input hypothesis i 1

What is the i+1 Principle?

Posted by: Phil Western at 10:00 am, July 21, 2020

“i+1” (Input Hypothesis) was originally a theory of learning developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s. It basically says that learning is most effective when you meet the learners’ current level and add one level of difficulty, like the next rung on a ladder. As a language teacher I always found this defined the whole process. The language of the classroom is kept just above the learners’ level, rather than hitting them with the whole dictionary straight away. But we’re talking about more than just language here, this applies to anything you decide to do.

How do I use the i+1 Principle?

I have started using the term in relation to motivation for literally anything. Another term, “comfort zone”, has been much overused, but it definitely applies here. With a language, if you keep on using basic parrot phrases for years, you’ll never get anywhere. You need to push out a bit, make a few mistakes, see some confused faces, get the wrong food order a couple of times – and then you get it. People who don’t like leaving that comfort zone don’t tend to learn. With motivation, as with language, people who don’t push out a bit don’t tend to succeed.

If you want to learn more about determination and the will to succeed, check out my article on Angela Duckworth’s fantastic book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, here: https://www.philwestern.blog/2020/07/16/grit-do-you-have-it/

The Problems

It’s really hygge in the comfort zone. If you feel like life is boring, ask yourself when the last time you were actually uncomfortable was. Without discomfort, there is no true success. The i+1 principle will get you that.

We tend to look at people doing something really well and see it as a fait accompli, or an innate gift, and not an expression of years of tireless work. Hendrix was just talented, right? Mozart was simply a genius. But what about the 8 hours of practice a day that Jimi did? And don’t believe what you saw in the film Amadeus . Putting it all down to talent takes the credit away a bit, doesn’t it? Raw talent definitely helps, but hard work wins out, every time.

Not Looking at the Whole Challenge

So, don’t focus too much on absolute mastery of a given challenge. Rather, break it down into bitesize chunks. Look at where you are as honestly as you can, and just add 1 difficulty point. For the beginner linguist, this means not messing up the restaurant order again, for the guitarist it’s getting that B diminished barre chord nailed. Maybe for you it’s just trying the challenge you’re a little uncomfortable with (without breaking a leg, or setting yourself on fire).

Perhaps Muhammad Ali said it best: I have learned to live my life one step, one breath, and one moment at a time, but it was a long road. I set out on a journey of love, seeking truth, peace and understanding. I am still learning.

See more by Phil Western

Hi, my name's Phil. I am a Content Writer and Producer. My background is a mixture of education, social media and management. I've spent a lot of my career working in Latin America and Spain, and I have a love for languages and education. I also have my own blogsite: http://www.philwestern.blog/

• Heritage Sites Worth A Visit July 21, 2020
• What Is The God Particle? July 21, 2020
• What Is VARK? July 21, 2020

Stay Connected

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.

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

Humanities Technology

Input hypothesis.

By Benjamin Niedzielski on January 14, 2020

The idea that language learners need exposure to the language (or “input”) to make progress in the target language is neither surprising nor new.  What is surprising is what the best type of input might be.

Linguist Stephen Krashen (a UCLA graduate) has written about this in his “Input Hypothesis”. Krashen supports an i+1 input approach for second language learners, meaning the best input is only one level above the learner’s level to maximize comprehension . This allows students to make use of context to understand unknown words or phrases, as native speakers do.  

Krashen’s hypothesis is not accepted by everyone (see Zafar 2009 and Liu 2015 ), as it is difficult or impossible to test. In addition, it is unclear what exactly i+1 input looks like, as it varies from case to case. Still, the general idea is attractive even if the details are disputed.

Most modern language classes that I have taken across the United States have followed the Input Hypothesis (at least partially). Classes teach grammar and vocabulary step by step. Listening and reading activities contain mostly words that are already known. This lets students focus on new concepts without being overwhelmed, and build on what they have mastered.

However, no two students are at the same level in a language. Some will have more exposure outside of the classroom. Others may have competencies in a related language that puts them above their peers (knowing French helps learn Italian for instance). In larger classes, providing i+1 input to each student individually may be impossible to achieve.

Technology, however, can allow teachers and students to bridge this gap. For many languages, there are large amounts of “input” at different levels available online. An instructor can find (or create) sites at different levels and ask students to choose something to read or listen to for a certain amount of time, allowing students to find their own i+1 input from an approved list. Instructors can guide students by saying that what students choose must contain new words but be understandable without a dictionary.

Examples of these kind of resources are NHK News Web Easy or Wasabi’s Fairy Tales and Short Stories with Easy Japanese , with reading practice at different levels. One of my personal favorites was a German class where we used iPods to find and listen to German music or podcasts, such as like Deutsche Welle’s Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten (Slowly Spoken News), that we students liked and could easily understand.

Activities such as these allow students the flexibility to seek out their own i+1 input in an instructor curated fashion.  They get more practice with a language outside of the classroom, and can find materials that meet their own needs and interests. 

Whether or not the Input Hypothesis is correct, giving students these opportunities is a great way to engage them effectively with a language and culture.

Image: language-2345801_1920.jpg . Image is used under the Pixabay License .( https://pixabay.com/photos/language-learning-books-education-2345801/ ) 

• Deutsche Welle. “Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten“. https://www.dw.com/de/21102019-langsam-gesprochene-nachrichten/a-50911528
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.
• NHK News Web Easy: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/
• Liu 2015: http://jehdnet.com/journals/jehd/Vol_4_No_4_December_2015/16.pdf
• Teaching English. “Comprehensible Input”. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/comprehensible-input . Accessed Nov. 5, 2019.
• Wasabi’s Fairy Tales and Short Stories with Easy Japanese: https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-lessons/fairy-tales-and-short-stories-with-easy-japanese/
• Zafar 2009: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39ee/7d69dae91b26dcffd84d718eb93f6d7795a4.pdf

Blog Categories

• Best Practices
• How To’s
• Instruction
• Opportunities

Recent Posts

• Job Openings for Humanities Graduate Students
• The New Faces of Humtech!
• RITC Call 2023-2024
• Small Bytes Workshops return for Spring!
• Humanities Technology Brief 002
• Contact Info
• Careers and Opportunities
• Project Overview
• Current Projects
• Past Projects
• Project Support FAQ
• Scholarly Web Design Best Practices
• Computing Support
• Web Support
• Teaching Resources
• Submit a Ticket
• Education and Teaching Space (ENT)
• Experimental Learning Facility (ELF)
• Learning Lab @ Rolfe
• Mobile Laptop Cart
• Online Resource Classroom (ORC)
• Podcasting Cart
• Teaching Resource Center
• Upcoming Events
• DH Infrastructure Symposium
• Digital Humanities

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.

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 11 December 2019

Comparing the impacts of various inputs(I + 1 & I-1) on pre-intermediate EFL learners’ Reading comprehension and Reading motivation: the case of Ahvazi learners

• Ehsan Namaziandost 1 ,
• Mehdi Nasri 1 &
• Meisam Ziafar 2  

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education volume  4 , Article number:  13 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

8512 Accesses

7 Citations

Metrics details

Considering the vital role of comprehensible input, this study attempted to compare the effects of input with various difficulty levels on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation. To fulfil this objective, 54 Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners were selected from two intact classes ( n  = 27 each). The selected participants were randomly assigned to two equal groups, namely “i + 1″ (n = 27) and “i-1″ group (n = 27). Then, the groups were pretested by a researcher-made reading comprehension test. After carrying out the pre-test, the treatment (i.e., extensive reading at different levels of difficulty) was practiced on the both groups. The participants in “i + 1″ group received reading passages beyond the current level, on the other hand, the “i-1″ group received those reading passages which were below their current level. After the instruction ended, a modified version of pre-test was conducted as posttest to determine the impacts of the treatment on the students’ reading comprehension. The obtained results indicated that there was a significant difference between the post-tests of “i + 1″ and “i-1″ groups. The findings showed that the “i + 1″ group significantly outperformed the “i-1″ group ( p  < .05) on the post-test. Moreover, the findings indicated that “i + 1″ group’s motivation increased after the treatment. The implications of the study suggest that interactive type of input is beneficial to develop students’ language skills.

Introduction

There is a consensus of agreement among the researchers that input is vital for language learning to come about but they may not have analogous opinions about the way it is utilized bylearners (Gass and Selinker 2008 ). Input may be operationally described as “oral and/or written corpus of target language to which second language (L2) learners are subjected via different sources, and is perceived by them as language input” (Kumaravadivelu 2006 , p. 26). According to Ellis ( 2012 ), input-based instruction “includes the utilization of the input that learners are presented to or are needed to process” (p. 285). In this procedure, through presentation to language input, if students discover the way language works or the way language is rehearsed in workplace, or handicraft target condition, learning will be occurred (Basturkmen 2006 ; Tahmasbi et al. 2019 ). Thus, it can be deduced that input is of fundamental significance for language learning abilities particularly reading.

Reading is seen as “an essential expertise for EFL learners to enhance their language ability” (Chiang 2015 , p. 11). Reading is characterized as “a fluent process of readers joining information from a text and their own background knowledge to fabricate meaning” (Nunan 2003 , p. 68). It gives chances to foreign language learners to be presented to English in circumstances that language input is entirely restricted (Lao and Krashen 2000 ; Namaziandost et al. 2019c ; Wu 2012 ).

