Laurie Clarcq On Output

So many of the recent comments here should really be blogs so that they can be categorized. Oh well. At least I can trap this gem by Laurie on output into the new “output” category on the right here. (However, since I can’t keep up with the categorization process, I would suggest just using the search function most of the time).
Laurie:
Output is frequently used as a measure of evaluation.   I am not a fan of this method because many people (myself included!!!) do not have a good grip on how to make an output-formatted evaluation that effectively measures anything . 
That being said….Here are my heretical thoughts on output:
I used to think that output was one of the major goals of language instruction.   The assumptions behind it  that were that:
• A student learn to comprehend and to produce language at the same rate.
• The rate at which students begin to comprehend and produce is totally dependent on teacher-controlled issues save three:  student motivation, student work, student “ability”-level.
• Teachers who organize right, plan right, establish expectations right and create good evaluative activities can then identify a correct level of language production.
• This identification should then be used to compare and delineate students.
Since working to focus my instruction on Comprehensible Input I’ve developed a new way of looking at input…and trust me…it is still evolving.  
What I have seen is that….NON-GRADED OUTPUT can:
• Allow students to organize input in their brain (best-case scenario) or perhaps only in their notebooks (worst-case scenario.)
• Give students the opportunity to demonstrate the ability (or inability) to practice testing scenarios.
• Open doors for students to creatively combine acquired vocabulary  in a new situation.
• Communicate ideas/thoughts/doubts/questions on a variety of topics.
• Add interest to story-asking activities (ie responses)
• Increase student-suggested ideas during story-asking activities.
• Provide an opportunity for the teacher to monitor “ spontaneous” output.
In actuality, GRADED output will:
• Provide PR opportunities in the form of projects that can be displayed or shared.
• Allow the teacher to collect samples of standards-based student writing to use in comparison to other writings and department/district/state requirements. (ala my former perspective….)
• Give students who are “good at school” a chance to show off their skills.
• Damage many, many students.
• Take valuable time away from activities which actually increase students’ language interests and abilities.
with love and fired up about this topic……
Laurie