# data[].attributes.body
I believe that language can be taught to an extent but students need to feel like they are in charge of their own learning, have motivation, and be willing to push themselves to learn language as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that students can achieve great expectations from teachers. However, a good teacher recognizes the level at which their students are at and uses that as a base for their instruction. This is why we have academic standards to guide our teaching at each grade level. This being said, it would not be smart for a language teacher to instruct a kindergarten student using large vocabulary words and expecting them to learn what they mean right away. I do think that as students develop their language skill, they are better able to understand more complex ideas and topics. Though these concepts may be a bit above their heads, students should be able to grasp them eventually, with multiple exposures. I guess what I'm saying is similar to what others are saying with mentioning Lev Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). I also think teachers can help students progress along development stages quicker than if they were left on their own.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the Innatist Theory, Universal Grammar is learned in a specific sequence regardless of the sequence of instruction from a teacher. If you couple UG with the literacy skills that language learners have and transfer them from NL to TL, this directly influences the developmental stage a student will produce. However, other factors such the alphabet principle where phonemes and morphemes may be absent from the NL but present in the TL may also contribute to errors and seemingly a lower developmental stage than the student may be at. I would also say that whether the student feels safe in an environment, whether they feel valued and heard, and the individual differences they may bring to the learning experience (DD, Anxiety, Depression, Bipolar, Schizophrenia, ADD/ADHD, Autism Spectrum, PTSD, live in poverty, exposed to gun violence, mental/physical/emotional abuse at home, substance use and are in a constant state of fight/flight, they take care of their family, they work, etc.) will also impact their learning. I would say overall, language is teachable when the teacher takes into consideration all of these factors through communication, building relationships, assessments and adapting instruction to support the student's ZPD. A language learner is multifaceted and developmental sequences are innate within a specific order. When instruction supports the current developmental stage of the learner, the rate of learning will increase.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that students can learn something just because the teacher puts it there. They have to be ready for it, but I'm no necessarily saying this from a strict order of acquisition rule. Teachers can only create the conditions for learning, students have to both be academically ready (ZDP) and emotionally ready. Since so much of language learning and other learning builds upon prior knowledge, there is no use trying to teach something before the foundation is set. Sure, some issues might be a bit flexible, but as teachers we want to make sure students are ready before we try to push them too quickly, and also not be too soft on them that their foundation never grows.

# data[].attributes.body
From my own language learning experience, I can only learn what I am ready for. Even if there is something that I should be able to understand, if something is blocking my ability to access or understand fully the word/grammar/etc, I just can't store it into my memory. Like others have said, I'm sure there are a wide variety of factors that play into how much this impacts each learner, but I think it is something to consider when evaluating students and our own L2+ abilities.

# data[].attributes.body
I think anything, whether that be math, reading, social studies, science, language, etc., is "teachable" but there are so many variables that come into play when trying to determine whether or not students are actually learning. I think some things like motivation, the quality of instruction, and informational retention can impact what students are able to take in. While research shows that there are certain skills students go through when learning language, it doesn't guarantee that all students learn language the exact same way. Teachers can only do what they can to the best of their abilities to promote the language learning and students can only do what they can (usually unconsciously) to learn it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Too Much, Too Soon, Too Fast, Won't Last

# data[].attributes.subject
Too Much, Too Soon, Too Fast, Won't Last

# data[].attributes.body
This is argument we have been debating since the beginning of this course. Research points to the fact that learning happens in a specific sequence. Even with instructor support, learners can't acquire language skills past the sequence they are currently on. A learner cannot "skip" a level just because they were exposed to the information early. I believe teachers need to figure out where their students are in the learning process and then meet and support them at that level. This discussion made me think of a phrase we use at work when referring to our instruction and meeting students where they are at in the learning process - "too much, too soon, too fast, won't last". The phrase is a good reminder that we need to make sure we are at our students' learning levels and not just throwing information at them hoping it will stick.

# data[].attributes.body
Pienemann states in his research, "The teachability of language is constrained by what the learner is ready to acquire."  I noticed that too in my teaching experience.  Teachers can offer comprehensible inputs and scaffolding to the learners, but if the learners do not notice and process the inputs and convert them as intakes, the language is not teachable.   Therefore, my major concern is how to guide students process the inputs and make it accessible to students?   They notice, process and internalize the teaching materials.

# data[].attributes.body
As Corder argued that “input is not equal to intake” and based on my own learning and teaching experience I can say that teachers are only able to promote the language learning that students are ready for, taking into account their current level of language performance. Motivation plays an important role in SLA but learners still have to go through all stages of SLA without skipping any stage because our cognitive system designed they way that it acquires knowledge gradually and can process limited amount of information.  Moreover, there are many individual differences of learners which have to be accounted for.

# data[].attributes.body
It feels as though from the very beginning of this class, this question has been an underlying theme. Each of the texts we've read have touched on the idea at some point or another. Through research we can definitively say that language must be learned in a specific order, and that try as we might we cant just skip one level and go to the next, no matter what method we use to teach our learners. This seems to suggest that to some extent that language is something acquired more than taught. However, I don't think theres any kind of clear cut answer here. It almost feels as complex and timeless of the question of nature vs nurture in the field of psychology, there are some topics that can be researched and debated back and forth but at the end of the day, I don't think anyone can fully say one way or the other on the matter.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems from what we've learned and read that there is a sequence to language and skill acquisition. Some language skills are learned in a specific order. It seems like most research supports this, with a few exceptions. We may be able to help speed up the process with explicit instruction on the skill students are on in the acquisition process. However, it's impossible to teach to the level that every student is at. I'd like to think that students benefit from any task/activity/lesson that they are engaged in but if it's focused on a form they are not yet ready to learn, I'm not so sure. If students aren't cognitively ready than they're not ready.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
McREL - The Five Stages of Second Language Acquisition

# data[].attributes.body
I often go back and fourth on this question, and I think it is about and connected to teaching language that students are ready to learn. Sometimes I can actually see students make connections between things they've seen in my class and in other places (at work, out in the streets, in the school). I liked this image, because even though it doesn't pertain to language acquisition particularly, I can put students that I have currently into each of these steps. I have students who have been in the country for a number of years and are still considered beginner students. Often, these students have some automaticity in the basics, but not in places they either haven't learned before or in language they do not think will serve them. On the other hand, I have other students who come in, and it is a day-to-day process, sometimes they are enthusiastic and open to learning, and I see that they recall things when they are in this mood consistently. I often ask, "Are we all here today? Are we here physically and mentally?" This mental opening seems to be the key for students to advance in their learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

# data[].attributes.headline
According to Vygotsky and his Zone of Proximal Development, one cannot learn those things beyond the "zone", even if presented. I would probably agree in general, but I would also tend to believe there must be exceptions  for different variables. For my current article, it talked about how Iraqi students actually consistently learned specific  morphemes out of the typical order, acquiring possessive -s before they "should" have. Maybe this was due to native language transfer, but clearly, there must be exceptions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
According to Vygotsky and his Zone of Proximal Development, one cannot learn those things beyond the "zone", even if presented. I would probably agree in general, but I would also tend to believe there must be exceptions  for different variables. For my current article, it talked about how Iraqi students actually consistently learned specific  morphemes out of the typical order, acquiring possessive -s before they "should" have. Maybe this was due to native language transfer, but clearly, there must be exceptions. 