In recent years, extensive reading (ER) has gained particular consideration as an impressive and undertaking way of expanding foreign language skills (Yamashita 2013 ). ER aims “to progress good reading habits to form knowledge of vocabulary and grammar and to encourage a liking for reading” (Richards and Schmidt 2010 , p. 194). The major purpose in ER is to reach at a general understanding of what is read (Richards and Schmidt 2010 ). ER is for general comprehending in which “the minimum 95% comprehension figure” (Meng 2009 , p. 134) is admissible and the reading velocity is below 100 to 150 words per minute (Mikeladze 2014 ; Shakibaei et al. 2019 ). Truly, some studies (e.g., Bell 2001 ; Chiang 2015 ; Hitosugi and Day 2004 ; Iwahori 2008 ; Leung 2002 ; Tanaka 2007 ) have presented that ER significantly enhanced foreign language reading comprehension and general proficiency.

One of the best bountiful sources for providing language input for EFL learners is through extensive reading (ER) (Day and Bamford 1998 ; Krashen 1982 ). As indicated by Krashen ( 1982 ), the input to which learners are presented ought to be a little above their current level of competence, ‘i + 1,’ in which ‘i’ alludes to the present language capacity of learner, though ‘1’ alludes to the input that is somewhat above the learners’ present language ability. On the other hand, Day and Bamford ( 1998 ) suggested a diverse model on the hardness level of the input. Based on this hypothesis, “ER is efficacious if it furnishes students with input which is marginally beneath their current level of competence (i.e., ‘i-1’)” (Day and Bamford 1998 , p. 36). This way language learners can swiftly develop their reading certainty, reading fluency and construct sight words and high-frequency words.

However, a glance to the prior literature divulges that there are rare studies on the impacts of these two viewpoints (i.e., ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’) on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation. To cover the extant gap, the current study tried to focus on this theme by inspecting how Krashen’s input hypothesis through ‘i + 1′ and ‘i - 1’ materials may impress EFL students’ reading comprehension and reading motivation.

Literature review

Second language (L2) reading is a multifaceted, complex process in that it involves the interplay of a wide range of components. As a result, although most of the reviews on L2 reading research start with an attempt to answer the question ‘What is reading?’, nearly all of them go on to state that it is such a complex concept that no definition of reading, which is clearly stated, empirically supported, and theoretically unassailable, has been offered to date (e.g., Aebersold and Field 1997 ; Grabe and Stoller 2002 ; Namaziandost and Shafiee 2018 ; Urquhart and Weir 1998 ).

Grabe ( 2009 ) notes that a proper definition of reading will need to account for what fluent readers do when they read, what processes are used by them, and how these processes work together to build a general notion of reading. Granting that no single statement can capture the complexity of reading, Grabe ( 2009 ) states that reading can be conjured as a complex combination of processes – processes that are rapid, efficient, interactive, strategic, flexible, evaluative, purposeful, comprehending, learning, and linguistic (p. 14). In the most general terms, it can be stated that reading is a process that involves the reader, the text, and the interaction between the reader and the text (Grabe 2009 ; Grabe and Stoller 2002 ; Koda 2005 ; Mirshekaran et al. 2018 ). Reading researchers’ continuous attempts to explain how the reader and the text components interact, and how this interaction results in reading comprehension have paved the way to the conceptualization of a number of reading models, each focusing on different aspects of reading.

Generally, reading comprehension has been defined by researchers as “a critical part of the multifarious interplay of mechanisms involved in L2 reading” (Brantmeier 2005 , p. 52). For many students, reading is presumed as the beneficial dexterity that they can utilize inside and outside the classroom. It is additionally the skill that can preserve the lengthy time. According to Allen and Valette ( 1999 ), “reading is not only allotting foreign language sounds to the written words, but also the comprehension of what is written” (p. 249). Miller ( 2008 ) characterized “Reading comprehension as the ability to comprehend or to get meaning from any kind of written materials” (p. 8).

In Reading comprehension, readers get information from written texts and need to decode these data into meaningful messages so that they can understand the reading materials and achieve the purposes of reading. According to Wade and Trathen ( 1990 ) reading comprehension contains four key concepts: transmission translation, interaction, and transaction. It is a psycholinguistic process which starts with a linguistic surface representation encoded by a writer and ends with meaning which the reader constructs. There is thus an essential interaction between language and thought in reading. The writer encodes thought as language and the reader decodes language to thought (Carrell 2000 ; Ziafar and Namaziandost 2019 ). Existing research has shown that professional readers make choices as to what to read. When readers encounter comprehension problems, they use strategies to overcome their difficulties. Different learners seem to approach reading tasks in different ways and some of these ways appear to lead to better comprehension. It has been noted that the paths to success are numerous and that some routes seldom lead to success.

Regarding the mentioned points, reading widely is an individual movement which depends on the students’ fondness (Nation 1997 ). Extensive reading (ER) boosts reader’s reading aptitudes and it is shortsighted to urge EFL students to peruse better through ER which is enchanting to them (Nuttal 2000 ). The principle objective of an Extensive reading plan is to give a circumstance to students to appreciate reading a foreign language and new real messages quietly at their own velocity and with satisfactory comprehension (Day and Bamford 1998 ; Nasri and Biria 2017 ). “ER is bolstered by Krashen’s ( 1982 , 1994 ) input hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis, and delight hypothesis” (Bahmani and Farvardin 2017 , p. 6).

Reading extensively is an individual activity which is based on the learners’ interest (Nation 1997 ). ER enhances reader’s reading skills and it is easy to teach EFL learners to read better through ER which is enjoyable to them (Namaziandost et al. 2019a ; Nuttal 2000 ). The fundamental objective of an ER program is to provide a situation for learners to enjoy reading a foreign language and unfamiliar authentic texts silently at their own pace and with sufficient understanding (Day and Bamford 1998 ). ER is supported by Krashen’s ( 1982 , 1994 ) input hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis, and pleasure hypothesis.

According to Krashen’s ( 1982 ) input hypothesis, adequate exposure to comprehensible input is essential for language learners to learn the language. According to this hypothesis, the input to which learners are exposed should be a little beyond their current level of language competence, i.e., ‘i + 1.’ Based on this hypothesis, when learners frequently and repeatedly meet and concentrate on a large number of messages (input) which is a little beyond their level of competence, they gradually acquire the forms. Furthermore, based on Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis ( 1982 ), language acquisition occurs in low-anxiety situations. Foreign language learners with a low affective filter (e.g., anxiety) will attain the language acquisition or comprehension more easily (Hashemifardnia et al. 2018 ; Huang 2001 ). In the same vein, Krashen ( 1994 ) proposed the pleasure hypothesis, arguing that the pleasurable activities are effective and facilitating for language and literacy development. Based on this hypothesis, ER provides a low-anxiety situation for learners to learn a foreign language. Krashen’s hypotheses have encouraged different universities and institutions to do research in ER and utilize ER programs in foreign language teaching (Chiang 2015 ).

The Input Hypothesis directs the question of how we get language. This speculation expresses that we obtain (not learn) language by comprehending input that is a little past our current level of procured capability (Krashen and Terrell 1983 ; Nasri et al. 2019 ). This has been lately declared perspicuously by Krashen ( 2003 ): “we procure language in just one way: when we comprehend messages; that is, when we acquire “comprehensible input”” (p. 4). This potent allegation is rehashed in different spots where Krashen expresses that ‘comprehending inputs is the main way language is obtained’ and that ‘there is no individual variety in the key procedure of language procurement’ (Krashen 2003 , p. 4). Consequently, Krashen frequently utilizes the term ‘comprehension hypothesis’ ( 2003 ) to allude to the Input Hypothesis, contending that ‘perception’ is a superior depiction as only input is not sufficient; it must be comprehended.

Thus, based on Krashen’s ( 1982 ) input hypothesis, adequate presentation to understandable input is essential for language students to learn language. In light of this speculation, the input to which students are uncovered ought to be a little past their current level of language ability, i.e., ‘i + 1’. Considering Krashen’s perspective, when learners constantly and repeatedly confront and concentrate on an expansive quantity of input which is a little higher than their level of capability, they inchmeal obtain the structures. Krashen’s input hypotheses have motivated different universities and institutions to accomplish researches and studies in ER and utilize ER programs in teaching TEFL (Bahmani and Farvardin 2017 ; Chiang 2015 ).

Day and Bamford ( 1998 ), in particular, suggested a modern scheme which is diverse from Krashen’s ( 1982 ) input hypothesis. Based on this scheme, “ER is advantageous if it furnishes the students with input which is somewhat beneath their current level of competence (i.e., ‘i-1’)” (Bahmani and Farvardin 2017 , p. 4). Moreover, “‘i-1’ creates a condition for automaticity educating and extending a huge sight vocabulary rather than learning new target structures” (Mikeladze 2014 , p. 5). Truth to be told, ‘i-1’ is considered as the learners’ tranquility zone where they can rapidly construct their reading certainty and reading fluency (Abedi et al. 2019a ; Chiang 2015 ).

All of researchers and teachers accepted that motivation is a basic factor to enhance reading comprehension. As indicated by Dornyei ( 2001 ), the meaning of motivation is very intricate and obscurant because it is t is made out of various models and hypotheses. As discussed by Protacio ( 2012 ), “reading problems occur partly due to the fact that people are not motivated to read in the first place” (p. 11). Moley Bandré, and George ( 2011 ) explain that, motivation happens when “students develop an interest in and form a bond with a topic that lasts beyond the short term” (p. 251). Furthermore, Guthrie and Wigfield ( 2000 , p. 405) propound that “reading motivation is the individual’s personal objectives, values, and beliefs regarding the topics, processes, and outcomes of reading”. Considering this delineation, one would come to two principle consequences: The first is that reading motivation refers to putting together of various dimensions of motivation in an intricate route. The second is the type of agency people have over it since they can manipulate, unify and divert their motivation to read in terms of their credence, worthiness and objectives (Namaziandost et al. 2018b ; Wigfield and Tonks 2004 ). “Not only does reading motivation relate to reading comprehension, but it also relates to both the amount of reading and students’ reading achievement” (Guthrie and Wigfield 2005 , p. 76). Guthrie et al. ( 2006 , p. 232) elucidate that “reading motivation correlates with students’ amount of reading”. For this purpose, Guthrie and Wigfield ( 2005 ) emphasize the perspective that “reading motivation is domain-specific as it belongs to a status that necessitates an emotional reaction particular to a reading material, and that would metamorphose based on the diversity of activities inaugurating it” (p. 89).

