Home / Courses / ED5726
Capella University — English Language Learning

ED5726: Second Language Acquisition

A complete guide to Capella's ED5726 — SLA theory, Krashen's Monitor Model, interlanguage development, BICS vs CALP, and how acquisition research informs ELL instruction.

Graduate LevelSLA TheoryEnglish Language LearningAPA 7th Edition

ED5726 grounds English language teachers in the research on how second languages are acquired, providing a theoretical base for instructional decisions. Understanding what the research says about how learners move from no proficiency to fluency, what conditions accelerate or impede acquisition, and what role instruction plays in that process makes teachers more intentional and more effective.

Krashen's Monitor Model — five hypotheses

HypothesisCore ClaimInstructional Implication
Acquisition-Learning DistinctionSubconscious acquisition (natural communication) differs from conscious learning (formal study)Meaningful communication practice promotes acquisition; grammar drill alone does not
Monitor HypothesisConscious learning functions as an editor, applied only when time allowsOver-reliance on the Monitor produces slow, error-focused speakers
Natural Order HypothesisGrammatical structures are acquired in a predictable sequence regardless of instruction orderExplicit instruction on a structure before it is "acquisitionally ready" produces little retention
Input HypothesisAcquisition occurs when learners receive comprehensible input slightly above current level (i+1)Scaffold instruction so input is understandable but challenging
Affective Filter HypothesisAnxiety, low motivation, and low self-confidence raise the filter and block acquisitionLower-anxiety classroom conditions promote more acquisition

What ED5726 covers

Interlanguage theory, developed by Selinker (1972), describes the evolving linguistic system that learners construct as they acquire a second language. This system is not simply imperfect English or a direct transfer of the L1 — it is a distinct, rule-governed system that changes over time as learners receive more input and feedback. Interlanguage explains why learners make systematic errors (not random mistakes), why some errors persist even after instruction (fossilization), and why learners can produce a structure correctly in one context but not another. ED5726 applies interlanguage theory to the interpretation of learner language: teachers who understand interlanguage respond to errors as diagnostic information about where a learner's interlanguage system currently is, rather than treating errors as simple failures to be corrected.

Jim Cummins's distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) is one of the most practically important concepts in the SLA literature for classroom teachers. BICS — conversational, context-embedded, social language — typically develops within 1 to 3 years of exposure. CALP — the decontextualized, abstract, content-specific academic language needed for academic success — takes 5 to 7 or more years to develop to the level of native English-speaking peers. The BICS/CALP distinction explains one of the most common mismatches educators encounter: an ELL student who seems fluent in social conversation but struggles academically. ED5726 addresses how teachers can support CALP development specifically, rather than assuming that social fluency means academic language is in place.

Writing an SLA theory application or ELL case analysis?

Our education writers apply SLA theory to classroom practice with the depth Capella's rubric requires.

Get Expert Help

Key topics you write about in ED5726

BICS vs CALP: understanding the gap

  • BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills): social, conversational, context-supported — 1 to 3 years to develop
  • CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency): academic, abstract, decontextualized — 5 to 7+ years to reach grade-level peers
  • A student fluent in BICS can still be years away from grade-level CALP
  • Prematurely reclassifying ELLs based on BICS fluency removes supports before CALP is developed
  • Academic language instruction must be explicit and sustained — it does not develop naturally from social exposure alone

Get Help With ED5726

SLA theory papers, interlanguage analyses, BICS/CALP application, Krashen critique, ELL classroom case studies. SLA coursework done right.

Place Your OrderView All Services

Related courses

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between language acquisition and language learning in Krashen's model?

Krashen's acquisition-learning distinction holds that these are two distinct processes. Acquisition is subconscious — it occurs when learners are engaged in meaningful communication and pick up the second language naturally, the way children acquire their first language. Learning is conscious — it is explicit knowledge about language rules, the kind produced by grammar instruction and formal study. Krashen's controversial claim is that only acquired knowledge leads to spontaneous, fluent language use; learned knowledge can only function as a Monitor (editor) applied when the learner has time to consciously check output. The Monitor Hypothesis follows from this: conscious learning is useful but limited in scope, and over-reliance on it produces stilted, slow language production.

What is interlanguage and what is fossilization?

Interlanguage is the systematic, evolving linguistic system that learners construct as they acquire a second language — distinct from both the L1 and the target language. Selinker (1972) coined the term to describe this intermediate system, which is rule-governed (not random) and changes over time as learners receive more input and feedback, moving along a developmental trajectory toward the target language. Fossilization occurs when features of the interlanguage stop developing — the learner's system becomes fixed at a point below native-like proficiency, even with continued exposure and instruction. Certain features are particularly prone to fossilization, including pronunciation features, some grammatical morphemes, and pragmatic features. Fossilization helps explain why even long-term, high-proficiency adult L2 users often retain some non-native features.

How does Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development apply to SLA?

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) describes the distance between what a learner can do independently and what they can do with assistance from a more capable peer or teacher. Applied to SLA (most notably by sociocultural theorists such as Lantolf), the ZPD suggests that language acquisition occurs in the zone — learners acquire new linguistic forms and functions through assisted performance that gradually becomes independent. Scaffolding (strategic support calibrated to the learner's current level, reduced as competence grows) is the instructional application: the teacher or peer provides just enough support to extend the learner into the ZPD, not so much that the learner never has to process the new language independently. This has significant implications for how to design ELL instruction: not independent practice at a level already mastered, and not unassisted exposure to material far above the current level, but supported engagement just above current independent ability.

What does the affective filter mean for classroom environment?

Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis holds that emotional variables — anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence — mediate input: a high filter blocks comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device, while a low filter allows input in. The practical implication is that classroom conditions that raise anxiety (high-stakes error correction, competitive environments, humiliating correction in front of peers) impede acquisition, while conditions that lower anxiety (safe, supportive, low-stakes environments, meaningful communication activities, error-tolerant feedback) promote it. This does not mean avoiding all challenge or never providing feedback, but it does mean attending to the affective dimension of the learning environment as a genuine acquisition variable, not just a "nice to have."