krashen input hypothesis theory

The Input Hypothesis Model

Cite this chapter.

• Vivian Cook  

Part of the book series: Modern Linguistics Series ((MAML))

297 Accesses

The next three chapters look at the ways in which more general theories of second language acquisition have drawn on the type of syntactic evidence and the view of sequence of acquisition discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter is concerned with the Input Hypothesis proposed by Stephen Krashen. During the late 1970s Krashen put forward an account of SLA first known as the Monitor Model after its main claim about the role of monitoring in language learning (Krashen, 1979). In the early 1980s this was expanded into a broader-based model, described in Krashen (1981; 1982). The aspect of the model that became most developed was termed the Input Hypothesis , the title of Krashen’s last major theoretical book (Krashen, 1985a) and the name by which the model will be known here. From the beginning, Krashen’s ideas have been the subject of controversy. The discussion here does not follow all their ramifications but concentrates on the Input Hypothesis as put forward in Krashen (1985a), working back where necessary to earlier formulations. Initially the model will be presented as far as possible through the evidence and claims that he makes himself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1993 Vivian Cook

About this chapter

Cook, V. (1993). The Input Hypothesis Model. In: Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9_3

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-55534-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-22853-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• DOI: 10.2307/414800
• Corpus ID: 62771167

The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications

• Published 1 March 1986
• Education, Psychology

4,818 Citations

‘when they act, they speak more': strategies that encourage language production in a bilingual preschool, “the sound of silence” a proposal to reduce anxiety and unwillingness to participate in the efl classroom.

• Highly Influenced

Understanding the Experiences and Needs of Mainstream Teachers of ESL Students: Reflections from a Secondary Social Studies Teacher.

Students’ perspectives on speaking anxiety in the english foreign language classroom, the monitor hypothesis and english teachers in botswana: problems, varieties and implications for language teacher education, what do we know about learning and teaching second languages: implications for teaching, interface of grounded theory and ethnomethodology for exposure-poor esl learning contexts, investigating the f-move in teacher talk: a south korean study on teachers' beliefs and classroom practices, teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language, teaching for autonomy: what do the students think, 6 references, talking to children in western samoa, formal principles of language acquisition, language learnability and language development, krashen's monitor and occam's razar, caring and sharing in the foreign language class, anti-intellectualism in american life., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

The Input Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 22, 2018, 9:00 am

Stephen Krashen is a linguist and educator who proposed the Monitor Model, a theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition as published in 1982. According to the Monitor Model, five hypotheses account for the acquisition of a second language:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism. The following sections offer a description of the fourth hypothesis of the theory, the input hypothesis, as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Input Hypothesis

The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, which applies only to language acquisition and not to language learning, posits the process that allows second language learners to move through the predictable sequence of the acquisition of grammatical structures predicted by the natural order hypothesis. According to the input hypothesis, second language learners require comprehensible input, represented by i+1 , to move from the current level of acquisition, represented by i , to the next level of acquisition. Comprehensible input is input that contains a structure that is “a little beyond” the current understanding—with understanding defined as understanding of meaning rather than understanding of form—of the language learner.

Second language acquisition, therefore, occurs through exposure to comprehensible input, a hypothesis which further negates the need for explicit instruction learning. The input hypothesis also presupposes an innate language acquisition device, the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, that allows for the exposure to comprehensible input to result in language acquisition, the same language acquisition device posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis. However, as Krashen cautions, like the time, focus, and knowledge required by the Monitor, comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for second language acquisition.

Criticism of the Input Hypothesis

Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krashen never sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1 . As Gass et al. argue, the vagueness of the term means that i+1 could equal “one token, two tokens, 777 tokens”; in other words, sufficient comprehensible input could embody any quantity.

More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input as necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of any possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed by Merrill Swain seeks to rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input hypothesis by positing that language acquisition and learning may also occur through the production of language. According to Swain who attempts to hypothesize a loop between input and output, output allows second language learners to identify gaps in their linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend to relevant input. Therefore, without minimizing the importance of input, the output hypothesis complements and addresses the insufficiencies of the input hypothesis by addressing the importance of the production of language for second language acquisition.

Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis, the fourth hypothesis of the theory, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course , 3rd edn. New York: Routledge. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Swain, Merrill. 1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1). 158-164. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

input hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

The Monitor Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

The Affective Filter Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis is part of a group of 5 hypotheses related to Second Language Acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen.

According to this Hypothesis, the results of the acquisition of a second language are related to the input that the acquirer receives/is exposed to. However, this input has to be understood (comprehensible input), and it is from this precept that Krashen established that in order for the acquirer to achieve results, the level of language he is exposed to must follow the i + 1 standard where i means the Acquirer’s actual competence in the language and +1 means a bit further. That is, the students should always be exposed to a slightly more advanced level of understandable input so that they can achieve ever more fluency in the Second Language.

Based on how children acquire their first language and the caretaker speech (a simple language used with children for them to understand), Krashen proposed something similar to be worked on with adults: the teacher-talk, the Foreigner-talk, and the Interlanguage- talk, also known as Simple codes.

The “Teacher-talk” is the classroom language that accompanies exercises, the language of explanations in the second language and in some foreign language classrooms, and the language of classroom management. “Interlanguage talk” is simply the speech of other second language acquirers, often that of the foreign student peer group and “Foreigner-talk” may be of two kinds. The term has been used to describe native speakers’ imitations of second language speech or, rather, their acquisition of aspects of this interlanguage. (Krashen, 1981,p. 121)

According to him, these are the 3 simple codes that are part of the process of acquiring a language. The teacher-talk promotes more input than the exercises a teacher may do in classes. So, the language itself used in the teacher speech is a way of promoting comprehensible input, that is if the teacher takes into account that the language, he may use, must be into the patterns of the formula i+1 cited above. The theorist also mentions the interlanguage-talk and the foreigner-talk that provide the students with the input they need during the classes and outside the school environment.

In sum, this hypothesis says that we acquire language through a unique way, comprehending or receiving comprehensible input and that this comprehension follows a natural order, from i to i+1. So, an input is an essential ingredient in Language Acquisition and is related to other 4 Hypotheses.

By M. A. M. Júnior

KRASHEN, Stephen. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning . University of Southern California. Available on:  <http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf>  Access on

KRASHEN, Stephen D.  Issues and Implications . In: The Input Hypothesis. 1985. p. 1-32. Available on: < https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING4140/h08/The%20Input%20Hypothesis.pdf&gt ; Acess on

Stephen Krashen . In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#cite_note-Krashen2003-3&gt ; Access on Nov 30, 2018.

Share this:

Published by alkrashen

View all posts by alkrashen

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Introduction The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis Curriculum Design Conclusions Bibliography

