Research

Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins are important researchers in the field of second language acquisition. This section explores the following:

Stephen Krashen

• Comprehensible input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis

Jim Cummins (as cited in Wright, 2010)

• Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) vs. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
• Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) hypothesis 
• Second language quadrant

Comprehensible input hypothesis directly addresses how a second language is acquired. “Mere input is not enough; it must be understood” (Krashen, 2003, p. 4). Students will only be able to acquire a second language when they obtain, hear, or read messages that they can comprehend.

“Language acquisition proceeds best when the input is not just comprehensible, but really interesting, even compelling; so interesting that you forget you are listening to or reading another language.” — Krashen

Focused, targeted, and systematic second language instructional activities, at students’ levels of language proficiency, provide content and language necessary to support English language progression. As students receive comprehensible input, their levels of language proficiency will increase (ELPS Instructional Tool, TAC §74.4(b), p.9).

Krashen uses the formula "i + 1" to explain how students’ levels of language proficiency and comprehensible input correlate in second language acquisition.

It is important to note that students’ current levels of language proficiency are comprised not only of their linguistic competence, but of their background knowledge as well.

Without comprehensible input, students will experience difficulty building the English language foundation necessary for academic achievement.

Affective filter hypothesis explains how affective elements may facilitate or hinder second language acquisition. If a student is feeling anxious in a classroom setting, the student may block out the input even if it is comprehensible. In order to provide students with positive learning experiences, it is important for educators to reduce negative feelings and emotions so students can concentrate on the learning task. 

A teacher can do the following to create a welcoming school environment:

• Have routine classroom activities that students can follow through visuals or nonverbal cues
• Have students engage in meaningful communication rather than focusing on form
• Provide collaborative grouping opportunities that are structured with specific, tangible goals
• Learn some of the social norms of the cultures represented in the classroom so students have a feeling of belonging

Meet John
Imagine that tomorrow John will be attending school in a different country without knowing the language. Think of daily activities that occur in a school setting that may cause negative emotions.

John may have the following questions about his new school experience:

• How will I participate or interact with others in class?
• What if I don’t understand the lesson?
• How will I get home?
• Who will I talk to? Will I be able to make friends?
• What is the assignment?
• Will someone be able to help me?

What increases?

When students' negative emotions are lowered, what student outcomes increase? To continually provide a positive, relaxed atmosphere, classroom activities must be meaningful and include a student’s cultural background and interests.

Monitor hypothesis refers to students who are acquiring a second language and have begun the process of monitoring the target language through self-correction (Krashen, 2003, p. 7).

In order for ELLs to reach self-monitoring, they must

• know the rules of grammar,
• focus on the correct form, and
• have time to use the learned knowledge.

Important Note: Self–monitoring and self–correction denote that second language acquisition is taking place.

Jim Cummins, researcher and professor of linguistics, differentiated between the two categories of language proficiency: basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).

“Talking about the text in a collaborative context ensures that higher order thinking processes (e.g. analysis, evaluation, synthesis) engage with academic language in deepening students' comprehension of the text” — Cummins (Wright, 2010).

ELLs first develop social and conversational language (BICS), which is used for interpersonal interactions and oral communication. ELLs will then begin to develop highly–specialized and cognitively–demanding academic language (CALP) used in a classroom setting.

The Process of BICS and CALP

Click the hotspots below for additional information on how each category differs in terms of second language acquisition in an academic setting.

Why is it important to differentiate between BICS and CALP?

It is important to understand the difference between BICS and CALP because students' proficiencies in both are essential to a good foundation for academic achievement. Structured classroom activities should range from the context–embedded (concrete) to the context–reduced (abstract) use of language in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Click the hotspot below for additional information about academic achievement.

The terms “context–embedded” and “context–reduced” were used as part of Cummins’ distinction between BICS and CALP. Each term has key characteristics or strategies.

As part of his research, Cummins also advanced the theory that there is a common underlying proficiency (CUP) between the learning of two languages (Wright, 2010).

Skills, ideas, and concepts that are learned in a first language will be transferred to the second language.

As students learn a language, they gain proficiency in the language by

• learning the linguistics of the language,
• using the language for academic learning,
• having life experiences, and
• developing cognitive skills.

All of these thoughts and skills are processed from one central location in our brain.

Cummins explains that, although the surface aspects (e.g. pronunciation, fluency, etc.) of different languages are clearly separate, an underlying cognitive/academic proficiency is common across languages (Long & Doughty, 2011).

Remember that a student’s CUP includes the linguistic universals, academic knowledge, and cognitive development in their first and second language. Students who read in their first language have the skills or foundation that can be used to transfer meaning into the second language, the target language.

Reflect on this: Using Cummins’s concept of common underlying proficiency (CUP), how can you apply this concept to linguistically accommodate your classroom instruction?

As ELLs experience first language (L1) and second language (L2), they develop proficiency in both languages. On the surface, the languages appear to be different; however, in the deep structure, the languages are interdependent. Thoughts and skills of L1 and L2 process from one central location. This interdependence is what Cummins refers to as the CUP.

Cummins' “Learning a Second Language” quadrant demonstrates the linguistic support necessary for developing a second language (Wright, 2010).

Classroom activities should be a combination of the four linguistic domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, targeting and promoting development of both BICS and CALP. ELLs need to develop both BICS and CALP for comprehension of content.

Review the image to see examples of activities that support the development of BICS and CALP.