Stephen Krashen is an award-winning, prominent American linguist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California. He has been named to the Multilingual Education Hall of Fame and has won several awards for his contributions to language acquisition and bilingual education.

Stephen Krashen's Comprehensible Input theory and his subsequent research papers are the most well-known, quoted, respected, and complete works ever produced on second language acquisition. Everything he proposes is grounded in solid logic, the observation of real learner experiences, and rigorous research.

In essence, Krashen's theories explain that the best way to learn a second language is not by studying it (through grammar and vocabulary drills), but by extensively reading content that is comprehensible. If the content cannot be understood, you cannot acquire the language. He stresses that the content must match the learner's interests. He explains how grammar and vocabulary drills are not effective, and that engaging instead with content that matches the learner's interests and is just a little above their current level is the best approach.

While all logic and explanations point to this as being the most clear, natural, and effective way to learn a language, a major problem has persisted that has never been truly solved.

That problem is how to create engaging, not overly simplified materials that are comprehensible to learners who do not yet know the language. If a Spanish beginner is not supposed to study vocabulary, then how can that beginner read a mystery novel written entirely in Spanish if he does not know what the words mean? How can it be comprehensible to him?

As Krashen rightly noted, it sounds simple but it is actually extremely hard to create such content.

That is, until now.

This lesson aims to show how NeuroFluent™ Immersion meets all of Krashen's requirements for natural language acquisition. It provides the key to unlocking content of any topic and level, effectively solving the "chicken and egg" problem and enabling Krashen's Comprehensible Input theory to be successfully applied for the learning of any language, across any content, and for all ages and levels.

To recap before we dive in, the NeuroFluent™ Immersion method provides content in a format where each sentence is presented first in the learner's native language (NL), followed immediately by the same sentence in the learner's target foreign language (FL) they wish to acquire.

These paired sentences enable the learner to always understand everything they are reading, regardless of its vocabulary or complexity. This way, learners do not have to first learn vocabulary in order to understand the content that interests them and they wish to read; they can read it from the very beginning and passively acquire vocabulary through the act of reading.

 

The Two Ways of Language Acquisition: Academic (Conscious) and Natural (Subconscious)

A fundamental concept is Krashen's explanation of the two ways languages are learned. One is academic (studying the language) and conscious; the other is natural (passively absorbing it) and subconscious.  

Krashen:

“The first way [adults learn a second language] is language acquisition, a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in their first language.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process; language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication. 

The result of language acquisition, acquired competence, is also subconscious. We are generally not consciously aware of the rules of the languages we have acquired. Instead, we have a "feel" for correctness. Grammatical sentences "sound" right, or "feel" right, and errors feel wrong, even if we do not consciously know what rule was violated.

Other ways of describing acquisition include implicit learning, informal learning, and natural learning. In non-technical language, acquisition is "picking-up" a language.

The second way to develop competence in a second language is by language learning. We will use the term "learning" henceforth to refer to conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms, learning is "knowing about" a language, known to most people as "grammar", or "rules". Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a language, or explicit learning."

 

In summary, the way second languages are taught nowadays is typically by "studying" the language—how it works and how sentences are structured.

This is like a scientist studying the chemical and atomic compositions of each ingredient in a meal. He counts every pea, weighs each potato to ensure it is the exact weight, measures the width and thickness of the steak, and counts the milligrams of salt.

Only after learning all the components of that meal's makeup does the studious scientist reverse-engineer it to recreate the dish. While the meal can be recreated in that scientific, rigid way, it is a slow, difficult, and often stressful task.

Because he must follow an exact formula, he may be stressed and over-examine each step, afraid to make a mistake by using 0.2 milligrams more salt than needed or two peas too many. The "cooking" process is clunky and agonizingly slow. Learning to cook multiple meals this way requires years of meticulous, rigid, and tedious study.  

On the other hand, a chef may observe how a meal is made. He watches how long the steak is fried, how the peas are cooked, and how the potatoes are peeled. He does not take a scientific approach like a forensic detective; instead, he learns passively by observation.

When it is his turn to cook, he might at first use too much salt or overcook the peas, but he quickly learns by "feel" and taste what is correct and what is wrong. Soon, he is cooking without a tape measure or a scale, and not by counting peas, but by a natural "feel" for it.

The learning process was easy and natural; reproducing the meal is effortless and stress-free. He may even feel confident enough to experiment with other combinations—carrots instead of peas or yams instead of potatoes—changing quantities as needed depending on the guests present.  

This is the same with second language acquisition.  

The academic studies how sentences are built and why a word appears before or after another, focusing on grammar rules. The academic also studies what words mean through vocabulary drills, much like measuring and weighing peas.  

The natural language acquirer does none of that; he simply observes, understands, absorbs, and naturally acquires vocabulary. He develops a natural "feel" for grammar, including sentence structure, tenses, and conjugations.  

The natural, subconscious language acquisition process is always easier, involving less struggle and stress.

Language learned subconsciously is also remembered longer, or even permanently, while consciously studied language is often forgotten. Many learners share on forums that they studied a language like French for many years at school but forgot it soon after graduating and ceasing to use it.

In contrast, people who acquired a second language naturally at home or in their country of birth typically retain it for life. The language might get "rusty" when unused, but it remains locked away in the brain, waiting to be reactivated. When exposed to that language again, they typically understand it, even if they need a bit of time to "oil the wheels," think in that language, and begin speaking fluently again.