  Introduction         The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.  First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today.  In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms.  The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).  Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981).  Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:  The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).         As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn’t want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn’t think about what kind of input to provide for students.  However, upon closer examination of Krashen’s hypotheses and Terrell’s methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system.  In fact, within the covers of “The Natural Approach”, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen’s model.  In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen’s hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language.  Rather than use Krashen’s own label, which is to call his ideas simply “second language acquisition theory”, I will adopt McLaughlin’s terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as “the Monitor Model”.  This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis         First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between “acquisition,” which he defines as developing competence by using language for “real communication” and “learning.” which he defines as “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (p.26).  This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s.  He claims that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children’s speech rather than their grammar.  He compares it with several other authors’ distinction of “implicit” and “explicit” learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.         Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself.  He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners.  Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized.  However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech.  Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit.  The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.         McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious”, and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language.  This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach.  If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start.  As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for “acquisition” is bound to be problematic.         Krashen’s conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately.  In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully.  They see people who live in other countries as just having “picked up” their second language naturally in childhood.  The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that “natural” acquisition presents.  This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas         Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition).  This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998).  However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b).  As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method. The Natural Order Hypothesis         The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order.  Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers.  These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes.  Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups.  A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.         Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology.  Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction.  The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us.  In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.         McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language.  The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.  The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident.  Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes.  The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar.  As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.         When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent.  Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production.  McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33).  In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition.  Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension?  Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production?  First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children.  Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact. The Monitor Hypothesis The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such “learned” competence can have is an editor on what is produced.  Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study.  The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by “acquisition”.  Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived.  However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on “easy” rules.  This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence:  Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as “confirming evidence” (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.         Perhaps Krashen’s recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out.  However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely.  Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory.  Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82).  Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.         McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research.  Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation.  Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar.  He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance.  But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers.  These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.         The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear.  Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries.  However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory.  In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules.  He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis         Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs:  by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1.  In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction.  Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis.  One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34).  He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate.  This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language.  However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.  This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”         Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided.  He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87).  He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.         McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen’s model.  He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis.  The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37).  Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context.  Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition.  Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially.  Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.         This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen’s model for the language learner as well as the teacher.  He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level.  One of Krashen’s cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input.  But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works.  In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don’t understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do.  Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely.  However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis.  Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved.  More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed.  As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses.  In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis’s exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition. The Affective Filter Hypothesis         This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”.  Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.”  He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary.  He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation.  Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.         Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well.  Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92).  He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated.  Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (p.94).         McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29).  He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen’s.         Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation.  However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don’t have this filter, is somehow easier, since “given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages” (p.47).  This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day.  A simplification into a one page “hypothesis” gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path.  As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems. Curriculum Design         The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model.  These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum.  The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.         This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive.  In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom.  The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get.  The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.         Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty.  Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background.  The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved.  It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101).  However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.         Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions.  These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84).  These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model.  The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production.  Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose.  Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.         Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening.  However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension.  Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway.  Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best.  Consider the dialog presented on p.87: . . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run.  The instructor expands the answer.  Yes, that’s right, he’s running.

Unraveling the Power of Krashen’s Theory: Exploring Second Language Acquisition

Table of Contents

Introduction, background of krashen’s theory of second language acquisition, five hypotheses of krashen’s theory, 1. input hypothesis, 2. acquisition-learning hypothesis, 3. monitor hypothesis.

The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production . When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis

5. affective filter hypothesis, application of krashen’s theory.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory

While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.

Search Our Store:

The input hypothesis (krashen’s hypotheses series, #5 of 9).

(Previous post in this series: The Natural Order of Acquisition)

The next post in this series, The Affective Filter Hypothesis (#6/9) is found here .

Focus like a MAN I AC

I: the i nput hypothesis.

This is the big one

“Comprehensible input is the cause of language acquisition.”

The term ‘comprehensible input’ (C.I.) means messages in the target language that the learner can understand. C.I. is the “Goldilocks” level of input—not too hard, not too easy. It is input at the student’s current level of acquisition and just slightly above it, what Krashen calls the “ i + 1 ” level, where “ i ” is the level of acquisition of the student and “ +1 ” is a wee bit above it. Input that is too simple (already acquired) or too complex (out of reach at the moment) is not useful for second language acquisition.

Even input that is perceived by the student as very simple can have value, as the brain needs time to sort out the complex rules of grammar. Rules that are imperceptible to the  conscious mind can be refined with seemingly simple input.

Comprehensible Input Can Be :

• Understanding messages in the language at your level, and just a bit above it. Krashen calls this i + 1 . The “ i ” in this formula is the student’s current level of acquisition, plus just a little bit more.

The i + 2/3/4… levels would be language that is not understandable to the student for some reason, be it unknown vocabulary, grammar the student has not heard before, unfamiliar topics, or subjects that are familiar but too deep for the current language level of the student.

• Independent reading in the TL at the 95% or better comprehension level.

• Listening to and understanding almost everything said in the TL. This understanding can be with the aid of gestures, body language, context and pictures.

• But, there is a problem…  The idea of comprehensible input has become widespread in the last few years, which is a double-edged sword. It is being used so often in educational circles that the original meaning has become diluted by so many pouring their own meanings into it. Many seem to think it means teachers  are using language that they (the teachers) understand, or that students get the general gist of. An alternate term that keeps the original meaning fresh is one coined by Terry Waltz: comprehended input . The input must be comprehended by the student. If what you say is not understood it is virtually worthless for acquisition.

