As the 400+ posts exchange seems to be starting up again (perhaps stillborn due to the end of the school year), Terry keeps making the point that in the initial phase = 3 years at least at h.s. level, learners need to hear/see L2 with total comprehension in order for the acquisition to take place. No hit or miss, no pizza thrown against the wall to see how many peperoni stick, just a one-on-one item to comprehension ratio. Meaning must be in the learner’s mind when the input is there, otherwise the connection doesn’t happen, the connection that leads to acquisition.
Others keep saying that’s not necessary, as long as the learners do X, whatever the teacher believes IS necessary (engagement, relating the story, acting out the story, writing their own stories, and many other activities). These latter teachers tell us that X does result in acquisition.
While I admit to a bias in favor of Terry’s arguments for both extraneous and intrinsic reasons, my major reason for cleaving to Terry is that she is talking about procedures that we all – if I am not mistaken – have seen to result in acquisition, i.e. classic tprs.
Tina has made the point that too rigid adherence to procedures may lose some potential recruits. That’s possible. But here is my caveat:
as we have experienced, veteran, dedicated tprs teachers like Tina and others on this list branching away from classic tprs, the discussion revolves more and more around these non-classic techniques (to go back to Anthony’s approach, method, technique distinctions), a dilution or looseness of structure gets baked in (to use a current phrase from politics), something some teachers might handle but others might find setting them back into a less-than-satisfactory outcome in their classes.
And we then are confronted with the same dilemma: how do we know what the results are?
Next day, May 27, in response to Tina, esp where she says: ”