Krashen’s Monitor Model is a comprehensive theory of SLA made up of five interrelated hypotheses. Krashen’s key argument is that language acquisition differs fundamentally from conscious language learning and that true language competence develops primarily through exposure to comprehensible input—language slightly above the learner’s current level of competence (often referred to as i+1). His work emphasizes naturalistic learning over formal instruction, prioritizing understanding and meaningful communication over explicit grammar teaching and error correction.
- Overview of Krashen’s Monitor Model
- Theoretical Contributions and Pedagogical Implications of Krashen’s Monitor Model
- Major Criticisms and Limitations of Krashen’s Monitor Model
- Balanced Perspectives and Contemporary Views on Krashen’s Monitor Model
- 1. Recognition of the Model’s Influence on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
- 2. Consideration of Critiques as Opportunities for Refinement and Extension
- 3. Integration with Other SLA Theories (e.g., Interactionist, Sociocultural Approaches)
- 4. Current Research Trends Addressing Affective Factors and Input Quality
- Summary of Balanced Perspectives and Contemporary Views on Krashen’s Monitor Model
- Academic Resources on Krashen’s Monitor Model
Overview of Krashen’s Monitor Model
Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model is one of the most well-known and widely discussed theories in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). It is composed of five interrelated hypotheses that together attempt to explain how people acquire a second language, why some learners are more successful than others, and what conditions facilitate language acquisition. Each hypothesis focuses on a specific aspect of the acquisition process, offering a clear and structured view of how language development occurs. Below is an explanation of each hypothesis and its significance.
1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Core Idea:
Krashen distinguishes between two distinct processes in language development: acquisition and learning.
- Acquisition is a subconscious process that occurs when learners are exposed to language in meaningful, communicative contexts. It is similar to how children acquire their first language—through natural interaction and without conscious focus on grammar rules.
- Learning is a conscious process involving formal instruction, knowledge of grammar rules, and the ability to talk about language explicitly.
Implications:
According to Krashen, only acquisition leads to true fluency, while learning creates knowledge that can be used to monitor language but does not contribute directly to spontaneous communication. This hypothesis laid the foundation for communicative approaches that prioritize meaningful input over explicit grammar teaching.
2. Monitor Hypothesis
Core Idea:
The Monitor Hypothesis explains the function of conscious learning. Krashen argues that learning acts as a “monitor” or editor of language output. In other words, learners use their conscious knowledge of rules to check, plan, and correct what they say or write.
Conditions for Effective Monitor Use:
For learners to use the Monitor effectively, three specific conditions must be met:
- Knowledge of the Rule: The learner must consciously know the rule they want to apply.
- Focus on Form: The learner must be focused on correctness and accuracy rather than on communication.
- Time Available: The learner must have sufficient time to think about the rule and apply it.
Implications:
The Monitor is typically used in writing or during formal speech when learners have time to reflect. In natural conversation, reliance on the Monitor is limited due to time pressure and focus on meaning.
3. Natural Order Hypothesis
Core Idea:
Krashen claims that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable, natural order, regardless of the learner’s first language, age, or explicit instruction. Some structures (e.g., plural -s) are typically acquired early, while others (e.g., third person -s) come later.
Implications:
This hypothesis challenges the idea that grammar can be taught effectively through a fixed syllabus. It suggests that explicit teaching of certain structures may not result in immediate acquisition because learners acquire language when they are ready, not simply when it is taught.
4. Input Hypothesis
Core Idea:
The Input Hypothesis is perhaps the most central of Krashen’s five. It states that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to comprehensible input—language that is mostly understandable but includes elements slightly beyond their current level of competence (referred to as i+1). This input should be natural, meaningful, and contextually rich.
Implications:
Acquisition progresses naturally when learners understand language just beyond their current ability, without being forced to produce language before they are ready. This idea of Krashen’s Monitor Model supports the use of authentic materials, extensive reading, and listening in ESL classrooms rather than drilling or output-focused tasks.
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis
Core Idea:
The Affective Filter Hypothesis emphasizes the role of emotional factors in language acquisition. Krashen suggests that learners’ attitudes, motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence can either facilitate or block acquisition. A high affective filter (high anxiety, low motivation, low self-esteem) prevents input from being processed effectively. A low affective filter (high motivation, low anxiety, high confidence) allows input to be received and used.
Implications:
Creating a positive, supportive learning environment is essential. Teachers should reduce stress, encourage risk-taking, and build learners’ confidence to help lower the affective filter and maximize acquisition.
