# data[].attributes.body
Elisabet Wackes

# data[].attributes.body
Is Krashen's Input Hypothesis an effective method of instruction for ELLs in their language acquisition?

# data[].attributes.body
There are many steps to acquiring a new language and this can be intimidating for a lot of students. In order to fully help your students learn a new language, students need to be motivated and inspired to learn new vocabulary in order to succeed in their new environment. The input hypothesis states that learners progress in their knowledge of a new language when they are fully able to understand the comprehensible input that is slightly more advanced than their current level. Krashen’s input hypothesis called this level an “input” which is indicated in files and research as “i+1”. The “i” stands for the learners interlanguage and the “+1” indicates the following step for the next stage of language acquisition. In Krashen’s attempt to explain how a learner fully acquires language, Krashen became one of the most influential individuals in second language learning. There are many other steps to this hypothesis, however, for the purposes of this research study we will be focusing on the input hypothesis and how to keep your students motivated, how to immerse your students in language, and the resources that should be provided to your students during their language acquisition journey.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, “Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition” written by Ricardo Schutz, there is a large discussion on what Stephen Krashen’s theory actually is and what parts make up this theory. From this article, I learned information about Stephen Krashen and why this individual has credibility in this field. I also learned that there are multiple parts to this theory and each of these parts plays a vital role in how to educate those who may be learning a second language. I learned that there are five parts to this theory but my particular article is dealing with the input hypothesis specifically. I think that this is interesting because there are so many components to first understand before diving into the input hypothesis, without background knowledge, you aren’t fully able to teach it.

In my second article, “ Exploring Stephen Krashen’s ‘i+1’ acquisition model in the classroom” by Mark Payne, this article touches on specific components of the input theory. I learned that “i” means the number of pupils that the instructor is addressing that speak the mother language. I also learned that the +1 component of this is the different types of students that you are trying to teach and raise their levels of individuality. In terms of this model, the best way to increase student scores and to make all students a part of the “i” model, students should be taught through comprehensible input. I also learned that the input theory is primarily dealing with the acquisition of language rather than learning a language.

In my third article, “The Input Hypothesis and The Bilingual Learner” by Yolanda Sole, this article mostly touched on how the input hypothesis is correlated with behavioral learning. I learned that humans acquire language through seen behavior and the modeling of these behaviors. This is why children are able to acquire language by observing and living in an environment that primarily speaks in that particular mother tongue. I also learned that in the classroom, children learned the language through reading rather than doing grammar exercises which supports the hypothesis that children should be immersed in a language for them to learn it.

In my fourth article, “An Evaluation of Five Key Aspects of The Language Acquisition (LA)- A Critical Review of Krashen’s Theory” by Mersad Dervic, this article touches on how the theory is controversial in the academic world. This hypothesis has made many educators raise their brows because it is a different way of looking at language than what has been stated before. Stephen Krashen believes that motivation and student’s moods are essential for learning a new language. Many other educators question the relevance of this theory and how it exactly plays part in the classroom for ELLs. This theory goes against traditional theories of grammar and drills and encourages instructors to immerse students fully in a language that they may not understand for them to truly learn it.

# data[].attributes.body
The field of linguistics is extremely interesting and important to familiarize yourself with, especially when educating those who are learning English as their second language. Stephen Krashen is an expert in this field and specializes in theories regarding language acquisition and the development of language. Krashen is known for many of his theories, however, the one that is mostly focused on is his Input Hypothesis theory that primarily concentrates on the acquisition of a second language. This hypothesis is not difficult to grasp, however, there are many components that should be addressed in order to fully explore this theory in order to effectively teach ELL students.

According to my research, there are many steps that the student and the instructor must follow to accurately acquire a new language. There are two independent systems of second language performance which are the ‘acquired system’ and the ‘learned system’ (Schutz, 2005). The ‘acquired system’, also known as the acquisition, is when the subconscious understands the first language. In other words, this is the language that children grow up speaking when learning new vocabulary words and acquiring knowledge on how to interact and communicate with others.

This happens naturally once the child is submerged in this particular language setting by communicating with family and friends. The second part of this system would be the ‘learning system’ which is also known as the formal instruction of language. This system primarily focuses on the accumulation of knowledge about the language itself such as grammar rules. Krashen believed that learning was less important than acquisition (Schutz, 2005) and encouraged educators and students to simply communicate with ELLs and immerse them in the language that they are learning.

The implications of the Input Hypothesis for teaching ELs is the immersion of language fits into the ‘acquisition system’ of learning a new language. This means that the learner is placed in an environment (classroom) that primarily speaks the second language. This helps the student with their ‘comprehensible input’ which means that the student can understand the general essence of what is being communicated to them. Oftentimes, when you speak to someone learning a second language, it always seems that they understand what is being said but have a difficult time translating their thoughts in order to have a conversation (Dervic, 2018).