 

Meaning Must Come First for Real Learning to Take Place

Krashen:

"We acquire [a language], in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is "a little beyond" where we are now. How is this possible? How can we understand language that contains structures that we have not yet acquired? The answer to this apparent paradox is that we use more than our linguistic competence to help us understand. We also use context, our knowledge of the world, our extra-linguistic information to help us understand language directed at us… The input hypothesis says […] we acquire by "going for meaning" first, and as a result, we acquire structure!”  

 

Basically, we need to understand what we hear or read in a desired foreign language and it must be a little above our current level. While this theory is sound, in practice, it has proven extremely difficult to create such content for learners until now.  

 

How language learning schools and platforms have approached it so far:

For total beginners, they provide extremely simple "slice of life" stories (e.g., Joe goes to the gym, Anna makes lunch) with very few words, short sentences, and a dictionary to help you decode the text. Then, painfully slowly, they increase the difficulty by providing slightly longer episodes (e.g., Anna invites Ben for lunch, Joe orders a pizza after the gym).

Each story always requires vocabulary study because, otherwise, the learners cannot understand the content at all. After a very long time, you might eventually reach a level where you have studied enough vocabulary to read a slightly more interesting story, perhaps a short romance or a trip to Mexico.

This process is extremely slow. Even though the content does not exclusively focus on vocabulary drills, it still relies on them, and the stories themselves are typically described as "boring" by the readers.

None of these traditional methods meet Krashen's full requirements because:

• The content is not what learners would naturally read in their native language for pleasure. Very few adults would choose to read simple "slice of life" stories in their free time; they would prefer a 300-page drama, a romance novel, or a mystery.
• Vocabulary drills are present, which contradicts Krashen's theory of avoiding drills in favor of content that learners genuinely enjoy.  
• The content is typically not easy to understand (comprehensible) without prior vocabulary study.

 

NeuroFluent™ takes a different approach:

• The content is always comprehensible due to the paired translations.  
• The translations consist of entire sentences rather than single words, meaning no vocabulary drills are present. Instead, there is just one continuous, enjoyable reading process from start to finish.
• The content matches the learner's interests and consists of material they would naturally want to read in their native language.
• Content can be "just above" the learner's level—or even much above it—while remaining fully comprehensible and enjoyable to read.
• Learners acquire new words naturally without the need for rote memorization.
• Second language learning takes place in a natural way, leading to natural acquisition rather than academic 'knowledge' of the language.
• They acquire a natural "feel" for the language through extensive reading and exposure.  
• This allow them to naturally acquire the language in a subconscious way instead of the academic, conscious, and studious way.

 

How Fluency Really Develops

Krashen:

"speaking fluency cannot be taught directly. Rather, it "emerges" over time, on its own..."  

"The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach speaking, according to this view, is simply to provide comprehensible input."  

"Early speech will come when the acquirer feels "ready"; this state of readiness arrives at somewhat different times for different people, however... Part (4) of the input hypothesis is thus: (4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly.”  

 

This is why the NeuroFluent™ method is ideal; it provides a vast, possibly indefinite quantity of input—all the comprehensible input needed to lead to natural fluency and speech.

This is also why the NeuroFluent™ method emphasizes not forcing output or production (speech) before the learner is ready. Just as you would not shake a baby and demand, "Speak! Speak!" before they are ready, you should not "shake" your learners. Let them absorb and remember; when they are ready, they will speak naturally.

Forcing premature speech can cause stress, as the learner does not yet have a full, instinctive "feel" for the language or enough vocabulary mapped in their mind to formulate full sentences and express what they want to say.

 

The Silent Period is natural and nothing to worry about

Many learners and educators worry that if the learner is not actively speaking or producing the language, learning is not taking place.

But the truth is that speaking is not the first stage of language learning; it comes only much later, in a natural way, once the learner has acquired enough of the foreign language to be able to naturally speak.

The "silent period" at the beginning of language acquisition is completely normal.

Krashen: 

"Evidence from second language acquisition: the silent period and L1 influence. The input hypothesis is also consistent with other findings and hypotheses in second language acquisition.

One of these can be termed the "silent period", a phenomenon that is most noticeable in child second language acquisition. 

It has often been noted that children acquiring a second language in a natural, informal linguistic environment may say very little for several months following their first exposure to the second language. What output there is consists usually of memorized language, whole sentences learned as if they were one word... 

The "silent period" seen in informal child second language acquisition may last as long as six months! During this time, the child may produce very little in the second language, other than routines and a few patterns...

The explanation of the silent period in terms of the input hypothesis is straight-forward-- the child is building up competence in the second language via listening, by understanding the language around him.

In accordance with the input hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding.

We should note that case histories dealing with children acquiring second languages (see also Hakuta, 1974; Ervin-Tripp, 1974) agree that several months may elapse until they start talking, and that the speech that emerges is not error-free.

Adults, and children in formal language classes, are usually not allowed a silent period. They are often asked to produce very early in a second language, before they have acquired enough syntactic competence to express their ideas.

According to a hypothesis first proposed by Newmark (1966), performers who are asked to produce before they are "ready" will fall back on first language rules, that is, they will use syntactic rules of their first language while speaking the second language… The advantages are short term, however, while the disadvantages appear to be quite serious… It may temporarily enhance production, but may not be real progress in the second language. The real cure for "interference", according to Newmark, is not drill at the points of contrast between the two languages (Newmark and Reibel, 1973, p. 239).

