|
 |
How to do Assimil every day | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Language Programs, Books & Tapes |  | |
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6681 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes  4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 17 of 42 24 November 2008 at 2:24am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Sorry, but I didn't want to offend you. I apologize. Premack principle is what explains positive reinforcement. It's far from half-discredited, it's in the very basic of positive reinforcement. If people know the basic principles, the can develop hundreds of ways to maintain their desired behaviors. Edited by slucido on 24 November 2008 at 12:56pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6681 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 18 of 42 24 November 2008 at 9:16am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
If you love Assimil method and you give up, something fails. You are choosing some behavior other than Assimil. This or these behaviours are more powerful reinforcers than Assimil. If you know this, you can use the Premack principle here and always do Assimil BEFORE this activities. You can also attach this activities with Assimil. For example: if you rather go to walk with your dog than listening Assimil, maybe you can do two activities at the same time. Think about tangible reinforcers as well. For example, if you like chocolate, you can always eat a piece of chocolate after doing Assimil. It's very useful to have a long list of reinforces that you can use. It can be physical or mental activities, things, toys... You can manage Assimil lessons like chain behaviors and a shaping process. For example, you can begin with tiny chunks, only 1 minute every day and build up from there...and you can begin from the last lesson. If you progress from the last lesson to the first one, every step will be easier and more reinforcing. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Jimmymac Senior Member United Kingdom strange-lands.com/le Joined 6159 days ago 276 posts - 362 votes Studies: Spanish, Mandarin, French | Message 19 of 42 24 November 2008 at 9:56am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
I wrote a thread about my experiences of motivation some months ago. It received mixed reviews. There seemed to be a divide between people who find such techniques useful and some who feel they are artificial in nature and ineffective. Please do have a look as there are some things there that have certainly helped me over the years.
Regards, Jimmy Motivation 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6681 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 20 of 42 24 November 2008 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
I wasn't aware about this thread and I think it's very interesting and important. I usually say the most important factor is time and intensity and not the specific language learning methods. If I am correct, a strong desire is very important, because we are going to work more time with the language. In fact, if a language learning BEST method exists, it's the method you don't give up. If you don't give up the method,it means the reinforcements that surrounds it are working well. Thinking about this, my conclusion is that a correct self management is far more important than the specific linguistic method we use: Assimil or whatever. Why do any people feel that this techniques are artificial in nature and ineffective? Because they focus in the specific techniques and not in the principles. If we understand the principle, we can develop hundreds of techniques that work for us. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6681 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 22 of 42 25 November 2008 at 9:46am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Basically, what I am saying is: as long as you use a method with input and output, the most important factor is TIME with intensity. Actually the specific method or technique you use is much less important. Regarding second language acquisition, I think you can not apply the same methods than studying maths, science or history. Here you have a few methods. Some of this methods can be useful if you want pass a foreign language examination (mnemonics, elaborative interrogations, conceptual maps), but this methods are much less useful in the long term...and language learning is a long term goal. On the other hand, it's not my idea. You can read this article from FSI: Lessons learned from fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching http://digital.georgetown.edu/gurt/1999/gurt_1999_07.pdf
I congratulate you.
Yes, some of us are incorrigible. You only need to ask in this forum: "What's the most efficient methodology?". You will be surprised about the huge number of contradictory responses. Eventually, they have only two thing in common: input and output.
Therefore, there isn't a best method.... 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6445 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 24 of 42 25 November 2008 at 10:21am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
... against my better judgment, I'm jumping back into this thread.
Sluicido: the level of your English clearly disproves your hypothesis. There.... now that that's out of the way: Just because everything that works shares certain features does not mean that those features are either necessary or sufficient. Examples: - Every system of mathematics which humans have invented has been invented on Earth. Does this mean that systems of mathematics couldn't be invented elsewhere - for instance, by humans on the ISS? No. Just because something is found in all examples does not make it necessary. - All plants need nutrients to grow; they can't grow successfully without them. That doesn't make nutrients sufficient (without light the results will generally not be good). Just because something is found in all examples does not mean it is sufficient. -- This does not mean that any combination of nutrients are equally good; some are deficient and lead to a plant growing more poorly, for instance. Just because something is necessary, does not mean that any form of it is equally good. Please stop it with the logical fallacies. Repeating yourself doesn't make what you say true or correct; it does make it boring. Back to language learning: - Not all input is equally effective. I've tried dozens/hundreds of hours of internet radio in languages (and sometimes language families) I knew nothing of, dozens of hours of Assimil, dozens of hours of L-R, dozens of hours of reading parallel texts without audio, etc. The results varied from "I know Thai sentences often end with 'krup'" after hundreds of hours of native radio input, to being able to read non-fiction for the gist in Polish (dozens of hours of L-R). This isn't purely a matter of language distance; my German results were nearly as dismal as my Thai ones, and German is closer to English than Polish is. - Not all output is equally effective. For instance, with Scriptorium and similar techniques, I find myself noticing where I make errors and correcting them (and my mental model of the language); with corrections a week later (or never) to something I wrote freely, I learn much less. Krashen's language learning magazine has some fascinating claims (backed by studies) about forced output (and correction to output) being within statistical significance of no output, when groups of students were chosen to do one or the other (the students had to read in English, and then not write about what they'd read, write about it in their native language, or write about it in English). - People don't learn effectively when they're bored to tears; any method that does this is not going to be effective to people that have this result. Do we have to debate this one? -- Additionally: different things bring joy/boredom to different people. --- Given the above, the difficulty of testing and measuring language learning, the limitations of affordable studies, and that the people who have the most liberty to experiment are individual learners who also don't have the resources to do studies, is it surprising that people have differing thoughts as to the merit of various methods (and, for that matter, principles)? My language learning principles certainly aren't identical if I'm aiming to be able to do survival tourist small talk in a week vs reading wikipedia; why should more uniformity be expected when there is more than one person involved, and more divergent aims? 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. |
