Obwohl ich jetzt keine Zeit fuer eine richtige "Reading Journal" zu schreiben habe, wollte ich meine Meinung zu dem "Structured Input" Tekst kurz aufschreiben.
Grammar activities from HS are always associated for me with the extremely easy, highly structured fill in-the-blanks worksheets that we are all familiar with. While I don't quite ever remember the actual moment of understanding a grammar point [which speaks to the idea that we teach from our own learning experiences -- these should/should not be sometimes changed to better meet the needs of our students], I know that I somehow did manage to absorb it.
What was memorable were the tedious worksheets; the benefit of the worksheets is that the main point was the only point. This made it pretty easy to ace the exams. And, perhaps, easy to remember while in Germany/speaking with natives.
Grammar patterns elaborated through these tedious worksheets, then, were most likely in the minds of their inventors, intended brain "muscle memory" exercises -- creativity not necessarily promoted, but tools readily given.
How much learning are we trying to put into every moment of teaching/facilitating instruction?
Assuming the communicative framework, as much focus on meaning and intention. Which was, I guess, redefined by VanPatten and Lee. Stay tuned for Teil 2. More summary, more thought (?).