Pachtman and Wilson ( 2006 ) expressed that it is crucial to propel students to read by giving them chances to choose their interest materials. In other words, readers need to read more when they are allowed to choose their reading materials since they should find out that reading is a pleasurable action. As indicated by Hairul, Ahmadi, and Pourhosein ( 2012 ), reading motivation is the substantial measure of motivation that learners need to focus their positive or negative feelings about reading. For example, students who read for joy and utilizing ways to help their understanding are amazingly roused readers. Students of this sort regularly view reading as a vital factor in their daily exercises, acknowledge difficulties in the reading procedure and are probably going to be effective readers.

Hairul, Ahmadi, and Pourhosein ( 2012 ) believed that reading motivation greatly affects reading appreciation. The researchers proceeded with that reading motivation impacts all parts of motivation and reading appreciation procedures in various conditions. They additionally accentuated that learners’ inspiration totally influences their understanding; it implies that learners with more stronger reading inspiration can be relied upon to read more in more extensive territory. As indicated by Hairul, Ahmadi, and Pourhosein ( 2012 ), a standout amongst the most essential components which help students read more is reading inspiration and it importantly affects reading perception. In this manner, numerous researchers have been very much aware of the noteworthiness of inspiration in the objective language learning and how inspiration expands appreciation among language students.

Prior researches have checked the impacts of ER on EFL reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Bell ( 2001 ) carried out a two-semester study on young adult students at the elementary level in Yemen to compare the impacts of ER and intensive reading on reading speed and reading comprehension. This study was run over two semesters. The researcher divided students into two groups: an experimental group ( n  = 14) and a control group ( n  = 12). The experimental group received an ER program and read graded readers; these students had access to 2000 graded readers in the British Council library. On the other hand, the control group received the intensive reading program, read short passages and filled the tasks. The researcher measured students’ reading speed by utilizing two reading tests, and for measuring their reading comprehension he utilized three various texts with three types of questions (cloze, multiple-choice, and true-false). The two groups enhanced both in speed and reading comprehension, but the ER program based on graded readers was much more effective to the enhancement of reading speed than the intensive reading program. The outcomes of the reading comprehension test also indicated that the learners in the extensive group got higher scores than students in the intensive group.

Chiang ( 2015 ) researched the impacts of different text difficulty on L2 reading perceptions and reading comprehension. To give the ideal test to L2 reading, comprehensible input hypothesis hypothesizes that selecting text somewhat more difficult than the student’s present level will improve reading perception. Fifty-four freshman from one college in central Taiwan were arbitrarily separated into two groups. Level 3 and level 4 Oxford Graded Readers were given to the learners in the ‘i − 1’ group while students in the ‘i + 1’ group were equipped with level 5 and level 6. Quantitative data were collected through the English Placement Test and the Reading Attitudes Survey. Findings from the pretest and posttest of the Reading Attitudes Survey propose that the i-1 group has achieved significantly in reading attitudes, while no difference in reading attitude was recognized with the i + 1 group. The outcomes additionally indicated that diverse hardness levels of reading text did not significantly influence participants’ reading comprehension.

Bayat and Pomplun ( 2016 ) aimed to indicate how several eye-tracking features within reading are influenced by different primary agents, as individual discrepancies, the hardness level of the text, and the topic of the text. To this end, they directed an eye-following experiment with 21 participants who read six sections with various points. For each topic, metamorphosis in three factors were assessed: the mediocre obsession term, the student estimate, and the normal rapidity of reading. The Flesch reading ease score was utilized as a measurement for the hardness level of the content. Examination of difference is utilized as a part of request to break down determinant factors related with content attributes, containing the difficulty level and the point of the content. The findings showed that during the reading of entries with comparable difficulty levels, the point of the content has no noteworthy impact on mediocre obsession span and mediocre understudy estimate, though a critical effect overall speed of reading is watched. Additionally, individual properties have a primary effect on eye-movement demeanor.

Ahmadi ( 2017 ) attempted to consider the effect of reading motivation on reading comprehension. In his paper, he explained the terms reading motivation, different types of motivation, reading comprehension, and different models of reading comprehension. The review of this study showed that reading motivation had a considerably positive effect on reading comprehension activities.

Recently, Bahmani and Farvardin ( 2017 ) examined the impacts of various text difficultylevels on foreign language reading anxiety (FLRA) and reading comprehension of English as aForeign Language (EFL) learners. To fulfil this objective, 50 elementary EFL learners were chosen from two intact classes ( n  = 25 each). One class was considered as ‘ i + 1’ and another as ‘ i -1’. The participants in each class practiced extensive reading at diverse levels of difficulty for two semesters. A reading comprehension test and the FLRA Scale were administered before and after the treatment. The outcomes indicated that both text difficulty levels significantly enhanced the participants’ reading comprehension. Moreover, the results revealed that, the ‘ i  + 1′ group’s FLRA augmented, while that of the ‘ i - 1’ group diminished.

However, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, rare studies, if any, have been carried out on the impacts of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (i.e., ‘ i + 1’ and ‘ i - 1’) on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation. To reach the purposes of the study, this study attempted to response the following research questions:

RQ1: Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘ i + 1’ and the ‘ i - 1’ groups’ reading comprehension after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher reading comprehension in English?

RQ2: Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘ i + 1’ and the ‘ i - 1’ groups’ reading motivation after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher motivation towards reading in English?

Methodology

A quasi-experimental approach was utilized in this study gather data from 54 EFL learners to check the potentially various impacts of using ‘i + 1’ versus ‘i - 1’ readers on reading motivation and reading comprehension. To this end, the reading motivation and reading comprehension of the participants were quantitatively measured prior to and after the intervention of ER through the Foreign Language Reading Motivation and the FCE (First Certificate in English).

Participants

Fifty-four EFL learners (25 males and 29 females) were selected from two intact classes in a private language institute in Iran. The participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 21. American Headway 1 (Soars and Soars 2010 ) was the textbook taught to the participants. According to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) classification, American Headway 2 is appropriate for the B1 level. To ensure the participants’ proficiency level, CEFR Headway placement test ( 2012 ) was performed to all participants, and their score ranged between 66 and 74, which is equal to B1 level. The participants were chosen from two intact classes. Each class was assigned to a group (i.e., ‘i + 1’ or ‘i - 1’). The ‘i + 1′ group ( n  = 27) read graded readers stories which were beyond their level of proficiency, whereas the ‘i - 1’ group (n = 27) read graded readers stories which were below their level of proficiency. The participants read graded readers along with their classroom materials. Per week, 35 min of class time was devoted to the participants’ narration of the novels they had already read.

Instruments

Cefr headway placement test.

CEFR Headway placement test is designed to provide a useful tool to estimate the participants’ level at which they should begin or continue their English language studies (Bahmani and Farvardin 2017 ). This test was selected because the participants were studying American Headway. Moreover, the American Headway book, CEFR Headway placement test ( 2012 ) and Oxford Bookworm Series (the graded readers in this study) were classified based on CEFR. It could be a big help to determine the probable ‘i’ of participants (Bahmani and Farvardin 2017 ). CEFR Headway placement test ( 2012 ) comprised of 100 multiple-choice items with three sections, including 50 vocabulary, 25 grammar and 25 reading comprehension items. The findings were compared with the band score of CEFR Headway placement test (see Table  1 ).

Graded readers

The reading materials in this study were the Oxford Bookworms Series published by Oxford University Press. The Oxford Bookworms Series classifies books into seven levels. Table 2 indicates the word counts and CEFR levels in the Oxford Bookworms series.

To make sure what level is appropriate, nine EFL learners at the pre-intermediate level and four EFL teachers were asked to read the Oxford Bookworms Series at various levels. After studying the books, all teachers agreed that for the pre-intermediate level learners, Starter, Level, and Level 2 were really easy, and Levels 4, 5 and 6 were both grammatically and lexically difficult. According to the teachers, Level 3 was considered suitable for the pre-intermediate level. The learners also reported that Level 3 was comprehensible for them. Level 3 equals to levels B1 in CEFR. Therefore, Level 3 was determined as the appropriate level for the participants. Accordingly, the ‘i - 1’ group was proposed to read Levels 1 and 2 and the ‘i + 1’ group was suggested to read Levels 4 and 5. The participants were required to read two books at each level throughout the study.

Reading comprehension test

The reading comprehension part of the Cambridge First Certificate in English (FCE 2008 ) was used to measure the participants’ reading comprehension ability. It included four parts: Part one was actually included 8 items. Part One consisted of a modified cloze test containing eight gaps. There were 4-option multiple-choice items for each gap. The main focus in this part one was on vocabulary, e.g. idioms, collocations, fixed phrases, complementation, phrasal verbs, and semantic precision.

Part Two comprised of 7 questions. It consisted of one text from which seven sentences have been removed and placed in jumbled order after the text, together with a seventh sentence which does not fit in any of the gaps. Candidates must decide from which part of the text the sentences have been removed. In part two, the main focus was on cohesion, coherence, and text structure.

