and students effectively take risks without feeling threatened. Seliger (1977) in an observational examination made a refinement of the students at the limits of investment in a classroom setting and the impact of classroom communication on their Language capacity. Data were assembled through a semester and he reasoned that there were two sorts of students in view of verbal interaction; he called them ‘ high input generators’ and ‘low input generators’

The outcomes of an education by Zarfsaz et al. (2014), show that for low risk takers, anxiety, class actions and Ambiguity Tolerance are the most hindering factors while for high-risk takers, class activity is the most significant factor and second vital factors are Ambiguity Tolerance and class size. In their qualitative data analysis of the ten interviewees as the results demonstrate that 90% of the participants have positive attitudes toward risk-taking and they trust that active contribution and risk-taking is a good exercise for Language learners and high risk-takers are better Students. Fixing learners’ mistake in a friendlier way and highlighting that everyone can make mistake and making mistake is part of their education contributes to learners’ risk-taking skill and inspires them to take risks. They also found that teachers’ attitude, style and method as manipulating factors on Students anxiety level also have effects on classroom situation and environment and can be measured empowering or debilitating for learners’ Risk Taking capacity.

The literature in the field of second language acquisition has also brought to light other theories to explain risk takers. A clear instance is Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis. However, Krashen does not refer specifically to the concept of risk taking in his studies, the risk-taking construct and its specifications are implied in many of them. According to Ortega (2009, p.198) in simple terms, risk takers and risk-averse students can be compared respectively to Krashen’s “underusers” and “over users” of the monitor device. The over users are highly concerned with editing their language accomplishment and attentively think their utterances; hence, they usually represent deficient oral fluency (Krashen as cited in Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Monitor over users have the specification of “cautiousness” shared by risk-averse students in the language classroom. On the other hand, under users are believed to be more reckless in their use of the language. Their utterances are not the product of mental authenticity. Moreover, under users represent high levels of risk taking because they prefer to say what they want without worrying about the details like risk takers us