Talk:Input hypothesis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging the content from Comprehensible input (the input itself) into this article. I think it would be a perfect fit here, because:

• That article is an orphan.
• The topic is almost the same.
• It would be good to have a distinction between the general usage of "comprehensible input" and Krashen's usage of it in this article. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 04:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Acquisition-learning hypothesis, Monitor hypothesis, and Affective filter to this page. I think these individual pages would benefit from the wider context provided by the others, and a single page dealing with all of Stephen Krashen's SLA theories could also more usefully deal with the significant criticisms they have received in academia. I also suggest that the page be moved to Input Hypothesis, which is the most often used name for Krashen's five hypotheses. The little information there is on this page about comprehensible input that is not on this page is already covered at second language acquisition, so it can be safely removed. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no objections, so I'll go ahead and do it. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 06:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been some errors introduced in the reorganization of this page. The Monitor Hypothesis gives an overview of all of the hypotheses. It's halfway down the page rather than being in the introduction of the Input Hypothesis. Within that overview, the natural order hypothesis is mentioned and it is linked to the same page. However, the natural order hypothesis is missing from the discussion. The Criticism section of the Monitor Hypothesis does not seem to discuss criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis, but rather the Input hypothesis. Thee is also no discussion of why these other hypotheses are being talked about or how they relate to the input hypothesis. In many cases it's unclear what is being talked about at all. I don't really feel qualified to fix all these problems. I would actually recommend putting it back the way it was rather than leaving it in the state that it is. Right now, it's incredibly confusing. Mikekchar (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

The 'input hypothesis' is one of Krashen's five hypotheses, not an umbrella term for them all (which is 'monitor model'). Krashen's books most often refer to them as simply "five hypotheses". 88.104.168.18 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I object to the term "monitor model" as an umbrella term. The theory in its entirety is called "Second language acquisition theory," based on the title of one his books. Krashen proposed five hypotheses altogether but he placed more weight on one of them.

If you need to pick one hypothesis for the umbrella term, according to Stephen Krashen himself, that would be the comprehensible input hypothesis. Input on its own does not lead to language acquisition, according to Stephen Krashen's theory, even though he used the term "the input hypothesis" in one of his books. Using the term "monitor model" as an umbrella term is misleading. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

criticism section needed

The article currently mentions in the intro that some academics have criticized Krashen's model. This needs to be fleshed out, and cited.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken references

Too tired to check which edit broke them, will forget about this page by the time I wake up. Please fix. 74.67.16.190 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Input hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716023230/http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html to http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716024154/http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning.pdf to http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Beginning Level" lacks content or headings for "Levels" don't make sense

The article has the three subsequent headings, Levels, Beginning Level and Intermediate Level. There's a detailed description under the Intermediate Level, but the Beginning Level is missing any content. Or I'm misunderstanding the outline and the text under the Intermediate Level heading refers to both levels. And maybe the beginning and intermediate level headings should be made sub-headings of the Levels heading. Elimik31 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The variable “i” in Krashen’s formulation “i+1” is often interpreted in secondary literature as representing the learner’s interlanguage or current level of linguistic competence. However, Stephen Krashen did not define “i” in this way in his published work. Instead, “i+1” was introduced as a heuristic to describe input that is slightly beyond the learner’s current level of understanding, rather than as a specified variable. Equating “i” with interlanguage reflects a later interpretation rather than a definition provided by Krashen himself. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Needs revision

I believe this article could use a thorough review to better reflect what Stephen Krashen actually wrote, as opposed to how his ideas have been interpreted later on.

In a few places, the text seems to present certain explanations as if they come directly from Krashen, when they’re more likely later interpretations. For example, describing “i” in “i+1” as the learner’s interlanguage is very common in textbooks, but this is not something Krashen ever explicitly defined himself in his published work. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In many of his lectures Krashen claimed that these were more heuristic concepts than strictly defined variables.

There are also a few places where claims could be clarified. Although Stephen Krashen argues that comprehensible input, or rather “compelling comprehensible input” as he called it, is the main mechanism of language acquisition, he also makes a distinction when it comes to output. Krashen doesn’t treat output as useless. Even if speaking doesn’t directly lead to acquisition, he suggests it can still play an indirect role. For example, by helping learners gain confidence, test out what they think they know, and create more opportunities to receive and understand input in real communication.

Also, it might be helpful to distinguish between what Krashen actually proposed and the later pedagogical approaches inspired by his work. As for the statement, “Krashen designates learners into beginner and intermediate levels,” this is factually incorrect. He does not divide learners into just two levels; rather, he discusses how instructional needs differ across levels, including the advanced level.

Overall, I think the article would benefit from clearer sourcing and better interpretations of what Krashen actually states. Some of the explanations are interpreted in a way that misrepresent Krashen's original ideas. Some of the sources used in the article are questionable. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)