Talk:Comprehensible output

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think your item on the Comprehensible Output hypothesis is quite unfair and unhelpful to the general reader. First of all, you don't really explain what the output hypothesis is except in very sketchy terms. Secondly, you devote four times the space to criticisms. These criticisms are quite unfounded and confusing for teachers who may be looking for classroom solutions.

The comprehensible output hypothesis is based on empirical evidence. The criticisms are based on sour grapes.

There is a ton of evidence that when language learners engage in conversation their language ability improves dramatically. Hanging someone out of a helicopter is an idiotic example. Does anyone really consider that science? I'd like to see the ethical review for such an "experiment"!!

Krashen thinks that reading is more "interesting" than talking. That's like saying water ought to normally flow upwards. It's just plain stupid.

Please at least READ the output hypothesis. (I know it's short, but sometimes smaller is better.)

"The comprehensible output hypothesis is based on empirical evidence. The criticisms are based on sour grapes." As I've previously understood it, the reverse is true. I'd be interested in some studies though, if you know where to point me. Much appreciated, 72.88.210.96 (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as if this were written by Krashen himself. Too much of the article is spent explaining criticisms of CO by bolstering CI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.178.197 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Citing Krashen's survey of the 'evidence' to prove Krashen's criticism (footnote 7) is a particularly low blow that renders this article fundamentally useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3400:4000:E4D4:A99E:E62F:7C0F (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

It looks like this article hasn't changed much since 2008, and there appears to be far too much criticism of the comprehensible output hypothesis in here to be able to call this a balanced article. Both the input hypothesis and the output hypothesis are based on valid research - that is why finding a truly neutral viewpoint could be hard here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the dispute of neutrality is simply that the article does accurately represent the studies and criticism that Comprehensible Output has undergone. While it's use is popular in classrooms due to teacher's believing that the theory makes sense, quite frankly, the research does not support the theory's premises. Studies of Comprehensible Output in classroom setting show time and again that comprehensible fails to improve actual production. Even Michael Long and Patricia Porter who were major proponents of the theory found little evidence of the theory's improvements over the noticing hypothesis that Comprehensible Output is based on. I do not feel the article lacks neutrality as it accurately represents the state of the theory in academic linguistics. Though perhaps a statement that it is used commonly despite the criticisms is warranted. Nikkelitous (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Well, if experimental research has found it to be wrong, then cite that research! We would need papers with overviews of experimental studies. So far, we only have a long section where Krashen explains that this theory is not his theory. And then there is a bit about Butzmann's own preferred theory, too. As it stands, the article clearly has a neutrality problem.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)