images-2Students are different, but the way in which their brains acquire language is not.

The problem with just saying “students are different” is that people misinterpret this to mean “various methods all work to get people (all people) to acquire language” when in fact they do not, by and large. Various methods work for some. CI-based methods, if they are really CI based, work for everyone. If they didn’t, no one could debate the topic using their fluent native language.
There is so much twisting of technical terms going on these days that I’m afraid I’ve become very, very hardline on how words are used. “Comprehensible” means CAN BE UNDERSTOOD ACCURATELY, not “can be guessed” or “the interpretive dance will give clues to its meaning”. “Input” means language going in, not coming out, and the incidental element that is not represented in all this is “correct”, which rules out interput between well-meaning students in pairwork. Kinda-sorta comprehensible input kinda-sorta works for optimal acquisition. Comprehensible kinda-sorta input (part output) kinda-sorta works for optimal acquisition. Comprehensible input that is kinda-sorta correct kinda-sorta works for optimal acquisition.
I’m tired of kinda-sorta. Why not do what really works?