|
 |
Graduated interval recall junk science? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Language Programs, Books & Tapes |  | |
| Kugel Senior Member United States Joined 6544 days ago 497 posts - 555 votes  Speaks: English* | Message 1 of 12 05 December 2008 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I wish JSTOR still had the Modern Language Journal in its archives. It would be nice if I could supply his original paper, which is just a few pages, on graduated interval recall.
Off the top of my head the pattern is exponential in form: 5sec, 25sec, 2min, 10min, 1 hour...etc. Dr. Pimsleur said that this pattern wasn't entirely accurate, as grammar concepts and vocab vary in difficulty. But what interested me was how he attempted, at least I think he did, on creating a language program that tries to unite the psychic with a seemingly complex foreign language. What I don't understand is how Dr. Pimsleur was able to quantify the responses in regards to grammar/vocab questions. As we all know, Dr. Pimsleur never used the "repeat after me" method, as all his lessons used a challenge/response method. Many other programs also ask you to pause the program or say the answer in the time allotted. Thus parroting is out, and thinking it through is in. The experiences(responses) of the language learner is what has to quantified. But can you drag people into your language learning laboratory and then ask them quantitatively how well they knew the answer? Do these language learning "scientists" use integral calculus to find out the absolute threshold, JND, and the difference threshold on various responses to grammar/vocab questions? I highly doubt it. So why do some people claim to use science in their language learning programs? In order to know what you are doing, wouldn't you need degrees in Math(at least a couple years worth of college calculus), Psychology, and the language you are writing a language program for? Edited by Kugel on 05 December 2008 at 7:01pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| BGreco Senior Member Joined 6399 days ago 211 posts - 222 votes 3 sounds Speaks: English* Studies: French, Spanish | Message 2 of 12 05 December 2008 at 8:31pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Calculus could in no way help learning a language. I don't see how you could even stretch your imagination to imagine that. None of those things you mentioned are even math terms.
And, (although there have been studies) there is no need to research SRSs. It's common sense. Like, seriously, think about it for a second. Take a paragraph and try to memorize it. It'll work. There's nothing you have to know. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Kugel Senior Member United States Joined 6544 days ago 497 posts - 555 votes Speaks: English* | Message 3 of 12 06 December 2008 at 10:32am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm no expert on Math, but I was pointing out that it would probably be absurd to use Fechner's theory of detection, trying to discriminate various types of responses in regards to grammar/vocab questions.
One could do studies on memory and retrieval limits, which is sort of close to what Dr. Pimsleur did in his exponential model. There are probably numerous Universities that have records of span of apprehension. So what then is the size of the span of apprehension, and what affects it? And what type of rehearsal, and GIR is a type of rehearsal, can increase the number of items you want to memorize most efficiently? And maybe there shouldn't be a need for rehearsal? If an item is important enough, one might not even have to use rehearsal. And it's probably not even possible to venture into the mystical/quackery realm of repression of memories that are painful or bizarre. Slips of the tongue come to mind. Perhaps nothing is really forgotten at all? Edited by Kugel on 06 December 2008 at 10:53am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6017 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 5 of 12 07 December 2008 at 8:16am | IP Logged | |||||
He's not talking about learning a language, he's talking about teaching a language. Pimsleur and other courses (including much of the latest crop of computer learning aids) talk about mathematically/scientifically determined formulae for repeating to ensure the most efficient learning/recall. However, the formulae that exist are all slightly vague and rely on various variables and other factors. To apply these fully, you would need to measure the variables for the individual parts of the language that is being taught. Most courses don't do this. Pimsleur himself appears to have used a fixed formula (although his publishers kept his papers from being publically available in order to monopolise the method). Some teachers naturally manage revision in this way -- these teachers can incorporate it into their syllabus by experience, without recourse to theory or formulae. Michel Thomas's courses are a unique example and a great contrast to Pimsleur because it's not a planned syllabus, but simply a recording of one of his classes. He's done it the same way thousands of times, so the order and the counter are completely internalised, but he also reacts to the students forgetting stuff by bringing it back in more often. Pimsleur, on the other hand, designed his courses as a theoretical framework, and it was other people who made the actual course material -- there was no direct experience involved in the syllabus design. Kugel's point, as I see it, is that they're grossly exaggerating in their marketing materials.
Common sense? Now there's a justification for anything you like. One man's common sense is another man's wives' tale. Some people it is "common sense" to learn a language like a child does, other people say it is "common sense" for an adult to learn in a different way from a child. Common sense should always be examined to make sure we aren't making false assumptions. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Kugel Senior Member United States Joined 6544 days ago 497 posts - 555 votes Speaks: English* | Message 6 of 12 07 December 2008 at 12:49pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I think there is room for math or its sub-discipline logic in language learning. I just don't think that these simplistic fixed formulas like Dr. Pimsleur's are accurate.
Why couldn't you use language concepts expressed in logical systems to figure out the best way to learn a foreign language? I wouldn't know where to begin in the different types of logic in math, philosophy and computer science, but logic I think is a discipline worth studying for the pursuit of language teaching/learning. As for Michel's Thomas's method of teaching being so successful, I think the reason was his logical structure of the course. What I didn't like about the course was that he didn't break it down into logical compartments, to which many people accustom themselves in regards to learning not only languages, but just about anything, particularly math. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6017 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 7 of 12 08 December 2008 at 6:49am | IP Logged | |||||
|
That's funny, as I think one of Thomas's key strengths was that he avoided the compartmentalisation of language....
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Kugel Senior Member United States Joined 6544 days ago 497 posts - 555 votes Speaks: English* | Message 8 of 12 09 December 2008 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | |||||
If you take a look at the transcripts(I'm going off the German), you'll find that although he taught a lot in a relatively short time, the structure of the course was a complete mess in terms of teaching the meat and potatoes of a particular grammar point. If he would've gave each grammar point its due, then it wouldn't have felt so much like a mess. The last CD is particularly bad. So I think that when you compartmentalize the grammar you make less room for mistakes and over-simplifications. An obvious example was Michel's distinction between the dative and accusative pronouns: the for me and to me simply don't work in English. I could go on. Edited by Kugel on 09 December 2008 at 2:37pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
