online education research, skripsi, tesis, disertasi, penelitian,action research, statistical, sampling, research proposal, qualitative research,quantitative research,sampling methods

Theories of second language acquisition
SLA is a subset of general human learning, involves cognitive variations, is closely related to one’s personality to one’s personality type, is interwoven with second culture learning, and involves interference, the creation of new linguistic systems, and the learning of discourse and communicative functions of language (Douglass Brown 2000). A theory of second language acquisition is a standard set of constructs which can explain and describe the acquisition process.

Michel Long (1990: 69-660) suggests that to build a comprehensive SLA theory eight criteria should be considered.
1.    Account for universals
2.    Account for environmental factors
3.    Account for variability in age, acquisition rate, and proficiency level
4.    Explain both cognitive and affective factors
5.    Account for other variables beside exposure and input
6.    Account for cognitive/innate factors which explain interlanguage systematicity
7.    Recognize that acquisition is not a steady accumulation of generalizations
Douglass Brown (2002: 277-288) identifies three models of SLA theory: innatist model, cognitive model, and social constructivist theory. 

An Innatist Model: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
    Input hypotheses identify a set of five interrelated hypotheses: (1) the acquisition-learning hypothesis, (2) the monitor hypothesis, (3) the natural order hypothesis, (4) the input hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter hypothesis.

1.    The acquisition-learning hypothesis claims that adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language, acquisition and learning. Acquisition is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language, like the process used by a child to pick a language. Learning is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process. According to Krashen, fluency in second language performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned (1981: 99). Adults should therefore do as much acquiring as possible in order to achieve communicative fluency; otherwise they will get bogged down in rule learning and too much conscious attention to the forms of language and to watching their own progress.
        Moreover, for Krashen our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive: learning cannot become acquisition. This claim of no interface between acquisition and learning is used to strengthen the argument of recommending large doses of acquisition activity in the classroom, with only a very minor role assigned to learning.
2.    The monitor hypothesis is involved in learning, not in acquisition. It is a devise for “watchdogging” one’s output, for editing and making alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Only once fluency is established should an optimal amount of monitoring, or editing, be employed by the learner (Krashen 1981).
3.    The natural order hypothesis claims that we acquire language rules in a predictable or natural order.
4.    The input hypothesis claims that an important condition for language acquisition t occur is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or reading) input language that contains structure a bit beyond his or her current level of competence. If an acquirer is at stage or level i, the input he or she understands should contain i + 1 (Krashen 1981:100). In other words, the language that learners are exposed to should be just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but still be challenged to make progress. The corollary to this is that input should neither be so far beyond their reach that they are overwhelmed (this might be, say, i + 2), nor so close to their current stage that they are not challenged at all (i + 0).
    An important part of the Input Hypothesis is Krashen’s recommendation that speaking not be taught directly or very early in the language classroom. Speech will emerge one the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input (i + 1).
5.    The affective filter hypothesis claims that the best acquisition will occur in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent, or in contexts where the affective filter is low.
    However, According to Brown (2002), Krashen’s Input Hypotheses claims have been hotly disputed (e.g. de Bot 1996; Swain & Lapkin 1995; Brumfit 1992; White 1987; Gregg 1984; McLaughlin 1978, to name a few). The firs sharp criticism is on Krashen’s rather fuzzy distinction between subconscious (acquisition) and conscious learning processes. Psychologists, like McLaughlin, are still in a wide disagreement in their definitions of the notoriously slippery notion of “consciousness”. McLaughlin (1990: 627) commented:

“My own bias is to avoid use of the terms conscious and subconscious in second language theory. I believe that these terms are too laden with surplus meaning and too difficult to define empirically to be useful theoretically. Hence, my critique of Krashen’s distinction between learning and acquisition—a distinction that assumes that it is possible to differentiate what is conscious from what is unconscious.”

In McLaughlin’s view, then, a language acquisition theory that appeals to conscious/subconscious distinctions is greatly weakened by our inability to identify just what that distinction is.
    A second criticism of Krashen’s views arose out of the claim that there is no interface—no overlap—between acquisition and learning. As Gregg (1984:82) pointed out,

“Krashen plays fast and loose with his definitions. If unconscious knowledge is capable of being brought to consciousness, and if conscious knowledge is capable of becoming unconscious—and this seems to be a reasonable assumption—then there is no reason whatever to accept Krashen’s claim, in the absence of evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.”
    Second language learning clearly is a process in which varying degrees of learning and of acquisition can both be beneficial, depending upon the learner’s own styles and strategies (Brown 2002). Swain (1998), Doughty and Williams (1998), Ellis (1990), Lightbown and Spada (1990), and Long (1988) have all shown, in a number of empirical research studies, that Krashen’s “zero option” (don’t ever teach grammar) is not supported in the literature. Instruction in conscious rule learning and other types of form-focused instruction can aid in the attainment of successful communicative competence in a second language.
    A third difficulty in Krashen’s Input Hypotheses is found in his explicit claim that “comprehensible input is the only causative variable in second language acquisition”. In other words, success in a foreign language can be attributed to input alone. Such a theory ascribes little credit to learners and their own active engagement in the process.
    Seliger (1983) offered a much broader conceptualization in the role of input that gives learners more credit (and blame) for eventual success. Certain learners are what he called High Input Generators (HIGs), people who are good at initiating and sustaining interaction, or generating input from teachers, fellow learners, and others. Low Input Generators (LIGs) are more passive learners who do little to stick their necks out to get input directed toward them. In his studies, Seliger found that “learners who maintained high levels of interaction (HIGs) in the second language, both in the classroom and outside, progressed at a faster rate than learners who interacted little (LIGs) in the classroom” (p. 262).
    Such studies, coupled with a great deal of intuitive observation of successful learners, suggest that Krashen’s comprehensible input must at the very least be complemented by a significant amount of outputs that gives credit to the role of the learner’s p[production. While Krashen (1997: 7) staunchly maintained that in the language classroom “output is too scarce to make any important impact on language development,” Swain and Lapkin (1995) offered convincing evidence that their Output Hypothesis was at least as significant as input, if not more so, in explaining leaner success. In a review of the Output Hypothesis, De Bot (1996: 59) argued that output serves an important role in second language acquisition because it generates highly specific input the cognitive system needs to build up a coherent set of knowledge.
    Finally, it is important to note that the notion of i + 1 is nothing new.  Meaningful, or subsumability in Ausble’s term, is that which is relatable to existing cognitive structure, in neither too far beyond the structures, nor the existing structures themselves (i + 1). But Krashen presents the i + 1 as if we are actually able to define i and 1, and we are not, as Gregg (1984), White (1987) and others pointed out. Furthermore, the notion that speech will emerge in a context of comprehensible input sounds promising, and for some learners (bright, highly motivated, outgoing learners), speech will indeed emerge. But we are left with no significant information from Krashen’s theories on what to do about the other half (or more) of our language students for whom speech does not emerge and for whom the silence period might last forever (Brown 2002).
    Krashen’s innatist model of SLA has had wide appeal to teachers who cry for something simple and concrete on which to base their methodology. It is easy to see its appeal since, on the surface, the claims that are made seem to reflect accepted principles of SLA. But in their oversimplicity, the claims have been exaggerated.