10,000 hours of input (Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies) Language Learning Forum

10,000 hours of input
Tags: Time to learn \| Learning Technique/Method
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies

60 messages over 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next >>

zhanglong
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4957 days ago
322 posts - 427 votes

Studies: Mandarin, Cantonese

Message 49 of 60

26 February 2012 at 2:58am | IP Logged

Asiafeverr wrote:

I know the original question was about the difference between condensed and spread out input but it seems there has been a lot of discussion about the
validity of the 10,000 hours rule.

Many people here are bashing Malcolm's book because different techniques get different results with different languages and using one figure to cover
every possible scenario will obviously not be very accurate. I think many of you are putting too much emphasis on the figure and forgetting the main
messages: to become exceptional at something you have to put in a lot of hours, and these hours have to be dedicated to the right type of work.

While getting a lot of input might be easy, there are much more efficient ways to learn a language.
Another bestseller on the subject of exceptional
performance suggests that what is really important in achieving a high level at anything is deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is designed to
improve one's performance: it has goals, it is mentally demanding and difficult, it is constantly repeated and constant feedback on your result should
be available. Studies found that one of the main difference between good chess players and grandmasters is that the grandmasters spent a lot of time
studying the game, reviewing games from better players and trying to predict their moves while good players spent that time playing chess. In language
learning terms, deliberate practice is not simply listening to content but looking for content slightly above your level, actively learning its
vocabulary and structure, constantly creating new sentences and content, and getting as much feedback as possible. Although listening to a lot of
content might be easy and effective to some extent, it seems to me that challenging active learning would give you a much better return on the time
you invest in a language.

In fact, Colvin's book is very good. It's one of my favorite texts whenever I design a training method for almost any skill. I agree with you; half an hour of deliberate practice, of active learning, is more effective than two hours of passive listening to input.
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6625 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 50 of 60

26 February 2012 at 11:46am | IP Logged

There can also be active listening...
2 persons have voted this message useful

yuriFromRoma
Groupie
Italy
Joined 4741 days ago
48 posts - 69 votes

Speaks: Italian*
Studies: English, Russian

Message 51 of 60

03 March 2012 at 5:12pm | IP Logged

Perhaps The parable of the razor by prof. Arguelles could be an interesting point of view on such topic.
I know it's not the main point of the parable (which is that "new", "improved" things are not necessarily better than the old ones), but exactly as you don't become a "master" in shaving after 10,000+ times simply by shaving yourself over and over, there is no guarantee you'll become incredibly proficient in anything after 10,000+ times or hours, especially by doing it the wrong way! I'd rather think it's a necessary but not sufficient condition, than a sufficient condition.

Edited by yuriFromRoma on 03 March 2012 at 5:13pm
3 persons have voted this message useful

sfuqua
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4793 days ago
581 posts - 977 votes

Speaks: English*, Hawaiian, Tagalog
Studies: Spanish

Message 52 of 60

11 March 2012 at 6:41pm | IP Logged

When I was in Peace Corps, I had about 100 hours of training in Samoan before I was sent out to my village to live. They used the "Silent Way" and "Counseling Learning" methodologies, and I learned very little. I was told that I would "pick up" the rest of the language once I was "immersed" in it. I arrived at my school site, moved in with my host family, and discovered that I could not understand anything out of the sea of Samoan I was surrounded by. Nobody could speak much English, and I couldn't speak Samoan. Months went by, at least a thousand hours of input, and I made 0 improvement. I was in a sea of incomprehensible input, and I wasn't getting anywhere. I think I would never have learned any Samoan if I hadn't started active study. Five months after I started active study, I was a tested FSI 3+/C1 and I was 4+/C2 after 18 months.

