Stephen Krashen developed five hypotheses to explain second language acquisition (SLA).

These comprise of:

the acquisition-learning hypothesis
the monitor hypothesis
the natural order hypothesis
the !nput "ypothesis
the Affective filter hypothesis.
Acquisition vs. Learning
According to Stephen #rashen$s acquisition-learning hypothesis% there are t&o independent
&ays in &hich &e develop our linguistic s'ills: acquisition and learning. This theory is at the
core of modern language acquisition theory% and is perhaps the most fundamental of
#rashen$s theories on Second Language Acquisition.
Acquisition
Acquisition of language is a subconscious process of &hich the individual is not a&are.
(ne is una&are of the process as it is happening and &hen the ne& 'no&ledge is
acquired% the acquirer generally does not reali)e that he or she possesses any ne&
'no&ledge. According to #rashen% *oth adults and children can su*consciously acquire
language% and either &ritten or oral language can *e acquired.

This process is similar to
the process that children undergo &hen learning their native language. Acquisition
requires meaningful interaction in the target language% during &hich the acquirer is
focused on meaning rather than form.
Learning
Learning a language% on the other hand% is a conscious process% much li'e &hat one
experiences in school. +e& 'no&ledge or language forms are represented consciously in
the learner$s mind% frequently in the form of language ,rules, and ,grammar, and the
process often involves error correction. Language learning involves formal instruction%
and according to #rashen% is less effective than acquisition.
Monitor Theory
The monitor hypothesis asserts that a learner$s learned system acts as a monitor to &hat they are
producing. !n other &ords% &hile only the acquired system is a*le to produce spontaneous speech
(according to this theory)% the learned system is used to chec' &hat is *eing spo'en.
-efore the learner produces an utterance% he or she internally scans it for errors% and uses the
learned system to ma'e corrections. Self-correction occurs &hen the learner uses the .onitor to
correct a sentence after it is uttered. According to the hypothesis% such self-monitoring and self-
correction are the only functions of conscious language learning.
The .onitor .odel then predicts faster initial progress *y adults than children% as adults use this
/monitor0 &hen producing L1 utterances *efore having acquired the a*ility for natural
performance% and adult learners &ill input more into conversations earlier than children
Krashens Input Hypothesis
Though there are many theories as to ho& &e acquire language% *oth first and second% one of the
most prominent modern theories in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the
Coprehensible Input "ypothesis% developed *y Stephen #rashen. This theory &as originally
called the Input Hypothesis.
According to #rashen% &e acquire language only &hen &e receive coprehensible input (2!).
This hypothesis claims that &e move from i to i+1 *y understanding input that contains i+1. !n
this equation% i represents previously acquired linguistic competence and extra-linguistic
'no&ledge. 3xtra-linguistic 'no&ledge includes our 'no&ledge of the &orld and of the situation-
that is% the context. The +1 represents ne& 'no&ledge or language structures that &e should *e
ready to acquire.
The 2omprehensi*le !nput hypothesis can *e restated in terms of the natural order hypothesis.
4or example% if &e acquire the rules of language in a linear order (5% 1% 6...)% then i represents the
last rule or language form learned% and i+1 is the next structure that should *e learned. !t must *e
stressed ho&ever% that 7ust any input is not sufficient% the input received must *e comprehensi*le.
According to #rashen% there are three corollaries to his theory.
Corollaries o! the Input"Coprehension Hypothesis
5. Talking (output) is not practicing
#rashen stresses yet again that spea'ing in the target language does not result in
language acquisition. Although spea'ing can indirectly assist in language acquisition% the
a*ility to spea' is not the cause of language learning or acquisition. !nstead%
comprehensi*le output is the result of language acquisition.
1. When enough comprehensible input is provided i+1 is present
That is to say% that if language models and teachers provide enough comprehensi*le
input% then the structures that acquirers are ready to learn &ill *e present in that input.
According to #rashen% this is a *etter method of developing grammatical accuracy than
direct grammar teaching.
6. The teaching order is not based on the natural order
!nstead% students &ill acquire the language in a natural order *y receiving comprehensi*le
input.
A!!ective #ilter
The a!!ective !ilter is an impediment to learning caused *y negative emotional (,affective,)
responses to one$s environment. !t is a hypothesis of second language acquisition theory% and a
field of interest in educational psychology.
Ma$or Coponents o! the Theory
According to the affective filter hypothesis% certain emotions% such as anxiety% self-dou*t% and
mere *oredom interfere &ith the process of acquiring a second language. They function as a filter
*et&een the spea'er and the listener that reduces the amount of language input the listener is a*le
to understand. These negative emotions prevent efficient processing of the language input.

