What actually counts as language practice? 📚 5/9
Redefining "study" when you're not in language school
This post is part of a series, Learning Languages as an Adult, - a research-informed look at what progress, pauses, and returning actually look like for adult learners.
Yesterday, I spent my lunch break reading student handouts and teacher memos. Some were out of necessity, others were just out of curiosity. I didn’t do anything else and counted it as my Japanese study for the day. Before bed, I caught myself wondering: Did that even count?
I ask myself a lot of variations of this question: Is watching this show helping? Does scrolling through posts in my target language count as practice? Am I actually learning, or just fooling myself?
Adults who learn languages outside formal settings often struggle to define what “counts.” Without a syllabus, grades, or a teacher tracking your hours, it’s hard to know if you’re making real progress or just going through the motions.
In the last post, we talked about the three types of contact that matter: input (listening and reading), interaction (real-time exchange with others), and output (solo production like writing or speaking to yourself).
Now let’s get specific: What does each type actually look like in your daily life? And how do you know if something really counts?
📖 The guilt around “not really studying”
Part of the confusion about what “counts” comes from how we learned languages in school. In a classroom, studying has clear boundaries: textbooks, exercises, tests, homework. You know when you’re learning because someone told you so. As an adult, those structures disappear. You’re making your own choices about what to do and when. That freedom is useful, but it also creates uncertainty.
Some adult students feel sense of guilt towards passive activities. Watching shows in their target language can feel like cheating; reading articles may feel less valid than drilling grammar; even conversations with tutors can raise doubts about whether they’re studying “seriously enough.” Underneath this is often the belief that learning should feel effortful or uncomfortable, and that enjoyment signals a lack of rigor.
But research on adult language learning suggests that’s backwards. For adults managing full lives, sustainability matters more than suffering (Krashen, 1982). What matters most are activities you can keep up with while dealing with other things, not just the hardest ones.
🔍 What “counts” depends on what you’re building
Rather than asking, “Does this count?” It’s more useful to ask, “What does this count as?” Keep in mind what was discussed in Post 4:
input builds recognition and comprehension
interaction builds real-time performance and speaking fluency
output builds confidence and reveals gaps, preparing you for interaction
All three count. They are simply tallied differently, and their effectiveness varies for each objective:
If your aim is to understand spoken language and read comfortably, input is your primary tool.
If your aim is to speak fluently in real time, interaction is irreplaceable. Output can help you prepare, and input provides the foundation, but actual conversation practice with another person builds conversational skills (Long, 1996).
As a reminder from Post 1, you don't always operate in growth mode. Sometimes you’re in maintenance mode. And during those phases, what “counts” shifts.
During growth phases, you need a mix of all three types, weighted toward interaction if speaking is your goal.
During maintenance phases, input alone can be enough to keep the language accessible and prevent major drop-offs.
Both options are acceptable. It really depends on where you are in life.
Now let’s examine what each approach really looks like in practice, and how to distinguish between self-deception and genuine progress.
👂 What counts as input?
Processing input means both listening and reading. It’s how you:
Build recognition vocabulary
Develop listening comprehension
Internalize natural patterns
Maintain what you already know
But not all input is created equal. The key distinction is attention.
I. High-quality input (counts more):
✅ Reading an article or a few pages of a book
You’re focused on meaning
You could summarize what you read
You’re noticing new words or patterns
Why it counts: Attention is engaged, comprehension is active
✅ Watching a show you care about (even with subtitles)
You’re following the plot
You’re listening, not just reading subtitles
You pause when you don’t understand
Why it counts: Active engagement with meaning
✅ Listening to a podcast during your commute (if you’re actually listening)
You’re paying attention to content
You could explain the main idea
You’re not heavily multitasking
Why it counts: Focused exposure to natural speech
✅ Scrolling through social media in your target language (if you’re reading)
You’re actually reading posts, not just scrolling
You stop to understand interesting content
You’re noticing how people express ideas
Why it counts: Light but consistent exposure
✅ Rereading something familiar
It feels easier, but you’re still processing meaning
You notice things you missed before
Reinforcement helps maintain access
Why it counts: Easier retrieval strengthens neural pathways
II. Low-quality INPUT (counts less or not at all):
❌ Having a show on while doing focused work
Your attention is on your work, not the language
You couldn’t summarize what happened
The language is just background noise
Why it doesn’t count: No meaningful processing happening
❌ Scrolling past posts without reading them
You’re seeing the language but not engaging with meaning
Exposure without attention doesn’t build much
Why it doesn’t count: No comprehension, no learning
❌ Music on in the background (unless you’re actively listening to lyrics)
Pleasant, but mostly unconscious exposure
Might help with rhythm and sounds, but limited vocabulary gain
Why it doesn’t count much: Attention is elsewhere
III. 🧑🏫 The test for input:
Ask yourself: Am I paying attention to meaning?
