Stephen Krashen and his hypotheses
American psycholinguist Stephen Krashen is known primarily for his so-called hypotheses about language acquisition (developed in the 70-the 80s). In this article we will provide you the Krashen input hypothesis and Affective filter.
Stephen D. Krashen (born May 14, 1941) is an American linguist, educational researcher, political activist, and professor emeritus at the University of Southern California . He moved from the linguistics department to the faculty of the School of Education in 1994.
Stephen Krashen received a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972. Krashen has more than 486 publications between papers (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed) and books, contributing to the fields of second language acquisition , bilingual education and reading . He is known for introducing several hypotheses related to second language acquisition, including the acquisition-learning hypothesis , the input hypothesis , the monitor hypothesis, the affective filter and the natural order hypothesis . More recently, Krashen promotes the use of voluntary free reading during second language acquisition, which he says “is the most powerful tool we have in language education, first and second.”
As education policy in Krashen‘s home state of California became increasingly hostile to bilingualism, he responded with critical research on the new policies, public speaking engagements, and written letters to newspaper editors. During the campaign to enact an anti-bilingual education law in California in 1998, known as Proposition 227 , Krashen campaigned aggressively in public forums, on media talk shows, and conducted numerous interviews with journalists writing about the issue. After other anti-bilingual education campaigns and attempts to enact regressive language education policies surfaced across the country, by 2006 Krashen was estimated to have sent over 1,000 letters to editors.
In a New Times LA front page article published just a week before the vote on Proposition 227, Jill Stewart wrote a critical piece entitled “Krashen Burn” in which she characterized Krashen as aligned with the monetary interests of a “billionaire.” bilingual education industry.” Stewart spoke critically of Krashen’s model of bilingual education.
Krashen has been an advocate for a more activist role for researchers in combating what he sees as public misconceptions about bilingual education. Addressing the question of how to explain public opposition to bilingual education, Krashen asked, “Is it due to a stubborn disinformation campaign by newspapers and other media to deliberately destroy bilingual education? Or is it due to the failure of the profession? to present their version of the story to reporters? There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to support the latter.” Continuing, Krashen wrote, “Without a serious, dedicated, and organized campaign to explain and defend bilingual education at the national level, in a very short time we will have nothing to defend.”
1- hypothesis of language learning – language acquisition
The first hypothesis is the hypothesis of language learning – language acquisition. Language learning (learning) and language acquisition (acquisition) are two different things and should not be confused. Learning a language is a purely conscious process (learning grammar rules, memorizing new words). This helps to understand the cogs and cogs of the tongue, but alas, it does not help to speak the language without difficulty. Learning is gaining knowledge of a language, about his grammar, syntax, etc.
Even if a student knows all the grammar rules by heart, this is not a guarantee that the student will speak fluently, because while speaking, a person does not have time to remember the rules and think about how to correctly construct a phrase. Speaking is largely an automatic process. In order for speech to flow naturally, the language must be mastered at an unconscious level, when the correct words or phrases themselves are at the tip of the tongue. Many good speakers cannot even always explain why they used one or another phrase, they cannot cite a grammatical rule in support of their choice. They intuitively know what to say that way. This is the acquisition, that is, proficiency in the language at an unconscious level, as is the case with native speakers.
2- Editor hypothesis ( monitor hypothesis )
Hence the second hypothesis – Editor hypothesis ( monitor hypothesis ). A very descriptive metaphor! When we learn grammar rules and cram new words, such a small editor turns on in our head, which constantly monitors us: “Yes, now you said correctly”, “no, here you said something no, it should have been different.” With such a severe controller, there is no time for spontaneous and lively speech. Some are so afraid of this boring editor that they are no longer able to squeeze out the elementary The table is black.
3- Hypothesis input material (input hypothesis)
The third hypothesis – hypothesis input material (input hypothesis). The process of mastering the language is going well only on the condition that the flow of foreign speech that falls on the student is only slightly higher than the level that the student has already reached. “Do you want to say,” the teachers exclaimed, “that lists of new words of 10-15 words and expressions and two or three grammar rules at a time are too many ?!” “Yes,” Krashen replied. – Exactly!”. Learn as many words and rules in one sitting, you can, and learn – not. Therefore, a very large part of the learned foreign language goes into passive. You can know many words, but at the same time, the living speech will remain rather primitive.
4- The natural order hypothesis ( natural order hypothesis )
The fourth hypothesis of the crash – the natural order hypothesis ( natural order hypothesis ). Asserts that people acquire a language in a specific order, and that order cannot be influenced by any explicit explanations from the teacher.
5- The hypothesis of affective filter ( affective filter hypothesis )
Fifth- the hypothesis of affective filter ( affective filter hypothesis ) claims that our perception, language including, depends on our affective state at the time of the study. And the process of language acquisition is greatly inhibited or even blocked if the student experiences negative emotions (fear, shame, etc.). This hypothesis of Krashen contributed to the destruction of the traditional stereotype that the student needs to feel “awe” before the teacher, otherwise, no learning will work.
Affective filter and what does it have to do with the process of learning a second language
In the seventies and eighties, authors such as Stephen Krashen, Dulay, and Burt, began to investigate those factors that prevented or favored the acquisition of a foreign language. One of their hypotheses was that of the “Affective Filter” and had to do with the role of affect, that is, the effect of personality, motivation, and other affective variables in the acquisition of a second language. According to this hypothesis, the affective filter is comparable to an affective block that the student can present when, in the classroom, factors such as anxiety, demotivation, and low self-esteem or self-confidence are added.
According to this model, the greater the filter or effective block, the less successful the learning of a language and vice versa. This filter or affective blockage towards a foreign language can begin in childhood and gain strength during puberty and will never reach a very low level again, so it can affect the student’s performance and relationship with the foreign language throughout his life.
Nowadays, speaking from my experience at an early age, I can say that this theory, although it has been around for many years, makes a lot of sense and relevance in the reality of our children. A classroom that guarantees favorable affective factors for them is a classroom that is guaranteeing the learning of a foreign language.
We know that our children have different learning rhythms and situations, that is why in the CCH, starting in the gan, we sow an environment of trust in which the child does not feel intimidated. Through games and recreational activities, we cultivate general motivation in them, without neglecting the academic rigor that meets our quality standards. We support their communicative intentions using the foreign language, recognizing their efforts and supporting them in this construction both inside the classroom and in spaces outside of it, including reinforcements, if necessary.
In this way, we are laying down a ground for life, in which our learner will feel the confidence and even the love for communicating in a second language, without fear of making mistakes, regardless of the skills or difficulties they may have. The process begins from early childhood and the relationship that we help build our children with the language we want to teach is our responsibility and our challenge. Let’s make it a positive, memorable, and successful experience. K