Traditionally, classroom instruction has been viewed as a structured, deliberately sequenced process leading to predetermined goals within given time limits. However, classroom second language instruction appears to be less efficient than non-classroom language acquisition. The reason may lie in the distinction between linguistic input (all language samples the learner hears) and linguistic intake (language samples actually influencing the learner's evolving sense of the language). Research suggests that as with native language acquisition, second language intake must be adjusted so that it falls within the learner's range of comprehension but demands their active effort to identify and use the linguistic clues to meaning. Different learners may have different intake levels so that even in optimal classroom conditions, such as immersion, individuals may derive different benefits. In addition, factors common to traditional instructional methods inhibit the type of language intake. These include strict sequencing, the fact that the target language is often a second language to the teacher as well as to the students, emphasis on productive skills, and limited interaction. Language educators should look more carefully at areas in which classroom interaction could more closely imitate life. (MSE)