a constant stream of comprehensible input is instrumental in second language education (Rivers, 1986, p.2).

For Krashen, while acquisition is the mechanism responsible for fluency, learning acts as a “monitor” that checks how one has used a language against one’s knowledge about it (Masciantonio, 1988, p. 54). Krashen called this idea the Monitor Model and used it to explain that while learning should not come before acquisition in language education, it remains important. For example, it can be useful to allow language students to check and correct their own work.

Finally, Krashen recognized that some people were more receptive to acquiring a second language than others. He explained this with his Affective Filter. According to Krashen, one must take affective factors into account when assessing language acquisition. For Krashen, “those whose attitudes are not optimal for language acquisition will tend to seek less input and have a strong or high affective filter” (Masciantonio, 1988, p. 54). Put more simply, people who are not confident in their abilities or who have no motivation to learn are less likely to succeed.

Although at first glance Krashen’s ideas seem surprisingly simple, straightforward, and believable, the most common criticism for Krashen’s theories is that they are not based on empirical evidence. B. McLaughlin writes, “Krashen has not defined his terms with enough precision, the empirical basis of the theory is weak, and the theory is not clear in its predictions” (1987, p. 56). There is no way to prove that Krashen’s theories are true, in part because they are not absolutely defined, and in part because the means to prove or disprove them will not exist until we know considerably more about how the human mind works.

Another criticism of Krashen’s ideas involves an apparent disconnect between what Wilga Rivers calls “comprehension and production” (1986, p. 4). Whereas Krashen believes that language fluency can be achieved if enough comprehensible input is provided, Rivers disagrees. She writes, “That one way of using language (namely, comprehension) should in some incidental and effortless way lead to the mastery of another (that is, production), which involves quite different processes and requires control of distinctly different aspects of language, seems difficult to maintain” (1986, p. 4). Rivers sees it as unlikely that the pieces of a language one can pick up by listening and speaking are enough. At some point, a student will have to learn the rules that govern that language, such as idiomatic expressions, or fluency would be impossible.

Krashen’s ideas have inspired language teachers to keep their students active and engaged in the classroom. These same ideas have also inspired linguists who agree and those who disagree to look closely at how best to promote language acquisition around the world.

References

Krashen, S. D. (1983). The din in the head, input, and the language acquisition device. Foreign Language Annals, 16(1), 41-44.

Masciantonio, R. (1988). Stephen Krashen and the classical languages. The Classical Journal, 84(1), 53-56.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Rivers, W. M. (1986). Comprehension and production in interactive language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 1-7.