This is from skip, who welcomes feedback:
In an attempt to further the “how do humans acquire second languages” discussion I would like to make the following statements:
1. Oral proficiency is produced by repetitive comprehensible input – by understanding messages.
2. Writers are produced by receiving comprehensible input vía reading…
Research has shown that “output” – students practicing speaking in various contexts – produced no significant gains in oral proficiency. (Krashen, 1982, 1994, 2003).
Research has also shown that “output” – students practicing writing in the first years of study – produces no significant gains in writing skills. (Gradman and Hanania, 1991)(Gradman and Hanania,1991).
So, oral and writing proficiency gains are made ONLY via comprehensible input. I would argue that ACTFL, in its position that ALL language classrooms should be 90% comprehensible input, supports the two statements above.
I would also point to the recent changes to the new AP exam and Vermont’s definition of proficiency as evidence that we should be moving away from a “grammar” centered method of language instruction. (http://education.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/licensing/testing/proficiency_definitions.pdf)
I would argue that this notion is a paradigm shift and that most second language classrooms operate under the completely false presupposition that proficiency is produced by learning grammatical rules and then practicing those rules until one can speak and write in the L2.
I would encourage people to site specific research in their responses to these ideas.
Skip