The document discusses Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition, which includes five main hypotheses: 1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis distinguishes between acquiring a language subconsciously, similar to a first language, versus consciously learning rules about a language. 2. The Natural Order Hypothesis claims that learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence, regardless of first language. 3. The Monitor Hypothesis explains that acquired competence initiates language use for fluency, while learned rules act as an editor or monitor of form. 4. The Input Hypothesis posits that language is acquired by understanding messages or "comprehensible input" that is slightly beyond one

1. The second language acquisition theory is the brainchild of renowned linguist and researcher,
Stephen Krashen. The theory is important because as early as the 1980s, it was influencing all research
into how a second language is acquired.
This module includes the theories of the second language acquisition. These are the
Acquisition Learning Hypothesis, Monitor Hypothesis, Natural Order Hypothesis, Input Hypothesis,
and Affective-filter Hypothesis.
Dr. Stephen Krashen
Current second language acquisition theory owes a great debt to the pioneering work of
Stephen Krashen, a linguist, educational researcher, and professor emeritus at University of Southern
California. When Krashen proposed his 5 hypotheses in the early 1980s, they offered a new and
radically different view of language acquisition. While subsequent research has uncovered both
strengths and weaknesses of each of these hypotheses, Krashen’s five hypotheses outline the primary
starting point or theoretical basis for second language acquisition today.
They are referred to in brief form as:
▪ The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis,
▪ The Natural Order Hypothesis,
▪ The Monitor Hypothesis,
▪ The Input Hypothesis, and
▪ The Affective Filter Hypothesis.
1. Acquisition-Learning Distinction
The acquisition-learning distinction is perhaps the most fundamental of all the
hypothesis to be presented here. According to Krashen and other SLA specialists Krashen and
Terrell 1983; Littlewood, 1984; Ellis, 1985), students have two different ways of developing
skills in a second language: learning and acquisition. Learning is a conscious process that
focuses the students’ attention on the form of the language (structure). Acquisition, unlike
learning, is a process similar to that by which we acquired our mother tongue, and which
represents the subconscious activity by which we internalize the new language, putting
emphasis on the message (meaning) rather than on the form. Acquisition is, thus, the
untutored or naturalistic way.
In most classrooms learning is emphasized more than acquisition. In traditional
classrooms one of the first things teachers say “pay attention”, and they have students
analyze, and take notes on, the new structure item in the lesson. Later, students are given
practice in providing correct answers either structurally or functionally, but always remaining
conscious of what they want to say. In more conservative classes they are evaluated on their
grammatical and lexical knowledge; consequently, they are forced to “study” for the exams
However, in real life, when we interact with speakers of our own language, we rarely
focus our attention on the form of the language the speaker use. We are concerned, rather,
with what the speaker means or with the paralinguistic features of his speech (i.e., gestures,
signs, etc.), which determine the quality of the message. We have, for the most part, been
teaching grammar rules or rules of usage instead of facilitating acquisition of English in the
classrooms; consequently, it is necessary to change the type of activities we perform in class
in order to help students develop an accurate, automatic, and long-lasting second language.
Communicative language teaching has improved the kinds of techniques teachers use in class.
However, we must be aware of pseudo-communicative materials-texts that teach language
functions by using audio-lingual techniques.
Acquisition techniques are, at least present, more difficult to devise than learning techniques,
but in the long run they are more effective.
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES
LEARNING ACQUISITION
 Conscious process
 Knowing the rules
 Results in accuracy
 Formal, traditional teaching helps
 Available for correction
 Subconscious process
 Picking up the learning
 Results in accuracy and fluency
 Formal, traditional teaching does not
helps

2.  Available for automatic prodcution
2. The Natural Order Hypothesis
One of the most exciting discoveries in language acquisition research in recent years has been
the finding that the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order. Acquirers of a
given language tend to acquire certain grammatical structures early, and others later. The agreement
among individual acquirers is not always 100%, but there are clear, statistically significant, similarities.
English is perhaps the most studied language as far as the natural order hypothesis is concerned, and of
all structures of English, morphology is the most studied. Brown (1973) reported that children
acquiring English as a first language tended to acquire certain grammatical morphemes, or functions
words, earlier than others. For example, the progressive marker ing as in "He is playing baseball". and
the plural marker /s/ ("two dogs") were among the first morphemes acquired, while the third person
singular marker /s/ (as in "He lives in New York") and the possessive /s/ ("John's hat") were typically
acquired much later, coming anywhere from six months to one year later. de Villiers (1973) confirmed
Brown's longitudinal results cross-sectional, showing that items that Brown found to be acquired
earliest in time were also the ones that children tended to get right more often. In other words, for those
morphemes studied, the difficulty order was similar to the acquisition order.
