Are Krashen's 5 Hypotheses Relevant for Modern Teachers? Do they even make sense?

               The 5 hypotheses of Krashen are part of a published work by Stephen Krashen, a professor at the University of Southern California. He is linguist who has extensively studied second language acquisition. He has been an activist for the proper treatment and consideration of second language learners in Southern California and is a supporter of bilingual education. The theory he came up with for second language learning is what is referred to as his 5 part Hypotheses and it has been debated for its seemingly contradictory appeals. When taken literally the propositions can range from confusing to downright de-motivational for teachers. However, when the information is sifted through with a goal of understanding within the context of a modern teacher’s reality, these theories can be analyzed to determine several solid principles for teaching.

The first of 5 is the “Acquisition-Learning hypothesis” which states that there are two forms of learning. One is through acquisition, which is the ideal way to learn a language because it is a subconscious gaining of knowledge, almost by osmosis. This is how we learn as children in our first language. The second form is “learning” which involves conscious effort and thinking to gain knowledge. Language learning by acquisition requires meaningful conversation and focuses on “natural communication” rather than instruction in a classroom.  Krashen states that acquisition cannot come from learning and this poses a threat to teachers who are trying to help their students learn a language in a classroom setting. Though this hypothesis may be understood as a negative statement on teaching, Krashen does not really believe that teaching a second language is a fruitless task. What Krashen really believes is that rote memorization, repetition of phrases, writing of words over and over and grammar instruction alone make language acquisition nearly impossible. Without using the language and putting it into practice through role-play in the classroom, reading and listening to real conversations and engaging in talking to others in the language, students will not acquire language. Krashen’s theory may underestimate the importance of grammar, but it is correct in noting that learners will not have any useful ability in a language that they never practice speaking. For the modern teacher Krashen’s theory serves as a reminder and testament to the importance of role-play and authentic practice of the language in and outside of class. Realistically, though, this can only be done after there has been sufficient direct teaching or “learning” of the proper phrases and grammar needed to speak in those “meaningful conversations.”

The next theory which seems to contradict the first is the “Natural Order hypothesis". It is based on 1970s research which found grammatical structures are learned in a certain predictable order.

The Average order for English is: “ing” endings in present and past progressive (“I am reading” and “he was listening”)  the plural “’s” ending, the to be verb (am, is , are , were, been ) , the regular simple past tense (“ he caught a fish,” “ we won”) ,  articles (“the, a”) , irregular simple past tense of the verb (“ she walked” “learned”), simple present tense verb singular (“she eats” “he dances”) , and finally possessive,(“Jim’s book”).

This hypothesis seems contradictory because Krashen wants the teacher to follow a natural order of grammar after having just told us that acquisition doesn’t occur through learning grammar. He does conveniently state that he doesn’t expect the curriculum to be formed around this order, yet the entire hypothesis focuses on the fact that teachers should teach in this order because it is the easiest way to learn. It’s a challenging theory because it does not quite fit with his first hypothesis and does not have enough evidence behind it to be convince a teacher to use it in curriculum planning. For example, what evidence is there that a student can learn plural “s” easier than “the?”

Furthermore, the biggest issue with this hypothesis is that the order of learning English cannot possibly be the same for all English language learners because of the different language backgrounds they come from. For example in Spanish “ella” means “she” and “el” means “he.” It is not as challenging for a Spanish speaker to accept the words “he” and “she”. However, a Chinese speaker may struggle with “he” and “she” more because in Chinese the word “Ta” is used for both sexes. The student has no equivalent words to compare to, which makes it more challenging. This knowledge is based on their previous language, not a magic formula for when to learn different parts of English grammar.

The "Monitor hypothesis" is another challenging theory of Krashen’s because it seems to suggest teachers take a back seat and stop correcting their student’s when they make errors. The monitor is the conscious “learning” part of the student’s mind which corrects them when they make a mistake and reminds them of the grammar rules they have learned. Though necessary for accuracy, the highly-desired subconscious acquisition part of student’s language development can be negatively affected by the monitor. The monitor can create a barrier to learning by forcing the student to slow down or think before speaking too much. Krashen has a point here because student’s who want to be perfect in their speech can fall into “analysis paralysis,” where they cannot speak a language fluently because they are too worried about speaking it 100% correctly. 

If the student is too critical and focused on accuracy, they will take longer to speak fluently and miss out on important practice of the language. Action is favored over perfection, which is a great key to achieving any task in life, not just language learning. However, this theory can fall too much to the opposite side as well leading to student’s becoming too sloppy in practice. If a student is allowed to consistently make the same mistake for sake of fluency, they will develop bad habits. There needs to be a balance and this balance needs a fancy name; communicative competency.