The Third Part included 8 questions and consisted of a text containing eight gaps (plus one gap as an example). Each gap corresponded to a word. The stem of the missing word was given beside the text and must be changed to form the missing word. Candidates needed to form an appropriate word from given stem words to fill each gap. This part concentrated on vocabulary, in particular the use of affixation, internal changes, and compounding in word formation.

In the last part, i.e., Part Four, which included 7 items, one long text preceded by seven multiple-matching questions. Candidates were required to locate the specific information which matches the questions. Some of the options might be correct for more than one question. The primary focus in this part was one detail, opinion, specific information, and implication.

In general, the reading section of the FCE used in this study included 30 items which should be answered in 30 min. Two forms of this test were available, as equivalent forms. Hence, one form was used as the pretest, the other as posttest. It should be mentioned that the test was a mixture of both about and beneath the students’ current level. A Parson correlation coefficient between the two equivalent forms of the FCE was calculated as 0.899 which indicated a high reliability between the two versions of the test.

The motivation for reading questionnaire (MRQ)

Another instrument utilized in the present study was a modified sample of Motivation forReading Questionnaire (MRQ). MRQ was expanded by Dr. Allan Wigfield and Dr. John Guthrie from University of Maryland in 1997 (Wigfield and Guthrie 1997 ). Wigfield and Guthrie utilized the MRQ on a group of students at one mid-Atlantic state school during implementation of Concept-Oriented Reading teaching. Factor analyses carried out by Wigfield and Guthrie affirmed the essence of construct validity which backups eleven factors for the total 53 -item in this MRQ. There was an affirmative relevance of maximum segments of reading motivation with low - to high levels. They additionally asserted that their questionnaire has a reliability range from .43 to .81. In this research, the researchers had selected 30 items of the entire 53 items in the questionnaire because solely eight aspects of total eleven aspects of reading motivation were identified to measure. They are: reading efficacy, reading challenge, reading curiosity, reading involvement, importance of reading, reading word avoidance, social reasons for reading, and reading for grades. MRQ was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire made up of five options: 1 for ‘I strongly agree’, 2 for ‘I agree’, 3 for ‘I don’t know’, 4 for ‘I disagree’, and 5 for ‘I strongly disagree’. The MRQ was given to participants twice, one before the treatment and once after the treatment.

Data collection procedure

Fifty-four pre-intermediate EFL learners were participated in this study. In the first week, the CEFR Headway placement test was performed to specify the participants’ proficiency levels. This test additionally helped the researchers detemine the probable participants’ ‘i.’ In the second week, the MRQ and the reading comprehension test were carried out in 80 min. Based on the outcomes of the CEFR Headway placement test ( 2012 ), the ‘i + 1’ group were assigned to read graded readers at Levels 4 and 5, and the ‘i - 1’ group were assigned to read Level 1 and Level 2 graded stories. There was a small library and bookstore in the language institute to provide the participants with the graded readers. It was also proposed that if they would not find the book of their interest, they could find them from other libraries and bookstores outside.

The number of pages the participants required to read was specified at the outset of each week. At the end of each week, 20 min of the class was allocated for their reports. The participants were given time to talk about various parts and the characters of the novels, their ideas about the end of the novels, and even provided some comments regarding the novels. In the first semester, the ‘i + 1’ group read two graded readers at Level 4 which were one level beyond their ‘i’, and in the second semester, they read two graded readers at Level 5. On the other hand, in the first semester, the ‘i - 1’ group read two graded readers at the Level 1 which was two levels below their ‘i’ and in the second semester, they read two graded readers at Level 2 which was one level below their ‘i.’ Finally, after a three-month involvement in this study, the findings of these two various ways were compared with each other. In the last week of, the participants received an immediate posttest. They responded the MRQ and an equivalent version of the reading comprehension test in one session. The procedure was like the pretest.

Data analysis

Collected data through the aforesaid procedures were analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 25. Firstly, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test was run to check the normality of the data. Then, two independent samples t-tests were done to figure out if there was any significant difference between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups in terms of reading comprehension and MRQ. At the end, two 2 × 2 mixed analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were run to discover significant interaction impacts between time and group from the reading comprehension test and the MRQ. Furthermore, independent samples t-tests were run to test the simple main impacts of group on the pretests and the posttests. Paired samples t-tests were also done to further follow up on the simple main impacts of time on MRQ and reading comprehension for both groups. To indicate the practical significance, for all of the t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen’s ds) were computed.

Results and discussion

The previous section included a delineation of the methodology which was utilized to respond the research questions of this study, which are rewritten here for reasons of convenience: (a) Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘ i + 1’ and the ‘ i - 1’ groups’ reading comprehension after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher reading comprehension in English? and (b) Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘ i  + 1′ and the ‘ i - 1′ groups’ reading motivation after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher motivation towards reading in English?

Results of normality tests

Before conducting any analyses on the pretest and posttest, it was indispensable to peruse the normality of the distributions. Thus, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality was run on the data acquired from the above-mentioned tests. The consequences are presented in Table 1 :

The p values under the Sig. column in Table 3 determine whether the distributions were normal or not. A p value greater than .05 shows a normal distribution, while a p value lower than .05 demonstrates that the distribution has not been normal. Since all the p values in Table 1 were larger than .05, it could be concluded that the distributions of scores for the pretest, posttest, and MRQ obtained from both groups had been normal. It is thus safe to proceed with parametric test (i.e. Independent and Paired samples t-tests and mixed-ANOVA in this case) and make further comparisons between the participating groups. Table  4 displays the means and standard deviations of the participants’ scores on the reading comprehension tests and the MR questionnaire before and after the study.

To answer the first research question, one mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA with two main factors, time (i.e., reading comprehension pretest and posttest) and group (i.e., ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’) was run to examine whether there were significant interaction effects between difficulty levels. Furthermore, independent samples t-tests were run to check the simple main impact of group on the reading comprehension pretest and the posttest, respectively. Finally, paired samples t-tests were done to investigate the simple main impact of time for each group. Tables  5 and 6 shows the results of the mixed ANOVA on the reading comprehension tests.

The results indicated that the main impact of the text difficulty level was not significant [F (1, 52) = 8.945, p  = .004, partial eta squared = .147], proposing a significant difference in the reading comprehension scores of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between difficulty level and time [F (1, 52) = 6.305, p  = .015, partial eta squared = .108], suggesting that over the course of two semesters, the changes in scores from the reading comprehension differed significantly between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. There was also significant main impact of time [F (1, 52) = 6.305, p  = .000, partial eta squared =. 674], suggesting a substantial difference in the reading comprehension scores across two periods. Next to a mixed ANOVA, two independent samples t-tests were run as follow-up tests to check the simple major impact of group on the pretest and the posttest, respectively (Table  6 ).

As Table 6 illustrates, the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups on the pretest (t = .391, p  = .698, d = 0.106358), showing that both the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups were at a similar baseline prior to the experiment. Moreover, the outcomes show a significant difference between the two groups in their posttests (t = 3.644, p  = .001, d = 0.991757) after the intervention. Furthermore, paired-samples t-tests were run as follow-up tests to check the simple main impact of time for each group (Table  7 ).

As illustrated in Table 7 , the findings propose that both groups’ reading comprehension was significantly progressed at the end of this study (t = 7.281, p  = .000, d = 1.978905 for the ‘i + 1’ group’s reading comprehension; t = 8.408, p = .000, d = 2.239838 for the ‘i - 1’ group’s reading comprehension). That is, the reading comprehension of the ‘i - 1′ and the ‘i + 1′ groups significantly enhanced after the intervention of ER. Cohen (1988) expressed that the impact size (Cohen’s d) of 0.2 is small; 0.5 is moderate; and 0.8 is high. Cohen’s effect size values of the ‘i + 1′ and the ‘i - 1′ groups’ paired samples t-tests are d = 1.978905 and d = 2.239838 for reading comprehension, respectively, proposing high practical significance. To response the second research question, first, a mixed ANOVA was run to assess the impact of two discriminatory text difficulty levels (‘i + 1′ vs. ‘i - 1’) on participants’ scores from the MRQ before and after the treatment (Table  8 ).

As Table 8 indicated, there was significant interaction between difficulty level and time [F (1, 52) = 5.816, p  = .019, partial eta squared = .101], suggesting that over the course of the treatment period, the changes in scores from the MRQ differed significantly between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. There was no significant main effect of time [F (1, 52) = 3.355, p  = .073, partial eta squared = .061], proposing no substantial difference in the MRQ scores across the two periods. Moreover, the major impact of the text difficulty level was significant [F (1, 52) = 33.035, p  = .000, partial eta squared = .388], suggesting a difference in the MRQ scores of the two text difficulty levels. After the mixed ANOVA, two independent samples t-tests were run to check the simple main impact of group on the pretest and the posttest, respectively (Table  9 ).

As Table 9 shows, the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups before the treatment (t = 1.173, p  = .246, d = 0.319386), suggesting that both the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’groups were at a similar baseline of MR prior to the experiment. The outcomes also show a significant difference between the two groups in their posttests (t = 5.841, p  = .000, d = 1.589669) after the treatment. In other words, the ‘i + 1′ group was found to have greater increases in their MRQ scores. Furthermore, Cohen’s effect size value of the groups’ independent t-tests on the posttest is d = 1.589669 showing high practical significance. Paired-samples t-tests were also conducted as follow-up tests to check the simple main impact of time for each group (Table  10 ).