Drill will, at best, produce learning, and, as we have seen, this is only a short term cure. The real cure "is simply the cure for ignorance" (Newmark, 1966, p. 81): real language acquisition. This can happen only when the acquirer obtains comprehensible input"

 

Do Learners Need to Practice Speaking in Early Stages?

Krashen:

“The Role of Output [in language acquisition].
The Input Hypothesis makes a claim that may seem quite remarkable to some people-- we acquire spoken fluency not by practicing talking but by understanding input, by listening and reading.

It is, in fact, theoretically possible to acquire language without ever talking.

This has been demonstrated for first language acquisition by Lenneberg (1962), who described the case of a boy with congenital dysarthria, a disorder of the peripheral speech organs, who was never able to speak. When Lenneberg tested the boy, he found that the child was able to understand spoken English perfectly. In other words, he had acquired "competence" without ever producing.

Output aids learning because it provides a domain for error correction. When a second language user speaks or writes, he or she may make an error. When this error is corrected, this supposedly helps the learner change his or her conscious mental representation of the rule or alter the environment of rule application. (See discussion of Hypothesis (1), Chapter II.)....

...we will be able to keep the [affective] filter low by not insisting on too-early production, before the student is "ready".

Language teachers (and students) associate progress in second language acquisition with speaking fluency ("Do you speak French?"), and the logical consequence of this is that we want our students to talk from the beginning.

My personal view is that forcing early production, before the student has built up enough competence through comprehensible input, is perhaps the single most anxiety-provoking thing about language classes!

While some students may want to talk as soon as possible, others may feel less secure until they have built up more competence. In other words, the length of the silent period is variable. A safe procedure is simply not to force production and let the student decide when to start talking."

 

In summary, the best practice is not to force people to memorize sentences and repeat them like a senseless parrot. One should not memorize grammar rules and vocabulary or force learners to string words together into rigid, clunky sentences before they are ready to speak.

Instead, simply expose them to a wealth of comprehensible input that matches their interests and let it do its job. Over time, when they are ready, they will begin to think in that language and naturally speak their thoughts.  

If your learners read a bilingual NeuroFluent™ story out loud and make significant pronunciation mistakes, you can gently correct them as long as you are not interrupting them consistently or making them feel defensive or stressed. 

Therefore, the NeuroFluent™ method suggests that having learners read out loud in a foreign language should only be introduced at a later stage, after they have had enough input to learn how to pronounce words correctly. This is achieved by listening to and reading NeuroFluent™ content that is read by a native speaker of both languages and pronounced correctly.

At that stage, they might instinctively recognize words and remember how to pronounce them, requiring very little correction. The corrections they do receive will not be as stressful as those given when they were complete beginners who did not know how to pronounce what they were reading and were, therefore, extra stressed or "frozen". Once they know how to pronounce words, they experience less stress regarding how to do it.

Just like a child who has ridden a small bike, a tricycle, or a bike with support wheels, they are less stressed about riding a bigger, newer one. Even if they might wobble a bit at first, it is not as scary as if they were placed on a large bike to begin with without ever having ridden a small one before. In general, psychology shows us that people are afraid of the unknown. 

Diving into reading an unknown language is a scary challenge; reading a familiar language is far less intimidating.

 

Krashen's Three Variables to Successful Second Language Acquisition

Krashen:

“Research over the last decade has confirmed that a variety of affective variables relate to success in second language acquisition (reviewed in Krashen, 1981).

Most of those studied can be placed into one of these three categories: 
(1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative"13 
(2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition. 
(3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety.”

Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter--even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device.

Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike "deeper" (Stevick, 1976)."

 

How NeuroFluent™ Fulfills These Three Requirements

Motivation: Exciting fiction stories or nonfiction narratives naturally create curiosity, making readers want to continue reading to find out what happens next. This leads to high motivation to stay engaged with the material, thus continuously absorbing the second language presented within it. 

Nonfiction educational content that matches their interests also drives motivation, as it is something they are naturally curious or passionate about—whether they want to learn for pleasure or need to learn for their studies, career, or work. 

Motivation is provided by personal enjoyment and by using the content to reach a goal, such as a dream job, a happier relationship, or deeper knowledge in a field of interest like psychology.

Self-confidence: Because there are no tests, no need to repeat memorized sentences where one might make mistakes, and no exercises requiring the memorization of rules or vocabulary, there is no stress.

When learners fail during lessons, their self-confidence drops; they may feel incompetent or think, "I’m bad at languages. I’ll never learn to speak fluently. I’m stupid". This harms self-confidence.

When none of these stressors are present, and all the content they read is comprehensible, they begin to recognize familiar, repeating words without needing to "study" them, and their confidence increases. They think, "I’m so smart. I’m remembering more words and understanding more each day without even studying! I must be good at languages". This increases self-confidence.

At a later level, when they can read confidently in the second language and are mainly focusing on the foreign language sentences, having the translations present removes all uncertainty and stress. It provides a fallback if they are unsure about anything, preventing them from feeling "dumb" by having to ask a teacher what a word means or grab a dictionary, which leads to stable self-confidence.

Anxiety: NeuroFluent™ removes anxiety because learners are never "dropped and drowning" in pure immersion where they do not understand what they are reading or hearing.

