Assimil: Would I ruin the productive phase?

[emk]

Assimil's basic design long predates Krashen, but the passive wave is an almost textbook-perfect example of using "comprehensible input" to learn a language

But one odd fact about language learners is that many people who only hear a language may develop very high levels of understanding without ever learning to speak. Heritage language learners are a classic case of this, despite having lots of exposure from birth. But similar things occured for many learners in the heyday of AJATT. Krashen seems to ignore this; Alphonse Chérel did not.

So I think the purpose of the active wave is just giving you practice formulating your thoughts in your new language. As such, you might try something like:

1. Review passive lessons whenever and as often as you want.
2. The first time you try an active lesson, try it without reviewing the target language first.
3. If you get stuck, review the entire lesson in both languages, then cover up the target language and try again. Take a 10 minute break and try again if you want a challenge.

After about lesson 60 or so, the content in many Assimil books becomes suddenly more complex. At this point, I wouldn't stress too much about exactly reproducing the original target text during the active wave. Treat it as more of a free form exercise, and be forgiving of your results.

[jeffers]

Assimil's basic design long predates Krashen, but the passive wave is an almost textbook-perfect example of using "comprehensible input" to learn a language

I agree with the whole post except this point, but I think Assimil is probably better than a "textbook-perfect example" of "comprehensible input". From what I understand, with "comprehensible input" each new thing (sentence, parapgraph, lesson?) should be completely understandable except for one thing, described as i + 1, such that the one new thing is clear to work out for yourself from the context. Assimil introduces a lot at a time and so requires a translation and notes, a "textbook-perfect example" of comprehensible input should not need either one. Having said that, I have never seen anyone present an actual textbook or workbook of i + 1 comprehensible input, so I doubt it even exists.

Your advice on how to approach the active wave seems spot-on to me, and I'll be trying it now that I've gotten to lesson 51 in Assimil German. I especially like the idea of taking a 10 minute break and trying again.

[tastyonions]

The “Lingua Latina” books might be a “textbook example,” with the caveat that they rely on the heavy Latin heritage of many European languages.

[Greasaias]

The “Lingua Latina” books might be a “textbook example,” with the caveat that they rely on the heavy Latin heritage of many European languages.

As a person who perused Hans Ørberg's "Lingua Latina per se illustrata: Familia Romana" (henceforth LLpsI) several times I can say this: it's a great book.
Myself, I could understand the chapters as I read them the first time I went through it (except for the few poetic passages). I had, however, studies formal Latin grammar beforehand. The only major grammar item that I would label 'difficult' was the subjunctive. (Maybe the sequence of tenses as well.)

The so-called 'CI' is an ill defined term, but with that out of the way…
If by 'i+1' you mean that each sentence, or at least each clause, includes only one word or 'grammar pattern', then LLpsI does not do it.
If you mean that "each new thing (sentence, paragraph, lesson?) should be completely understandable except for one thing" - I don't know about the 'one thing' but, but yes, I could just read it (as opposed to its sequel Roma Aeterna). But many people can't. (Take a look, y'all: C:\Greasaias\LL\Latin\LLpsI\people-complaining-about-LLpsI-on-the-subreddit-r-latin.docx.)

My pet theory is that LLpsI was adopted by people who had a (relatively) solid knowledge of rudimentary Latin grammar and consequently were able, as I was, to 'just do it' and read the book.
To describe it in terms of professor Paul Nation's Four Strands (of Language Learning): people who spend plenty of time on form-focused input found (mostly) meaning-focused input activities extremely helpful. Through rereading they were able to use the material for fluency development.
"What do you need to do to learn a foreign language?", Principle 2: Balance your learning across the four strands.
People like me did it, even if by accident, and succeeded (at reading LLpsI at least).

What has the above to do with Assimil?

Would this ruin the productive phase

50 days - I haven't analyzed a representative sample of the courses myself, but

In order for a second wave to work at once - to automatically be able to translate back from L1 to L2 despite not having studied the actual lesson for ~50 days - there has to be a lot of repetition throughout the course. (…) 裤子 (the Chinese word for trousers) is never repeated (except for the active wave, some 50 lessons later).

in other words: the active wave does not seem to be designed to work specifically nor are words repeated in an exact order - it's just a rule of thumb. The possible origin may be the fact that old Assimil courses had about 100 lessons each. (Also, maybe the old one's written by the man himself, Chérel, were designed like that.)
Some people prefer to do many waves. Each wave might be different: read English, then French; read French, then English; copy the text (delayed copying/ scriptorium); translate from French into English; etc. It's not like repeating material thrice instead of twice is cheating.

Frankly, think that the major way to ruin the productive phase would be not to do it.

Besides that - perhaps you're thinking about 'desirable difficulties'.
Desirable difficulties are

Conditions of learning that make performance improve rapidly often fail to support long-term retention and transfer, whereas conditions that create challenges and slow the rate of apparent learning often optimize long-term retention and transfer (p. 57). (source)

As long as you retrieve the knowledge, e.g. translate each chapter from French into your language of choice - as opposed to looking at both at the same time and mindlessly rewriting the text - you will succeed.

Just my $ 0.02.

PS. I might add - pet theory warning - that if you happened to accidentally learn all the dialogues and their translations by heart - and so were unable to really 'translate' (because you would be 'merely' recalling sentences you learnt)… First of all, that's unlikely. Second of all, there's no way it would not help you in your studies.

MAYBE it would not help to learn 1000 phrases and their translations in a language unrelated to the ones you know, say Manchu, without having analyzed their structure. I'm pretty sure it would, and you ('your brain') would've figured a lot of stuff out anyway. THAT SAID, we're talking about French and we're including grammatical analysis of the sentences, however 'implicit'. So I would bet good money you would've learned plenty of French if you memorized 'French with Ease'. (Not that you should.)