APPLYING THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Discard listen and repeat. Remember that for acquisition there is little-to-no place for the traditional “Listen and Repeat” strategy. Listening with understanding is often enough. Students sometimes do enjoy “practicing” sounds, but this does not help them to acquire the language or help them to hear it.

• Limit forced output. Since language is acquired by input, there is little role for forced output above the level of acquisition. Give students tools to respond in the form of rejoinders. Allow students to respond but, in general, do not force them to speak until they are ready.

• Allow and encourage output–but do not force it. There is a balance. Students feel like they are part of the club when they can speak. They want to express themselves. So provide them with tools and set up situations where they can express themselves simply and often, just do not force spontaneous discourse when they are neither ready nor able. Rejoinders are one way to encourage output, awareness of levels of questioning is another.

• Be sure it is “Comprehended Input”   This is a genius term originated by Terry Waltz and it makes the meaning of what is valuable input clearer. The teacher speaking in the TL alone is not enough. Sometimes teachers think that if they are speaking the language slowly, clearly and accurately, it MUST be comprehensible input to the students. But students need to understand what is being said. Even if the teacher is speaking the target language perfectly, it does not count if students do not understand. Language only counts as helpful for acquisition when it is comprehended by the students.

Lack of understanding = It is not Comprehensible Input.

Only input that is comprehended by students counts for acquisition.

• Use clear language with interesting topics. Teacher and students have an equal part in the dance of acquisition: the teacher’s job is to speak clearly in the target language about interesting topics. The students’ job is to show you when you are not using language they can understand. If students do not demonstrate when they are understanding, you may not be doing your job and not even know it.

• Check often to be sure it is actually comprehensible. The language we speak in class must be comprehensible to all students, not just the top students that are responding all the time. The above average students may well be giving you a false reading on your degree of clarity.

Tell your students this often:

“My job is to give you clear, interesting language.

Your job is to let me know when I am not doing my job.”

They need to let me know when I am not being clear (speaking TL that they understand). If we are not checking in with students to be sure they understand, we may be busy, but not actually doing our jobs.

• Make sure all students understand.  Discard the traditional practice of asking questions and plaintively waiting for the occasional hand to go up by the the boldest and brainiest. The Ferris Bueller  model (‘Anyone? Anyone?’) was out of date and mocked in the movie 30 years ago. Don’t revive it.

Ask a variety of questions, and ask often.

Assign a student the task of counting how many questions you ask during the class period. Asking one question per minute of class is not too much.

• Use differentiated comprehension checks questions to be sure individual students understand at different levels. Know who your slower language processors are, who your medium language processors are, and who your faster processors are (this week). Ask them questions that are appropriate for their level. Throw each student the right pitch, the right level of question, for their level.

• Create a classroom culture where NOT understanding is OK. Avoid putting students in situations in class where they have only limited comprehension of the language—this can be extremely frustrating. Reward those that let you know when they do NOT understand. This is the opposite of a traditional classroom where students raise their hands to give an answer and show they know the answer.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Braiding the ropes: adding second or additional language acquisition to reading and writing metaphors.