The fourth hypothesis is the "Input hypothesis" and if taken exactly at Krashen's words, will challenging at best and at worst not very applicable to teachers. All of Krashen’s theories must be sifted through to discover the pearls of wisdom amongst the strange, seemingly impossible suggestions. This hypothesis says that acquisition of the language must happen at i +1, which signifies the student’s current level plus the next step beyond. 

This is done through using “comprehensible input,” a buzz word meaning that the new information must be explained within the student’s current understanding. The challenging aspect of this theory is that every class tends to have multiple levels of students and require that they all complete the same activity. How can a teacher provide the i + 1 if each student starts at a different level? However, Krashen’s hypothesis is not far off from reality. In all subjects, not just language learning, teachers are striving to find the place where their students are being challenged just the right amount. If the material is too hard for student’s they will be overwhelmed or check out of learning. If the material is too easy, students are bored or become stagnant. When the material is i + 1, it is just right. There is just enough new material to make the brain stretch to new heights, yet enough old material to maintain its sanity. Teachers do find this challenging though because of student variation. One solution to this is accepting the fact that not every student will have the perfect balance everyday and being available to provide 1:1 support for those who need it as often as possible. Teacher’s also should provide opportunities for the student’s to complete tasks where they do the learning on their own, at their own pace, such as research projects or projects allowing for individual creativity. Then the student can make the material more challenging if they wish. For example creating a song in the target language. Struggling students have the freedom to write a simple song, and students that are ahead may get as complicated as they wish. Lastly, teachers can plan for activities that students can complete without teacher direction in class while simultaneously taking aside leveled groups of students for mini-lessons. This allows the teacher to work 1:1 or in a smaller groups with students of similar i + 1 levels.

               Lastly and most importantly is the "Affective Filter hypothesis". This is the seemingly obvious idea that student learning is affective by student emotion. Whether this idea is truly obvious or just seems obvious because of the over 20 years it has been since Krashen’s hypothesis I am not sure, but it truly does feel like common sense. A student who is ridiculed by classmates for making a mistake or is constantly corrected and embarrassed by the teacher will not want to volunteer to speak in class. Student’s need a safe environment to practice a new language because it is a scary and unfamiliar task. Learning a language is venturing outside of one’s comfort zone, level of knowledge, and culture. It takes confidence and motivation to practice and succeed. Krashen stated that to achieve this confidence learner’s need a safe, welcoming environment in which students can learn. One interesting thing to note is that in the first theory Krashen stated the best way to learn a language is through subconscious acquisition, such as the way a child learns the first language, not through classroom instruction. However, in terms of the affective filter, there is no better place to learn a second language than a classroom. 

Where else can students have the freedom to make mistakes and not be embarrassed by them? Even in a nice friendly neighborhood with supportive people, a language learner will be embarrassed if they try to ask for “butter” and ask for “butt” instead because its “real-life”. Only in the classroom can an environment be created where there are the least amount of consequences for errors and low-anxiety in practicing a language. The teacher must work to make a warm environment like this, but it is far better than any reaction a student will have out in the real-world trying to speak with a “foreigner” or as a “foreigner”.
       Perhaps Krashen is right, perhaps the best way to learn a language is in the safety of one’s home growing up as a child learning L1. If we could all have learned 2 or more languages as babies, then perhaps there would have been a natural order we learned the L2 grammar, very little interference from our immature monitor, just the right amount of input when we are ready to move to the next level and a warm environment from parents anxious to help us speak in any way they can. Unfortunately we don’t always learn the languages we need to know in that “perfect” environment and therefore teachers are stuck with the task of trying to create the “second best” way to learn a language. 

• Create a classroom that balances direct teaching of grammar and vocabulary with ample opportunity to practice speaking in meaningful conversations. 
• Guide students to develop an ability to correct their own errors without holding themselves back with obsession for perfection. 
• Become aware of the cognates and similar grammar rules in the student’s target language and L1 as much as possible in order to understand what possible order to teach the grammar, or at least to understand better ways of relating the material to students. 
• Strive to create opportunities for student’s to practice at their particular level of challenge and make time for small group instruction when possible.
•  And lastly develop a warm, accepting classroom environment where students support one another and do not have to fear trying something new.

 These are the pearls of wisdom that can be gleaned from Krashen’s hypotheses when one ignores the possible contradictions. These are things I will strive for in my own classroom.