Summary of the Five Hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Key Idea | Practical Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition-Learning | Subconscious acquisition leads to fluency; conscious learning helps monitor | Focus on natural communication, not grammar drills |
| Monitor | Learned knowledge edits output when time and focus allow | Encourage careful writing and editing |
| Natural Order | Structures acquired in predictable sequence | Accept developmental errors as part of learning |
| Input | Comprehensible input (i+1) drives acquisition | Provide rich, meaningful, slightly challenging input |
| Affective Filter | Motivation, anxiety, and confidence affect learning | Create supportive, low-stress learning environments |
Theoretical Contributions and Pedagogical Implications of Krashen’s Monitor Model
Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model has greatly influenced how teachers and researchers understand second language learning. His ideas have changed how many teachers plan lessons, create learning environments, and interact with students. Below is a simplified explanation of Krashen’s contributions and what they mean for classroom practice, with clear examples for teachers.
Theoretical Contributions of Krashen’s Monitor Model
1. Comprehensible Input is Key to Language Learning
Krashen’s main idea is that people learn a second language best when they receive comprehensible input—language that they mostly understand but contains some new words or grammar that challenge them just a little (i+1). This idea moved attention away from memorizing rules and towards listening and reading activities that help learners understand and enjoy the language.
Why It Matters:
- Learners improve when they understand messages, not when they are forced to memorize grammar rules.
- This supports activities like listening to stories, watching videos with subtitles, or reading graded readers.
2. Difference Between Acquisition (Natural) and Learning (Conscious)
Krashen says there are two ways to develop language ability:
- Acquisition happens naturally, without thinking too much about grammar, through meaningful communication (like chatting with friends or listening to stories).
- Learning happens when learners consciously study grammar and rules.
According to Krashen, only acquisition leads to fluent, natural communication. Learning helps people check and correct their mistakes but doesn’t lead to automatic speaking ability.
Why It Matters:
- Teachers should provide lots of opportunities for learners to hear and understand English naturally rather than focusing only on grammar exercises.
- Grammar lessons can help with writing or test preparation but do not build speaking fluency on their own.
3. Emotions Affect Learning (Affective Filter)
Krashen believes learners need to feel relaxed, motivated, and confident to learn well. If students are anxious, shy, or scared of making mistakes, their “affective filter” is high, and they won’t absorb language as easily.
Why It Matters:
- A positive classroom atmosphere helps students feel safe and willing to speak or try new things.
- Teachers should reduce fear of mistakes and focus on encouragement.
Pedagogical Implications (What It Means for Teaching) of Krashen’s Monitor Model
1. Focus on Comprehensible Input in the Classroom
Teachers should provide students with input they can understand but which gently challenges them to improve. This could include:
- Graded readers (books written at students’ levels)
- Listening activities with visuals (videos, podcasts with pictures)
- Stories or conversations using simple language with a few new words
Example:
Reading a short story with new vocabulary, where pictures and context help students guess the meaning.
2. Use of Natural Approach and Learner-Centered Methods
Krashen’s ideas support the Natural Approach to teaching, which focuses on communication and understanding rather than grammar drills. Classrooms should be learner-centered, allowing students to communicate naturally without too much correction.
Example:
Instead of correcting every mistake, teachers encourage students to share opinions in group discussions, knowing fluency develops over time.
3. Create Low-Anxiety, Supportive Classrooms
Teachers should create classrooms where students feel comfortable and confident. This helps lower the affective filter and makes it easier to absorb new language.
Example:
Teachers praise effort, accept mistakes as part of learning, and encourage students to take risks, like trying to speak in front of the class.
4. Don’t Force Output Too Early (Silent Period)
Krashen believes learners should not be forced to speak too early. They need time to listen and understand before they feel ready to produce language. When they are ready, they will speak naturally.
Example:
A beginner student listens to stories and watches videos in English for weeks before being asked to speak in class.
5. Use of Monitor for Writing and Editing, Not Speaking
The Monitor (conscious grammar knowledge) works best when learners have time to think, such as during writing. It is not very helpful in fast, natural conversation.
Example:
Students use grammar rules to check their writing during editing tasks but focus on fluency during speaking activities without stopping to think about every rule.
Summary of Key Teaching Implications in Krashen’s Monitor Model
| Area | What Teachers Should Do |
|---|---|
| Comprehensible Input | Provide reading and listening materials that are mostly understandable but include some new elements. |
| Acquisition vs. Learning | Prioritize natural communication activities over grammar drills. |
| Affective Filter | Create a relaxed, supportive, mistake-friendly environment. |
| Delayed Output | Allow learners to speak when ready; focus on understanding first. |
| Monitor Use | Encourage rule-checking in writing, not during speaking. |
Krashen’s Monitor Model reminds teachers that language learning is more about understanding and communication than memorizing grammar. His ideas continue to shape classrooms where learners are encouraged to listen, read, and communicate in meaningful ways, building their confidence and language skills naturally over time.
