Keywords
Abstract
This article explores the enduring vitality and contemporary relevance of Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis (I+1) within modern English Language Teaching (ELT) classrooms. The Input Hypothesis posits that second language acquisition (SLA) occurs when learners receive comprehensible input (CI) that is slightly beyond their current level of competence. This hypothesis forms the core of Krashen’s Monitor Model and fundamentally shifts the focus of instruction from output practice and conscious rule learning to maximizing exposure to meaningful, understandable linguistic data. Despite various criticisms, IH provides a robust theoretical foundation for communicative, task-based, and naturalistic approaches to ELT. This paper analyzes the theoretical underpinnings of IH, its critical function in fostering subconscious acquisition, practical methods for designing I+1 instruction in digital and physical classrooms, and its integration with other contemporary pedagogical theories. Ultimately, the successful application of IH remains crucial for achieving fluency and genuine language competence among diverse learner populations.
References
1. Absalamov K., Khujakulov R. Enhancing writing skills in school: innovative activities for success //Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research Spirit. – 2024. – С. 192-194.
2. Axmedova, H. EUPHEMISM AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION // Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research Spirit. – 2024. – С. 139–141.
3. Farmonovna O. N. Semantic Structures of English Phraseological Units and Proverbs with Proper Names. – 2014.
4. Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79–100.
5. Khujakulov R. Derivation of Lexical Units Related to Folk Medicine in English and Uzbek Languages //Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research Spirit. – 2024. – С. 555-556.
6. Khujakulov R. The Rich Tapestry of Folk Medicine Terminology: a Reflection of Cultural Specificity in English //Miasto Przyszłości. – 2024. – №. 55. – С. 1619-1621.
7. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
8. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
9. Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Second Language Acquisition Research, 19(3), 209–224.
10. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
11. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.
12. Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Intellect Books.
13. Saloxiddinov, M. THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY // Евразийский журнал академических исследований. – 2023. – Т. 3. – № 1 Part 3. – С. 118–120.
14. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
15. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.
16. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
17. Ахмедова Х. Ingliz va O’zbek tillarida semelfaktiv fe’llarning leksik semantika va aspektual turkumlanishi //Анализ актуальных проблем, инноваций, традиций, решений и художественной литературы в преподавании иностранных языков. – 2022. – Т. 1. – №. 01. – С. 61-63.
18. Салоксиддинов М. Перевод синтаксических единиц, представляющих состояние времени, с английского на узбекский //Иностранная филология: язык, литература, образование. – 2020. – №. 1 (74). – С. 164-168.
19. Хушманова Ф., Очилова Н. The study and issues of translation of proverbs //Анализ актуальных проблем, инноваций, традиций, решений и художественной литературы в преподавании иностранных языков. – 2022. – Т. 1. – №. 01. – С. 105-107.