As illustrated in Table 10 , the findings propose that the ‘i + 1’groups’ reading motivation was significantly progressed at the end of this study (t = −3.017, p  = .006, d = 0.969698), whereas the ‘i - 1’ groups’ FLRA was significantly decreased after the intervention (t = .408, p  = .687, d = 0.127414). Cohen’s effect size values of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’groups’ paired samples t-tests are d = 0.969698 and d = 0.127414 for reading motivation, respectively) proposing high practical significance for the ‘i + 1′ group and moderate practical significance for the ‘i - 1′ group. In summary, the text difficulty significantly affected the ‘i + 1′ and the ‘i - 1′ participants’ FLRA. The findings imply that the ‘i + 1′ group had greater increases in their MRQ scores.

In brief, the present study aimed to see whether using the i + 1 and i-1 could improve the reading comprehension of EFL learners, and whether there was a difference between the learners’ motivation in this regard or not. The outcomes of the study indicated that this i + 1 significantly improved reading comprehension of the learners in the experimental group; moreover, the motivation of the experimental group (i + 1) was increased after the treatment. Consistent exposure to the input (i.e., graded readers) over the treatment period seemed to have had an important effect on improving participants’ reading comprehension. It could be possible that consistent exposure to written input facilitated the participants’ incidental vocabulary learning (Mikeladze 2014 ; Namaziandost and Nasri 2019 ; Nasri et al. 2018 ; Waring and Takaki 2003 ).

The obtained results may be due the significant role of inputs which the students had received before they produced the language. The comprehensible inputs which the students were subjected to before producing the language greatly helped the students to be able to read English more efficiently. It can be deduced that comprehension proceeds the production.

Students of the experimental group had improvement on the post-test thanks to the treatment they had received. The researcher found that the classes were more challenging and the students were more involved in learning to understand the reading texts. The improvement of the students can be attributed to the ‘i + 1’ reading texts as Krashen ( 1982 ) states input which is somewhat above the present level of competence of the language learner can be conducive to learning. If i is the language learner’s current level of competence in the foreign language, then i + 1 is the following prompt advance along the improvement continuum. Accordingly, if the objective is to help the language student advance in their task, it is basic to furnish the learner with comprehensible input [i + 1].

The researcher observed that the students were more motivated to read and understand the texts that were more difficult for them, they seemed curious to know the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases, consequently, they asked the researcher to provide the meaning of unknown words, phrases, and sentences, and this attempt led to their success in reading comprehension.

More significantly, based on the comparison made between two groups of varying text difficulty, the i + 1 group performed better in reading comprehension and gained better results at the end of the study. This finding is in line with Krashen’s ( 1982 ) input hypothesis. According to Krashen ( 1982 ), it was expected to observe the development of reading comprehension only in the ‘i + 1’ group. For that reason, the similar development in the ‘i - 1’ group’s reading comprehension seems skeptical. The results of statistical analysis accepted such an idea and showed that reading the ‘i - 1’ materials did not improve participants’ reading comprehension. This finding is in contrast with Chiang’s ( 2015 ) research in which the ‘i - 1′ group’s reading comprehension was developed. The results can be due to using ‘i + 1′ materials which provided a situation for participants to expand their reading comfort zone in which they had the opportunity to build up their reading confidence and develop a large sight vocabulary rather than learning new linguistic elements (Abedi et al. 2019b ; Day and Bamford 1998 ; Azadi et al. 2018 ).

Based on Krashen’s ( 1985 ) claims regarding language input and SLA, the basic assumptions of the input hypothesis are summarized as: (1) access to comprehensible input is the main feature of all cases of effective SLA, (2) more quantities of comprehensible input seem to cause faster or better SLA, and (3) lack of access to comprehensible input causes little or no SLA.

A few researchers (Ellis and He 1999 ; Gass and Varonis 1994 ; Long 1982 ) have advocated the input hypothesis by suggesting modified input, interactionally modified input, and modified output as three rich sources of comprehensible input for SLA. Modified input refers to a type of language input that has been modified or simplified in some ways before the language learners are exposed to it, interactionally modified input, on the other hand, originates from input modification that occurs when language learners experience difficulty comprehending a message in interaction with interlocutors, and modified output refers to language learners’ efforts to modify their output to make it more comprehensible to the interlocutor (Ellis and He 1999 ; Long 1996 ; Namaziandost et al. 2019b ).

Based on the results of this study, the author has reformulated Krashen’s designation of the FL/SL comprehensible input hypothesis ( 1985 ) and further recommends that the materials for automaticity training of beginning FL/SL reading be at the level of I or I – 1, containing linguistic elements at or below the learners’ target language competence. On the other hand, the materials for the higher level of linguistic acquisition of advanced second language reading can be at the level of i + 1, containing linguistic elements beyond the learners’ target language competence (Namaziandost et al. 2019d ). As Krashen ( 2007 ) stated, “the wrong way is the hard way; the right way is the easy way” (p. 2). With the wrong reading material, the students may suffer frustration and lose interest in reading; on the other hand, with appropriate reading material, reading can become effortless. When selecting reading material for an extended reading activity, an instructor should consider both text difficulty and learner language proficiency (Namaziandost and Ahmadi 2019 ).

Reading extensively is found to be the single most important source of English input in the foreign language setting. Its aim is mostly two folded in learning: reading to comprehend English and reading to learn English. However, on the one hand, many English learners ignore it’s another important function, i.e. it facilitates speaking by enlarging their knowledge and providing them with more topics to talk about. English should not be only as a subject to be learned, but as a means of communication as well. Not many realize it’s the opportunity to improve speaking by telling others orally what they have read. According to the SLA theories, comprehensible input alone is not enough and when input is negotiated, the learners will possibly internalize what they have learned and experienced (Namaziandost et al. 2018a ). On the other hand, while reading many students tend to focus on syntax and vocabulary and as a result the flow of reading may be interrupted, important information may be ignored and the passage may not be comprehended as a whole. After reading the passage, they may not be able to express its main idea and significant factors orally with fluency. In fact, the poor speaking ability of English learners is not due to their inadequate command of English syntax and vocabulary; but it is due to their too much emphasis on vocabulary, idiomatic usage and sentence structure. David’s success suggests that reading for information and reading to talk about it should be one of the aims sought by learners to practice their English in a foreign language setting.

This study is supported by Bahmani and Farvardin ( 2017 ) who discovered the effectiveness of different text difficulty levels on FLRA and reading comprehension of EFL learners. The final findings uncovered that both text difficulty levels significantly enhanced the participants’ reading comprehension. The outcomes additionally revealed that, the ‘i + 1′ group’s FLRA enhanced, while that of the ‘ i - 1’ group lessened.

The results of this study also revealed that there was significant effect of time suggesting substantial difference in the reading comprehension scores across two periods. However, regarding the other previous studies, time might be less crucial in affecting participants’ reading comprehension. Whether the time of intervention was two months (Mason and Krashen 1997 ), five months (Tanaka 2007 ) or even one year (Chiang 2015 ), reading comprehension increased. It might be possible to identify more obvious differences in reading comprehension between the two groups if the duration of participation in ER could be extended.

To sum up, the positive effect of i + 1 viewed in this study can be ascribed to the vital role of comprehensible language input providing learners with linguistic data that they are able to understand. In the field of SLA, there is a mimic metaphor about language input proposed by VanPattn ( 2003 ) “input is to language acquisition what gas is to a car”. There is language input that is better than other input, just like there is high octane gas that is better than low-octane gas. The “better input” here is comprehensible and meaning bearing. The more comprehensible and meaning –bearing the input is, the more likely it will be turned into intake that learners are able to internalize into their cognitive systems.

In contrast to the common belief that easy materials may increase the motivation of EFLlearners, this study proved that the more difficult materials could increase Iranian EFL learners’motivation towards reading English. It can be claimed that difficult materials have discoverynature, meaning that, students want to discover and understand new things. In addition, students may not have much more motivation to learn easy and ordinary materials without rich content. These results are congruent with former study (Chiang 2015 ; Tanaka 2007 ). Constant offering input appears to have had a significant impact on developing learners’ reading comprehension.

This study compared the effects of i + 1 and i-1 materials on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation. The findings revealed that i + 1 group outperformed the i-1 group. i + 1 material increased reading comprehension and reading motivation of the participants. In addition, it can be concluded that the materials of EFL English textbooks should be one level higher than the current level of the students to motivate and challenge them. This study comes to the conclusion that the input hypothesis of Krashen ( 1982 ) “learners progress in their knowledge of the language when they comprehend language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level” is valid.

The other conclusion which can be drawn from this study is the importance of the EFL learners’ motivation. The motivation of the students should be increased to learn English language more easily since motivation directs behavior toward particular goals, it will augment students’ time on task and is additionally a momentous factor having effect on their learning and development. Motivation boosts cognitive processing. Motivation specifies whether a student will pursue a task (even a difficult one) with enthusiasm or a lackluster attitude. So, it is important to recognize aspects that foster internal motivation in English language learning.

This study provides some implications for teachers who are interested in using ER in their classes. Teachers can take benefit of the ‘i + 1’ or the ‘i - 1’ in ER as a supplementary activity in English courses. This study suggests that ER is effective in improving EFL learners’ reading comprehension, and helpful in enhancing vocabulary, grammar and reading speed regardless of the level of materials learners choose. This study indicates whether the learners choose easier or harder ER materials, they gain more or less similar results in reading comprehension. According to this study, choosing novels based on the participants’ own interests can encourage them to eagerly participate in ER program. Ideally, teachers should consider the value of self-selected materials as a key to a successful implementation of ER.