Major Criticisms and Limitations of Krashen’s Monitor Model
While Krashen’s Monitor Model has been highly influential in shaping Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory and language teaching practices, it has also faced substantial criticism from researchers and educators. Scholars argue that, although the model offers a clear and appealing framework, it oversimplifies the complexities of language acquisition. Below are some of the most common and significant criticisms of Krashen’s model.
1. Empirical Testability
One of the primary criticisms of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that it lacks empirical testability. Many researchers argue that Krashen’s five hypotheses are presented more as broad metaphors than scientifically precise theories. As a result, it is difficult to design experiments that can definitively prove or disprove the claims. For example, distinguishing between “acquired” and “learned” knowledge in the mind of a learner is not something that can be clearly measured through existing research tools.
Example of Criticism:
Researchers have found it challenging to verify the existence of the “i+1” level of input or to determine conclusively when the Affective Filter is “high” or “low.” Without clear criteria, these hypotheses remain more theoretical than practical for scientific study.
2. Acquisition vs. Learning Distinction
Krashen draws a strict line between acquisition (subconscious) and learning (conscious). However, many scholars question whether this separation is as clear-cut as Krashen suggests. In practice, the processes of acquisition and learning often overlap and influence each other. Research in cognitive psychology suggests that conscious learning can become automatic over time through practice, blurring Krashen’s rigid distinction.
Example of Criticism:
A learner who consciously studies grammar may later use those structures automatically in conversation, suggesting that explicit learning can contribute to fluent performance, contrary to Krashen’s claims.
3. Monitor Use Practicality
Krashen’s Monitor Model states that the Monitor (conscious grammar knowledge) can only be used under three specific conditions:
- The learner knows the rule.
- The learner focuses on form.
- The learner has time to apply the rule.
Critics argue that in real-life communication, these conditions are rarely met. In spontaneous conversation, learners usually prioritize meaning over grammar, leaving little time for conscious monitoring.
Example of Criticism:
A language learner in a fast-paced conversation cannot realistically stop to think about verb tenses or subject-verb agreement; fluency requires automaticity, not conscious correction.
4. Challenges to the Natural Order Hypothesis
Krashen’s claim that learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable, natural order has been questioned. Research shows that while some common patterns exist, the order of acquisition varies widely depending on factors such as the learner’s first language, learning environment, motivation, and individual differences. This variability suggests that acquisition is not as universal or fixed as Krashen proposes.
Example of Criticism:
Learners from different L1 backgrounds may acquire English structures (like articles or prepositions) at different stages, which contradicts the idea of a universal order.
5. Neglect of Output and Interaction
Krashen’s model places almost all emphasis on input and minimizes the role of output (speaking, writing) and interaction. However, later SLA research (such as Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis) demonstrates that producing language and interacting with others are essential for developing accuracy and fluency. Output helps learners notice gaps in their knowledge, receive feedback, and refine their language.
Example of Criticism:
Classrooms focused only on listening and reading may not give learners enough opportunities to practice speaking and writing, which are crucial for language development.
6. Psychological and Linguistic Critiques
Scholars from other fields of SLA, such as Skills Acquisition Theory and Universal Grammar, criticize Krashen’s assumptions about how language is learned. Skills Acquisition Theory argues that practice and repetition turn explicit knowledge into automatic skills, while Universal Grammar researchers emphasize innate, biologically-based mechanisms for language learning. These perspectives challenge Krashen’s emphasis on input alone and question his separation of learning and acquisition.
Example of Criticism:
Some researchers argue that language learning is a gradual process involving both conscious practice and implicit knowledge-building, not two separate systems.
7. Overemphasis on Input
Finally, critics argue that Krashen’s input-heavy focus underestimates the importance of explicit instruction, corrective feedback, and output. While comprehensible input is undoubtedly crucial, many successful language programs balance input, output, and instruction to support learners in building accuracy, fluency, and confidence.
Example of Criticism:
Students in classroom settings often benefit from explicit grammar explanations and corrective feedback, which help them understand and fix mistakes rather than relying solely on input to notice errors.
Summary of Major Criticisms
| Criticism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Empirical Testability | Hypotheses are too vague and hard to test scientifically. |
| Acquisition vs. Learning | The clear-cut separation is unrealistic in practice. |
| Monitor Use Practicality | Hard to apply consciously in real-time communication. |
| Natural Order Challenges | Learners show variation in grammar acquisition sequences. |
| Neglect of Output | Output and interaction are key, not just input. |
| Psychological Critiques | Other theories offer stronger cognitive explanations. |
| Overemphasis on Input | Underestimates benefits of explicit instruction and feedback. |
Balanced Perspectives and Contemporary Views on Krashen’s Monitor Model
Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model has played a central role in shaping modern views on language learning and teaching, particularly through its emphasis on comprehensible input, naturalistic learning, and affective factors. While the model has been heavily critiqued, scholars and educators recognize that these criticisms do not negate its contributions. Instead, they have led to refinements, new perspectives, and integration with other theories, resulting in a more nuanced understanding of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
1. Recognition of the Model’s Influence on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Krashen’s ideas have had a lasting impact on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), a dominant approach in language education today. His emphasis on meaningful communication, natural interaction, and input-rich environments aligns closely with the core principles of CLT. The shift away from grammar-heavy, teacher-centered instruction towards learner-centered classrooms that prioritize communication and comprehension can be directly traced back to Krashen’s work.