The amount of input was constant during this learning process. I think mere exposure to incomprehensible input is of little benefit in large amounts. I believe that there is a very loose relationship between amount of input and language learning and that there are many other important variables.

steve
8 persons have voted this message useful

geoffw
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4716 days ago
1134 posts - 1865 votes

Speaks: English*, German, Yiddish
Studies: Modern Hebrew, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian

Message 53 of 60

11 March 2012 at 8:27pm | IP Logged

sfuqua wrote:

When I was in Peace Corps, I had about 100 hours of training in Samoan before I was sent out to
my village to live. They used the "Silent Way" and "Counseling Learning" methodologies, and I learned very little. I
was told that I would "pick up" the rest of the language once I was "immersed" in it. I arrived at my school site,
moved in with my host family, and discovered that I could not understand anything out of the sea of Samoan I was
surrounded by. Nobody could speak much English, and I couldn't speak Samoan. Months went by, at least a
thousand hours of input, and I made 0 improvement. I was in a sea of incomprehensible input, and I wasn't getting
anywhere. I think I would never have learned any Samoan if I hadn't started active study. Five months after I
started active study, I was a tested FSI 3+/C1 and I was 4+/C2 after 18 months.

The amount of input was constant during this learning process. I think mere exposure to incomprehensible input
is of little benefit in large amounts. I believe that there is a very loose relationship between amount of input and
language learning and that there are many other important variables.

steve

Your story illustrates its point quite well, though I don't think this is what is generally meant by active vs. passive
learning on these forums. It sounds like you mean the difference was that you went to *comprehensible* materials,
not that you switched from a listening/reading based method of study to one where you spoke and wrote primarily,
to the exclusion of listening and reading.
1 person has voted this message useful

sfuqua
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4793 days ago
581 posts - 977 votes

Speaks: English*, Hawaiian, Tagalog
Studies: Spanish

Message 54 of 60

11 March 2012 at 9:21pm | IP Logged

I first memorized a phrasebook, which got me talking. Then I started massive vocabulary learning from the newspaper. I made vocabulary lists, memorized them, and read out loud. I never let a word get through our weekly newspaper that I did not memorize. Soon, I was comprehending large amounts of the language around me and then my progress was very rapid. I think the key for me was making the input comprehensible through study and then having tons of opportunities to practice. There wasn't much in the way of materials to learn Samoan, so I memorized words from the newspaper. I bet parallel L1/L2 texts would have worked just as well, if they had been available.
I just don't think that mere exposure to language that I could not understand did much of anything to teach me the language. I had to do something to make it comprehensible.

steve
3 persons have voted this message useful

mr_intl_dj
Newbie
United States
Joined 6712 days ago
23 posts - 24 votes
Speaks: English

Message 55 of 60

13 March 2012 at 5:20pm | IP Logged

Akatsuki wrote:

My question is, are these 10,000 hours effective (as in to develop the brain) only when squeezed in the shortest time period possible, or are they still (as) useful if the input is spread throughout the years?
For example, will I gain more if I squeeze 10,000 hours in 18 months or if I have the same amount of input throughout 5 or 6 years?

If anyone puts 10,000 hours into anything and goes about the "right" way, of course they should become "expert" or in this case; languages, on should be native-like.
Personally, it doesn't matter how long it takes, just as long as you're very consistent and disciplined during that time.....not taking too much time off.

If an activity is related to something that you already know how to do or closelty related, then I say you may only need half the amount of hours.

I wonder about intensity within the time. Example, if I start something it takes me 2 hr. Then, as I get better it takes me an hour to do the same amount of work. How much work is that? That's another topic.

danilo
2 persons have voted this message useful

Chill
Diglot
Groupie
Japan
Joined 5193 days ago
68 posts - 77 votes

Speaks: English*, Japanese
Studies: French

Message 56 of 60

14 March 2012 at 9:41am | IP Logged

I heartily recommend going back to AJATT site and rereading what Khatzumoto has to say. His 10,000 hours of listening is not the same as Ericsson's 10,000 hour minimum to world class mastery. Also, Khatzumoto's 10,000 hours of listening is part of a total system. Separating it out and discussing its merits/demerits might have some value, but dismissing it without understanding how it fits in with Khatzumoto's program doesn't make sense to me.

2 persons have voted this message useful

This discussion contains 60 messages over 8 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 0.4688 seconds.