There are, however, some limitations in the study. The first and actually the major limitation of this study is that as it was carried out on a sample in Ahvaz city of Iran, so the sample could not strongly represent Iranian EFL learners. It means that it was not possible to enjoy randomization since the researcher had access to only these Iranian EFL participants. The second limitation is that there were 54 participants in the current study. In order to gain more evidence about the influence of text difficulty on participants’ FLRM and reading comprehension, more participants are recommended. Third, lack of random sampling was one of the limitations of the study. Random sampling will provide more concrete evidence for the effects of text difficulty on FLRM and reading comprehension. It is recommended to invite larger samples of learners in order to provide an opportunity for selecting them randomly. Fourth, future research can be replicated in ESL contexts. Fifth, in the current study, participants read four novels. Future research needs to provide a big stock of books and also ask participants to read more to maximize the effects of ER. Sixth, future research can focus on the effects of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ hypotheses on other areas of language learning like grammar. Finally, time commitment is important for ER to be reasonably successful; this study lasted for three months which may not be enough for full benefits of ER. Future studies can gain better results if learners participate in ER program for a longer time.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact corresponding author for data requests.

Abbreviations

English as a Foreign Language

Extensive Reading

Foreign Language Reading Motivation

Motivation for Reading Questionnaire

Oxford Quick Placement Test

Second Language Acquisition

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Abedi, P., Keshmirshekan, M. H., & Namaziandost, E. (2019a). The comparative effect of flipped classroom instruction versus traditional instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' English composition writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6 (4), 43–56.

Google Scholar  

Abedi, P., Namaziandost, E., & Akbari, S. (2019b). The impact of flipped classroom instruction on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners' writing skill. English Literature and Language Review, 5 (9), 164–172.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ahmadi, M. R. (2017). The impact of motivation on reading comprehension. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 2 (1), 1–7.

Allen, E., & Vallette, R. (1999). Classroom techniques: Foreign languages and English as a second language . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Azadi, G., Biria, R., & Nasri, M. (2018). Operationalising the concept of mediation in L2 teacher education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9 (1), 132–140.

Bahmani, R., & Farvardin, M. T. (2017). Effects of different text difficulty levels on EFL learners’ foreign language reading anxiety and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29 (2), 185–202.

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes . London: The University of Auckland: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bayat, A., & Pomplun, M. (2016). The influence of text difficulty level and topic on eye movement behavior and pupil size during reading . 2016 2nd International Conference of Signal Processing and Intelligent Systems (ICSPIS).

Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1 (1), 1–13.

Brantmeier, C. (2005). Anxiety about L2 reading or L2 reading tasks? A study with advanced language learners. The Reading Matrix, 5 (2), 67–85.

Carrell, P. L. (2000). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The language teacher. http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp./jalt/pub/tlt/98/mar/carrel.

CEFR Headway placement test . (2012). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chiang, M. (2015). Effects of varying text difficulty levels on second language (L2) reading attitudes and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39 (4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12049 .

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation . Harlow: Longman.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy . West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 , 285–301.

First Certificate in English. (2008). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course . New York: Routledge.

Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 , 283–302.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading . London: Pearson Education.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, P. P. Mosenthal, D. P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume III (pp. 403–422). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 187–213). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996.) Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented readinginstruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 302–332. International Reading Association.

Hairul, N. I., Ahmadi, M. R., & Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). The role of reciprocal teaching strategy as an important factor of improving reading motivation. Elixir Educational Technology, 53 (3), 11836–11841.

Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Shafiee, S. (2018). The effect of implementing flipped classrooms on Iranian junior high school students' reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8 (6), 665–673.

Hitosugi, C. I., & Day, R. R. (2004). Extensive reading in Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16 , 20–39.

Huang, H. (2001). Chinese university foreign language students’ anxiety about reading in English (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses database. (ProQuest no. 3051922).

Iwahori, Y. (2008). Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20 , 70–91.

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language Reading: A cross linguistic approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . New York: PrenticeHall.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications . Beverly Hills: Laredo.

Krashen, S. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 299–322). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures . Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (2007). Free voluntary web-surfing. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3 (1), 2–9.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 59–81.

Lao, D., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System, 28 , 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00011-7 .

Leung, C. Y. (2002). Extensive reading and language learning: A diary study of a beginning learner of Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14 , 66–81.

Long, M. (1982). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Long & C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 339–354). New York: Newbury House.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25, 91–102.

Meng, F. (2009). Developing students’ reading ability through extensive reading. English Language Teaching, 2 , 132–137. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n2p132 .

Mikeladze, T. (2014). Extensive reading . Telavi: Telavi Lakob Gogebashvili State University.

Miller, D. (2008). Reading with meaning teaching comprehension in the primary graders (pp. 53–157). Portland: Stenhouse.

Mirshekaran, R., Namaziandost, E., & Nazari, M. (2018). The effects of topic interest and L2 proficiency on writing skill among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9 (6), 1270–1276.

Moley, P., Bandré, P., & George, J. (2011). Moving beyond readability: Considering choice, motivation and learner engagement. Theory Into Practice, 50 (3), 247–253.

Namaziandost, E., & Ahmadi, S. (2019). The assessment of oral proficiency through holistic and analytic techniques of scoring: A comparative study. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3 (2), 70–82.

Namaziandost, E., & Nasri, M. (2019). A meticulous look at Long’s (1981) interaction hypothesis: Does it have any effect on speaking skill? Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6 (2), 218–230.

Namaziandost, E., & Shafiee, S. (2018). Gender differences in the use of lexical hedges in academic spoken language among Iranian EFL learners: A comparative study. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3 (4), 64–80.

Namaziandost, E., Hafezian, M., & Shafiee, S. (2018a). Exploring the association among working memory, anxiety and Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3 (20), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0061-3 .

Namaziandost, E., Rahimi Esfahani, F., Nasri, M., & Mirshekaran, R. (2018b). The effect of gallery walk technique on pre-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking skill. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 8 , 1–15.

Namaziandost, E., Abedi, P., & Nasri, M. (2019a). The role of gender in the accuracy and fluency of Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ l2 oral productions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6 (3), 110–123.

Namaziandost, E., Hashemifardnia, A., & Shafiee, S. (2019b). The impact of opinion-gap, reasoning-gap, and information-gap tasks on EFL learners’ speaking fluency. Cogent Social Sciences, 5 , 1630150. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1630150 .

Namaziandost, E., Rahimi Esfahani, F., & Ahmadi, S. (2019c). Varying levels of difficulty in L2 reading materials in the EFL classroom: Impact on comprehension and motivation. Cogent Education, 6 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1615740 .

Namaziandost, E., Saberi Dehkordi, E., & Shafiee, S. (2019d). Comparing the effectiveness of input-based and output-based activities on productive knowledge of vocabulary among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4 (2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0065-7 .

Nasri, M., & Biria, R. (2017). Integrating multiple and focused strategies for improving reading comprehension and l2 lexical development of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6 (1), 311–321.

Nasri, M., Biria, R., & Karimi, M. (2018). Projecting gender identity in argumentative written discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 7 (3), 201–205.

Nasri, M., Namaziandost, E., & Akbari, S. (2019). Impact of pictorial cues on speaking fluency and accuracy among Iranian pre-intermediate EF learners. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 8 (3), 99–109.

Nation, P. (1997). The language teaching benefits of extensive reading. The Language Teacher, 21 (5), 13–16.

Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching . Boston: International Edition.

Nuttal, C. (2000). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language . Hong Kong: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Pachtman, A. B., & Wilson, K. A. (2006). What do the kids think? The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 680–684.

Protacio, M. (2012). Reading motivation: A focus on English learners. The Reading Teacher, 66 (1), 69–77.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman (Pearson Education).

Shakibaei, G., Shahamat, F., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). The effect of using authentic texts on Iranian EFL learners' incidental vocabulary learning: The case of English newspaper. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT), 2 (5), 422–432.

Soars, J., & Soars, L. (2010). American headway 1 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tahmasbi, S., Hashemifardnia, A., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). Standard English or world Englishes: Issues of ownership and preference. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 7 (3), 83–98.

Tanaka, H. (2007). Increasing reading input in Japanese high school EFL classrooms: An empirical study exploring the efficacy of ER. The Reading Matrix, 7 (1), 115–131.

Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (Eds.). (1998). Reading in a foreign language: Process, product and practice . Harlow: Longman.

VanPatten, Bill. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Wade, S. E., & Trathen, W. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 (2), 147–166.

Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader Reading in a Foreign language, 15(2), 130-163.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 , 420–432.

Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2004). The development of motivation for reading and how it is influenced by CORI. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 249–272). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wu, J. (2012). The influence of extensive reading on junior high school students ’ reading motivation and reading performance in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest No. 1511139).

Yamashita, J. (2013). Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25 , 248–263.

Ziafar, M., & Namaziandost, E. (2019). Linguistics, SLA and lexicon as the unit of language. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT), 2 (5), 245–250.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Ehsan Namaziandost & Mehdi Nasri

Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran

Meisam Ziafar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors of the research had more or less equal contributions in the process of conception and design, acquisition of data, and analysis and interpretation of data. They have all been involved in revising the manuscript critically to the same extent. All take public responsibility for the whole content. All are equally accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Namaziandost .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Namaziandost, E., Nasri, M. & Ziafar, M. Comparing the impacts of various inputs(I + 1 & I-1) on pre-intermediate EFL learners’ Reading comprehension and Reading motivation: the case of Ahvazi learners. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 4 , 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0079-1

Download citation

Received : 11 May 2019

Accepted : 26 November 2019

Published : 11 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0079-1

Share this article

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

• Comprehensible input
• Extensive reading
• Foreign language reading anxiety
• Reading comprehension
• Text difficulty level

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

What Is Comprehensible Input and Why Does It Matter for Language Learning?

Published on, november 4, 2020, november 15, 2022, this article may contain affiliate links.

Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis is one of the most influential theories of second language acquisition. He argues that Comprehensible Input is the most important factor in learning another language. Here’s why it matters.

Table of contents

There’s a scene in the movie Love Actually where Jamie, played by Colin Firth, is learning Portuguese. He’s sitting in a classroom with row after row of other language students listening to headphones and repeating simple Portuguese phrases, over and over again.

You might recognise the language learning trend that this scene was referencing. It is called the “ Audiolingual Method ” and became popular throughout the 1940s through the 1960s, declining after that. The idea was that if you heard something enough, and you repeated it, you could memorise it and eventually learn the language. 

That is just one of probably hundreds of language learning theories that have picked up steam at some point in the last century and then faded away. 

There are many others. 

When looking at the wide variety of approaches to learning languages, you might be tempted to ask, “Do we actually know anything about how people learn languages?” Especially when so many websites and services claim that their method is “based on science!”

It turns out that we do know quite a bit about language learning, and one of the concepts that has particularly strong support in the research is the input hypothesis developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen . 

So, let’s dive into that. 

In this article, I want to outline the input hypothesis and describe what it proposes about how we learn language. You’ll learn that, if you want to learn English, you will make progress fastest by ensuring that you create opportunities to expose yourself to comprehensible input in English.

What is the Input Hypothesis?

The Input Hypothesis was developed by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s actually a group of 5 hypotheses . They’re a bit complex, but here’s a very simplified version of them:

• The Input Hypothesis states that language learners improve in a language when they are given language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level. Krashen called this “ i + 1” where “i” is a person’s current language level and “+1” represents language that is slightly more advanced than their current level. 
• The Acquisition–Learning hypothesis states that acquisition of language is different to learning language. Krashen argued that learning—what we do when we study grammar rules—doesn’t work nearly as well. Instead, language is acquired and that happens through an unconscious process when we are exposed to comprehensible input.
• The Monitor Hypothesis states that consciously learning language (like studying grammar rules or doing vocabulary exercises) can help a person monitor language output , but it doesn’t result in improvements to using language. In other words, learning grammar rules can help you measure your language ability, but not really improve it. 
• The Natural Order hypothesis states that language acquisition happens in a natural order, which is pretty much the same for everyone. It further says that language instruction doesn’t change this “natural” order. 
• The Affective Filter hypothesis states that affect —how you’re feeling—changes language acquisition ability. Krashen argues that negative emotions, like embarrassment or fear, make a person less able to acquire a language.

What does all that mean?

That’s all a bit complex, but, very simply, Krashen is saying this: the process of “learning a language” is not the same kind of process as, say, learning geography or philosophy. We can’t read a book about it and then come to “know” it. 

Instead, language acquisition happens through an unconscious process. The necessary ingredient—the critical, essential core—of that unconscious process is comprehensible input. 

What is comprehensible input? 

Comprehensible input in English is English language that you can understand. Language inputs are things that you hear (like podcasts, the radio, conversations, and so on) as well as things you read (like books, articles, English blog articles, etc).

Krashen is careful to specify that you can’t just read or listen to anything and improve your language. You have to read or listen to things you can understand. Language acquisition happens best, he says, when the input is just slightly more advanced than your own level. 

What evidence is there for the input hypothesis?

So is Krashen right? Is comprehensible input important? Is there evidence for the input hypothesis?

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that he is.

Evidence in native language learning

For one thing, we’ve known for a long time that children who grow up in richer linguistic environments develop greater linguistic competence in their own language. We also know that students who read more outside of school become better writers . Reading, more than any other activity , is also the best predictor of vocabulary development in adults. 

It’s not just reading. Researchers have also found that children who heard more stories in pre-school were judged to have better linguistic abilities at age 10 .

These findings are consistent with the input hypothesis because each of them suggests a relationship between exposure to language and language ability.

There also seems to be some experimental evidence that suggests it is the language input that is driving the improved language ability. In several studies , researchers have found evidence that reading is more effective than practice exercises for improving vocabulary and spelling. 

Together, these results suggest that it is exposure to language, and not language instruction, that results in better linguistic development.

Evidence in second language learning

This also seems to be the case in acquiring second languages. 

Several studies have found that those language learners with more exposure to language are more proficient in it. There’s also significant evidence that second language learners regularly acquire grammar rules that they have never been taught , demonstrating that language acquisition can happen without instruction. 

We’ve also seen that approaches to language teaching that rely on comprehensible input, such as the Natural Approach or Total Physical Response, can be successful. Similarly, students can effectively learn a language by learning other subjects in that language—indeed, these types of “ immersion ” programmes have very successful learning outcomes. 

These programmes don’t necessarily teach the language, but students acquire the language through substantial input, demonstrating that substantial learning occurs through exposure to the language, even in the absence of direct language instruction. 

The Clockwork Orange study

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this was a study that used the book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. 

If you’re familiar with the book, you’ll know that it contains a number of words from a Russian slang dialect called nadsat. There are 241 nadsat words in the book, and they are each repeated throughout the book 15 times on average. 

The researchers asked study participants to read the book. While most books include a nadsat dictionary, the researchers provided versions of the books without a dictionary, so the subjects couldn’t look up the meaning of the words. After they finished the book, the subjects were given a vocabulary test on the meaning of 90 of those nadsat words.

Subject’s scores ranged from 50 to 96 percent correct on the test, with an average of 76 percent. This demonstrated that these readers had acquired the meaning of at least 45 foreign language words, simply by reading. 

This study demonstrates that significant learning can occur through comprehensible input, even without direct instruction.

Comprehensible input matters

Taken together, the research demonstrates that learning can and often does occur simply from language input—reading and listening. And, it shows that second language acquisition can happen even without teaching or explicit instruction. 

Key takeaway: lots of comprehensible input is how to acquire a language effectively. 

“Compelling” input is best

Krashen further suggests that input should not only be comprehensible but also compelling . That means it should be interesting to the learner . 

Krashen argues that, sure, exposure to comprehensible input is important. But if the learner isn’t interested in that input, they won’t pay attention to it. And attention is an essential component of the learning process. 

Krashen says ,

“To make sure that language acquirers pay attention to the input, it should be interesting. But interest may be not enough for optimal language acquisition. It may be the case that input needs to be not just interesting but compelling.”

Compelling input, he says, is input that is so interesting, you forget it’s in another language.

He gives several examples of this: students who were startled by their improvement in English after they found reading material in English they really enjoyed and became avid readers; or, students who were not interested in learning Mandarin, but who made vast improvements in it after they found stories that they liked to read in Mandarin. 

I’ve written on this myself about Brazilian video gamers making massive progress in English , not because they were trying to learn English, but because they loved playing video games, and those happened to be in English. I’ve argued playing video games is one very effective way to learn a language precisely because it offers lots of comprehensible—and compelling—input. 

Krashen argues that these activities that you find so interesting that you want to keep doing them—even if they’re challenging—are how you can get the input you need to really acquire a language. He says ,

“An important conjecture is that listening to or reading compelling stories, watching compelling movies and having conversations with truly fascinating people is not simply another route, another option. It is possible that compelling input is not just optimal: It may be the only way we truly acquire language.”

This is the entire thesis behind Leonardo English and the English Learning for Curious Minds podcast. It was to provide something compelling and interesting for English learners to listen to. Most traditional listening activities aren’t only boring, they simply don’t work very well. 

What if, we thought, we could create podcasts that English learners actually wanted to listen to ?

What about output?

Okay great, comprehensible input is very important to learning a language. That means lots of listening and reading . 

But what about output? Aren't speaking and writing important, too?

There actually is a comprehensible output hypothesis , proposed by another linguist named Merrill Swain . She argues that some language learning occurs when a learner produces output and notices a gap in their language ability ( How do I say that word again?) . They may then change their output approach, and in so doing, develop their language ability.

Swain acknowledges that this cannot explain all language acquisition , but it may explain some language acquisition.

Krashen disagrees and provides several responses. Three of his arguments are:

• That output is relatively rare in language learning. Language learners do not speak and write nearly as much as they listen or read.
• He provides evidence that some individuals achieve significant language acquisition without much output .
• There is a lack of direct evidence supporting this hypothesis.

He concludes, 

“Given the consistent evidence for comprehensible input, and the failure of other means of developing language competence, providing more comprehensible input seems to be a more reasonable strategy than increasing output [for language learning].”

What does it all mean? 

Researchers seem to agree that speaking and writing help language acquisition. Krashen, himself, acknowledges the utility of writing for improving language development.

But it also seems to be clear that speaking—by itself—is not an effective way to learn a language. We probably need both, but we especially need input.

What does this mean for you—the English learner?

It means a few things:

• Make sure you give yourself lots of input. Read lots and listen lots.
• Make sure your input is appropriate for your level—it should be “comprehensible”. Aim for materials that you can already understand about 70% to 90%. 
• Include output activities ( speaking and writing), but focus on them a bit less than input activities.

Here is some more specific advice for you at various levels of English ability.

The beginner level

If you are a beginner, aim for exposing yourself to lots of input. Find easy reading activities and listening activities you can understand. 

• Choose short listening activities that are easy enough for you.
• Read simple English texts , and read a lot.
• Language apps may be useful at this level to you to build your vocabulary of basic words.
• Feel free to use translation tools like Google Translate . 
• Put a lower priority on speaking and conversation. While these are useful, they may not be as useful as listening or reading. However, speaking activities that provide lots of input, like shadowing , may be especially useful.
• Put a lower priority on focused grammar study. Look up grammar rules when you think it will be useful to you, but don’t spend too much time on this. Most of the important grammar should come intuitively with enough input.

The intermediate level

Intermediate learners are best served by consuming as much comprehensible input as possible. Use native English texts, but modify them so they are accessible for you. Part of that should include engaging in conversation. 