Example in Practice:
Classroom activities such as storytelling, role plays, task-based projects, and extensive reading programs reflect Krashen’s belief in the power of input and low-stress environments to foster acquisition.
2. Consideration of Critiques as Opportunities for Refinement and Extension
Although Krashen’s Monitor Model has faced substantial criticism, these critiques have been valuable for the evolution of SLA theory. Rather than dismissing Krashen’s work, many researchers use the limitations identified by critics as a starting point for refining, adjusting, and extending theoretical models. For example, the Output Hypothesis (Swain) and Interaction Hypothesis (Long) emerged as responses to Krashen’s downplaying of output and interaction, offering a more balanced view of how input, output, and feedback work together in language development.
Contemporary Perspective:
Krashen’s model is now often viewed as one piece of a larger puzzle, contributing important insights that complement other approaches rather than serving as a complete explanation on its own.
3. Integration with Other SLA Theories (e.g., Interactionist, Sociocultural Approaches)
Modern SLA research frequently integrates Krashen’s focus on input with other theories to provide a more comprehensive view of language learning. For example:
- Interactionist theories highlight the importance of negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback during interaction, expanding Krashen’s input hypothesis by showing how learners actively shape their own input through conversation.
- Sociocultural approaches (influenced by Vygotsky) emphasize the social nature of learning, focusing on how learners co-construct knowledge through interaction, collaboration, and participation within a cultural context.
Contemporary Classroom Practice:
Today’s language classrooms often combine elements of input-based learning, communicative tasks, interaction-focused activities, and reflective practice, drawing from multiple theories to meet diverse learner needs.
4. Current Research Trends Addressing Affective Factors and Input Quality
Current SLA research continues to build on Krashen’s insights, particularly regarding affective factors and input quality. However, these aspects are now studied with greater precision and depth. Researchers investigate not just the presence of input, but its complexity, authenticity, and relevance to the learner’s level and interests. Similarly, studies of affective factors have become more sophisticated, exploring the nuanced roles of motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, and emotional well-being in shaping language acquisition.
Example of Contemporary Research:
Studies now explore how task-based learning, technology-enhanced environments, and collaborative activities create opportunities for comprehensible input and lower anxiety, supporting Krashen’s core ideas while updating them to modern contexts.
Summary of Balanced Perspectives and Contemporary Views on Krashen’s Monitor Model
| Aspect | Contemporary Perspective |
|---|---|
| Impact on Teaching | Foundations of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) |
| Response to Criticism | Led to refined models and integration with output/interaction theories |
| Integration with Other Theories | Complements Interactionist and Sociocultural approaches |
| Current Research Focus | Input quality, affective factors, learner engagement through modern methods |
Today, Krashen’s Monitor Model is best seen not as a complete or final answer to how languages are learned but as a pioneering contribution that opened new paths for both research and teaching practice. Its legacy endures in classrooms that prioritize communication, understanding, and positive learner experiences, while ongoing research continues to refine and expand upon its foundational ideas through integration with other theoretical perspectives.
Academic Resources on Krashen’s Monitor Model
Below is a curated list of scholarly resources—journal articles, book chapters, and academic papers—covering Krashen’s Monitor Model.
| Key Books by Stephen Krashen Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (1982) by Stephen Krashen The foundational book where Krashen elaborates the five hypotheses of the Monitor Model. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (1981) by Stephen Krashen Another seminal work outlining his SLA theories. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications (1985) by Stephen Krashen Focuses on the comprehensible input hypothesis, a core part of the Monitor Model. Some Issues Relating to the Monitor Model (1977) by Stephen Krashen Early article discussing the Monitor hypothesis and its implications. |
| Other Scholarly References McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning Gregg, K. R. (1984). Critical evaluation of the Monitor Model Krashen & Terrell (1988) works on the Natural Approach |
| Online Resources Stephen Krashen’s personal website with his books and articles |
| Next Lesson: Cognitive Approaches: Information Processing and Connectionism |
| Previous Lesson: Second Language Acquisition: Overview and Key Differences from L1 |
| Unit Home: Language Acquisition and Learning |