1. Introduction

2. the rope as an educational metaphor, 2.1. the reading rope, 2.2. the writing rope, 3. weaving new educational ropes, 3.1. synthesis of second language acquisition theory, 3.2. second language acquisition visuals, 4. synthesizing to braid a new rope, 4.1. lane’s l2+ acquisition rope, 4.1.1. external factors, 4.1.2. social factors, 4.1.3. affective factors, 4.1.4. innate factors, 4.1.5. internal factors, 5. application for current practitioners, 5.1. educator training and coaching, 5.2. translation to instructional strategies, 6. limitations, implications, and conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Lê, Q.T.N.; Polikoff, M.S. Do English language development curriculum materials matter for students’ English proficiency? SAGE Open 2021 , 11 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McClain, J.B.; Oh, M.H.; Mancilla-Martinez, J. Questioning the monolingual norm with conceptually scored bilingual vocabulary assessments: Findings from a research–practice partnership. TESOL J. 2021 , 12 , e585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Radd, S.I.; Generett, G.G.; Gooden, M.A.; Theoharis, G. Five Practices for Equity-Focused School Leadership ; ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Villicana-Briseno, N. An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) and Student Achievement on the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) in Third Grade Math and Reading (Doctoral dissertation, Tarleton State University). 2020. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/analysis-relationship-between-texas-english/docview/2448413624/se-2 (accessed on 8 May 2023).
• Friedrichsen, A. Second Language Acquisition Theories and What It Means for Teacher Instruction. NW Commons 2020 , 34 , 1–33. Available online: https://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=education_masters (accessed on 8 May 2023).
• Matheny, K.T.; Thompson, M.E.; Townley-Flores, C.; Reardon, S.F. Uneven progress: Recent trends in academic performance among US school districts. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2023 , 60 , 447–485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gillam, S.L.; Vaughn, S.; Roberts, G.; Capin, P.; Fall, A.M.; Israelsen-Augenstein, M.; Holbrook, S.; Wada, R.; Hancock, A.; Fox, C.; et al. Improving oral and written narration and reading comprehension of children at-risk for language and literacy difficulties: Results of a randomized clinical trial. J. Educ. Psychol. 2023 , 115 , 99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hager, P. Learning and metaphors. Med. Teach. 2008 , 30 , 679–686. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Erard, M. Weaving Skill Ropes: Using Metaphor to Enhance Understanding of What Skills Are and How They Develop ; FrameWorks Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scarborough, H.S.; Neuman, S.; Dickinson, D. Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In Approaching Difficulties in Literacy Development: Assessment, Pedagogy and Programmes ; Fletcher-Campbell, F., Soler, J., Reid, G., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 10, pp. 23–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedita, J. The Writing Rope ; Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2023; Available online: https://brookespublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Sedita-Excerpt.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2023).
• Köylü, Z.; Tracy-Ventura, N. Learning English in today’s global world: A comparative study of at home, anglophone, and lingua franca study abroad. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2022 , 44 , 1330–1355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flores, R. ESL Strategies: What Works in Second Language Instruction. IDRA. Retrieved from IDRA. 2023. Available online: https://www.idra.org/resource-center/esl-strategies-what-works-in-second-language-instruction/ (accessed on 9 June 2023).
• National Center for Education Statistics. Condition of Education 2023 (NCES 2023144REV) ; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023144.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2023).
• Birello, M.; Pujolà, J. Visual metaphors and metonymies in pre-service teachers’ reflections: Beliefs and experiences in the learning and teaching of writing. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023 , 122 , 103971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ormell, C. Eight metaphors of education. Educ. Res. 1996 , 38 , 67–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vygotsky, L.S. The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development about teaching and learning. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2011 , 10 , 198–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roberts, L.; Gonzalez Alonso, J.; Pliatsikas, C.; Rothman, J. Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second. Lang. Res. 2018 , 34 , 125–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coggins, P.E.; Kennedy, T.J.; Armstrong, T.A. Bilingual Corpus Callosum Variability. Brain Lang. 2004 , 89 , 69–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kennedy, T.J. Language learning and its impact on the brain: Connecting language learning with the mind through content-based instruction. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2006 , 39 , 471–486. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02900.x (accessed on 7 June 2023). [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, T.J.; Reese, S. Using your cerebro: A look at research on foreign language learning and the brain. Lang. Educ. 2007 , 2 , 32–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krashen, S.D.; Terrell, T.D. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom ; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sperber, D.; Cara, F.; Girotto, V. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 1995 , 57 , 31–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bialystok, E. A theoretical model of second language learning 1. Lang. Learn. 1978 , 28 , 69–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmidt, R. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning ; National Foreign Language Resource Center: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1995; Volume 9, pp. 1–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Paiva, B.M.M.; Foster-Cohen, S.H. Exploring the relationships between theories of second language acquisition and Relevance Theory. Second. Lang. Res. 2004 , 20 , 281–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thomas, W.P.; Collier, V. School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students ; NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9; Education Resources Information Center: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