This is an important piece to language acquisition because this educates the learner on colloquial terms, idioms, and other cultural components of language. Students may not fully understand these terms and idioms right away but they are able to see how these conversations translate and how the individuals in the conversations respond to what is being spoken. The second large component to this hypothesis would be the communicative input. This is where the student is actually translating the words in order to fully convey that they have mastered language acquisition (Dervic, 2018). It is important that educators are mindful of the current comprehension and stage that their ELL student is at. The instruction should be challenging but not so challenging that it frustrates the student to where they no longer desire to learn a second language

In order to apply this in the classroom, ELL students should be challenged when learning a second language but it is also important for the student to remember that they should show dispositions of a student willing to learn another language. This means that the student should stay motivated and should have self-confidence when practicing a new skill such as speaking a second language. Kashen claimed that students with high motivation and self-confidence are better equipped for success in a second language and should continue to motivate themselves to avoid mental blocks that prevent comprehensible input from being formed. (Schutz, 2005)

Krashen’s theory helped pioneer instruction for English Learners in the modern-day classroom. Although this theory helped teachers create instruction and understand how to help their ELLs learn a new language, this theory seems to be a bit controversial. Some educators believe that this theory is ineffective and shouldn’t be used in the classroom because it may frustrate students from learning the new material. This particular article critically reviews the aspects of the Krashen model and what the relevance is to SLA.

According to my research, Stephen Krashen’s theory is so controversial because there is a large distinction between learned and acquired language. Krashen's theory mentions that students who are taught this formally will never fully understand or learn the language. They have to be submerged in this language in order to be able to fully understand. I can understand why there is controversy with this topic because it goes against the modern teaching of ELLs. However, Krashen's approach is also refreshing because this will help ELL students learn the conversational language rather than just formal instruction (Dervic, 2018).

What this implies for EL students who are able to fully understand the conversational aspect of a new language is that these students should be able to use their skills in daily situations rather than just academically. With this in mind, students should be provided with multiple means of instruction which means that they should be able to collaborate with their peers so that they are able to practice their conversational skills. Students should also be given opportunities to watch material and be able to know what words are associated with the pictures being displayed (Dervic, 2018). This will help students better understand what is happening in the classroom and will make them more comfortable with their surroundings.

In order to apply this and encourage this method in your classroom, have your ELL students interact with material that is the same as your other non ELL students. Also, encourage conversation and play between your students of different backgrounds because this will help your ELL students learn conversational language. Students should be immersed in the language but also provided with many opportunities to use resources such as dictionaries, reading closed captioning, and looking at images that are connected to the vocabulary words that your students are learning (Dervic, 2018). Students learn best by playing and it is so important to provide your ELL students with these opportunities.

Different methods of instruction while immersing your students are also important. Differentiating your instruction will allow your students to learn new material either visually, auditory, kinesthetically, or even tactically. This will create a well-rounded understanding of concepts for your students and will help the other non ELL students also thrive.

Immersion has been shown to help ELL students learn a new language faster and even helps them learn new vocabulary and conversational dialogue on an average of just 8 weeks. This is an amazing conclusion to the research and heavily supports the idea that immersion can help students learn a new language. It is so important that students are given resources to help their journey in learning a new language, but it is also important to look at the research behind these ideas and concepts. These students are also shown to even increase their reading and writing capabilities when they are exposed to the immersion model of instruction.

According to my research, Krashen’s theories (in particular the input hypothesis), brings up an interesting way to measure the learning of the English language. ‘i + 1’ is a measure of comprehensible inputs that help demonstrate student proficiency in a language that is not their mother tongue. This method of scale has shown to be problematic (Payne, 2011). When reviewing empirical data gathered from a small area in the north of England, the data showed that an attempt at ‘acquisition’ (i) may not play into what Krashen has been stating is the best way to learn (through immersion). Through planned and adapted instruction, ‘i + 1’ evolves into structured ‘learning’ rather than putting the emphasis on the acquisition of language (Payne, 2011). It is stated in this article that Krashen’s theories seem understandable and have merit but may have flaws when applied in the classroom.

In order to gain more insight into what this exactly means for ELL students, we have to dive into what exactly i+1 means. Krashen’s input hypothesis states that learners progress in their knowledge of a new language through immersion. It also states that if children are learning a new language, their comprehension of that language needs to be slightly more advanced than their current level of understanding. This is where the “input” portion of this theory comes in. “i” is the learners' interlanguage (first language) and the “+1” is going to be the next stage of their learning (stage of language acquisition). The “+1” component of this would reflect a higher advancement level needed to continuously acquire new information about a language in order to use it (Payne, 2011).

In order to work this theory and model into your classroom, we must realize that this theory and model shows that not all learners may be on the same level in terms of their linguistic competence. This means that students should be evaluated on what they may already know and what they need to work on in terms of language and language parts (Payne, 2011). This is extremely important because this will help the development of lesson plans to ensure that each learner will receive the appropriate instruction of their current stage. This is why it is so important to know your students in order to evaluate their current stage of acquisition.