If yes → it counts as input
If no → its pleasant exposure but not learning
Research on attention in language learning shows that noticing and processing meaning are essential for acquisition (Schmidt, 2001). You don’t need perfect focus, but you need some engagement.
Practical takeaways 💡
Attention matters more than duration.
20 minutes of focused reading beats 2 hours of background TV.Easy input is still valid.
Familiar content is important for keeping users engaged and reducing churn.Background exposure has limits.
It keeps sounds familiar but doesn’t build much comprehension or vocabulary.Don’t guilt yourself for enjoying it.
Understanding and paying attention matter, even if the activity is enjoyable and simple.
🗣️ What counts as interaction?
Interaction is real-time exchange with another person. It’s how you:
Build speaking fluency and conversational skills
Practice retrieval under time pressure
Get feedback (implicit or explicit)
Learn to navigate real conversations
Most adult learners shy away from this kind of engagement, finding it challenging, nerve-wracking, and requiring another person. It can be cumbersome but studies undeniably show that interaction is crucial for speaking fluently (Long, 1996).
Passive input and solo output can support speaking development, but they cannot substitute for the real-time demands of conversation.
I. High-quality interaction (most effective for speaking):
✅ Weekly tutor or teacher sessions
You’re forced to speak, even when words don’t come easily
You get feedback on accuracy and clarity
Sessions are structured but conversational
Why it counts: Retrieval under pressure + correction + consistency
✅ Language exchange with a partner
You practice speaking and listening
You help each other, so the stakes feel lower
Regular sessions build comfort over time
Why it counts: Real conversation practice with low pressure
✅ Conversation practice groups (online or in-person)
You speak with multiple people
Topics vary, pushing you to use different vocabulary
The social aspect makes it sustainable
Why it counts: Diverse interactions strengthen flexibility
✅ Brief real-world exchanges (ordering coffee, asking for directions)
Short but real stakes
Functional language use
Builds confidence for bigger conversations
Why it counts: Even 30 seconds of actual use builds retrieval pathways
II. What makes interaction effective:
Frequency over duration: Research on spaced practice shows that 30 minutes twice a week beats one 2-hour session monthly (Cepeda et al., 2006).
Low stakes over high stakes: Comfortable conversation where mistakes are okay builds fluency faster than high-pressure situations that trigger anxiety.
Feedback matters: Whether explicit instruction (that word doesn’t quite work here) or implicit (confusion, clarification requests), feedback refines your output over time.
III. 🧑🏫 The test for interaction:
Ask yourself: Am I exchanging language with another person in real time?
If yes → you’re speaking or writing back and forth with someone who’s actively responding → it counts as interaction.
If you’re producing language alone (journaling, voice memos, talking to yourself), that’s output. Still valuable for building confidence and revealing gaps, but it doesn’t replace the unique benefits of real conversation.
Practical takeaways 💡
Even brief exchanges count.
Active speaking practice, even for short periods, is more efficient for language fluency than just listening or reading, according to research (Long, 1996).Mistakes are part of the process.
Interaction's function is to highlight deficiencies, which is its design, not a failing.Consistency beats intensity.
Weekly sessions you can sustain beat sporadic bursts of effort.Lower your perfectionism threshold.
Hesitating to speak because you might make a mistake slows progress more than the mistake itself.
✍️ What counts as output?