Instead, they are like a baby gently placed in a pool with a large, safe floating ring and arm floats. They splash about, laugh, and enjoy the water, never feeling like they are drowning.

 

Krashen’s Characteristics of Optimal Input for Second Language Acquisition

Krashen determined 4 clear requirements for creating optimal learning content to enable leaners to naturally acquire a foreign language. 
These are the 4 essential elements.

Krashen:

"1. OPTIMAL INPUT IS COMPREHENSIBLE 
This is clearly the most important input characteristic. It amounts to the claim that when the acquirer does not understand the message, there will be no acquisition. 
In other words, incomprehensible input, or "noise", will not help...

It explains why it is practically impossible for someone to acquire a second or foreign language merely by listening to the radio, unless the acquirer speaks a very closely related language. A monolingual English speaker, for example, hearing Polish on the radio, would acquire nothing because the input would be only "noise".

This requirement also explains the apparent failure of educational TV programs to teach foreign languages. The input is simply not comprehensible. My own children watched programs such as Ville Allegre faithfully for years, and acquired about as much as I did: They could count from one to ten in Spanish and recognize a few words such as casa and mesa.

 

This is why many people who try to immerse themselves in a foreign language—such as by listening to Spanish-only podcasts and audiobooks, reading Spanish-only books, or watching Spanish-only TV shows—feel overwhelmed and fail to actually learn the language.

When they hear a podcast in another language but do not understand what is happening, it is just "noise," as Krashen puts it, and they do not learn anything.

NeuroFluent™ makes all content comprehensible through the consistently paired bilingual format. Whether it is audio, podcasts, articles, books, or videos, the content is always fully comprehensible and never just "noise".

Krashen:

"the main function of the second language teacher is to help make input comprehensible, to do for the adult what the "outside world" cannot or will not do."

In the case of NeuroFluent™ content, the material itself (the "outside world") already makes the input comprehensible due to its paired bilingual format.

 

Krashen:

"2. OPTIMAL INPUT IS INTERESTING AND/OR RELEVANT 

... the best input is so interesting and relevant that the acquirer may even "forget" that the message is encoded in a foreign language. 

Creating materials and providing input that meet this characteristic may appear to be an easy and obvious task, but my view is that, in reality, this requirement is not easy to meet, nor has the profession considered it obvious.

It is very difficult to present and discuss topics of interest to a class of people whose goals, interests, and backgrounds differ from the teacher's and from each other's.

I also claim that relevance and interest have not been widely perceived as requirements for input, since so many materials fail to meet this requirement.

It is fairly easy to think up examples of input that, while comprehensible, are universally perceived to be uninteresting and irrelevant. Among the most obvious examples are pattern drill, and most dialogue type exercises.

Experimental evidence suggests that students pay little or no attention to meaning after the first few repetitions in pattern drill (Lee, McCune, and Patton, 1970), and the same result is most likely true for dialogues that are memorized by rote.

Grammatical exercises also fail as input for acquisition on similar grounds...

... the reading assignments that most foreign language students work through in introductory courses. Generally, these selections bear very little resemblance to the kind of reading the students would do in their first language on their own time."

 

In other words, the content should be easy to understand and genuinely interesting. Short "slice of life" stories, dry dialogues, overly simplified content for beginners, or content way below the learner's intellectual level at their age (such as reading childish red riding hood fairy tales to adults) fail to grab a learner's interest.

NeuroFluent™ solves this by creating content that is so interesting and relevant that learners "forget" it is in another language because they are so engrossed in reading or listening to it.

 

Krashen:

"3. OPTIMAL INPUT IS NOT GRAMMATICALLY SEQUENCED 

.... there is no need to deliberately include i + 1, since it will occur naturally.

The strong form may be called for instead: it may be better not to even attempt to include i + 1....

... it is extremely unlikely that all the students in any class are at the same stage."

 

As Krashen explains, even in the same class, it is rare for all students to be at the same level.

The NeuroFluent™ approach, with its six levels, provides content for all learner stages. The same core content can be written in simple, short sentences with basic vocabulary, or in longer sentences with a higher level of complexity.

All versions of the same material can be provided to learners in the same class.

Depending on their own level or comfort with the content's length, they can choose which version they prefer to study. This enables everyone to follow along and learn the same subject matter while being able to naturally pick i+1 or even i+3, without the material ever becoming difficult to understand.

NeuroFluent never creates boring, rigid content around specific words or phrases such as scripted dialogue or survival phrases found in handbooks and dictionaries. This also aligns with Krashen's next recommendation.

Krashen:

"Unsequenced but natural input, it is hypothesized, will contain a rich variety of structure--if it is comprehensible, there will be i + 1 for everyone as long as there is enough input…

When we attempt to present a "finely-tuned" sequence, we generally present each structure or rule once. (There is the "review" lesson and there are attempts at recycling, but review does not usually work through the entire sequence of activities--its goal is generally to "remind" and provide some additional practice for a rule that is supposedly already "internalized".)

What happens to the student who misses the rule the first time around?

Traditional review, meant as a reminder, will often not help. In traditional foreign language learning, as done in the United States, the student may even have to wait until next year, when the rule is presented again.

Unsequenced communicative input contains built-in review. We don't have to worry if we miss the progressive tense today, it will be part of the input again... and again.

