Below, Sabrina sheds light on the current thread about targeting structures. I add it here because it clearly expresses one side of the many-sided prism that this discussion has become. I think it is important not to try to draw conclusions here. As Dr. Krashen told me pointedly in my high school last year, he did the research, we are the ones who have to apply it. So my take on this deal is that we have to just keep talking. Certain things will become clear. We don’t have to throw out the three structures model because we happen on some compelling new idea. All we have to do is keep teaching comprehension based classes and draw our own conclusions about what is best for us. We pick the candy in the candy store that we want, not what somebody says we want. We need only question everything and realize that this work will never be done in the sense that it will never be standardized. I am very glad that others are thinking about this, which Sabrina summarizes so well right here:
Doesn’t the Natural Order hypothesis state that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order? If I am understanding this hypothesis correctly (anyone correct me if I am wrong), each language ‘s average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes is different from one another (not language neutral).
Furthermore, isn’t the rate of acquisition different in each and every child? Could we then extrapolate and add in the mix of this fascinating conversation that kids will acquire whatever structure we are teaching whenever it fits that order (unknown to us), and whenever they are ready for it ( following each individual’s rate of acquisition)? The new emerging question that comes to my mind is: Is the structure I am teaching my kids too early for them to acquire and are they ready for it (no matter if I circle it 100 times or 1000 times)? Since we don’t have an answer to both questions, the problem becomes irrelevant and outside of my sphere of influence.