Output is solo production: speaking or writing without an immediate audience. It’s how you:
Practice retrieval without social pressure
Build confidence before facing real interactions
Identify what you can’t yet say
Prepare yourself for conversation
This is the underrated middle ground. It’s harder than input (you have to produce, not just consume) but easier than interaction (no one is listening, so stakes are lower).
However, output works best as preparation for interaction, not as a replacement for it. According to Swain (1985), language output research suggests that producing language aids learners in identifying deficiencies and encourages more thorough processing. However, the most beneficial output involves chances for feedback and genuine communication, elements absent in solitary practice.
I. High-quality output (valuable for preparation):
✅ Voice memos to yourself
Talk about your day, describe what you see, explain a concept
No one is listening, so you can stumble and restart
Reveals what you can’t yet say
Why it counts: Builds confidence and identifies gaps before real conversations. While not as effective as interaction for fluency, it has value when interaction is not possible.
✅ Private journaling in your target language
Write about anything: your day, your thoughts, summaries of what you read
No pressure for perfect grammar
You can look up words as you go
Why it counts: Strengthens writing skills and deepens vocabulary connections without performance pressure.
✅ Talking to yourself while cooking or walking
Narrate what you’re doing, plan your day aloud, argue with yourself
Feels weird at first but builds retrieval
No stakes, just practice
Why it counts: Low-pressure rehearsal for the high-stakes work of real conversation.
✅ Writing posts or messages (even if you don’t send them)
More formal than journaling but still solo
Helps organize thoughts in the target language
Can be revised, which strengthens accuracy
Why it counts: Productive practice that builds writing coherence and prepares you for real exchanges.
III. What makes output effective (and what its limits are):
Best used as preparation: Output helps you practice retrieval and build confidence before facing interaction, but it can’t fully replace conversation.
Reveals gaps: When you can’t find a word or structure, that gap shows you what to review. This is valuable, self-directed feedback.
No pressure, but also no correction: Solo practice removes anxiety, but it also means you won’t catch mistakes or get feedback on accuracy.
Research suggests private speech can support learning by helping learners organize thoughts and bridge internal knowledge to external production (Lantolf, 2000). Solo output serves as a low-pressure rehearsal space before engaging in real interaction.
IV. 🧑🏫 The test for output:
Ask yourself: Am I creating language on my own, without an immediate audience?
If you’re speaking to yourself, writing in a journal, or recording voice memos - that’s output. You’re producing language, but there’s no one waiting for your response.
If someone else is involved and responding in real time → interaction
If you’re only listening or reading → input
Practical takeaways 💡
Output doesn’t need an audience to have value.
Talking to yourself or journaling builds retrieval and confidence without social pressure.It bridges input and interaction.
Solo practice makes actual conversations feel less overwhelming.Start small.
5 minutes of speaking to yourself is more valuable than you think for building comfort.Use gaps as feedback.
When you can’t say something, note it and look it up; that’s active learning.
Don’t stop here.
Output is valuable preparation, but if your goal is to speak fluently, you’ll eventually need interaction to build real conversational skills.
🎯 Balancing input, interaction, and output
It's clear by this point that you need all three. But the balance depends on where you are and what you’re aiming for.
A note on effectiveness:
While all three types matter, they’re not equally powerful for every goal.
If your aim is to understand spoken language and read comfortably, input is your primary tool.
If your aim is to speak fluently in real time, interaction is irreplaceable because it’s where you build real-time retrieval under social conditions.
Output helps you prepare for interaction by removing performance pressure and revealing gaps.
Input builds the foundation by expanding what you know.
You need all three, but interaction does things the other two cannot. If speaking is your goal, no amount of input or output fully replaces regular conversation practice.
