Monitor model of Stephen Krashen note:

Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules and does not
require tedious drill. Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language, natural
communication in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the
messages they are conveying and understanding.

 Five Hypotheses: 1. The acquisition- learning hypothesis 2. The monitor hypothesis 3. The natural
order hypothesis 4. The input hypothesis 5. The affective filter hypothesis

[ ]   1. The acquisition- learning hypotheses  Krashen believed that language acquisition is the only
way to learn second language. Acquisition unconscious and natural process getting something.
Informal situations Natural communication in the target language. Uses grammatical feel. Learning
Conscious process of getting something. Formal situations Uses grammatical rules

[ ]  The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the
influence of the latter on the former.  According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance
initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'.  The 'monitor' acts
in a planning, editing and correcting function  Monitor over users: Use the monitor all the time 
Monitor under users: who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge  Monitor optimal users: use the
'monitor' appropriately

 He believed that role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language  So, role of the
monitor should be minor.  extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-
users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over- use of the "monitor".

[ ] natural order hypothesis the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is
predictable.  Language is acquired in a particular order, and that this order does not change between
learners, and is not affected by explicit instruction  some grammatical structures tend to be acquired
early while others late.  This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background,
conditions of exposure  Krashen rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

[ ]  input hypothesis In this hypotheses Krashen explains how the learner acquires a second language. 
It suggests learners progress in language when they comprehend language input that is slightly more
advanced than their current level.  Krashen called this level of input "i+1", where "i" is the learner's
inter language and "+1" is the next stage of language acquisition.  Only concerned with 'acquisition',
not 'learning'.  The learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when learner receives
second language 'input' that is one step beyond current stage of linguistic competence.  Krashen
suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus.

[ ]   affective filter hypothesisThis states that learners' ability to acquire language is constrained if they
are experiencing negative emotions such as fear or embarrassment.  Krashen claims that learners with
high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for
success in second language acquisition.  Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can
combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from
being used for acquisition.  when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition.

[ ] Criticisms

 1. Input Hypothesis

1. Input Hypothesis • McLaughlin claims that the concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to
define, just as the idea of i+1 • How can we know which language data contains i+1 rather than i+3 • It is
difficult to determine the learners' current levels due to individual differences

1. Input Hypothesis • no clear evidence shows that increased input will result in more language
acquisition, and that increased output will not • if comprehensible input is necessary, then so is
comprehensible output

2. Affective Filter Hypothesis

2. Affective Filter Hypothesis • First, Krashen claims that children lack the affective filter that causes
most adult second language learners to never completely master their second language. • Such a claim
fails to withstand scrutiny because children also experience differences in non-linguistic variables such
as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety that supposedly account for child-adult differences in second
language learning.

 2. Affective Filter Hypothesis • Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult second language learners
who acquire a second language to a native-like competence except for a single grammatical feature •
problematizes the claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the
language acquisition device.
2. Affective Filter Hypothesis • Again, if the absence of the filter can make children such effective
learners, how to explain the achievement of some adults who attain native-like proficiency — what
happens in their case is left unexplained. • In other words, the affective filter hypothesis fails to answer
the most important question about affect alone accounting for individual variation in second language
acquisition.

 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis • It is difficult to accept the idea of a fully operational Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) in adults, since adults are well past the age of puberty. McLaughin (1978, 1987)
and Gregg (1984)

 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis • Acknowledge the limited accessibility of LAD in adults but not in
children. • LAD declines as you age. • The older you get, the limited access you have towards LAD.
Chomsky (1975)

3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis • Feels the needs of an accurate definition for the vague terminology
of that Krashen used i.e. acquisition/learning, conscious/subconscious etc. • However, Krashen does not
seem to be anxious by the critics (Zafar, 2009). McLaughin (1978, 1987)

3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis • Difficult to perceive how acquisition and learning ‘housed’ in two
separate linguistics systems, could be put into use by L2 learners. Gass and Selinker (1994)

3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis • Acquisition could be better understood when described as a

4. Monitor Hypothesis
Zafar (2009) To activate the Monitor System, three conditions must be fulfilled – time, focus on form
and knowledge of the rules. The implementation of the hypothesis in real-life situation is difficult. This
hypothesis could be applied in case of ‘simple’ rules only, but as for ‘difficult’ rules – this hypothesis is
not useful. 4. Monitor Hypothesis

