|
 |
Best Method or More Time ? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Goindol Senior Member United States Joined 5871 days ago 165 posts - 203 votes  | Message 369 of 430 06 May 2008 at 1:07pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I'm just amused by this iron-clad insistence on OBJECTIVE PROOF, as if all published studies are scientifically valid, and the weight of accumulated experience is reducible to the H0 pile.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6654 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German | Message 370 of 430 06 May 2008 at 1:19pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I never said that they were equally efficient. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 371 of 430 06 May 2008 at 4:19pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Thank you Frenkle. Regarding 'graded input' the distinction between raw input and graded input is fuzzy. Same between 'comprehensible input' and 'incomprehensible input'. Critics argue the term 'comprehensible' is ambiguous and the term 'graded' as well. We need to distinguish comprehension provided by linguistic context and comprehension provided by extra-linguistic context. They can have different effects on learning. Even with raw real materials you can choose easy ones unconsciously. It's a bit problematic this graded and comprehensible input hypothesis from scientific point of view, but we can accept that we have enough OBJETIVE evidence, but less than distributed practice and mnemonics have. Regarding "grammar", we have a lot of problems. We have contradictory evidence. For example: In this article we can find studies: http://flteaching.wikispaces.com/Grammar?f=print We have three points of view: 1-Explicit grammar instruction: Spada’s survey (1997) Mitchell, R. (2000) Herron, C. & Tomasello, M. (1988) Wong, W. & VanPatten, B. (2003) Herron, C. & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning Grammatical Structures in a Foreign Language: Modelling versus Feedback. French Review 61(6), 910-22. Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 281-303. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is in: Drills are out. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403-423. 2-NO grammar instruction needed: Krashen, S. D. (1992). Formal Grammar Instruction, an Educator Comments. TESOL Quarterly 26, 406-11. Lee, J. F. & VanPatten, B. (2003) Making Communicative Language Teaching Happpen, 2nd Edition. 116-36. Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook activities: Keeping pace with second language acquisition research. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 57-65. 3-Some grammar instruction, some communication: Schultz, R.A. (1996) :According to her studies, students overall have a strong conviction that grammar is useful in foreign language learning; in her particular case, 26% wanted even more grammar study than they were receiving. Schultz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and Teachers' Views on Error Correction and the Role of Grammar. Foreign Language Annals 29 (3), 343-64. Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: the case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21(3),281-303. Lee, J. F. & VanPatten, B. (2003) Making Communicative Language Teaching Happpen, 2nd Edition. 116-36. It seems that 'some grammar instruction 'option is more widely accepted. Strong 'graded input' points of view won't accept that, but we can assume this option as OBJECTIVE evidence. On the other side, drilling is a form of overlearning and it's much less efficient than spaced repetition. So we can rule out 'drilling' as objective evidence. Maybe we can accept soft forms of drilling. NOW, we have four OBJECTIVE good language learning techniques: 1-Distributed practice (Spaced repetition) 2-Mnemonics (like keyword technique) 3-Graded input. 4-Some grammar instruction with soft drilling The first two ones with stronger evidence. Do you have any OBJECTIVE scientific based best technique? (Please, not anecdotes, testimonies or opinions and other snake-oil marketing techniques) Edited by slucido on 06 May 2008 at 4:22pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Goindol Senior Member United States Joined 5871 days ago 165 posts - 203 votes | Message 372 of 430 06 May 2008 at 5:56pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
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?
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6740 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 373 of 430 06 May 2008 at 11:26pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
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. Edited by frenkeld on 06 May 2008 at 11:29pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 374 of 430 07 May 2008 at 9:21am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Is it necessary to defend Science in 21th century? What is the weight of accumulated experience? Are your talking about common agreements between all experts? This is low evidence, but I can accept it. I am waiting 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 375 of 430 07 May 2008 at 9:23am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Yes, you can ask, but I won't answer you. I am not a 'best method supporter'. This is your homework. Edited by slucido on 07 May 2008 at 10:47am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 376 of 430 07 May 2008 at 9:48am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
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/
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) 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. |
