Nowhere do second
language acquisition (SLA) research and language learning materials design
intersect more clearly than on the issue of ‘comprehensibility’. The idea of providing
input that is notionally ‘comprehensible’ (as conceived by Krashen, 1982, 1985)
seems to have a timeless appeal to teachers and materials writers. One of the aims of this chapter is to critically
examine the notion to see how well it has stood the test of time, particularly
in light of radically altered access to and relationship with language data in
the digital age.
Comprehensibility –
and comprehension – have no direct correlation with language acquisition, as
the likes of Gilmore (2007) and Oh (2001) have pointed out. Furthermore,
comprehension is not particularly cognitively demanding, figuring on the second
lowest rung of Bloom’s six-level taxonomy of the cognitive domain (originally
Bloom 1956, revised version, Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). The work of Bloom
and his successors has had tremendous influence in the sphere of education in
general in drawing attention to the importance of promoting higher order thinking to achieve
effective learning. Yet this has never appeared to extend in any systematic way
to language learning or language learning materials development, despite the recognised
link between cognitive challenge and memory (e.g. Craik 2002) with its clear
implications for second language acquisition. In this chapter, I therefore consider
the influence of these two core concepts, the first from SLA, comprehensibility,
and the second from education, Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain, on the
design of language learning materials. I argue for the importance of providing learners with the sort of cognitive stimulation and
challenge that respects their intellects, and I propose a materials design ‘checklist’
based on Bloom’s taxonomy which does this.