Zafar (2009) It is often difficult to use the monitor correctly since the rules of a language can be
extremely complex. Most normal conversation simply does not provide enough time to activate the
Monitor System. As a result, learners might prevent themselves from speaking due to the fear of making
mistake in their utterances. 4. Monitor Hypothesis

4. Monitor Hypothesis • Krashen assume that young learners are better language learners than
adolescents because they are less affected by linguistic monitors. • But McLaughlin stated that children
and adolescents are equally capable of L2 acquisition. McLaughlin (1992)

4. Monitor Hypothesis McLaughlin (1987) “People have rules for language use in their heads, but these
rules are not those of the grammarian. People operate on the basis of informal rules of limited scope
and validity. These rules are sometimes conscious and sometimes not, but in any given utterance it is
impossible to determine what the knowledge source is.”

5. Natural Order Hypothesis

 5. Natural Order Hypothesis • Krashen claimed for a natural order is based mainly on English
morphemes order studies which has been demonstrated unsatisfactory. (Gass and Selinker, 1994;
McLaughlin, 1987).

 5. Natural Order Hypothesis • The natural order hypothesis fails to account for the considerable
influence of the first language on the acquisition of a second language. • In fact, the results of other
studies indicate that second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending
on their native language
[ ] conclusion In these hypotheses Krashen gives importance to acquisition rather than learning. He
rejects grammatical rules. He also talks about how emotions can also affect learning process. These
hypotheses can help second language teachers.

Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition             

Stephen Krashen is a Second Language Acquisition researcher and professor at University of Southern
California who has been publishing and speaking since the 1980’s. 

"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not
require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen

"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which
speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying
and understanding." Stephen Krashen

"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations,
containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in
the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that
improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing
and correcting production." Stephen Krashen

Krashen’s theory has five main hypotheses:

the Monitor hypothesis,

the Natural Order hypothesis,

the Input hypothesis,

and the Affective Filter hypothesis.

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis: Language “acquisition” is a subconscious process similar to that

The Monitor hypothesis: According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while
the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or 'editor.' The monitor helps a person polish
their speech or writing and may be over-used (ex, heavy concern about mistakes). Usually extroverts are
under-users of the monitor, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users.

The Natural Order hypothesis: For any given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired
early while others late. This does not mean teachers should delay introducing those language structures
because students will not reliably reproduce them until later (perhaps much later). Students need more
repeated exposure to natural-sounding language input over a longer time to acquire these elements of
the target language. [For Chinese, it seems that using 很 and not 是 with adjectives, and the order of
phrases like 在电视上 take longer to acquire. Even after readily understanding them in reading or
speech, students often have errors in their own speech and writing.]
The Input hypothesis: The learner progresses along the 'natural order' as he/she receives second
language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current linguistic competence. If a learner already has
acquired language competence ‘i,’ they will acquire more language through exposure to comprehensible
input ‘i + 1.’ Krashen believes natural communicative input will provide all learners with ‘i + 1’ regardless
of each learner’s current level of competence.

The Affective Filter hypothesis: Krashen claims that learners with low motivation, low self-esteem,
and/or debilitating anxiety can 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block’ to their progress.
Teachers will want to plan lessons that reduce these hindrances by providing interesting, even
compelling, content (from the learners’ perspective, not the teacher’s) and by not shaming learners for
errors or over-using correction techniques that cause anxiety.

Summary 2: written for my younger classes

Stephen Krashen on How We Become Fluent in Another Language 

Stephen Krashen is a researcher and professor at University of Southern California who has studied how
people become fluent in other languages since the 1980’s.

Krashen’s theory has five main points:

That knowing and thinking a lot about grammar rules helps polish formal writing, but can hinder people
from communicating naturally with others;

That languages each have a “Natural Order” with some aspects of the language coming more quickly
than others;

That we need lots of input at just a little bit beyond what we already can understand in order to acquire
more language ability;

And that if we are unmotivated, dislike the language, or feel anxious about it, our progress will be
hindered