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 ... 48 ... 53 54 Next >>

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6680 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

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

Message 377 of 430

07 May 2008 at 9:57am | IP Logged

frenkeld wrote:

slucido wrote:

frenkeld wrote:

slucido wrote:

Do you know any other OBJECTIVE good technique?

- Graded input
- Repetition of graded input
- Grammar exercises (also a form of repetition)

...
Strong 'graded input' points of view won't accept that, but ...

Graded input can be independent of the amount of grammar instruction. Assimil, for example, uses graded input, but isn't heavy on grammar.

My list was in fact a bit tongue-in-cheek, in that old-fashioned grammar-translation textbooks consist of graded input (sample sentences, dialogs, reading passages) and grammatical explanations. Actually, the exercises in these textbooks are not just about grammar, so I was a bit careless in my third item.

OK.
What do we have around objective best methods? We have some sort of objective evidence about grammar or not? Is it better grammar or not?

Maybe 'passive listening' has some sort of evidence due to 'priming' and 'facilitation' processes. You can check this thread:

http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?T ID=9510&KW=subliminal

If everybody agree, our list of objective best methods is:

1-Distributed practice (Spaced repetition)

2-Mnemonics (like keyword technique)

3-Graded input.

4-Some grammar instruction with soft drilling

5-Passive listening

The first two ones with stronger evidence.

Do you have anything else?

I can accept consensus between experts.

1 person has voted this message useful

Goindol
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6079 days ago
165 posts - 203 votes

Message 378 of 430

07 May 2008 at 3:04pm | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

Goindol wrote:

I just have a quick question on these OBJECTIVE scientific based techniques and studies. Can I ask what the p-values, confidence intervals, and the powers of these OBJECTIVE scientific studies are?

Yes, you can ask, but I won't answer you. I am not a 'best method supporter'.
This is your homework.

Is it that you won't or that you're unable to? As I recall, I'm not the one who's been harping on insistently about OBJECTIVE scientific data.

If you insist on scientific results, then try to be a little scientific. Not this halfway nonsense, please.
1 person has voted this message useful

Goindol
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6079 days ago
165 posts - 203 votes

Message 379 of 430

07 May 2008 at 3:09pm | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

It seems that this second language acquisition is very underdeveloped from a scientific point of view.

When I ask for objective and scientific based proofs I am talking about that?

Levels of Evidence

http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed/levels.php

Different levels of evidence - critical reading

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002064/

Quote:

Levels of Evidence


DynaMed provides easy-to-interpret Level of Evidence labels so users can quickly find the best available evidence and determine the quality of the best available evidence. Evidence may be labeled in one of three levels:

Level 1 (likely reliable) Evidence - representing the most valid reports addressing patient-oriented outcomes. Examples include rigorous randomized trials, inception cohort studies for prognostic information, and systematic reviews of level 1 evidence reports. Achieving a level 1 evidence label means that specific quality criteria were met based on the study type, and these are detailed further down on this page.

Level 2 (mid-level) Evidence - representing reports addressing patient-oriented outcomes, and using some method of scientific investigation, yet not meeting the quality criteria to achieve level 1 evidence labeling. Examples include randomized trials with less than 80% follow-up, non-randomized comparison studies, and diagnostic studies without adequate reference standards. Level 2 evidence does not imply reliable evidence. For example, hormone replacement therapy was associated with reduced cardiovascular events in large cohort studies (level 2 evidence), but then shown not to be preventive (and possibly increase the cardiovascular risk) in randomized trials (level 1 evidence).

Level 3 (lacking direct) Evidence - representing reports that are not based on scientific analysis of patient-oriented outcomes. Examples include case series, case reports, expert opinion, and conclusions extrapolated indirectly from scientific studies.

Recommendations are labeled as one of the following:

    * Grade A recommendation (consistent high-quality evidence)
    * Grade B recommendation (inconsistent or limited evidence)
    * Grade C recommendation (lacking direct evidence)

Experts opinions and consensus is low level of evidence, but I can accept it as low level of OBJECTIVE evidence.

Do you have something like this low level of OBJECTIVE evidence about language learning best methods?

(NO snake-oil marketing testimonies)

YES, this is what I am talking about. Do you know what these meta evaluations are based upon? On specific clinical studies where H0 has been ruled out OBJECTIVELY. Do you know how that is done? By ensuring that each study has valid statistical parameters. You unwittingly argued my point for me.
1 person has voted this message useful

CaitO'Ceallaigh
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
katiekelly.wordpress
Joined 6862 days ago
795 posts - 829 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Czech, German

Message 380 of 430

07 May 2008 at 5:26pm | IP Logged

Goindol wrote:

So maybe this research is biased and subjective. If even research is biased and subjective, please, pray tell, tell us what isn't.
1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6680 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

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

Message 381 of 430

08 May 2008 at 3:34am | IP Logged

CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:

Goindol wrote:

So maybe this research is biased and subjective. If even research is biased and subjective, please, pray tell, tell us what isn't.

It's sure that different scientific communities have hidden agendas, maybe unconsciously, even their con men. Nevertheless science has self control mechanisms. Science peer review, a lot of studies from different groups, metanalysis and things like that.