I. During maintenance phases (Post 1):
Heavy input, light output, minimal interaction
Goal: Keep the language accessible without burning out
Input: 20-30 minutes daily (podcasts, reading, shows)
Output: Occasional (journaling when you feel like it)
Interaction: Optional (maybe once a month to check in)
Why this works: Maintains competence, prevents major drop-offs, fits into busy life
II. During growth phases:
Balanced input, regular interaction, consistent output
Goal: Expand competence and build performance
Input: 30-60 minutes daily (reading, listening to challenging content)
Output: 2-3 times per week (journaling, voice memos)
Interaction: 1-2 times per week (tutor, language exchange)
Why this works: input expands knowledge, output builds confidence and reveals gaps, interaction develops real-time conversational skills
III. A realistic week of practice for a working adult (growth mode):
Monday - Friday:
Morning: 10-15 minutes of input (reading the news, a book, or an article over coffee), or
Commute: 20-30 minutes of input (podcast or audiobook), or
Evening: 30 minutes of input (show, reading, or social media), and
2-3 evenings: 5-10 minutes of output (voice memo or short journal entry)
Weekend:
Saturday: 1-hour interaction (tutor session or language exchange)
Sunday: 30 minutes of output (longer journal entry or writing practice)
Weekly total: ~up to 8-10 hours
Input: up to 5-6 hours (foundation)
Output: 1-2 hours (preparation/confidence)
Interaction: 1 hour (speaking development)
This isn't revolutionary, but it is sustainable. And over months, it accumulates into real progress.
Practical takeaways 💡
Match practice to your phase.
Maintenance needs mostly input. Growth needs all three types.Input is easiest to maintain.
When life gets busy, keep input going. This prevents total drop-off.Interaction is hardest but most effective for speaking.
One hour of conversation with a tutor often builds fluency more effectively than many hours of passive listening.Output is the underrated middle ground.
Solo practice builds confidence and reveals gaps before you face real conversations.Be honest about your goals.
If you want to speak fluently, you’ll eventually need regular interaction. Input and output alone won’t get you there.
🧠 The guilt test: “Am I fooling myself?”
If you’re ever unsure whether something counts, ask these questions:
1. Am I paying attention to meaning?
If yes → it counts as input
If no → it’s background exposure (minimal benefit)
2. Am I producing language (speaking or writing)?
If yes → it counts as output or interaction
If no → its input(still valuable, just different)
3. Could I do this every day without burning out?
If yes → its sustainable maintenance
If no → its growth work (which is fine, just recognize it and pace yourself)
4. Am I noticing anything about the language itself?
If yes → you’re learning
If no → you’re maintaining (still valid)
5. Is another person involved in real-time?
If yes → it’s interaction (most valuable for speaking)
If no → its input or output (still counts)
🔍 What this reframes
The question was never, “Does this count?” The real questions are:
What does this count as? (input, interaction, or output?)
What phase am I in? (maintenance or growth?)
Am I being honest about my attention? (engaged or distracted?)
Some activities maintain. Some grow. Some build input. Some strengthen output. Some require focus. Some work on autopilot. Each one matters; they just contribute to different outcomes.
As an adult learner, your job isn’t to maximize every hour or feel guilty about the easier stuff. Your job is to stay connected to the language in ways you can sustain, and occasionally push yourself when you have the capacity.
That’s what practice looks like when you’re not a student anymore. Not perfect. Not always intense. Just consistent enough to keep the door open and weave your language learning into your real life and responsibilities.
Previous posts covered maintenance, why learning feels slow, realistic timelines, immersion, and the three types of contact. This one showed you what each type actually looks like in daily life and how to stop second-guessing yourself.
However, the biggest hurdle for most adult learners is that the most effective learning method, interaction, is also the most difficult to access. Without a classroom, a set cohort, or attendance tracking, you're on your own. We’ll touch more on that next week.
💛 I’d love to hear from you: What’s one activity you do regularly but aren’t sure “counts”? And which type of contact (input, interaction, output) feels hardest to maintain?
📠 References and Further Reading
Distributed Practice and Spacing Effects
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Input Hypothesis
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Interaction Hypothesis
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Private Speech in Second Language Learning
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press.
Attention and Noticing
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Output Hypothesis
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Article Cover Photo: Hiroshi Yoshida Archive
Yoshida, H. (1928). Catching goldfish (Kingyo sukui) [Woodblock print]. From the series Twelve Scenes of Tokyo (Tokyo jûnidai). https://jpwoodblocks.com/hiroshi_yoshida/catching-goldfish-kingyo-sukui-from-the-series-twelve-scenes-of-tokyo-tokyo-junidai-showa-period-dated-1928/