Comprehensible input thus guarantees us natural review and recycling, assuming, as mentioned above, that there is enough of it."

 

By reading a broad variety of NeuroFluent™ content, even if a student forgets what a word means, they will likely encounter it again soon in another story or article. This repeated exposure builds grammar and vocabulary naturally, without having to perform traditional reviews or re-read old materials to "catch up" with the class.

 

Krashen:

"4. OPTIMAL INPUT MUST BE IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY

Clearly, five minutes of talk, or a single paragraph of reading, has little chance of including a given student's i + 1."

 

While the professor didn't provide specific guidelines for how much content is necessary, NeuroFluent™ suggests at least 30 minutes a day, and ideally one hour per day, of reading or listening to receive enough varied input. 

If learners read an in-depth article or chapter of at least 2,000 words a day, within a year, that equals over 730,000 words, which provides a wealth of comprehensible input and repetition of common vocabulary needed to build natural language acquisition and fluency.

 

To summarize Krashen’s four rules of natural language acquisition:

The content must be:

1. Comprehensible: The learner must understand what they are hearing or reading.
2. Relevant, engaging, and interesting: It should consist of stories or nonfiction that they would naturally want to read in their own language.
3. Not rigidly structured for "learning" purposes: It should not be built around grammar or vocabulary lessons, but simply consist of natural content with words appearing naturally throughout.
4. Plentiful: Learners must engage with a large amount of content each day to gain sufficient exposure. 

Content created with the NeuroFluent™ Immersion Method meets all four of these requirements.

 

Acquiring a Second Language through Extensive Pleasure Reading

Krashen recommends multiple times extensive reading in the foreign language for personal enjoyment.

Krashen: 

"I do not mean intensive reading, analysis of written prose, reading and then answering questions of content, or reading as preparation for discussion or writing assignments. The sort of reading to be analyzed here is extensive, and concerns subject matter that the student would read in his first language for pleasure. It is completely voluntary. In doing pleasure reading, readers have the option of skipping whole sections they find either too difficult or less interesting (e.g. detailed descriptions in fiction). They even have the option of putting the book or story down and selecting another after reading a few pages. They can skip words they do not understand, if they think they are following the main point, and they have the option, of course, of looking up every word, if that is their style. In other words, we are considering pure pleasure reading.

What is read depends on the student and what is available to him. For some people, it may be mystery novels, for others, science fiction, and for others, comic books.

The only requirement is that the story or main idea be comprehensible and that the topic be something the student is genuinely interested in, that he would read in his first language."

 

NeuroFluent™ books, stories, podcasts, and articles provide a wide range of topics for pleasure reading across all ages and interests, while remaining fully comprehensible to all levels regardless of their topic or difficulty.

 

Acquiring a Second Language Through Reading Subject Matter Content

Krashen:

"Using subject matter for language teaching 

Another class of alternatives to classroom teaching involves the use of subject matter in the second language classroom, using the second language as a vehicle, as a language of presentation and explanation.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. Subject matter may not always be interesting, but it is relevant. When students are focused on the subject matter, there is a very good chance they will be focused off the form of the language it is presented in. Subject matter affords a good chance of meeting the "forgetting principle", of the student being so focused on what is said that he is not aware of how it is said.

Subject matter teaching has, thus, the full potential for encouraging language acquisition."

 

NeuroFluent™ enables the creation of limitless subject matter content for all levels and interests, thus enabling this form of content to also be used in natural language acquisition.

 

Are Classes Needed, or Can One Learn from Content Alone?

Krashen:

"LANGUAGE TEACHING: DOES IT HELP? 

If acquisition is more central, and learning of less use to second language performance, and if comprehensible input and the filter are the essential causative variables for second language acquisition, the classroom should help only to the extent it supplies comprehensible input in an environment conducive to a low filter. This may indeed be, as mentioned earlier, its main function. 

It seems reasonable to hypothesize that the classroom should be especially valuable for beginners, those who cannot easily utilize the informal environment for input. It will be of less value to those who can, who have other sources of comprehensible input, and who are linguistically advanced enough to take advantage of it.

… language teaching helps when it is the main source of low filter comprehensible input, that is, for beginners and for foreign language students who do not have a chance to get input outside the class. It will be of less help when rich sources of input are available."

 

In other words, Krashen suggests that a class is primarily needed because a bilingual teacher can explain words to beginners who do not yet know any vocabulary in the second language and would otherwise struggle to understand it on their own.

However, NeuroFluent™ solves this problem.

With NeuroFluent™, there is no need to have someone hold your hand through the initial stages of learning basic vocabulary before you can engage with the content you actually want.

You do not need a translator at your side. Instead, the content is comprehensible from the very start.

Therefore, the content itself provides all the understanding, meaning, and input needed for all levels, including absolute beginners.

 

Krashen shares two examples of how classes are not always useful. 

Krashen:

"When language teaching does not help

Two studies deal with child second language acquisition and both with English as a second language. Fathman (1975) found no significant differences in English proficiency between children who had ESL instruction and children who did not. All children in her study, however, 35 were enrolled in English-medium public schools in Washington, D.C. and all had been in the United States from one to three years. It can be hypothesized that they were getting comprehensible input from the school and playground, and the extra input from the ESL class did not make a difference (nor did grammar and drill!). 

