Best Method or More Time ? (Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies) Language Learning Forum

Best Method or More Time ?
Tags: Time to learn \| Learning Technique/Method
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies

430 messages over 54 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27 ... 53 54 Next >>

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6676 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 210 of 430

01 May 2008 at 5:08am | IP Logged

Mcjon01 wrote:

slucido wrote:

Because you need to believe that the method you feel works better for you, it's OBJECTIVELY working better for you. If you need this belief, use it. This belief is part of your method.

In which case, the net result is still that the method works better for me than other methods. Whether this is because of learning styles or a placebo effect on my part doesn't matter in the least. What's the point of making a distinction if the end result is the same either way? It's all just semantics, and it doesn't actually affect how you go about learning languages.

The point it's displacing the focus of attention from 'best methods" to passion, intensity and TIME.
1 person has voted this message useful

DaraghM
Diglot
Senior Member
Ireland
Joined 6152 days ago
1947 posts - 2923 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: French, Russian, Hungarian

Message 211 of 430

01 May 2008 at 5:39am | IP Logged

Are methods the same as techniques ? Are some techniques better then others ? E.g. The Diglot Weave vs Flashcards ?
1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6676 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 212 of 430

01 May 2008 at 5:39am | IP Logged

ChrisWebb wrote:

We know from history that Egyptian Hieroglyphics could not be deciphered by those who were passionate about deciphering them and devoted huge amounts of time to the task. It was only when the Rosetta Stone was uncovered and people could access the translations in already known languages that hieroglyphics became readable. In fact even this wasnt enough and it took the realization that there was a relationship with Coptic for a Coptic speaker ( Champollion ) to really crack the code. If it were possible to break into an entirely alien language without the need for non-native material ( or a native teacher ) this would almost certainly not have been the case.

I agree with you. Where do you disagree?

I am saying you need input+output+time.

If you need output, you need some interaction with native speakers of your target language.You try to produce output and he gives you feedback. It's some sort of Total Psychical response.

If you only have Egyptian Hieroglyphics, you only have input (without audio), but not output. You need interaction with ancient native speakers. In that case it's impossible this output interaction and, as far as I know, you will need translations.

ChrisWebb wrote:

I think most would agree that immersion with access to native speakers is actually an effective method and not no method at all.

As for the supposed placebo effect we seem to have ample testimony from multiple posters in this thread alone to conclude that better methods do in fact have an effect above and beyond that of a placebo.

I don't remember were I used the word "placebo".

We are comparing between methods which has input+output and not between a method and a placebo pill or only input or only output.

If you compare two methods which has output and input, I don't believe in meaningful differences. If you want numbers, maybe less than 15 or 10%.

What about the same person?

As I said before, people have their preferences, but provided that the method (or combination) has input and output, it will work.

The important factor about the method it's not their linguistic properties, but their
decorative characteristics. Your motivation and passion and feeling good about the method it's due to this decorative characteristics and not the linguistic ones.

What's better Audio lingual approach, Total Physical Response, Silent way, Suggestopedia and so on?

Provided you use input and output in some stage, I think the differences are decorative, but this decorative differences can be very important to you and they can change during your learning process.

1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6676 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

Message 213 of 430

01 May 2008 at 5:46am | IP Logged

DaraghM wrote:

Are methods the same as techniques ? Are some techniques better then others ? E.g. The Diglot Weave vs Flashcards ?

I think methods and techniques have different meanings, but my argument doesn't change.

Your second question is very interesting.

Six months ago I used SRS flashcards with keyword method and now I am using diglot weave with SRS flashcards. Six months ago I thought the first approach was better and now I think the second approach it's better for me, but I don't know.

Is it better SRS flashcards than words lists?

In fact, I don't know.

Do whatever you feel like, but do something with your target language.

Edited by slucido on 01 May 2008 at 5:49am
1 person has voted this message useful

ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6264 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean

Message 214 of 430

01 May 2008 at 6:43am | IP Logged

Quote:

If you compare two methods which has output and input, I don't believe in meaningful differences.

If meaningful differences exist they exist independent of your belief. The evidence I've seen so far seems to indicate that meaningful differences do indeed exist. And no, evaluating evidence is not at heart an exercise in subjectivity, certainly it's a far less subjective approach than maintianing a belief without evidential basis or worse inspite of the evidence.

Quote:

As I said before, people have their preferences, but provided that the method (or combination) has input and output, it will work.

This may or may not be true on an absolute level, it certainly fails the test as soon as we place any value on efficiency or peoples time ( which is often limited ). I see no reason to believe that input at n + infinity is as beneficial as input at n + 1 and plenty of reason to believe otherwise. In short, method looks to be important and on more than a simply psychological level too.