We are arguing from the very beginning about best methods against time.

My point of view is that TIME is the most important factor: REPETITION.

I think there aren't significant best methods. As long as you use input (sentences) and output (sentences), TIME is the most important factor.

These statements have practical implications

If I am right, your best method will be whatever pushes you to work harder and more time with your target language.

If I am right we will need strong motivation.

So what method we should choose?

Obviously, a method which gives this strong motivation

How do we choose this method, with objective or subjective proofs?

The unique consensus I know between experts, even accounting with scientific investigation in SLS, is "input+output". The other factors are time, motivation, repetition and obvious stuff like that.

What do we have about best methods?

input+output+repetition

Whatever else is not more than SUBJECTIVE feelings?

What do we choose?

Easy.

whatever input+output method (objective part) that motivates us strongly (subjetive part)

Conclusion:

It's useless wasting time looking for best methods, we only need something that feels good (with input and output) and a lot of motivation and time.

Some forum members are rabid against these ideas. They think there are best methods, something much more specific.

OK. My question is:

What are they? What objective proofs we have about more specific best methods, more than snake oil testimonies? I admit consensus between experts.

As it happens, I am getting 'estampida' and only Frenkle give me a tiny answer. Now I am trying to look for evidences about more specific best methods.Something useful.

If we don't talk about something concrete, we are getting lost between angels and demons, tennis and cycling, doing 1000 miles on foot or by car and so on. Nothing useful.

If looking for evidences, even consensus between experts, is a bad thing. What we are talking about? Religious faith?

1 person has voted this message useful

ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6268 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean

Message 382 of 430

08 May 2008 at 4:00am | IP Logged

Quote:

If looking for evidences, even consensus between experts, is a bad thing. What we are talking about? Religious faith?

To be honest I think it's you who has the religious faith here, it's perfectly reasonable to reach a conclusion based on personal experiences where those experiences do not conflict with the other evidence available. The thread has a lot of testimony from people whose experiences say you are wrong, you offer no evidence to contradict their conclusions, instead preferring to demand ever more vigorous proof from those you disagree with in place of actually making any real case yourself.

Can we say that the existence of best methods is proven? Apparently not but then you offer nothing of the sort for your view either. Conversely we can in fact see that it's entirely rational to believe there is variation in the effectiveness of different methods, that belief is based on various personal testimony that you may not consider conclusive but which is still weightier evidence than anything you yourself offer.

At best all this demand for scientific evidence from others could ever possibly get you if they do not produce anything would be to say it's unreasonable to assume your opponents are correct but that would be a long way from making the assumption we are incorrect a rational conclusion. As it goes it doesnt even get you that far because inference to the best explanation of what we do have makes it rational to assume variation amongst methods rather than otherwise. You'd actually need to produce hard scientific evidence that contradicted that conclusion to alter that fact.

Edited by ChrisWebb on 08 May 2008 at 4:11am
1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6680 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

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

Message 383 of 430

08 May 2008 at 4:20am | IP Logged

ChrisWebb wrote:

Quote:

If looking for evidences, even consensus between experts, is a bad thing. What we are talking about? Religious faith?

What's the 'other experience available'?

I am wrong... about what?

What are 'their conclusions'?

What you are taking about?

ChrisWebb wrote:

Can we say that the existence of best methods is proven? Apparently not but then you offer nothing of the sort for your view either.

I am saying that there is not consensus about best methods. We only have input+output+time.

You say we don't have proofs about best methods. You agree with me and you don't give us anything.

Then you say I am wrong :-)

I am wrong about...what?

ChrisWebb wrote:

Conversely we can in fact see that it's entirely rational to believe there is variation in the effectiveness of different methods, that belief is based on various personal testimony that you may not consider conclusive but which is still weightier evidence than anything you yourself offer.

What do I offer and what do you offer?

ChrisWebb wrote:

At best all this demand for scientific evidence from others could ever possibly get you would be to say it's unreasonable to assume your opponents are correct but that would be a long way from making the assumption we are incorrect a rational conclusion. As it goes it doesnt even get you that far because inference to the best explanation of what we do have makes it rational to assume variation amongst methods rather than otherwise.

I gave you some point withs evidences: spaced repetition, mnemonics, graded input, some grammar...Some meat to talk about.

You give us...I don't know....

What are you talking about? About learning languages? About religion? About politics? About soccer? About Korean?

Yet again, maybe you are talking about sex between angels...

1 person has voted this message useful

slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6680 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes

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

Message 384 of 430

08 May 2008 at 4:34am | IP Logged

I will give you something more and more concrete about some specific methods. When we are talking about best methods, the first question is:

Compared to what?

So here we go:

What's better?

1-Distributed practice (spaced repetition) or over learning.

2-Rigid distributed learning (SRS or manual) or informal distributed learning.

3-Mnemonics or rote repetition or learning by context.

4-Graded input or raw input.

5-learning grammar explicitly or implicitly

6-Error correction or non-error correction (speaking and writing)

7-Output from the very beginning or later (after some silent period?

8-Passive listening or not passive listening at all.

What evidences do we have? Consensus between experts? Trials? Nothing?

These points are something concrete. We can talk about something useful. We have some meat...

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 0.3910 seconds.