Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181679›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Beyond comprehensible input: a neuro-ecological critique of Krashen's hypothesis in language education.

Quang Nhat Nguyen, Dung Thi Hue Doan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Quang Nhat NguyenSaigon International University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Dung Thi Hue DoanSaigon International University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article critically reassesses the Comprehensible Input (CI) hypothesis in language education by drawing on recent advances in neurolinguistics and an ecological perspective on learning. While the CI hypothesis claims that language is acquired by understanding input slightly beyond a learner's current competence (i+1), converging evidence from brain research shows that language development is an active and embodied process supported by interaction, feedback, and multimodal engagement. From the ecological point of view, affordances are the perceivable opportunities for action that arise in the ongoing coupling of learner and environment. Using this combined neuro-ecological lens, the paper critically reviews empirical studies from the last three decades and demonstrates that meaningful language growth depends on learners detecting and acting on such affordances rather than merely processing linear and simplified input. Adaptive and AI-supported learning systems further illustrate how contemporary technologies can operate these mechanisms and offer individualized, scalable alternatives to the static i+1 model. The analysis argues that CI should no longer serve as a central doctrine in language education and calls for pedagogies that reflect the interactive, affordance-rich processes revealed by current brain and language science.

Indexed as

adaptive learningaffordance theoryAI in educationcomprehensible inputlanguage learningneuro-ecological approach

Identifiers

PMID41181679
PMCPMC12577063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.