Hale and Budar (1970) studied immigrant adolescents in Hawaiian junior high schools. In their paper (titled "Are TESOL classes the only answer?"), they noted that the subjects formed a natural division. One group was composed of students who spoke less common languages. These students did not have the "benefit" of a formal ESL program and were isolated from speakers of their own language. The second group consisted of students who had the chance to associate with other students who spoke their own first language. These students did attend ESL classes. Hale and Budar report that the first group actually made better progress in English, a finding that seems to question the value of ESL classes. The first group, however, may have had more comprehensible input, possibly through having to associate more with English speakers and with other non-native speakers using English as a lingua franca. This study also fits our generalization and confirms that the issue is not plus or minus ESL or language teaching but plus or minus low filter comprehensible input.

Two adult studies also appear to decide against the classroom. Upshur (1968) studied three groups of ten foreign students studying law at a special summer session at the University of Michigan. All students took seminars and classes that used English as the medium of instruction. In addition, they took formal ESL classes, each group taking a different amount, depending on placement scores. Upshur's analysis of their progress in English over the summer revealed no significant effects attributable to the amount of instruction they received: those with more ESL did not necessarily acquire more than those with less over the course of the summer.

Mason (1971), in a study done at the University of Hawaii, simply allowed a small group of intermediate15 level international students to postpone a required ESL class for a semester. Their progress in ESL was compared to students who actually took the course. Mason reported no significant differences between the two groups. The two adult studies are consistent with the hypothesis. In both 36 cases, students had a rich source of comprehensible input outside the classroom, and in both cases they were advanced enough to be able to utilize it.

I conclude from this that language teaching certainly can help. Its primary function is to supply comprehensible input for those who can not get it elsewhere, those constrained by their situation (i.e. foreign language students who do not have input sources outside the class) or by their competence (those unable to understand the language of the outside world).

While it is less useful for those who have other sources of input, there still are things the competent classroom can contribute to the intermediate student.”

 

On any forum you visit, you will find countless examples shared by language learners of how they or their children have been in language classes for years and still cannot speak or understand fast, spoken content in the foreign language.

However, classes themselves are not useless; their value depends on the content delivered and used within them.

If teachers focus exclusively on grammar rules, speech production may be very slow, or learners might drop out before they ever reach a fluency level.

If teachers use NeuroFluent™ content instead, they can build a structured curriculum that provides the comprehensible input needed based on their students' interests—or a mix of general interests that appeal to all of them—add learning games and activities, and provide a structured path for students to follow toward natural language acquisition and fluency.

The ideal role of a class is to create, tailor, or implement a suggested NeuroFluent™ curriculum and keep learners accountable to ensure they progress through it consistently and successfully.

On their own, a learner might start reading NeuroFluent™ content for a week, then get too busy with life or social media and forget to continue. They might feel overwhelmed by the amount of content to choose from, pick one story, and then not know what to select next or in what order. Alternatively, they might stick to a specific topic only, such as ancient history, because it is most interesting to them, and thus miss out on other important vocabulary found in different contexts.

In a class, the teacher can ensure students read and listen to content selected for their specific level and interests. The teacher ensures they go through the entire curriculum from start to finish without distractions or postponements due to personal or career events.

The teacher acts as a guide and a learning partner, keeping them on track. She can also prompt them to keep engaging with NeuroFluent™ content daily even outside of the class by assigning "homework," such as listening to certain episodes or reading specific books, in addition to the content used during the class.

 

Excessive Self-Correction

Why do some learners of traditional language programs feel the notorious "fear" of speaking? Why do they struggle endlessly to form sentences, speaking in a slow, clunky manner, or remain unable to speak even when they "know" the language or can understand a native speaker's speech?

Krashen explains that our minds possess a "Monitor" that helps correct the sentences we are about to say or write. Native speakers may type out a grammatical or spelling mistake, and their Monitor detects it and prompts them to fix it. Alternatively, they might start to say something, then change their mind and adjust how they say it. This is natural, automatic, and fast because they have an instinctive "feel" for how the language is correct.

As a side note, when people grow up in a community of immigrants where the only type of English they are exposed to is full of specific signature errors unique to that community, they learn that those errors are the correct form of speech. Their Monitor then "corrects" their speech or writing in an erroneous way. This is not a problem of Monitor malfunction; on the contrary, it is doing its job perfectly. It is simply an input problem: if you are given erroneous input that you believe is correct, you will reproduce it.

The Monitor is active in all humans. However, there is a major difference in how active, rigid, or flexible it is based on how the language was learned. The issue with academic learners—those who study a language consciously—is that they lack a natural feel for the language.

Relying on consciously memorized rules and rigid guidelines without enough exposure to meaningful content causes them to overuse their Monitor. Their brain does not trust itself, so they overthink, second-guess every sentence, self-correct constantly, and lose all fluency.

Krashen:

"Monitor Over-users.

These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language.

As a result, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency.

There may be two different causes for over-use of the grammar. Over-use may first of all derive from the performer's history of exposure to the second language.

Many people, victims of grammar-only type of instruction, have simply not had the chance to acquire much of the second language, and may have no choice but to be dependent on learning.

Another type may be related to personality. These overusers have had a chance to acquire, and may actually have acquired a great deal of the second language. They simply do not trust this acquired competence and only feel secure when they refer to their Monitor 'just to be sure'."

 

When a student has only studied grammar rules or vocabulary, they must refer to the Monitor constantly to piece together sentences, which makes speech feel unnatural. 

