Sep. 2008, Volume 6, No.9 (Serial No.

60) US-China Foreign Language, ISSN1539-8080, USA

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and English classroom teaching

ZHENG Dong-lin
(College English Department, Huaiyin Teachers College, Huai’an Jiangsu 223001, China)

Abstract: The Input Hypothesis is one of the most important Krashen’s theories of second language
acquisition. The hypothesis focuses on comprehensible input which causes language acquisition. Teachers are
responsible for providing adequate language input in class and students’ exposure to English can be maximized in
four ways to enhance EFL teaching.
Key words: Input Hypothesis; comprehensive input; classroom teaching

1. Introduction

Stephen Krashen is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and
development. Much of his research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition.
Krashen’s well-accepted theory of second language acquisition has had a large impact on all areas of language
research and teaching since the 1980s. His theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:
the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Input hypothesis,
and the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen’s combined model of acquisition and production is shown as
follows:

Fig. 1 Krashen’s combined model of acquisition and production

Note: The Input Hypothesis model of L2 learning and production (adapted from Krashen, 1982, p.16 and Gregg, 1984)

2. The theory of the Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis is the most important one of Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition. The
input hypothesis attempts to explain how learners acquire a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is
Krashen’s explanation of how second language acquisition takes place.
Krashen argues it is essential not to focus on explicit grammatical structures or learning activities but rather
to occupy classroom time with acquisition tasks or activities. Therefore, the Input Hypothesis is only concerned
with “acquisition”, not “learning”. Given the correctness of the Natural Order Hypothesis, how do acquirers move

ZHENG Dong-lin (1971- ), female, lecturer of College English Department, Huaiyin Teachers College; research fields: linguistics
and applied linguistics.

53
 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and English classroom teaching

from one stage to another? More generally, how do acquirers move from stage “i”, where “i” represents current
competence, to “i+1”, the next level? The Input Hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not
sufficient) condition to move from stage “i” to stage “i+1” is that acquirers understanding input that contains “i
+1”, where “understanding” means that acquirers focus on the meaning but not the form of the message.
According to this hypothesis, acquirers improve and progress along the “natural order” when they receive second
language “input” that is one step beyond their current stage of linguistic competence. How is this possible? This is
done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information. That is, acquirers use more than their linguistic
competence, context, knowledge about the world, extra-linguistic information, to help understand language that
contains structures a bit beyond their current level of competence.
Furthermore, the Input Hypothesis says that input must contain “i+1” to be useful for language acquisition,
but it need not contain only “i+1”. If acquirers understand the input, and there is enough of it, “i+1” will be
provided. In other words, if communication is successful, “i+1” is provided automatically. This implies that the
best input should not even attempt to deliberately aim at “i+1”. While the teaching syllabi try to deliberately cover
“i+1”. Usually both teachers and learners feel the aim of the lesson is to teach or practice a specific grammatical
item or structure. Once the structure is mastered, the syllabi proceed to the next one. On the basis of the Input
Hypothesis such a deliberate attempt to provide “i+1” is not necessary.
The Input Hypothesis also states that acquirers must not be forced to produce early. Their production is not
taught directly. That is, a certain amount of comprehensible input must be built up before acquirers start to
produce their own structures. Acquisition will come when acquirers feel “ready”. For example, if an acquirer is at
a stage “i”, then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to enough comprehensible input that belongs to
level “i +1”.
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. (Krashen, 1985).

Krashen believes that by means of context and other extra-linguistic cues language acquisition is caused by
acquirers’ understanding input “i+1” which is slightly beyond their current stage of knowledge “i”. Krashen
defines “i+1” as comprehensible input which means that learners should be able to understand the essence of what
is being said or presented to them. Comprehensible input is particularly beneficial in acquisition and production. It
is crucial that acquirers receive the input that is comprehensible and challenging enough to lead to improve in
linguistic competence. The main task of a teacher is to provide comprehensible input to the students as much as
possible. When an acquirer is provided with comprehensible input, his/her LAD is activated and he/she acquires.
Comprehensible input has four characteristics: (1) comprehensible; (2) interesting and relevant; (3) not
grammatically sequenced; (4) sufficient “i+1”.

3. Implication of the Input Hypothesis for English classroom teaching

The Input Hypothesis is a well-developed linguistic theory, and it is the most deeply and broadly researched
approach to SLA. However, it is still valuable to our English classroom teaching. In China, classroom teaching is
an important way to provide comprehensible input, because English is mainly learnt in class as a foreign language.
Teachers need the input theory to guide them in EFL teaching. The author proposes the following implication of

54
 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and English classroom teaching

the Input Hypothesis for English classroom teaching.

