Invited Essay

Academic Proficiency (Language

and Content) and the Role
of Strategies
STEPHEN KRASHEN
This report continues the work of Krashen and Brown (2007),
developing and evaluating a set of hypotheses for the develop-
ment of academic proficiency. That article defined academic
proficiency as having two components: academic language
proficiency and knowledge of academic content.
doi: 10.5054/tj.2011.274624

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE: THE READING HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis: The major path to academic language proficiency is reading,
specifically, wide self-selected reading eventually supplemented by reading
in the specific area of interest. Wide self-selected reading (i.e., free
voluntary reading, or FVR) provides the basis for the comprehension of
academic prose.
Note that this hypothesis does not say that FVR is enough.
Rather, FVR is a bridge that makes the comprehension of aca-
demic texts possible. The hypothesis states that people acquire
academic language in the same way they acquire language in
general—by understanding messages. It states that academic
language is not consciously learned but acquired (Krashen,
1982).

The Evidence
The evidence for the hypothesis that we acquire academic language
from reading includes many studies showing the power of free
voluntary reading:
N studies of sustained silent reading, done with a wide variety of subjects of
different ages and in different parts of the world, showing that those who

TESOL Journal 2.4, December 2011 381

 engage in in-school free reading programs develop greater competence in
literacy
N correlational studies confirming that more FVR leads to greater literacy
competence
N case studies in which FVR is the only possible source of academic language
proficiency (Krashen, 2004, 2007)

THE CLASSIC APPROACH TO ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

COMPETENCE
I define the classic approach in the field of language education as
being based on the assumption that language development occurs
when we have a conscious understanding of the elements of lan-
guage and that we make these understandings automatic through
practice, usually in the form of output. The classic approach does
not include the alternative, the view that language development
occurs when we understand messages (Krashen, 1982). The classic
approach depends, in other words, on conscious learning, not
subconscious acquisition.
The field of English for academic purposes (EAP) is founded on
the assumptions that academic language is developed via the
classic approach, that the task of linguists is to describe the ele-
ments of academic language, and that the task of applied linguists
is to convert these descriptions into statements of rules for students
and exercises for them to make their understandings automatic.
This is a hopeless endeavor, one that has never been done by
mortals.

The Evidence Against the Classic Approach

Complexity and the Limits of Conscious Learning

Only a few of the most basic aspects of academic language can
be consciously learned. The descriptions we have show that the
discourse and grammar of academic language is quite complex
(e.g., Swales, 1990; Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteiza, 2004) and
challenging even for the professional reader to understand, let alone
students trying to learn the academic language.

382 TESOL Journal

Incomplete Description
Even if students could learn the complex rules, for the classic app-
roach to succeed there must be a complete description of academic
language. There isn’t. Instead, there is an ever-changing profes-
sional literature filled with attempts to describe academic prose.

Reading Defeats Instruction

Lao and Krashen (2000) compared instruction in academic language
and reading. University-level English as a foreign language (EFL)
students in Hong Kong read and discussed interesting and
comprehensible novels, including one that they self-selected. The
readers outperformed students in an academic study skills class on
a variety of measures.

No Examples of Success
There are no case histories of successful acquisition of academic
language through formal study alone. Some people might feel that
formal study was responsible for their success, but I don’t think
they realize how much academic prose they acquired through
reading. The few aspects that they consciously learned and remem-
ber are given a great deal of importance. However, they comprise a
tiny part of the language competence.
The classic approach, nevertheless, remains the basis for EAP,
and the lack of evidence supporting it is never discussed.

A PROFOUND DIFFERENCE
A profound difference between the classic approach and acquisition
of academic language via reading is that in the classic approach, the
goal in the mind of the student is mastery of academic language. In
the reading approach, acquisition of the academic language is a by-
product; the goal is understanding what is on the page. In other
words, those who have acquired the academic language did not set
out to acquire the academic language. They read for interest and
pleasure, for the content.
The result of classic instruction is a conscious knowledge of the
elements of academic language. The result of reading is a feel for
academic prose.

Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 383
OBJECTIONS TO ACQUIRING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE
COMPETENCE VIA READING

Objection: It Isn’t Enough

Gardner (2004) has argued that narrative texts do not have enough
academic vocabulary and thus cannot prepare readers for academic
reading. His conclusion is based on the finding that narrative texts
written for fifth graders that he analyzed did not include the same
academic vocabulary as a set of expository texts written for fifth
graders. But Gardner assumes that light reading needs to provide
readers with everything they need in order to understand every
word of expository writing that they may encounter that year. It
doesn’t. It simply needs to help readers eventually understand
academic texts in general.
In fact, the narrative texts Gardner (2004) analyzed contained
338 academic words that appeared often enough to allow acqui-
sition (Krashen, 2010). Gardner’s narrative sample contained one
million words, considered to be what the average native-English-
speaking fifth grader reads in one year. This suggests that a year of
self-selected reading will result in the acquisition of 338 academic
words. That’s a real contribution, whether or not these words also
appeared in the expository texts that the children might read that
year.
Gardner (2008) presents a similar argument based on narrow
texts, books written by a few authors or on a narrow range of
themes. My analysis (Krashen, 2010) shows that the narrow reading
texts Gardner analyzed would result in the acquisition of 783 words
in one year, about double the figure estimated for academic words
from the texts in Gardner (2004), confirming the advantage of
narrow reading.

Objection: The Classic Method Is Faster

Supporters of the classic method typically argue that there is no
time to do things the ‘‘natural way’’ through reading because
students, especially students of English as a second or foreign
language, must deal with complex texts immediately. Even if
academic language could be described and taught, it is not at all
clear that this is true. In a number of studies (Mason 2006, 2010a,
384 TESOL Journal
2010b; Mason & Krashen, 2004; Mason, Vanata, Jander, Borsch, &
Krashen, 2009), Beniko Mason has presented data that suggest that
developing word knowledge and grammatical accuracy by reading
and listening is typically more efficient, in terms of knowledge of
language gained per hour, than direct instruction.

ACADEMIC CONTENT COMPETENCE: SMART PEOPLE

DON’T STUDY
Hypothesis: Contrary to traditional assumptions, people learn new facts
and new concepts in only one way: by trying to solve problems.
Those who have acquired encyclopedic knowledge of a field and
who have understood and discovered complex concepts did not do
it through study, by consciously trying to remember facts and
concepts. They did it by trying to solve problems of great interest to
them. I have reviewed the evidence for this hypothesis in previous
publications (most recently, Krashen, 2003).
In contrast to those who study, the goal of problem solvers is not
to learn about a body of knowledge and be able to remember it. The
goal is to solve problems. Knowledge is a by-product.
Higher education generally understands this. Quite often, a
master’s degree is granted when the student completes eight ad-
vanced courses, each requiring not an exam, but a term paper, a
completed research project. The assumption, which I think is
usually correct, is that problem solving in eight areas will result in a
level of knowledge of the field that is associated with the master’s
degree. And of course the doctorate is granted on the completion of
a dissertation—major problem solving—not on the basis of an
examination. Doctoral students spend their dissertation year trying
to solve the problem, not studying.
Consistent with the hypothesis that academic content knowl-
edge comes from self-selected reading and problem solving, as
opposed to study, are those eminent scientists who were mediocre
students (Simonton, 1988, pp. 118–120). The most famous example
is Albert Einstein. Ohanian (2008) notes that, at the university,
‘‘Einstein was a rather erratic student, skipping many classes and
barely completing the minimum work for graduation, while
devoting most of his time to independent study of more advanced
topics in physics’’ (p. 11). The same, Ohanian notes, was true of
Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 385
Isaac Newton: ‘‘As a student at Cambridge, Newton focused on his
own research and neglected the standard curriculum, with the
result that he did poorly in his final exams’’ (p. 59).
There are also many examples of eminent scholars who were
excellent students (e.g., Marie Curie, Robert Oppenheimer). My
suspicion is that these individuals also got most of their knowledge
outside of school, pursuing their own interests, as Einstein and
Newton did. The resulting knowledge, however, happened to
coincide with the requirements of the classes they were taking.
Another possibility is that the classwork happened to be work they
were very interested in doing and answered questions they already
were concerned with.
Bloom’s (1963) research supports this conclusion:. He reported
that the most successful graduate students were those who, in a
sense, sided with the faculty, who shared the faculty’s concern with
investigation and problem solving. The less successful regarded
their graduate school experience as a series of courses to be passed
and requirements to be met. The courses and requirements were
often incidental in the lives of graduate students committed to
problem solving. These successful students had ‘‘a preoccupation
with problems rather than the subject-matter of courses . . . the
relatively complete acceptance of the role of research worker and
scholar (rather than the role of student)’’ (pp. 257–258).
Study alone has not been shown to work. Study combined with
problem solving seems to work, but my hypothesis is that it is the
problem solving that counts.

An Autodidact: Michael Faraday

Additional evidence that problem solving and self-selected reading
work is present in case studies of autodidacts, people with little
schooling who developed high levels of academic content knowl-
edge, as well as academic linguistic proficiency in many cases.
Michael Faraday is a good example. Faraday came from a poor
family, left school before he was 13, and worked for 7 years as an
apprentice bookbinder. This meant he had a great deal of access to
books. His employer ‘‘was a sympathetic and helpful individual
who did much to encourage his apprentices’ interests’’ (Howe,

386 TESOL Journal

1999, p. 266). According to Howe, Faraday read voraciously and
also attended lectures and classes on his own.
Faraday clearly never studied, never prepared for examinations.
He did a great deal of wide reading when he was a teenager,
including The Arabian Nights and various novels. Howe (1999)
speculates that Faraday’s interest in science grew gradually,
becoming firm when he was approximately 18. Around this time he
began a rigorous self-study program, deeply influenced by the
work of Isaac Watts, who emphasized critical and creative reactions
to reading: ‘‘It is the exercise of your own reason and judgement
upon all you read that . . . affords your understanding the truest
improvement’’ (Watts, cited in Howe, 1999, p. 93).
Working as an assistant to a famous chemist named Humphrey
Davy, Faraday immediately took advantage of the facilities avail-
able to him and ‘‘plunged into research of his own’’ (Howe, 1999,
p. 102) at age 21, and published his first paper at age 25. Faraday’s
stunning career after this was a series of problems he attempted to
solve, with great success.
The case of Michael Faraday is consistent with creativity
researcher Simonton’s (1988) conclusions: ‘‘Omnivorous reading in
childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult
success’’ (p. 11). I must add, however, a commitment to problem
solving.
The two kinds of competence interact with each other: Linguistic
competence helps in the acquisition of content knowledge, and
content knowledge can make input more comprehensible, which
helps the development of linguistic proficiency.

OTHER SOURCES
Reading is not the only source of input containing academic lan-
guage. Other sources, such as classroom input, contain aspects of
academic prose. However, classroom input appears to have more in
common linguistically with face-to-face interaction than with
written academic prose (Biber, 2006).
Of course, classrooms and conversation help us solve problems
by providing information from others through interaction, but my
hunch is that most creative work is solitary. Interaction can play a
role; descriptions of eminent scientists reveal a considerable amount
Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 387
of interaction with others, but more time spent alone. Faraday, for
example, was ‘‘in many respects a solitary scholar’’ and ‘‘usually
avoided students working under him. . . . [A]s one of his biogra-
phers put it, Faraday’s dialogue was with nature’’ (Howe, 1999, p.
104).

STRATEGIES
If the set of hypotheses presented earlier are correct, we can predict
that useful strategies are those that help provide comprehensible,
interesting text; that help make texts more comprehensible; and that
help in problem solving.
We need to distinguish two different kinds of strategies:

Innate Strategies
Some strategies don’t need to be taught; they are part of our innate
mental equipment. The strategy of prediction, for example, is
frequently taught. Anderson (2003) provides an example of stu-
dents deliberately practicing prediction:
Students specifically focused on making predictions of text
content. The students made a prediction, read a portion of the
text, and then paused to confirm or reject their prediction. They
then continued the cycle of predicting followed by confirming or
rejecting their guesses multiple times during the reading
passage. (para. 14)

Frank Smith (1983) argues that prediction is innate and that we

are constantly predicting. In fact, we never stop predicting, and we
are very good at it, which is how we get through the day. Successful
perception, as well as comprehension, is the confirmation that our
predictions were correct; we use only enough data from the outside
world to confirm our predictions. Prediction is only hard, Smith
explains, when we are bewildered. In reading classes, this happens
when texts are incomprehensible or devoid of interest. In normal
reading, we predict all the time.
Another example is teaching students to compare and contrast.
This is quite an effort when talking about crops from different
geographical areas with middle school students. But if you ask
some ‘‘nonacademic’’ baseball fans to compare and contrast A-Rod
388 TESOL Journal
and Barry Bonds, they will have no trouble. And many people who
would be stumped by school compare/contrast assignments can
provide a thorough analysis of the similarities and differences
between Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston. Teachers have the
illusion that students have not mastered these strategies only
because texts and assignments are boring or confusing.

Deprogramming Strategies
Some of the strategies that teachers do teach, and that seem to
actually help, are those that should develop naturally as people
read and try to solve problems. They often don’t, because of the
influence of school. Teaching these strategies amounts to de-
programming.
Among the deprogramming reading strategies are these:

Skip words you don’t know

Some readers think they need to know every word, even when
reading for pleasure, especially in a second or foreign language.
Once readers free themselves from the constraint of having to know
every single word, as long as the text is reasonably comprehensible,
reading becomes easier and more pleasant, and, ironically, more
vocabulary acquisition takes place (Krashen, 2004).

Lower your standards

Some second language readers feel they should only read books
that will make them a better person, thanks to the influence of
classes that cover literature classics. They may even be unaware of
the options for light reading. Doing light reading, even reading that
provides zero insight into other cultures, is in fact a step toward
reading the classics and learning about history and culture, because
it builds the competence that helps makes these demanding texts
comprehensible.

For second language acquirers, keep reading in your first language

While learning English as a second or foreign language, an English-
only policy is actually detrimental to growth in English. Readers
can gain a tremendous amount of background knowledge in the
first language that makes second language reading and second
Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 389
language input in general more comprehensible. This is, of course,
one of the rationales behind bilingual education, which has been
shown to be highly successful in helping students acquire academic
English (Crawford & Krashen, 2007).
Among deprogramming strategies are the components of the
composing process, such as these:

Be willing and even eager to revise

Because of poor instruction, some students feel that revision is a
sign of weakness and that they must get all their ideas right on their
first draft. For them, revision only means making a neater version
of their first draft. This is encouraged by in-class exams and
assignments, in which students have only a limited time to con-
struct an essay or written answer in response to a question that is
presented to them for the first time.
Revision is the source of many new ideas. Elbow (1973) refers to
the power of revision when he notes that ‘‘in writing, meaning is
not what you start out with but what you end up with.’’
Vonnegut (1981) gives revision a great deal of credit:
Novelists have, on the average, about the same IQs as the
cosmetic consultants at Bloomingdale’s department store. Our
power is patience. We have discovered that writing allows even a
stupid person to seem halfway intelligent, if only that person will
write the same thought over and over again, improving it just a
little bit each time. It is a lot like inflating a blimp with a bicycle
pump. Anybody can do it. All it takes is time. (p. 128)

Delay editing
Over-concern with accuracy, stimulated by instructional practices
as well as time constraints, motivates students to worry about
punctuation, grammar, and spelling as they write, which diverts
attention from what they are saying. Direct strategy instruction in
this case simply advises writers to delay editing until the final draft.
Peter Elbow (1973) puts it this way:
Treat grammar as a matter of very late editorial correcting: never
think about it while you are writing. Pretend you have an editor
who will fix everything for you, then don’t hire yourself for this
job until the very end. (p. 137)
390 TESOL Journal
 I mention only these two as examples of instances in which
direct instruction may work very well as a means of de-
programming. There are of course others (Krashen, 2003).
The common assumption is that all we as teachers have to do is
see what strategies experts use and teach these strategies to our
students. I question this assumption, without ruling out the
possibility that some strategies are teachable and direct instruction
in these strategies is a real help to students.

CONCLUSION
Pedagogy in developing academic proficiency has been dominated
by the assumption that academic linguistic proficiency and knowl-
edge of academic content can be described and taught directly. My
goal is to reduce this axiom to the status of hypothesis: There is
strong evidence that academic language proficiency is acquired
through reading, and that knowledge of content is developed
through problem solving.

THE AUTHOR
Stephen Krashen is Emeritus Professor of Education at the
University of Southern California. He is the author of The Power of
Reading (2004); was the 1977 Incline Bench Press champion of
Venice Beach, California; and holds a black belt in Tae Kwon Do.

REFERENCES
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Metacognitive reading strategies increase L2
performance. The Language Teacher, 27(7). http://www.jalt-
publications.org/tlt
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken
and written registers. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Bloom, B. (1963). Report on creativity research by the examiner’s
office of the University of Chicago. In C. Taylor & F. Barron
(Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 261–
264). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Crawford, J., & Krashen, S. (2007). English learners in American
classrooms: 101 questions, 101 answers. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 391
Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A
comparison of words found in children’s narrative and
expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25, 1–37.
doi:10.1093/applin/25.1.1
Gardner, D. (2008). Vocabulary recycling in children’s authentic
reading materials: A corpus-based investigation of narrow
reading. Reading as a Foreign Language, 20(1), 92–122.
Howe, M. (1999). Genius explained. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language
acquisition. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The
Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2007). Extensive reading in English as a foreign
language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 23–29.
Krashen, S. (2010, November). Academic language proficiency:
Acquired or learned? Paper presented at the 19th International
Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.
Krashen, S., & Brown, C. L. (2007). What is academic language
proficiency? STETS Language and Communication Review,
6(1), 1–4.
Lao, C. Y., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature
study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the
power of reading. System, 28, 261–270. doi:10.1016/S0346-
251X(00)00011-7
Mason, B. (2006). Free voluntary reading and autonomy in second
language acquisition: Improving TOEFL scores from reading
alone. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 2–5.
Mason, B. (2010a). Comprehension is the key to efficient foreign
language education: Self-selected reading and story-listening are
the solutions. The Bulletin of Shitennoji University, 49, 371–380.
Mason, B. (2010b, November). Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one
year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study.
Paper presented at the 19th International Symposium and Book
Fair on English Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.
392 TESOL Journal
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary
instruction worth-while? RELC Journal, 35(2), 179–185.
doi:10.1177/003368820403500206
Mason, B., Vanata, M., Jander, K., Borsch, R., & Krashen, S. (2009).
The effects and efficiency of hearing stories on vocabulary
acquisition by students of German as a second foreign language
in Japan. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching,
5(1), 1–14.
Ohanian, H. (2008). Einstein’s mistakes. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton.
Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of
history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a
functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67–93.
doi:10.2307/3588259
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F. (1983). The role of prediction in reading. In Essays into
literacy (pp. 35–39). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vonnegut, K. (1981). Easter Sunday. New York, NY: Dell.

Academic Proficiency (Language and Content) and the Role of Strategies 393