• Do lots of listening activities. English Podcasts are ideal for this , especially those that come with transcripts and key vocabulary to help make it more accessible. English Learning for Curious Minds was created for learners at exactly this level.
• Do lots of reading activities. Read in English every day if you can. The more reading, the better. But, read things you like so that you continue even when it feels challenging. 
• Engage in speaking activities and, if you can, find a conversation partner . Conversation provides lots of input and gives you very useful speaking practice.
• Do writing activities, too. These will help you get better at writing and using language.
• Take time to study grammar rules that you notice you don’t really understand, but do not make this a large focus.

The advanced level

At this level, you should consume native texts. Continue to find texts that are challenging for you, but not too difficult. Consume texts in a variety of genres.

• Listen widely. Listen to lots of different kinds of audios in English.
• Read widely. Continue to read things you’re interested in, but also search out things that are maybe a bit outside your comfort zone.
• Speak regularly. Try to seek out new people to speak with .
• Write when you like. Unless you’re specifically aiming to improve your writing , you can make this a lower priority.
• Don’t actively study grammar, but look up grammar rules if you’re not sure. But remember, you don’t have to follow every grammar rule —native speakers certainly don’t!

The take-away: focus on comprehensible input in English that you enjoy

This article was more scientific than you might have been expecting. But, while sifting through the specifics of the Input Hypothesis is a bit complicated, the takeaway is actually quite simple:

• We learn language through an unconscious process that happens when we’re exposed to it. 
• We’ll learn language the fastest when we’re given lots of language input at a level that we can understand. 
• And, we’re more likely to give ourselves lots of input when we like that input—when we’re listening to or reading material that is interesting to us. 

These days, there are lots of people on the Internet trying to convince you to take English lessons . Sure, language lessons may be appropriate for some people . But I am a language teacher, and I can tell you that not everyone should learn English in the classroom . 

You don’t need English lessons or tutoring. You can learn English on your own.

And your English learning programme doesn’t have to be complicated.

If you do just this one thing, you’ll see improvement in your English ability: make sure that you listen to English and read in it . 

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school . Reading Research Quarterly, 23 (3), 285-303.

Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42 (1), 1-33.

Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2014). Chomsky's universal grammar . John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa . Canadian Modern Language Review, 41 (2), 268-282.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language learning, 44 (3), 449-491.

Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (3), 337-357.

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills . ELT Journal, 43 (1), 4-13.

Hammond, R. M. (1988). Fossilization in second language acquisition: some experimental data from the second language classroom . Lenguas Modernas, 15, 105-113.

Hauptman, P. C., Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1988). Second‐language acquisition through subject‐matter learning: A follow‐up study at the University of Ottawa . Language Learning, 38 (3), 433-475.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26 (2), 175-182.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use . Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Pergamon Press Inc

Krashen, S. (2011). The compelling (not just interesting) input hypothesis. The English Connection, 15 (3), 1.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp.45-77). Academic Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications . Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. ABC-CLIO.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 440-464.

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications. Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom . The Alemany Press.

Lafayette, R. C., & Buscaglia, M. (1985). Students learn language via a civilization course—A comparison of second language classroom environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (3), 323-342.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context . Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 233-253.

Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading . System, 6 (2), 72-78.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S., Madden, C. (Eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-256). Newbury House.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning . Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391. 

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn . Heinemann Educational Books Inc.

You might also like

Any Language You Want by Fabio Cerpelloni

What Is the Pareto Principle and How Can You Use It to Learn English More Effectively?

The Best Podcasts To Prepare For IELTS [2022]

Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Conference on Literature, Art and Human Development (ICLAHD 2022)

The Concept, Content and Implication of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

Among the many theories of second language acquisition, Krashen’s “input hypothesis” is far-reaching and controversial. Krashen’s input hypothesis has laid a foundation for the study of second language acquisition and played a positive role in guiding foreign language teaching. However, there have been some objections to this hypothesis, including concept definition, theoretical basis and language output. Therefore, the author believes that it is necessary to summarize the current research results of the scholars. This paper introduces the content of the “input hypothesis” and its famous i + 1 theory then reviews the empirical research of some experts and scholars, points out its limitations, and a large number of research reports of experts and scholars were retrieved, and the literature was classified and reviewed to clarify the development of the hypothesis in the field of second language acquisition and the future research direction, and provide reference and inspiration for the specific application of the hypothesis in the field of second language teaching.

Download article (PDF)

Cite this article

Taylor Swift Dominates Entire Top 10 on Hot 100. Again

By Ethan Millman

Ethan Millman

Until late 2022, no artist had ever taken up the entire top 10 on the Hot 100. Now Taylor Swift has done it twice. 

Just a day removed from The Tortured Poets Department making history as the second-biggest album debut since Billboard first started tracking streaming numbers for its chart rankings, Swift has broken her own Hot 100 record she previously set with Midnights , taking up every one of the top 14 slots on the chart this week, Billboard announced on Monday. 

Swift became the first artist to ever claim the top 10 following the release of Midnights in November 2022. Drake is the only other artist to have come close to that record, having previously taken nine of the Top 10 when he debuted Certified Lover Boy in 2021. Prior to then, the Beatles were the only act to have completely taken over the Top 5 at the same time. Swift’s 1989 (Taylor’s Version) took seven of the Top 10 spots on the Hot 100 last year.

Trump Allies Hope Kristi Noem’s Puppy Killing Also Kills Her VP Chances

Rolling stones kick-start 'hackney diamonds' tour with thrilling houston concert, kristi noem doubles down on story about killing her dog from memoir: ‘i decided what i did’, supreme court puppet master’s consulting firm clients exposed in leak.

While its streaming numbers were huge at over 891 million streams last week, a sizable bulk of the The Tortured Poets Department ‘s numbers came from 1.91 million sales, buoyed by nearly 20 different physical options.

With Swift’s major week secured, the question now becomes how long she will reign at the top on both charts before she gets dethroned.

Slipknot Bringing Knotfest Back to Iowa to Celebrate Their Debut Album's 25th Anniversary

• Knotfest 2024
• By Jon Blistein

The Weeknd Donates $2 Million to Provide 18 Million Loaves of Bread to Gaza Families

• Gaza Donation
• By Kalia Richardson

Gracie Abrams Is Ready to Release Her Second Album

2024 acm awards: lainey wilson, jelly roll, and chris stapleton will perform.

• Taking the Stage
• By Larisha Paul

Big Sean, Bazzi, and Barry Sanders: The Best Things We Saw at the 2024 NFL Draft in Detroit

• Motown Magic
• By Waiss Aramesh and Joel Hoard

Most Popular

Real-life 'baby reindeer' stalker speaks out following netflix show success, louvre considers moving mona lisa to underground chamber to end 'public disappointment', pauly shore 'was up all night crying' after richard simmons said 'i don't approve' of biopic, asks for meeting as 'you haven't even heard the pitch', sources gave an update on hugh jackman's 'love life' after fans raised concerns about his well-being, you might also like, ‘a band of dreamers and a judge’ review: an imbalanced iranian treasure-hunting doc about its own making, theory’s jeffrey kalinsky leaves role as chief creative officer and chief merchant, the best yoga mats for any practice, according to instructors, martin freeman defends ‘miller’s girl’ role over jenna ortega age gap backlash: ‘we’re not saying it’s great’, reynolds, mcelhenney bring wrexham playbook to club necaxa.

Rolling Stone is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Rolling Stone, LLC. All rights reserved.

Verify it's you

Please log in.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Utah cat found safe in California after sneaking into Amazon return box

Galena survived six days of travel with no food or water before being discovered in relatively good shape by Amazon employee

In the famous Schrödinger’s cat hypothesis, a cat in a box is both alive and dead until someone looks inside – and in the case of one mischievous cat from Utah discovered inside an Amazon return package, it was very much alive.

The cat, Galena, survived being shipped all the way from Lehi, Utah, across the US to California after sneaking into the package. Galena, six, an indoor-only cat, traveled more than 500 miles in a 3-by-3ft shipping container, according to NBC .

Galena endured six days of travel with no food or water, but was discovered in relatively good shape by an Amazon employee.

Her owner, Carrie Clark, first discovered that her beloved companion was missing on 10 April. Family and friends quickly helped her look for the cat, passing around posters.

“Galena, our super shy indoor cat escaped today,” Clark wrote about Galena’s disappearance to a Facebook group for lost pets. “She’s a part of our family and has never been gone this long before.”

A week later, Clark and her husband got an astonishing notification from Galena’s microchip: the cat had been discovered in Los Angeles.

At first she thought the notification was a mistake. But Galena the cat had actually been mailed cross-country.

Brandy Hunter, an Amazon worker at a California warehouse, said co-workers informed that they had found a cat in a returned package, Hunter said on Facebook .

Hunter, who self-described as a “crazy cat lady”, took Galena in for the night, then to a local veterinarian.

When the vet scanned Galena’s microchip the Clarks were instantly notified, and the vet also called the Clarks to confirm Galena was now in their care.

The Clarks hopped on a plane and traveled to California to be reunited. While “much skinnier”, Clark confirmed Galena was “completely unharmed”.

after newsletter promotion

“We’re in awe of all the tender mercies that have taken place. It’s a total miracle!” she posted.

She believes Galena may have gotten into the Amazon box while they were trying to seal the return delivery, she told the New York Times . Because the box already weighed more than 30lb, they did not notice the extra weight.

“She doesn’t meow a lot and she loves boxes, so for her, she was really happy in that moment, I’m sure,” Clark said. “Although I’m sure that wasn’t the case later on.”

Most viewed

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.