• Cummins, J. The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework ; California State Department of Education: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1981; Volume 16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alam, M.R.; Jahan, S.; Milon, M.R.K.; Ansarey, D.; Umar, S.; Al Hadi, F. Accelerating learners’ self-confidence level in second language acquisition: A qualitative study. Int. Cent. Res. Resour. Dev. 2021 , 2 , 141–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juffs, A. Working Memory, Second Language Acquisition and Low-Educated Second Language and Literacy Learners. In Proceedings of the LESLLA Symposium Proceedings, Richmond, VA, USA, 2–3 November 2006; Volume 1, No. 1. pp. 89–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freed, B.F. Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and non-interactive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In Linguistics, Language Teaching and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice and Research ; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; pp. 459–477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Truscott, J. Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition: A research program. Second. Lang. Res. 2017 , 33 , 313–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, P.; Jeong, H. The social brain of language: Grounding second language learning in social interaction. Npj Sci. Learn. 2020 , 5 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long, M.H. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition ; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pica, T.; Holliday, L.; Lewis, N.; Morgenthaler, L. Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 1989 , 11 , 63–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schumann, J.H. Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 1986 , 7 , 379–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schumann, J.H. Where is cognition?: Emotion and cognition in second language acquisition. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 1994 , 16 , 231–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardner, R.C.; Smythe, P.C. Motivation and second-language acquisition. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 1975 , 31 , 218–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horwitz, E.K. Some language acquisition principles and their implications for second language teaching. Hispania 1986 , 69 , 684–689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cummins, J. Instructional conditions for trilingual development. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2001 , 4 , 61–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lenneberg, E.H. The Study of Language and Language Acquisition. Available online: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling5700/Yang2002klnl.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2023).
• Chomsky, N. Knowledge of language: Its elements and origins. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. B Biol. Sci. 1981 , 295 , 223–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Selinker, L.; Lamendella, J.T. Updating the interlanguage hypothesis. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 1981 , 3 , 201–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ullman, M.T. The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 2001 , 30 , 37–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abutalebi, J.; Green, D. Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. J. Neurolinguistics 2007 , 20 , 242–275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carroll, S.E. Autonomous induction theory. In Theories in second language acquisition ; VanPattern, B., Williams, J., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 155–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maftoon, P.; Esfandiari, L.T. Carroll’s Autonomous Induction Theory: Combining views from UG and information processing theories. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2015 , 6 , 423–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Genesee, F. Second language learning in school settings: Lessons from immersion. In Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and Second Language Learning ; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 183–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Byram, M.; Harrison, B. Foreign language teaching and young people’s perceptions of other cultures. In Cultural Studies in the Second Language Classroom: Needs, Problems and Solutions ; Scheu Lottgen, D., Ed.; EDITUM: Murcia, Spain, 1997; Volume 43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfenninger, S.E.; Singleton, D. Is there a best age for second language learning? Evidence from across the lifespan. In Debates in Second Language Education ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 52–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxford, R.L.; Ehrman, M. Second language research on individual differences. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 1992 , 13 , 188–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vandergrift, L. Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Appl. Linguist. 2005 , 26 , 70–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nhung, N.T.P. Noticing hypothesis in second language acquisition. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 25 , 26–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benson, P. What’s new in autonomy. Lang. Teach. 2011 , 35 , 15–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Echevarria, J.; Vogt, M.; Short, D. Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model ; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Lane, J.M.; Kennedy, T.J. Braiding the Ropes: Adding Second or Additional Language Acquisition to Reading and Writing Metaphors. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080901

Lane JM, Kennedy TJ. Braiding the Ropes: Adding Second or Additional Language Acquisition to Reading and Writing Metaphors. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(8):901. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080901

Lane, Jennifer M., and Teresa J. Kennedy. 2024. "Braiding the Ropes: Adding Second or Additional Language Acquisition to Reading and Writing Metaphors" Education Sciences 14, no. 8: 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080901

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals