Eric Herman has defined a few terms we use a lot:
Proficiency is the ability to communicate language
– spontaneously and without rehearsal
– in familiar and unfamiliar contexts (i.e. not limited to the content of a particular curriculum and maintains the ability across all tasks appropriate to language level)
– understandable to native speakers
– in real-world situations
Fluency is the ability to use language
– with ease (effortless)
– in abundance
– understandable to native speakers
– in real-time.
Proficiency and fluency are different. Just look at the Proficiency Guidelines and you’ll see that they don’t expect fluency at each level, but that is because they are comparing language use to a “native speaker standard.” In other words, how much can a student do in the REAL world that does NOT control language for the student’s level after 1 year of language? That’s a different question than asking how much a student can do with the language when the task is level-appropriate (within the language quantity expected of their level).
Acquired Competence (AC) = unconscious language use – it’s what language can be comprehended and produced in free, spontaneous, unrehearsed situations
Learned Competence (LC) = conscious language use
Acquisition = (also known as implicit learning). The process that involves a more natural context (no grammatical syllabus, more comprehensible interaction in the target language) and a conscious focus on processing meaning (form gets acquired unconsciously). Acquisition develops the most AC. Though acquisition is the best way to develop AC, it will likely also result in some LC. In other words, while the person is focused on the meaning, he/she may also induce some of the rules of the language.
Learning = the process that we are most accustomed to seeing in a classroom (explicit instruction of rules, more L1 use) and more conscious focus and practice of form. In the case of learning, there will also likely be some development of AC, since any time the students understand a target language message there is an opportunity for growth of AC. Anyone who thinks they can develop more AC from spending more time on the learning process, is welcome to try. A delayed, unannounced monitor-free test (the kind that has time pressure) will show what a student can do.
As for teaching “discrete grammar” that is definitely NOT TPRS/TCI. When we pop-up grammar we keep the focus on the meaning, e.g. “ando” means “ing.” and it’s a quick pop-up. We teach grammar “implicitly” (it gets picked up). There is a whole line of research (Krashen and others) to support this approach. Your colleague can probably also find a line of research to support some grammar instruction (but I bet she won’t look). And if she has those studies, then you can find Krashen and Truscott rebuttals. There’s plenty of research showing the equal and superior gains of TCI without little to no explicit grammar instruction (see bottom of attachment). In the end, a fair assessment of global competence will also show those results. If untimed writing accuracy is a goal (it should not be), then some grammar instruction may help some of the kids (those good memorizers).