Shortly after Brown's results were published, Dulay and Burt (1974) reported that children
acquiring English as a second language also show a "natural order" for grammatical morphemes,
regardless of their first language. The child second language order of acquisition was different from the
first language order, but different groups of second language acquirers showed striking similarities.
Dulay and Burt's results have been confirmed by a number of investigators (Kessler and Idar, 1977).
Dulay and Burt used a subset of the 14 morphemes Brown originally investigated. Fathman (1975)
confirmed the reality of the natural order in child second language acquisition with her test of oral
production, the SLOPE test, which probed 20 different structures.
Following Dulay and Burt's work, Bailey, Madden, and Krashen (1974) reported a natural
order for adult subjects, an order quite similar to that seen in child second language acquisition. Some
of the studies confirming the natural order in adults for grammatical morphemes include Andersen
(1976), who used composition, Krashen, Houck, Giunchi, Bode, Birnbaum, and Strei (1977), using
free speech, and Christison (1979), also using free speech. Adult research using the SLOPE test also
confirms the natural order and widens the data base. Krashen, Sferlazza, Feldman, and Fathman (1976)
found an order similar to Fathman's (1975) child second language order, and Kayfetz-Fuller (1978)
also reported a natural order using the SLOPE test.
As noted above, the order of acquisition for second language is not the same as the order of
acquisition for first language, but there are some similarities. Table 2.1, from Krashen (1977), presents
an average order for second language, and shows how the first language order differs. This average
order is the result of a comparison of many empirical studies of grammatical morpheme acquisition.
Notes:
1. This order is derived from an analysis of empirical studies of second language acquisition
(Krashen, 1977). Most studies show significant correlations with the average order.
2. No claims are made about ordering relations for morphemes in the same box.
3. Many of the relationships posited here also hold for child first language acquisition, but
some do not: In general, the bound morphemes have the same relative order for first and second
language acquisition (ING, PLURAL, IR. PAST, REG. PAST, III SINGULAR, and POSSESSIVE)
while AUXILIARY and COPULA tend to be acquired relatively later in first language acquisition than
in second language acquisition
Transitional forms

3. Studies supporting the natural order hypothesis show only the order in which mature, or well-
formed structures emerge. Other studies reveal the path acquirers take en route to mastery. There is
surprising uniformity here as well--acquirers make very similar errors, termed developmental errors,
while they are acquiring. For example, in acquiring English negation, many first and second language
acquirers pass through a stage in which they place the negative marker outside the sentence, as in: “No
mom sharpen it” and “Not like it now” A typical later stage is to place the negative marker between the
subject and the verb, as in: “I no like this one” and “This no have calendar” before reaching the correct
form.
Predictable stages in the acquisition of wh- questions in English include an early stage in
which the wh- word appears before the rest of the sentence, which is otherwise left in its normal
uninverted form, as in: “How he can be a doctor?” and “What she is doing?” Only later do acquirers
begin to invert the subject and verb of the sentence.
Transitional forms have been described for other languages and for other structures. The
stages for a given target language appear to be strikingly similar despite the first language of the
acquirer (although particular first languages may influence the duration of certain stages). This
uniformity is thought to reflect the operation of the natural language acquisition process that is part of
all of us.
3. The Monitor Hypothesis
While the acquisition-learning distinction claims that two separate processes coexist in the
adult, it does not state how they are used in second language performance. The Monitor hypothesis
posits that acquisition and learning are used in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition "initiates" our
utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and
that is as a Monitor, or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our
utterance, after is has been "produced" by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or
write, or after (self-correction).
Conscious learning is available only as a "Monitor", which can alter the output of the acquired
system before or after the utterance is actually spoken or written. It is the acquired system which
initiates normal, fluent speech utterances.
The Monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited
role in second language performance. These limitations have become even clearer as research has
proceeded in the last few years. Researches strongly suggests that second language performers can use
conscious rules only when three conditions are met. These conditions are necessary and not sufficient,
that is, a performer may not fully utilize his conscious grammar even when all three conditions are
met.
I. Time.
In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively, a second language performer
needs to have sufficient time. For most people, normal conversation does not allow enough time to
think about and use rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i.e. a hesitant style
of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is saying.
II. Focus on form.
To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough. The performer must also be focussed on
form, or thinking about correctness (Dulay and Burt, 1978). Even when we have time, we may be so
involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it.
III. Know the rule.
This is a very formidable requirement. Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language
is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best known languages.
We can be sure that our students are exposed only to a small part of the total grammar of the language,
and we know that even the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to.
The evidence for the production schema shown in Fig.1 comes originally from the natural
order studies. These studies are consistent with this generalization: we see the natural order for
grammatical morphemes, that is, the child's (second language) difficulty order (similar to the order of
acquisition; Krashen, 1977), when we test subjects in situations that appear to be "Monitor-free",
where they are focused on communication and not form. When we give our adult subjects tests that
meet the three conditions, i.e. a pencil and paper "grammar"-type test, we see "unnatural" orders,
unlike the child L2 order of acquisition or difficulty order. The interpretation of this result is that the
natural order reflects the operation of the acquired system alone, without the intrusion of the conscious
grammar, since adult second language acquisition is posited to be similar to child second language
acquisition. When we put people in situations where the three conditions are met, when they have time,
are focused on form, and know the rule, the error pattern changes, reflecting the contribution of the
conscious grammar.
Individual variation in Monitor use
Some of the individual variation we see in adult second language acquisition and
performance can be accounted for in terms of differential use of the conscious Monitor. Studies of case
histories suggest that there may be three basic types of performer.
Three Basic Types of Performer
I. Monitor Over-users.
These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers who are constantly
checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language. As a result, such

4. performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned
with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency. There may be two different causes for
over-use of the grammar. Over-use may first of all derive from the performer's history of exposure to
the second language. Many people, victims of grammaronly type of instruction, have simply not had
the chance to acquire much of the second language, and may have no choice but to be dependent on
learning. Another type may be related to personality. These over-users have had a chance to acquire,
and may actually have acquired a great deal of the second language. They simply do not trust this
acquired competence and only feel secure when they refer to their Monitor "just to be sure".
II. Monitor under-users.
These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their
conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Underusers are typically uninfluenced by error
correction, can self-correct only by using a "feel" for correctness (e.g. "it sounds right"), and rely
completely on the acquired system. Stafford and Covitt (1978) note that some under-users pay "lip
service" to the value of conscious grammar. Their subject "I" felt that people need conscious rules to
speak "correctly", and that "grammar is the key to every language". "I" himself, however, hardly used
conscious rules at all, in speech or writing.
III. The optimal Monitor user.
Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users, performers who use the Monitor when it is
appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will not use
grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere. (Some very skilled performers, such as
some professional linguists and language teachers, might be able to get away with using considerable
amounts of conscious knowledge in conversation, but this is very unusual. We might consider these
people "super Monitor users”) In writing, and in planned speech, however, when there is time, optimal
users will typically make whatever corrections they can to raise the accuracy of their output.
Optimal Monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their
acquired competence. Some optimal users who have not completely acquired their second language,
who make small and occasional errors in speech, can use their conscious grammar so successfully that
they can often produce the illusion of being native in their writing. (This does not imply that conscious
learning can entirely make up for incomplete acquisition. Some un-acquired rules will be learnable and
others not. The optimal user is able to fill part of the gap with conscious learning, but not all of it.
4. The Input Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis attempts to answer what is arguably the most essential topic in our
discipline, and provides a response with implications for all aspects of language instruction. The
crucial question is, "How do we learn languages?" If the Monitor hypothesis is right, and acquisition is
core while learning is more peripheral, then acquisition should be the objective of our teaching. The
topic of how we acquire becomes critical at this point.
The following is how this section is organized: I'll start with the input hypothesis and then go
on to supporting evidence. The evidence from research in first and second language acquisition is
described after that. The Input Hypothesis also gives importance to comprehensible input in which the
learners learning the language is exposed to.
A. Statement Hypothesis
This claims that i + 1 where the learner clearly acknowledge what is being interpreted and not
how the message if formed. this means that “i” is the language that is already acquired by the learner
and “+1” is the new knowledge and language that the learner will acquire. The input hypothesis goes
against our traditional pedagogical approach to teaching second and foreign languages. The input
theory contradicts itself. It claims that humans acquire by first "going for meaning" and then "acquiring
structure." The input hypothesis correlate with acquisition and not learning and with the help of i + 1
the learners would be able to construct beyond their expectations and competence. With the attempt of
using i + 1, they would be able to understand the input leading to an effective communication and they
can practice better grammatical structure from now on. Speaking fluency cannot be taught directly,
according to the input hypothesis. Rather, it "emerges" on its own over time. According to this
viewpoint, the best, and maybe only, approach to educate speaking is to simply supply understandable
input. When the acquirer is "ready," he or she will speak first.
B. Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis
Children's first language acquisition. The input hypothesis is quite similar to what is known
about "caretaker speech," which refers to the changes that parents and others make when speaking to
young children. For us, the most intriguing and possibly most essential feature of caretaker speech is
that it is not an intentional attempt to teach language. The fact that caretaker speech, while
syntactically simpler than adult-adult discourse, is "roughly-tuned" to the child's current level of
language skill, rather than "finely-tuned," is a second feature of importance to us. In other words,
caretaker speech is not precisely tailored to each child's level, although it does tend to become more
complicated as the child grows older. The "here and now" principle is a third property of caretaker
speech that we are concerned about. It is commonly known that caregivers focus on what the child can
see and hear, as well as what is happening in the immediate environment.
The input hypothesis holds true for the acquisition of a second language as well. First, as
previously said, a second language learner, whether a kid or an adult, is an"acquirer" in the same way
that a child learning a first language is. Also, according to hypothesis, there is a natural order of
acquisition for both second and first languages, thus we can discuss the i + 1 of second language
acquirers. Third, second language learners might receive the same type of customized input as

5. youngsters. According to the input hypothesis, these simplified codes will be very valuable for the
second language learner, much as caregiver speech is thought to be useful for children.
5. The Affective Filter hypothesis
The Affective Filter hypothesis states how affective factors relate to the second language
acquisition process. The concept of an Affective Filter was proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977), and is
consistent with the theoretical work done in the area of affective variables and second language
acquisition, as well as the hypotheses previously covered in this lesson.
Research over the last decade has confirmed that a variety of affective variables relate to
success in second language acquisition. Most of those studied can be placed into one of these three
categories:
I. Motivation.
Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually,
but not always, "integrative"
II. Self-confidence.
Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language
acquisition.
III. Anxiety.
Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as
personal or classroom anxiety.
In several places I have hypothesized that these attitudinal factors relate directly to
acquisition and not learning, since they tend to show stronger relationships to second language
achievement when communicative-type tests are used, tests that tap the acquired rather than the learned
system, and when the students taking the test have used the language in "acquisition-rich" situations,
situations where comprehensible input was plentiful.
The Affective Filter hypothesis captures the relationship between affective variables and the process of
second language acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their
Affective Filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only
tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter--even if they understand
the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the
language acquisition device. Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will
not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more
open to the input, and it will strike "deeper" (Stevick, 1976).
The Affective Filter hypothesis, represented in Fig. 2, claims that the effect of affect is "outside" the
language acquisition device proper. It still maintains that input is the primary causative variable in
second language acquisition, affective variables acting to impede or facilitate the delivery of input to
the language acquisition device.
The filter hypothesis explains why it is possible for an acquirer to obtain a great deal of
comprehensible input, and yet stop short (and sometimes well short) of the native speaker level
(fossilize). When this occurs, it is due to the affective filter.
The "affective filter", posited by Dulay and Burt (1977), acts to prevent input from being used for
language acquisition. Acquirers with optimal attitudes are hypothesized to have "low" affective filters.
Classrooms that encourage low filters are those that promote low anxiety among students, that keep
students "off the defensive"
This picture does not diminish, in any way, the importance of affective variables in pedagogy. The
Affective Filter hypothesis implies that our pedagogical goals should not only include supplying
comprehensible input, but also creating a situation that encourages a low filter.
The input hypothesis and the concept of the Affective Filter define the language teacher in a new way.
The effective language teacher is someone who can provide input and help make it comprehensible in
a low anxiety situation. Of course, many teachers have felt this way about their task for years, at least
until they were told otherwise by the experts.
Conclusions
For many of us, Krashen’s SLA theory changed our concept of language teaching and has
suggested new ideas for communicative language teaching. Nevertheless, the implications of this
theory should be adapted according to the teacher’s individual situation in order to obtain the best
results. The years to come will give more shape to this theory, so that, together with other teaching
theories and approaches, it will improve our methodology and our results.

6. LESSON 5: THE CAUSATIVE VARIABLE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
LEARNING a second language is a long and complex undertaking. Your whole person is
affected as you struggle to reach beyond the confines of your first language and into a new language, a
new culture, a new way of thinking, feeling, and acting. Total commitment, total involvement, a total
physical, intellectual, and emotional response are necessary to successfully send and receive messages
in a second language.
Many variables are involved in the acquisition process. Language learning is not a set of easy
steps that can be programmed in a quick do-it-yourself kit. So much is at stake that courses in foreign
languages are often inadequate training grounds, in and of themselves, for the successful learning of a
second language. This module elaborates the second language acquisition in causative variables.
What is causative variable in Second Language Acquisition?
According to Krashen, "the true causative variables in second language acquisition derive
from the input hypothesis and affective filter - the amount of comprehensible input the acquirer
receives and understands, and the strength of the affective filter, or the degree to which the acquirer is
'open' to the input. “
• In order to successfully acquire the second language, two conditions are necessary.
• Comprehensible input containing i+1, structures a bit beyond the acquirers’ level a low or
weak affective filter to allow the input “in”.
LANGUAGE TEACHING
Language Teaching short form LT, in principle, is the instruction in any LANGUAGE, under
any conditions, formal or informal; in practice, as the term is commonly used among language teachers
and applied linguists, instruction in a second or foreign language within a system of education.
PURPOSE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LANGUAGE METHOD
Language learning is an active process that begins at birth and continues throughout life.
Students learn language as they use it to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. We
establish relationship with family members and friends and strive to make sense and order of their
world. It has a various goal include self-development; cognitive abilities as mean of communicating
with individual from various background.
There are many methods of teaching language. There is what we called "LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY"
it is the approach taken towards the methods used to teach and learn languages.
Language Teaching: Does it help?
WHEN DOES LANGUAGE TEACHING HELPS?
The classroom should help only to the extent it supplies comprehensible input in an
environment conductive to a low filter. Language teaching helps when it is the main source of low
filter comprehensible input that is for beginners and for foreign language students who do not have a
chance to get input outside the class. It will be of less help when rich sources of input are available. If
the research literature supports these generalizations, it confirms the generalization that language
teaching helps second language acquisition when it supplies comprehensible input which is the true
cause of second language acquisition.
WHEN DOES LANGUAGE TEACHING DOESN’T HELP?
Many of the teachers are having a problem as to why language teaching does not help to the
students. It’s because some students in different countries where the English language is not a native
language, they learn as a second language. And nowadays, learning English language is very important
for the students. They join in different institutions to learn English language, where the teacher teaches
them also. We all know that English language to non-English speaker is not easy job for the teachers. A
teachers must have recognized the problems and facilitate the best ever environment for the students.
PRIMARY REASONS/PROBLEMS FACED BY TEACHERS ON WHY LANGUAGE
TEACHING DOESN’T HELP STUDENTS
• DISTURBED ENVIRONMENT OF THE CLASS
Environment matter is the most in learning and teaching the English language and one of the
most environmental problems in teaching language is not suitable and comfortable environment for
teaching. It can be distracting to the teachers and affects in teaching language. It also ruins all the
teaching and learning process of the English language. A positive and comfortable environment is very
essential for teaching English language.
• LIMITED TEACHING RESOURCES
Not only English language teaching mostly depends on the resources. Resources which are
essential for delivering the lectures of the English language to the students for effective learning are
not provided to them. It’s very difficult to the teachers to teach without the resources essential for the
lectures.

7. • LARGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM
This is producing a lot of disturbance and stress for the teachers because they have to do more
effort and hardworking.
PROBLEMS CAUSE IN THIS:
▪ disturbed the teacher by making noises
▪ difficult to manage the class students
▪ engaging crowded students in learning is very difficult
▪ learning resources are not available for all the students
 WRONG SYLLABUS TO TEACH
SYLLABUS is a kind of content that the teachers follow to teach to the students. It plays a very
important role in teaching language. It helps to the teachers to prepare important factor of the course
and organize to teach the students step by step. Teachers teach the wrong syllabus will make negative
impressions to the students and with this, the student cannot learn and speak English language.
 LIMITED TIME FOR LECTURE TO TEACH
Time is the most important thing in learning the English language. It takes time for the teachers to
observe their students and teach them well at their level. This is the one of the most difficult tasks for
the teachers to teach in less time, this is not enough for the teachers to complete the topics of their
lectures.
 STUDENTS HIJACK LESSONS
Most students are not interested in learning English language. They hijack the lesson and do other
kinds of activities and English learning is defeated. The teachers always count the students because
they cannot go further in the course if the student is missing.
STUDENTS DISTURBED THE CLASS
Some students get bored and try to do other activities during the lectures in which the teachers can
be disturbed during teaching. They try to speak other student; some are coming late to the lectures and
enter the class during the lecture that can be disturbed the teacher a lot.
 USING OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM
Speaking other language is the most noticeable issue faced by English teacher. For the
student, it is very easy to speak native language instead of English language. They are frustrated trying
to speak and think words and sentences to speak they didn’t know. For them, it’s very easy to
communicate in their native language they have already experience.
 STUDENTS DEPENDS ON A TEACHER
This the other problem faced by teacher that students completely depend on their teacher.
They didn't try to learn and speak by themselves. They didn't try to make words and correct
sentences in speaking the English language so that they didn't learn the technical terms and
condition of how to use different kinds of tenses and words in English speaking.
 STUDENTS ARE BORED AND NOT INTERESTED IN LEARNING ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
Some students are not interested and not attending the lectures and they try to do some
activities, so they disturbed the class by talking to others and doing nonsense activities during lecture.
CLASSROOM PRACTICES OF LANGUAGE TEACHING FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS:
Pre-activity: Vocabulary Building
Main Activity: Reading a Picture Book that uses vocabulary introduce in pre- activity.
Follow up Activity: Introduce additional information that can be found in the students’ environment,
but not in the book read.
Assessment: Give students’ an assignment to identify other characteristics of animals.
Outcomes: distinguish words use in English and in their language
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES THE
WIDEST RANGE OF CAPABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ANOTHER PERSON SAYS TO
YOU AND IN DEVELOPING YOUR CAPABILITY TO ASK.
THE EXPOSURE VARIABLES
Exposure refers to the contact that the learner has with the language that they are trying to
learn, either generally or with specific language points. Referring to the language in general, it often
refers to contact outside the classroom.

8. There is no variation in the acquisition process itself, but there is in:
1. The rate and the extent acquisition as the result of the amount of comprehensible input received, and
the strength of the affective filter.
2. Performance brought about by the extent of the learners’ reliance of learnt knowledge.
There are three type of monitor users:
• Over-users
• Under-users
• Optimal users
In the classroom:
One of the most important tasks of the teacher is to give learners enough exposure to
examples of language in different contexts, and from different speakers. As a competent speaker of the
language, the teacher themselves can provide useful examples of language, and can also use natural
input from cassettes, television, video, web sites, magazines, and books.
AGE
According to the CPH, there is a finite period during which it is possible to acquire a language
flawlessly. The mastery of morphology, phonology and syntax is limited to those who do so in the
years before puberty, regardless of the amount of time spent later. From this notion stems the generally
accepted view that children are better at achieving native-like pronunciation in second languages
(Hakuta 2001).
Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) reviewed the available empirical research on the effect
of age and second language acquisition and concluded that all published studies were consistent with
these.
THREE GENERALIZATIONS:
• Adults proceed through the early stages of second language development faster than
children do. (Where time and exposure are held constant.)
• Older children acquire faster than young children, time and exposure held constant.
• Acquirers who begin natural exposure to second languages during childhood generally
achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults.
If English is being acquired for academic purposes, the level of proficiency expected is much
more complex than English for day-to-day survival. Cummins (1979; 1980; 1981a; 1981b) has
proposed a model for second language acquisition that distinguishes between these two types of

9. language proficiency: language for general social interaction and language for school. Cummins'
distinction between face-to-face conversational proficiency and proficiency which requires the speaker
to rely solely on the language itself can help clarify the effect that age has on the language acquisition
of limited-Englishproficient students.
For academic purposes, students need to acquire as complete a range of skills in the second
language as possible. Language in school becomes increasingly abstract as students move from one
grade level to the next. Language becomes the focus of every content area task, with all meaning and
all demonstration of knowledge expressed through oral and written forms of language. It would be
good to know, then, at what ages and after what length of time students do best in acquiring a second
language for school.
Several researchers have conducted studies comparing the performance of students of
different ages on language tasks associated with school skills, including reading and writing. The short-
term studies once again show an initial advantage for the older students, but in contrast to the previous
studies cited on basic oral second language development, the long-term studies show a continuing
advantage for the older students (ages 8 to 12). When examining age on arrival, most studies of both
short-term and long-term acquisition find that students arriving between the ages of 8 and 12 are faster
in early acquisition of second language skills, and over several years' time they maintain this advantage
over younger arrivals of 4 to 7 years.
Based on this review, we can assert that older students (ages 8 to 12) are faster, more efficient
acquirers of school language than younger students (ages 4 to 7). In many of the studies reviewed,
young children beginning the study of a second language between the ages of 4 and 7 take much longer
to master skills needed for academic purposes than older children do. Why is this so? Several
explanations have been proposed, though none yet has conclusive research support. First, we know that
children who enter school at age 5 or 6 have not completed acquisition of their first language, which
continues through at least age 12. From ages 6 to 12, children still are in the process of developing in
first language the complex skills of reading and writing, in addition to continuing acquisition of more
complex rules of morphology and syntax, elaboration of speech acts, expansion of vocabulary,
semantic development, and even some subtleties in phonological development (McLaughlin, 1984, pp.
41-43)
ACCULTURATION
• Defined as exchange of cultural features when two or more different cultures comes in contact
continuous contact.
• Sharing of the differences in cultures, this may alter or change a culture but still remains distinct from
each other.
This model is based on the social-psychology of acculturation.
• Acculturation model maintains that certain social and psychological variables into a single variable
acculturation.
• Learners will acquire the target language to the degree they acculturate to the target language group.
There are 2 types of acculturations:
1. Learners are socially integrated with the TL group and develop sufficient contacts with TL
speakers to enable them to acquire the target language.

10. 2. Learners consciously or unconsciously desire to adopt the lifestyle and values of the TL
group.
• Both types of acculturations are important to provoke acquisition of the TL.
• Social and psychological contact with the target language group is the essential element in
acculturation.
• Adopting the values and lifestyle of the target language group is not necessary.
Eight Factors of Social Distance
1. SOCIAL DOMINANCE - simply defined as one culture is on a higher hierarchy greatly influences
the much inferior culture. Ex. Spain is more dominant than the Philippines and China.
2. INTEGRATION PATTERN
• Assimilation- the culture gives up its own lifestyle to adapt to the culture (language). It maximizes
the contact between the cultures and enhances the acquisition.
• Preservation- this strategy maintain its own lifestyle and rejects the target group’s language
acquisition. It creates a rift between the two groups making the acquisition of the target groups.
• Adaptation- this strategy adapts the target group’s lifestyle and language but also maintaining its
own lifestyle and values. This strategy yields varied degrees of language.
3. ENCLOSURE
• High enclosure- the two groups have their own social constructs making the acquisition of the
second language.
• Low enclosure- the two groups shares the social constructs, therefore making the acquisition of the
second language easier.
4. COHESIVENESS
If the second-language learning group is firm or cohesive the members tends to separate itself
to the target language group. This makes Second Language Acquisition harder to accomplish.
5. SIZE
A large population of the second-language learning group then it makes language acquisition
more difficult. Conflicts may emerge between them.
6. CULTURAL CONGRUENCE
• Similarity between the two groups
If the two groups are similar, then second-language acquisition is easier for the language-
learning group to grasp target language.
7. ATTITUDE
If the target group and the Language-Learning group have positive attitudes towards each
other, there would be less barriers between the two groups from learning the target language.
8. INTENDED LENGTH OF RESIDENCE
If the Second-Language Learning group intends to stay in the target language are for a longer
time, it is likely for them to learn the language intensively. A lengthy stay would promote Second
Language Acquisition.
Conclusion
The causative variable is beneficial for teachers to know how they will teach the second language to
their students. It is important for teachers to know and understand the causative variables in second language
acquisition. As teachers understand that different attacks on language teaching, the amount of time students are
exposed to the language they are learning, the age of the students and the diversity of the students’ culture, they
are able to understand what each student needs, form a strategic plan, and implement it in an approach that will
bolster the students’ ability to learn a second language