3.1 Modification of the teacher talk
In the process of classroom teaching, teacher talk is one of major sources of comprehensible target language
input. Teacher talk includes organizing class activities, facilitating acquisition processes and the explanation of
language input. How to make students with different language proficiency understand what teachers said?
Depending on students’ language proficiency, teaching content and atmosphere of class, teachers should try to
modify their language to meet the need of classroom teaching. Teachers can use simple vocabulary and less
complex syntactic structures, slower speech rate with the aim to make their speeches easier to be understood and
provide comprehensible input for students.
At first, teachers have to explain either in native language or simple English, and bilingual teaching or pure
English can be used for explanation appropriately. Teachers can modify their language by using more frequent,
neutral and concrete vocabulary and grammatically well-formed sentences to facilitate the student’ comprehension.
It is easy to notice that students can understand better when teachers frequently use the same words instead of
different words. Frequent stimulations to students can help them remember the knowledge they learnt and give
them opportunities to comprehend.
In addition, the rate of teacher talk is another very important factor, which can influence students’
comprehension on second language acquisition. And a number of studies provide evidence to suggest that
appropriate rate of teacher talk can aid students to understand the language input. If the rate of teacher’ talk is not
appropriate, the input will be rather difficult and it will become a “noise” for students, even it can increase their
anxiety, which is a negative factor to language learning. Therefore, according to the language proficiency of
students teachers can modify the rate of their speech to aid comprehension.
3.2 Establishment of the student-centered teaching mode
Many other techniques can be used to increase the likelihood that students will understand what is being said
to them, such as frequent use of visuals, and providing frequent opportunities for students to express their ideas. It
is important to limit the length and number of lecture-type presentations by the teacher. Krashen emphasized the
unconscious learning process to acquire language, which can only be realized in the natural environment.
Traditionally, China’s English classroom teaching takes up “the teacher-centered” teaching mode which cannot
conform to the development of the modern society. It is known that language learning is a process of active
construction. Learners do not accept the outside information passively but actively notice and choose the outside
information according to the proceeding cognitive structure and construct the meaning. Therefore, teachers should
arouse the students’ creativities and make them take part in class activities on the basis of the “student-centered”
teaching mode. The teachers should fully use the limited time in class to provide more opportunities of speaking
and writing exercises to the students. For example, the teacher can choose a topic related to the teaching content
but attracting the students, and then ask students to make dialogues in pairs or discuss in groups. Finally, teachers
ask students to have a speech in front of the blackboard. During their presentations, the focus should be primarily
on accuracy of content, but not rigid requirements associated with correct language use. Because the learners’
decisive factor of learning is LAD inside with the development of psycholinguistics, the teachers should guide and
stimulate students’ enthusiasm to improve their interests and make them study actively and take learning as an
interesting work but not a burden to get the aim of improving learning effects. Meanwhile, “student-centered”
teaching mode makes students have more chances to gain enough comprehensible input to enhance their ability of
applying English.

55
 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and English classroom teaching

3.3 Introduction of the relevant background knowledge

What teachers can ensure that teaching content is sufficiently comprehensible is to provide relevant
background knowledge and content. Comprehensible input is related to more than just language development and
curriculum content. Appropriate introduction of background knowledge is crucial in English class. Some
researches show that learning language and culture together is a short cut to master a language. Students who are
in defiance of culture learning will find themselves cultural shock in the actual communication. Therefore, to
make students acquire more input, teachers should teach the language from the perspective of culture and keep the
pace of language learning with the culture absorbing. Teachers must provide students background instruction that
draws on their experiences. Teachers usually organize warm-up activities introducing background information to
activate students’ prior knowledge to facilitate comprehension in class. This does not mean that teachers have to
be the experts in their students’ cultures, but they do have to understand how effective it can be to connect
students' learning to their past experiences to gain comprehensive input.
3.4 Application of the multimedia technology
Krashen postulates that language learning is directly related to the amount of “comprehensible input”
learners received. Such inputs should be a little bit above their understanding but could be understood through
inference. Nothing but the Net-based multimedia computers can meet these requirements. Therefore, to provide
sufficient input with such high demands in quality and quantity, the Net-based multimedia computers should be
widely applied in classroom teaching. The multimedia technology has the potential to bring the whole world into a
classroom, creating an optimal environment for EFL learning. Focusing on meanings and messages rather than
forms, it not only provides students much information, but arouses their interest in English owing to the effect of
color, flash, sound and pictures. With the help of the multimedia computers students can receive comprehensive,
individualized instruction in all the skills simultaneously and participate in their regular classroom assignments
actively.

4. Conclusion

To sum up, with the guide of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, English teachers must take great efforts to create a
positive, supportive and relaxing environment of English class for students and improve the quantity and quality
of language input in class so as to make classroom teaching more effective.

References:
Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (Eds.). 1989. Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implication. London and New York: Longman.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

(Edited by Stella, Sunny and Max)

56