This is why acquiring a language in a natural way is the best path to avoid stress and clunky speech. 

With NeuroFluent™, once a learner acquires a native level of the language, their Monitor will only be moderately active, just like that of a native speaker. This reduces confusion and slow speech, leading to natural communication.

 

Krashen on how grammar studies influence Monitor use:

"We should not expect most students to successfully apply conscious rules to their output during oral conversation-- there is, obviously, little time.

People who do attempt to think about and utilize conscious rules during conversation run two risks. First, they tend to take too much time when it is their turn to speak, and have a hesitant style that is often difficult to listen to.

Other overusers of the Monitor, in trying to avoid this, plan their next utterance while their conversational partner is talking. Their output may be accurate, but they all too often do not pay enough attention to what the other person is saying!

Some people are better than others at Monitor use, and may actually be able to successfully use a fair number of conscious rules 'on line'.

Most people run the risk of seriously endangering the success of the conversation when they try to Monitor during casual talking.

The place for Monitor use is when the performer has time, as in writing and in prepared speech."

 

Should You Be Concerned if the Student's Initial Speech is Error-Prone?

Krashen:

"Early speech, moreover, is typically not grammatically accurate. Accuracy develops over time as the acquirer hears and understands more input."

Just as a child might first speak in clunky sentences with incorrect grammar and conjugations, language learners go through the same process. Their minds begin to recall certain words or combinations but do not yet recall everything needed to produce fluent, correct sentences.

This is like the first stages of putting together a puzzle. You try different pieces and shapes, piecing them together in various ways. The child has a clear image of the final picture they want to create, but they need to test different combinations until they find the pieces that connect seamlessly. In the same way, a second language learner needs to practice putting together words they remember until they can connect them all correctly.

Errors are a natural part of the early speech process; they will naturally be ironed out as comprehension and fluency develop. Some people worry that if learners are allowed to produce errors, it will "ruin them" for life.

But think of a child who says "me hungry" or "me eat pasta". No one assumes the child is ruined; they simply continue to naturally speak to the child with correct grammar. As Krashen stated, most parents don't even bother correcting the child's grammar. Over time, the child realizes their "puzzle pieces" are a little messy compared to the adults', compares the two, and naturally rearranges their own speech to match—and then intuitively speaks in a correct way.

Do not make a fuss out of errors or drill correct sentences. Simply EXPOSE your learners to a vast variety of grammatically correct content, and the input will do its work on its own.

 

Error Correction: Useful or Unnecessary for Acquiring a Second Language?

Krashen:

"Error correction has little or no effect on subconscious acquisition, but is thought to be useful for conscious learning...

Evidence from child language acquisition confirms that error correction does not influence acquisition to any great extent. Brown and his colleagues have shown that parents actually correct only a small portion of the child's language (occasional pronunciation problems, certain verbs, and dirty words!). They conclude from their research that parents attend far more to the truth value of what the child is saying rather than to the form."

 

If children can naturally self-correct over time as they develop a "feel" for how language sounds based on the input they receive, it stands to reason that second language learners—who possess the same human mind and mental capabilities—can gain that same intuitive sense.

Through repeated exposure to content in the foreign language, these learners can eventually self-correct naturally, just as children do with their first language.

 

Keeping the Affective Filter Low

Krashen's work explains that learners have an "affective filter." This is like a mental barrier that rises when the learner is stressed or under pressure, making it hard for them to learn and remember vocabulary they are exposed to or trying to memorize by rote. The affective filter is lowest when there is no pressure or overwhelm present.

The optimal learning environment has low to zero stress and pressure, thus keeping the affective filter—the mental learning barrier—low or non-existent. This makes it easy for learners to remember and acquire the new language.

Krashen: 

"1. THE STUDENT SHOULD NOT BE PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE

The phrase "on the defensive" comes from Stevick's well known book, Memory, Meaning, and Method. What it means to me is that methods and materials should not be a test of the student's abilities or prior experiences, should not merely reveal weaknesses, but should help the student acquire more. 

More generally, we are talking about keeping the affective filter "low", making sure the student is open to the input… if we concentrate on supplying comprehensible input where the focus is on the message and not on the form, this will in of itself contribute to a low filter.

If the topic being discussed is at all interesting, and if it is comprehensible, much of the "pressure" normally associated with a language class will be "off", anxiety will be lowered, and acquisition will result.

As mentioned earlier, I think a desirable goal is that the student "forget", in a sense, that the message is actually encoded in another language…  

 

NeuroFluent™ provides this optimal environment because there are no scary tests, worksheets, or conjugation exercises. By providing engrossing stories or interesting nonfiction, the student "forgets" the content is in another language and simply enjoys the message, naturally acquiring the foreign language.

Krashen further suggests limiting or avoiding error correction entirely:

"Avoid Error correction

... the question of error and error correction. Second language acquisition research tells us clearly that errors are inevitable, and that they will be plentiful in early stages. 

To give the reader an estimate, in an experiment we conducted at Queens College, we found approximately one error for every five words in compositions written by ESL students in a placement examination for our extension course (Krashen et al., 1978). The better students averaged about one error for every ten words, and the least proficient about one error for every two words! 

A sure method of raising the filter is attempting to correct errors, especially in beginning stages and especially in spoken language!

