Applied Lingustics- Krashen Principles v. Long; Input & Output Hypothesis

The 5 principles of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis are:

1. Acquisition versus learning. Acquisition of second language should be as natural and subconscious as the first language acquisition. Krashen suggests teachers create a “silent period,” where students only read and listen, as an infant would, in observing their first language. Learning is too deliberate and only effective if it mirrors a child’s first language development.
2. Monitoring use of language, grammar, and content. Learners’ of a second language ability to edit, identify, and correct grammar and context use. Teachers and students generally strive to obtain optimal monitoring, which creates thought timing, correct grammar, and content use in balance. Not spending too much time considering one aspect of second language use prevents over and under use of communication output.
3. Natural order and “zero option.” This means focusing on form is not useful to second language acquisition. Mistakes are okay, and allow a pre-determined biological sequence of language comprehension to occur. Zero option is allowing learning to acquire language naturally.
4. Input, or “I + 1.” Espousing learner to linguistic input that matches and exceeds comprehension by a little more than the learner understands, furthers language acquisition progress. Ex: Teachers should use pictures, mimes, and a variety of self-evident queues to modify lesson to meet student comprehension. Much like a caregiver modifies speech to communicate with child.
5. Affective filter levels effects comprehension input. Anxiety of low confidence are too examples of affective filters that negatively impact a learner’s ability to seek comprehensive input. Low comprehension input and affective filter cause low second language acquisition.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Input hypothesis are as follows:

1. They are too simplistic
2. Key concepts are poorly defined
3. Hypothesis is impossible to test

Krashen’s does not acknowledge, and has no testable way to indicate pre-existing levels of learners comprehension input because there are so many variables to consider. Krashen should have been more specific when pointing out key concepts such as the “I+one,” researchers want to know more specifically what “I” and “one” are[is]? Most criticisms center on Krashen’s lack of testability, and ability to falsify/verify his 5 key principles.


Long Interaction-ism Hypothesis

Professor Micheal Long's Interaction Hypothesis states that learners play an active role in second language acquisition through comprehension input and negotiation of meaning. Through social interaction a speaker is able to test and modify their comprehension input and output. Conversation act as a medium and through the social communication, learners make adjustments in speech to meet the more competent speaker's speech. Thus, Long argues that second language acquisition is occurring inside, as well as, outside the classroom, through social constructs.
Comparatively, Krashen's theory does not credit output for SLA. He advocates "silent periods," and believes "pushing" students to speak, raises affective filter, which creates anxiety for student. Similarly, both theories agree that learning is a conscious process and that second language acquisitions idea should be taken into account when evaluating student comprehension. Long worked closely with Krashen, and branched off to customize a theory of his own. I believe Long accredits Krashen's work, but found validity in social interaction in furthering SLA.