Krashen’s input hypothesis was criticized from two points of view, the first problem was i+1 formula. This hypothesis was similar to David Asubel (1993) idea as meaningfulness or subsumability. According to subsumability, the received information should roughly tune to students background knowledge which was very close to Krashen’s i+1 hypothesis. As Brown (2007) said, “i and 1 cannot be clearly defined” (as cited in Latifi; ketabi & mohamadi, 2013, p. 224). The second i+1 is challenged from another perspective that “input is necessary but not sufficient for acquisition to take place” (Ellis, 2003, 47 as cited in Latifi et al., 2013, p.224).
Although the role of unconscious learning cannot be denied, conscious learning is supposed to have more …show more content…
Process of language acquisition was not as simple as what Krashen said. As Brown (2007) said, Krashen ascribe no role for the student’s engagement in the process of learning (Latifi et al., 2013). The strong reaction to this hypothesis was proposed by Smith (1990) which includes the role of consciousness and awareness as one of the necessary condition for acquisition to take place. According to the findings in second language acquisition and based on cognitive psychology, Smith (1990) claimed that “attention is a prerequisite in the process of language learning and without it almost nothing acquired” (Ellis, 2003 as cited in Latifi et al., 2013, p.224). This hypothesis has the strong and the weak version. In the strong version of noticing hypothesis it was claimed that noticing is a necessary condition for learning and weak version said that noticing is helpful for learning a language but it might not be necessary. In the weak version of this hypothesis students just need to be aware of input in the global sense which means that there was no need for them to have conscious awareness of detailed. "Attention does not refer to a single mechanism, it’s related to different mechanisms or subsystems including alertness, orientation, and detection within selective attention, facilitation and inhibition" (Schmidt, 2010; Tomlin & Villa, 1994 as cited in Schmidt, 2010, p.
Although the role of unconscious learning cannot be denied, conscious learning is supposed to have more …show more content…
Process of language acquisition was not as simple as what Krashen said. As Brown (2007) said, Krashen ascribe no role for the student’s engagement in the process of learning (Latifi et al., 2013). The strong reaction to this hypothesis was proposed by Smith (1990) which includes the role of consciousness and awareness as one of the necessary condition for acquisition to take place. According to the findings in second language acquisition and based on cognitive psychology, Smith (1990) claimed that “attention is a prerequisite in the process of language learning and without it almost nothing acquired” (Ellis, 2003 as cited in Latifi et al., 2013, p.224). This hypothesis has the strong and the weak version. In the strong version of noticing hypothesis it was claimed that noticing is a necessary condition for learning and weak version said that noticing is helpful for learning a language but it might not be necessary. In the weak version of this hypothesis students just need to be aware of input in the global sense which means that there was no need for them to have conscious awareness of detailed. "Attention does not refer to a single mechanism, it’s related to different mechanisms or subsystems including alertness, orientation, and detection within selective attention, facilitation and inhibition" (Schmidt, 2010; Tomlin & Villa, 1994 as cited in Schmidt, 2010, p.