The
hypothesis further states that the *loc'age can *e reduced *y spar'ing interest% providing lo&
anxiety environments and *olstering the learner$s self-esteem.
Teaching %ro!iciency through &ea'ing an' Storytelling%
4ormerly 'no&n as Total %hysical &esponse Storytelling% or T%&S for short% is a method for
teaching any &orld language% including Spanish and 4rench. -laine 8ay created this method *y
com*ining 9ames Asher$s Total %hysical &esponse system &ith personali)ed% often funny stories
to help students apply the &ords learned. These stories are complemented &ith reading from a
variety of sources. -laine 8ay is a Spanish teacher &hose philosophy is that ,Learning is a
function of repetition.,
T:8S is a movement to&ards *uilding language pro!iciency in the use of grammatical
structures through reading stories in addition to the oral storytelling for &hich T:8S is &ell-
'no&n. (riginally incorporating seven *asic steps% T:8S% according to 8ay% has three main steps
to the process:
ST(% ): 3sta*lish .eaning. This is done primarily *y the presentation of target language
voca*ulary structures (generally no more than 6 in one lesson) and their equivalents in the
students$ native language. ;estures can also *e taught and practiced &ith the ne& voca*ulary to
help students remem*er voca*ulary &ords. ;estures &ere once considered integral to step 5 *ut
are no& considered optional.
ST(% *: As' (not tell) a story. <sing a general outline of a story% the instructor as's students to
provide specific details. This allo&s students to ma'e it their o&n. At the same time a circling
technique of as'ing questions% and repeating phrases results in multiple repetitions of the target
structures. Advanced T:8S teachers are sometimes a*le to ,&ing it%, creating stories *y as'ing
questions of the students *ased on the voca*ulary structures of that day$s lesson.
ST(% +: 8ead and discuss the story% or a different story &hich contains the grammar structures
from ST3: 1% *ut &ith different details. This reading is often done *y having one or all of the
students translate the reading out loud in order to ensure that students have complete
comprehension of the reading material. ;rammar points contained in the reading may *e *riefly
discussed &ith very short explanations - often = seconds or less. The discussion of the reading is
carried out in the target language% &ith the teacher as'ing questions *oth a*out the reading itself
and also a*out the students and their lives.
T:8S is *ased on the importance of comprehensi*le input as the 'ey factor in developing
fluency in the target language and is supported *y ,r. Stephen Krashen-s research. Another
very important element of T:8S is personali)ation. <sing the language as a means to get to
'no& students and to get them interested in the message is an effective &ay of delivering input
that is *oth comprehensi*le and interesting. :ersonali)ation can *e accomplished *y as'ing
students simple questions a*out their lives in the target language and also *y the inclusion of
cele*rities 'no&n to the students. !t is very important in T:8S to ma'e students loo' good in the
stories and discussions (or at least not *ad)% *ut it is considered good form to ma'e cele*rities
loo' *ad in comparison to the students.
-laine 8ay started a second company teaching adults languages through T:8S in 1>>? follo&ing
a successful study at .iddle Tennessee State <niversity. 4luency 4ast Language 2lasses% !nc. is
a company &hich offers language immersion classes using the T:8S method. ? day language
immersion classes are availa*le nation&ide in Spanish% 4rench% ;erman% 8ussian% .andarin
2hinese and Ara*ic. The company is no& o&ned *y #aren 8o&an% a T:8S teacher from
2olorado.
-laine 8ay has also &ritten multiple series of *oo's &ith numerous co-authors. These *oo's
include explanations of the methodology of T:8S% *oo's of suggested lesson plans for use &ith
the T:8S method% and a series of target language readers *eginning &ith :oor Ana. These
readers have *een translated into multiple languages and include appropriate cultural references
for each target language.
!n 5@@@% a group of .ichigan teachers including .ichael #undrat% #risty :lacido% #athleen
-ulger% and Sue Steele &ere the first mem*ers of an online community for T:8S teachers. The
group is called moreT:8S and is housed at yahoogroups under the name moreT:8S. The list has
gro&n to over =>>> mem*ers &orld&ide and has *een credited &ith the organic and dynamic
nature of T:8S as a teaching method.
!n 1>>A% another forum &as esta*lished for T:8S at &&&.tprs.net.