What this means for EL students is that this part of the theory is supposed to meet students where they are in order to scaffold knowledge for them to fully acquire a new language. This is supposed to provide students with support to gauge their prior knowledge and to build from lessons that they already have familiarity with. This input method is to continuously grow in instruction with the student to gradually change their stage of comprehension and understanding of the new language. Krashen believes that this is done best when students are dropped into a new environment completely immersed in the new language. This is controversial because students must learn the language, but should also be developing knowledge on how this language is formed and the rules of grammar and syntax (Sole, 1994). Instruction should be provided to the students along with the opportunity to become immersed by talking to peers and other individuals.

When looking at the acquisition of language, it’s important to look at the fundamental ideas behind teaching ELL students. Where did this theory stem from and how does it play a part in past instruction? It is found that the input hypothesis is fundamentally based on the behaviorist theories of language acquisition. It is believed by popular behaviorists, such as Skinner, that language is learned through experiences and natural growth (Sole, 1994). According to this theory, children learn language by mimicking patterns and those who are around them.

This often leads toward a reward as a response for correct usage of words and grammar or punishment if the language is used incorrectly. When comparing the input hypothesis to the behaviorist theories, there isn’t much difference. The basic idea behind the input hypothesis is that students should be submerged in a language in order to learn it by mimicking their peers, instructors, or community members. This article dives deeper into how this method may be the most effective for ELL students.

In order to understand the relationship between the behaviorist theory and the input hypothesis, it is important to look at comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is the amount of language the child understands in order for them to make sense of what is being spoken to them. This does not mean, however, that instructors should only use words that the student knows. If the instructor no longer challenges students to learn new vocabulary, students will never fully grow or understand concepts to the extent to achieve mastery (Sole, 1994). Comprehensible input plays an enormous role in the acquisition of language. This is where many context clues are added to instruction in order to help the student better understand what is being spoken to them. Examples of this would be to incorporate visuals to the instruction, tell stories with body language and facial expressions, singing songs, or even watching the news and educational programs.

These are all great tools to use in the classroom that supports the idea that students should be provided with good models that can help them learn a new language. It has been recorded that many students who are learning a new language learned the language through morning cartoons. This does not mean that this is where students should obtain all their information but does show that immersion in a new culture or language helps students better understand the phonetics of a new language.

An environment that is rich with text and conversation is the most beneficial for ELL students. The more words the students are exposed to, the more the language develops. Research has shown that students who are immersed in the language in the classroom who do not speak English originally actually score very similar to their English peers. Other research and testing show that these bilingual students even have increased cognitive skills over their monolingual peers. It is also shown that while following this hypothesis, these students not only acquire second language skills but also succeed in learning academic subject matter and concepts.

It has been shown that students that are placed in immersion-styled classrooms that follow the input hypothesis actually maintain their level of English language development and actually show a general gain in their language skills, cognitive development, and academic achievement.

Students should be provided with tools to succeed and resources to reference. The immersion model seems to be one of the most effective ways to increase language acquisition in your students but this does not mean that this is the only thing you are doing for these students. As mentioned previously, it is heavily important that students are provided with clues as to what words and phrases mean. Students who are able to associate words with objects have a much easier time understanding what is being spoken to them, but also helps them remember these words easier. It is shown that with visuals, individuals are able to learn new subject areas better. This is no different for your ELL students!

# data[].attributes.body
Sole, Yolanda Russinovich. “The Input Hypothesis and the Bilingual Learner.” Bilingual Review, vol. 19, no. 2, May 1994, pp. 99–110. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9501107832&authtype=shib&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8333155.

Payne, M.(2011), Exploring Stephen Krashen’s ‘i+1’ acquisition model in the classroom.(UK)- A Critical Review Of Krashen’s Theory. Exploring Stephen Krashen’s ‘i+1” acquisition model in the classroom.

Dervic, M.(2018), An Evaluation of Five Key Aspects Of The Language Acquisition (LA)- A Critical Review Of Krashen’s Theory. Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition 1-6

Schutz, R. S. (2005). Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, 1–3. https://apps.esc1.net/ProfessionalDevelopment/uploads/WKDocs/58121/2.%20Stephen%20Krashen.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
January 5, 2021: Started thinking about the artifact
January 12, 2021: Selected topic for the artifact and locate four articles
January 19, 2021: Learn how to write abstract for your articles and AMR 1 due
January 26, 2021: Begin working on the "Indiana University Plagiarism Certificate"
February 2, 2021: Certificate due
February 9, 2021: Begin writing AMR 2
February 16, 2021: Begin writing AMR 3 and AMR 2 is due
February 23, 2021: Begin writing AMR 4 and AMR 3 is due
March 2, 2021: Start writing and memorizing your elevator speech
March 9, 2021: Work on completing the artifact
March 23, 2021: Artifact is due
March 30, 2021: Teachmeet/artifact presentation