Quote:

The important factor about the method it's not their linguistic properties, but their decorative characteristics. Your motivation and passion and feeling good about the method it's due to this decorative characteristics and not the linguistic ones.

This appears to be little more than subjective opinion on your part. Do you have any real reason to offer us to accept your position? There seem to be plenty of good reasons to reject the view you are maintaining and only your unbacked assertion offered as reason for accepting such a view.

Would it be fair to assume that your real point is that you dont believe commercial language courses offer good value? If that is so I wonder on what evidential basis you hold that view? I wonder if I spend $50 on language course material ( say for example Assimil ) in one language and $50 on a few foreign language DVDs in another, give them to an average person with a job, family and interest in the languages concerned and leave them to use only these materials for 6 months are you really sure that if he/she invests say 200 hours in each ( because he/she enjoys then equally ) he will be at a similar level in each? I'd bet that he will be further advanced with the language course and it will look like a good investment in terms of both time and money.

My own personal experience is that I married a Korean girl around 2 years ago and we watch Korean TV together regularly, over 2 years I've probably watched around 1000 hours, I enjoy the experience and although I watch for pleasure I do try and pick things up from watching, indeed I have learned a few words this way. However 6 months or so ago I picked up some language courses, I've spent maybe 150 hours on language course material since then, I dont particularly enjoy language courses yet I have learned far more from them than the TV viewing. My conclusion is that they are simply more effective regardless of psychological factors.

Edited by ChrisWebb on 01 May 2008 at 6:59am
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6598 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Finnish^C1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

Message 215 of 430

01 May 2008 at 7:09am | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

ChrisWebb wrote:

I don't remember were I used the word "placebo".

It wasn't you but Frenkeld who used it. I do think the post that you've missed sums up your opinion pretty well:

frenkeld wrote:

CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:

They just keep doing it, they get better and better at it.

If you do keep getting better and better, and the pace at which it is happening is satisfying to you, then there is no problem. Up to this point, there is indeed nothing to argue about.

The arguments arose over the specific method slucido annunciated that presumably satisfies the above two criteria in his own case. He observed a well-established fact that one has to practice all four language skills with unabridged materials to acquire advanced skills in the language. He then came up with a minimalist method that says that that that's all there really is to language learning, everything else being a placebo that one can take if one wants to in order to feel better and thus stay motivated, but that it is nothing but a placebo nevertheless.

Since there are only two criteria, all we have to do is check the statement against these two criteria.

First, will you keep getting better and better? Several learners of East Asian languages say you will not, so if they are right, additional elements may not be placebos in that case. Are they right?

Second, how fast will one learn? This one generated a lot of confusion. I think even slucido will admit that if one is learning against a tight deadline, one may need to go beyond the minimalist method, so even if all the non-minimalist learning techniques are placebos under the first criterion of ever getting there, they may be a necessity if speed is an issue.

What about criterion one and the Western languages, or more generally, languages not too remote from one's native? Does one always "get there" with the minimalist method? Slucido sited the case of several Moroccan refugees in support of his viewpoint. First of all, they were in an immersion situation, and second, I'd like to know if they knew some French before coming to Spain. At any rate, it is not inconceivable that someone with a background in a common West European language could eventually learn another with the minimalist method without full immersion. Even if true, if the languages are not very close, it will undoubtedly take a substantial amount of time.

1 person has voted this message useful

frenkeld
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6944 days ago
2042 posts - 2719 votes

Speaks: Russian*, English
Studies: German

Message 216 of 430

01 May 2008 at 9:25am | IP Logged

ChrisWebb wrote:

We know from history that Egyptian Hieroglphics could not be deciphered by those who were passionate about deciphering them and devoted huge amounts of time to the task. It was only when the Rosetta Stone was uncovered and people could access the translations in already known languages that hieroglyphics became readable.

One can but assume that those Egyptologists would've loved to get their hands on a bilingual dictionary ...

Perhaps it's a bit artificial to analyze situations when the learner doesn't even have a bilingual dictionary. My impression was that slucido himself tackled English reading online articles in English with the use of an online dictionary.

Still, it does bring up an issue. Is the dictionary a "linguistic" or a "psychological" device in this case? And if the former, why not throw in a grammar book for good measure? (Cheaters may opt to buy a dictionary with a grammar summary section.) A then a textbook perhaps, and maybe a workbook with some exercises and an answer key?

At what point then does a learning aide cease to be a "linguistic" device and becomes a "psychological" one?

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 430 messages over 54 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.3750 seconds.