In the world of second language acquisition, there are so many philosophers,

researchers and academicians who work hard day and night, in the search of the true
textbook that could sell very well with a catchphrase on the front cover:
100% SUCCESS - GUARANTEED
Although many people thought that we are in great distance to that, there are lots of
realistic theories that we can actually applied in our classroom and proves itself that it
works. One of them that I find appealing and proven on the field is The Input Hypothesis by
Prof. Stephen Krashen. Also know as Krashens Monitor Model, this theory consists of five
hypotheses (and also a recent addition of another one) that leads to different techniques
and approaches for teachers in Second Language Acquisition. In this write-up I will be
reviewing this model and at the same time giving a special focus on the central hypotheses
which is the comprehensible input hypothesis.
When dealing with second language acquisition, I could not stop relating this issue to
technology and how quickly children nowadays learn to use it. Looking back 30 years ago,
using a computer was a daunting task. A lot of people nowadays did not realize that by
getting the computer to do tasks, they are actually talking to the computer. For example,
to use a calculator program in a laptop, one will have to direct the cursor to the buttons,
click on the numbers, mathematical symbols and finally the equal symbol, then it will show
the answer. In the past, most probably this is what we will have to do:
1 Private Sub cmdDOT_Click()
2 txtNUMBER = txtNUMBER + "."
3 End Sub

This is an example of a language script called Visual Basics that we use to talk to
our computers to get a . (a dot) that will show decimal points. Imagine how tedious it is to
finish a more complex question. Many failed to learn this language, its the common factor
of high pay to do this job. Memorizing is the key to success in this language.
What about nowadays? Modern computers has the function of Graphical User
Interface that consist of buttons and symbols that needs to be clicked using a pointing
device to communicate with the computer. Instead of the tedious work of scripts such as
above, one would simply click on the decimal symbol and it will appear. We would also
know that clicking the symbol of a letter will open the place that stores the messages and
emails. The same goes with the telephone symbol, we will quickly know thats the button
you have to click to call someone. So what are these? These are comprehensible inputs.
These are the input that travel as messages, addressed to the kids and they will be able to
understand it as the messages are meaningful to them. (Krashen, 1983) This is the reason
children could learn to use computers and technology within few hours of first encounter.
They are able to understand it because of the inputs given are comprehensible. The same
principal applies to second language acquisition, particularly the language that I am
focusing on which is English.
But still, what if that particular student does not even know the symbol of telephone?
Would she understand what is that button for? In order for learning to succeed, teacher
needs to create a condition whereby the input given to the child is only one step beyond her
current level. Krashen (1981) describe this in a formula popularly known as i+1. i refers
to the current level or prerequisite knowledge that the student already possessed and +1
is how far the input will be. Lets go back to the child who did not know the meaning of the
telephone symbol. If she were to be asked to make calls using the smartphone and the
teachers expects her to know where to click when she only know how to click buttons, but
not buttons with telephone symbol on it, that can be considered as i+2 or even i+3. This
will inhibits her progress to learn how to make calls because the input given are more than
a step beyond her current level. What Ausubel (1963) termed as subsumability was very
much parallel with this theory that emphasize on the input to stay in the i+1 region, not too
far beyond (i+3) or at the same level (i+0) as this could suppress students advancement.
Jayne Moon (2005) in her book Children Learning English has identified several
reasons of why students love or hate English subjects. Those who love it will say I
understand what the teacher said and those who hate it will say I do not understand what
the teacher said. When students understand and able to comprehend what the teacher
said, they will quickly be turned on to learn English. This happen because the students
doesnt feel threatened by the subject, thus lowering their anxiety level. Krashen (1983)
had explained this phenomenon by his Affective Filter Hypotheses.
Looking at learning English as a second language, what sort of comprehensible input
can be given to children? This was the question that I asked myself when I first enter a low
performance year 3 classroom in Jeli, Kelantan, I tried speaking in English to them to
introduce myself. It was a disaster. When I asked them Do you like me as your new
teacher? they will answer yes. I was delighted at first, but as more questions and
sentences uttered by me, it starts to make no sense. They will say yes to everything. They
were not actually understand what I am saying. Taken aback from the disastrous
encounter, I decided to try again, this time I am using all sorts of gestures, pictures, pointing
my fingers here and there to get the message through. My students really understand it
because it make sense to them.
Students advancement is largely related to how much are they being exposed to the
target language. But, entering the class and started to teach and give instruction in total
English will only do nothing to the student. I always put this in my mind whenever I go into
my classroom. Each tasks and instructions are to be delivered using English whenever
possible but I will always make sure that I get the message across to my students. Saying
circle the animals with a hand gesture of drawing a circle in the air makes a huge different
than simply saying it.
A good teacher always think ahead. As a teacher, I will always plan my lesson well
before my actual class. Its like rehearsing for a theater performance. Many teachers failed
and this due to some thought that doing something instantaneous is good. Some teachers
were not able to give comprehensible input to their students when they did not anticipate
what their student will not understand. When planning my lesson, this theory were always in
my mind and as I write the lesson plan, I will predict which are the words or sentences that
my student might not understand and I will create something to assist me in getting them to
understand it without resorting to translating it to Malay language.
For example, when teaching on the topic of Blogging, I predict many students will not
understand what the meaning of Blogging is. But, many of them had been surfing the
internet and been reading various blogs. So what I do is, I will tell them the popular titles of
blogs that they read (which I observed during a fortnight internet surfing session in the
computer lab) and quickly they could relate it to what it means.This practice of predicting
possible incomprehensible input while planning lessons will also get me to pay attention to
what is the current level of my student so that the input that I will give to them is within i+1.
In conclusion, it is important for teachers to understand how our students learn. But
instead of finding what are the different learning style that our students possessed, why
dont we find out the similarities? Krashen (1985) points out that students learn through
comprehensible input and I am very much agree to this notion. Although students will and
determination would largely impact their performance advancement (Seliger, 1983), the
teachers ought to do their best too in delivering the input to them, making sure that each of
our students acquire as much English as possible and ultimately able to converse and use
it in their daily life.