Error correction is, unfortunately, the profession's typical reaction to error, and in my view it has been a serious mistake. There are several reasons why it is a mistake. We focus here on what is probably the most serious flaw in error correction, its effect of the affective filter

Error correction has the immediate effect of putting the student on the defensive. It encourages a strategy in which the student will try to avoid mistakes, avoid difficult constructions, focus less on meaning and more on form. It may disrupt the entire communicative focus on an exchange.

... error correction is not the basic mechanism for improving second language performance; rather, we acquire via comprehensible input, according to the theory. 

Since overuse of correction has such negative effects for acquisition, and since error correction is not of direct benefit to language acquisition (see Chapter II, discussion of hypothesis one), a safe procedure is simply to eliminate error correction entirely in communicative-type activities, a procedure used with great success in Terrell's Natural Approach.

Improvement will come without error correction, and may even come more rapidly, since the input will "get in", the filter will be lower, and students will be off the defensive.

… the typical situation in the foreign language teaching scene in the United States. After two years of instruction, the student who is even willing to participate in a conversation with a speaker of the language he or she has studied is rare!

... error correction is not of use for [language] acquisition. Acquisition occurs, according to the input hypothesis, when acquirers understand input for its meaning, not when they produce output and focus on form...

we should focus our students on form, and correct their errors, only when they have time and when such diversion of attention does not interfere with communication. This implies no error correction in free conversation, but allows for error correction on written work and grammar exercises.

(1) We should correct "global" errors, errors that interfere with communication or impede the intelligibility of a message (Burt and Kiparsky, 1972). Such errors deserve top priority in correction. 
(2) Errors that are the most stigmatized, that cause the most unfavorable reactions, are the most important to correct. 
(3) Errors that occur most frequently should be given top priority."

 

With NeuroFluent™, there is no error correction, apart from fixing minor things in advanced levels like critical pronunciation when a learner reads the bilingual sentences. Therefore, the Affective Filter remains basically at zero.

 

At What Ages Can Learners Acquire a Second Language Naturally?

A common  myth is that only very young children can successfully acquire a second language in a natural way and reach a native level.

Krashen: 

"It has been popularly assumed that age itself is a predictor of second language proficiency, that younger acquirers are better at second language acquisition than older acquirers. 

It can be argued, however, that age is not in itself a predictor of second language rate or attainment, and that here too everything reduces down to the quantity of comprehensible input and the level of the affective filter. 

Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) reviewed the available empirical research on the effect of age and second language acquisition and concluded that all published studies were consistent with these three generalization: 

1. Adults proceed through the early stages of second language development faster than children do (where time and exposure are held constant).

2. Older children acquire faster than younger children, time and exposure held constant. 

3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to second languages during childhood generally achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults.

Thus, it is not simply the case that "younger is better": children are superior to adults only in the long run.

… explanations for the older acquirers' rate superiority reduce to the greater ability of the adult and older child to obtain comprehensibly input. Thus, comprehensible input again is hypothesized to be the causative variable, and not age per se... 

adults are still "acquirers", that they retain the natural language acquisition capacity children have.

It also allows for the possibility that some adults can achieve extremely high levels of competence in a second language and may even be taken for native; it predicts that such "Good Language Learners" will be, above all, good acquirers, with the ability to obtain a great deal of comprehensible input with a low affective filter. In many cases, the filter prevents the adult only from going the last few inches.”

 

NeuroFluent™ can be used to create content for all ages, helping learners of any age and stage naturally acquire a new language.

Visit LingoLina.com for many free NeuroFluent™ learning materials, fiction stories, books, audiobooks, nonfiction articles, podcasts, example curricula, and materials for educators.

 

Summary: Krashen’s Requirements and NeuroFluent™ Execution

In summary, Stephen Krashen’s research identifies four core pillars for successful second language acquisition. The NeuroFluent™ method is specifically designed to act as the "missing link" that makes these academic theories practically applicable in the real world.

Comprehensible Input: Krashen states that we only acquire language when we understand the message. NeuroFluent™ ensures 100% comprehension from day one by using paired bilingual sentences (NL/FL), allowing even absolute beginners to understand complex stories without prior study.

The Affective Filter: Learning is blocked by stress, anxiety, or boredom. NeuroFluent™ lowers the "Affective Filter" by removing the pressure of tests, grammar drills, and forced early production, replacing them with an enjoyable, immersion-based reading experience.

High-Interest Content: Acquisition occurs best when the learner is so engrossed in the topic that they "forget" the message is in another language. NeuroFluent™ facilitates this by enabling the use of any subject matter—from mystery novels to career-specific nonfiction—rather than overly simplified, boring classroom dialogues.

Natural Order and Quantity: Fluency cannot be forced; it "emerges" naturally after sufficient exposure to unsequenced, plentiful input. NeuroFluent™ provides a vast quantity of natural language content that allows vocabulary and grammar "feel" to develop subconsciously through exposure rather than through rigid, academic sequencing.

 

 

 

 

About the Author Camille Kleinman is the founder of LingoLina™ language learning platform, inventor of NeuroFluent™ and NeuroSwitch™ Immersion Methods, a five-time award-winning writer, bestselling ghostwriter ranked in the top 1% of 18,000,000 freelancers worldwide, linguistic theorist and researcher, instructional designer, and educator. Visit her site LingoLina.com for a growing library of free NeuroFluent™ learning materials, stories, courses, fiction and nonfiction books, audiobooks, podcasts, and games.