accuracy rather than the other way round. The second notion is that, for Krashen,
language is acquired when it contains structures a bit above the student’s current level
of competence (i+1). It could be claimed that the above two notions draw heavily on
the Vygotskian tradition (discussed in section 1.1.3.1) as the role Krashen assigns to
the teacher in order to make input comprehensible to students is similar to what
Bruner (1978) refers to as ‘scaffolding’. This is considered an essential step in order
for children to proceed from stage i to stage i+1, i.e. to develop within their ‘zone of
proximal development’ (Vygotsky 1978).
The above two notions have certain implications for the classroom practice.
The first implication refers to the teaching of grammar. Krashen (1987: 23), quoting
MacNamara’s (1972) claim that the child does not acquire grammar first and then
uses it in understanding but, rather, she first understands and then acquires, argues
against the implementation of syllabi which are grammatically structured. Such a
claim is not only based on the assumption that grammatical syllabi do not contribute
to acquisition (see the ‘Natural Order’ Hypothesis above) but also because they treat
all students as a homogenous group, thus failing to provide each one of them with
optimal input (i+1) either because for some students input consists of (i), i.e. language
which is known to them, or because it consists of (i+2), i.e. language which is above
their level of ability and thus incomprehensible. The second implication refers to the
role of the teacher. For Krashen (1987: 64), a good teacher is not one who has an
extensive knowledge of grammar but, rather, one who can make input comprehensible
to each one of her students, regardless of their level of competence in the target
language. If this is achieved, Krashen considers that the classroom can become an
environment which promotes acquisition and where grammar is automatically
acquired. This claim of Krashen has been strongly criticized, however, by a number of
researchers (e.g. McLaughlin 1978; Sharwood-Smith 1981; Ellis 1984) who stress
that it is possible to influence the speed and/or course of L2 learning by helping
students focus on the form of language. According to Jane Willis (1996: 102), this can
be achieved by engaging students in ‘conscious-raising’ activities which do ‘…not
consist of decontextualised presentation and practice of language items in isolation
but, rather, they involve learners in a study of the language forms they were actually
used or needed…’. Ellis (1990: 15-16) stresses that the difference between consciousraising and traditional grammar-teaching is that the former sees form-focused
instruction as a means to the attainment of grammatical concept rather than an attempt
28