|
 |
Systematic study to reach higher levels | ||
Tags: Advanced Level | Learning Strategy | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6409 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes  4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 49 of 52 29 April 2013 at 3:40pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
That's also consistent with what Iversen says, though in his case it's in terms of written vs spoken language, rather than passive vs active.
But also, you don't need any specific activation if you do enough listening. (or enough reading if you're more of a listener) 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| patrickwilken Senior Member Germany radiant-flux.net Joined 4345 days ago 1546 posts - 3200 votes Studies: German | Message 50 of 52 29 April 2013 at 4:02pm | IP Logged | |||||
The passive/active distinction is interesting. I think of language learning as an complex semantic network. As you read/listen you are continually strengthening and developing that network. There seems to be two ways you can think about the passive vs active distinction in language: 1. That there are really two different areas, one handling passive knowledge, and the other active, in which case you can train up your passive knowledge as much as you like, but it will never become activated. OR 2. Passive and active knowledge just reflect different degrees of strength within the network, and as words get strengthened (from input) they naturally go from "passive" to active. I find No. 2 a much more plausible scenario from a cognitive science point of view (i.e., for a given language you have one area of the brain that is responsible for input/output and need to develop a semantic network for that language), which is why I agree with Serpent and others, and tend to think that language learning is probably 90:10 in terms of input:output. That's not to say you don't need to practice output at some point (trivially that's true for pronunciation, but it's also true in that error feedback can be helpful to adjust/correct the network), but I think it can happen much later (as with children) then most language learners accept. But of course, what works for one person, doesn't necessarily work for another. Edited by patrickwilken on 29 April 2013 at 4:05pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6409 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 51 of 52 29 April 2013 at 5:30pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
It's just important not to think of "passive" learning in terms of "if I input the word as L2->L1 into Anki, I won't know it L1->L2". Both reading and listening are more 'active' than just translating words in lists or flash cards, they involve thinking in the language and maybe subvocalising/repeating the words in your head. And this element of shadowing probably gets only stronger if you understand less.
2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| mrwarper Diglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member Spain forum_posts.asp?TID=Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5038 days ago 1493 posts - 2500 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2 Studies: German, Russian, Japanese | Message 52 of 52 29 April 2013 at 7:12pm | IP Logged | |||||
To learn to properly do something you must do it, but it's not necessarily 100 times over. It's a question of progressive enhancement, with stages that take different amounts of effort for different learners. First thing, you need to understand what is to be done to achieve your goals (in languages: speaking or writing well). Some people will understand from mainly watching others (in languages: a lot of input), and doing the necessary analysis on their own, other people will need to be explicitly told how stuff works, assuming they are ready to listen in the first place -- relevant corrections or feedback (actually, anything the learner is told about their learning, production or whatever) range from utterly useless to very useful depending on the learner. As an example of the above, I'll mention a girl I tutored in math. She was getting lousy marks so she knew she had "a problem". Unfortunately her root problem was she didn't even understand the problems and questions wordings, and she wouldn't admit it. She somehow had previously got this crisp and clear mental image that putting some numbers in formulaic recipes was enough to solve ANY math problem she'd be presented, and thus there was 'nothing else' to understand. After a while I had to give up, for I couldn't make her understand there could be such a thing as more than one type of problem involving vectors or whatever, and that wordings matter. And this was in her NL. OTOH I'm currently tutoring a Russian boy which is no genius, but everything goes smoothly with his maths even with a huge language handicap (we communicate in a broken mix of languages) -- why? when the boy sees he doesn't understand something, he simply stops and asks about it. Sometimes it's just a matter of translating a word, sometimes I have to actually explain the math a couple times in different ways, and all sorts of things in between. Sometimes it all kind of works but falls apart at the end and we have to work our way back to where he started to get lost, sometimes I have to point out that a result is not acceptable and why. The thing is, he's clear on this key point: if everything was going well and now it's not, he did something wrong in the middle, and that's the part we have to work on, regardless of who realized it first. One way or another, there can't be any progress unless the individual sees that their production falls short of any set goals, and the sooner the learner can see something's not working, the more likely it can be solved. Now, knowing what is to be done might or might not be enough to produce 'proper stuff', and there's only one way to tell: try and do it. And here things start to get hairy: you must compare what you thought you'd do with what you actually did and improve it if necessary. This requires a finesse in judgement that's not automatic and most people must acquire, especially in an area like languages, were telling right from wrong, or good from better, is often subjective -- not as clear cut as jumping beyond a certain line or falling short of it, or getting some numbers right, anyway. Once one realizes there's room for improvement there's the even hairier problem of analyzing and comparing how we can improve. Sometimes, after checking, it's blatantly obvious we're not copying and adapting input well enough and we can self-correct. That's something I do all the time -- I go 'hey I'd have said (or did say) X but that guy who really knows his stuff said/wrote Y' and I try to incorporate that, either as an addition or a replacement for a broken repertoire item. This is what the successful 'reading' (or, in general, 'passive') type learners do. But if/when they fail to do that on their own, they need someone else to tell them what mistakes they make. People with a real drive to learn will often check somewhere or ask those more knowledgeable than themselves 'is it wrong to say X?'. Others will most likely see people spontaneously tell them when mistakes get grating or impede communication only, so waiting for it to happen is probably not the best strategy. Finally, even if one is corrected, it doesn't imply [s]he'll automatically pick it up afterwards. Some people just need to undergo a few corrections before something sticks. Of course, the same goes for anything one hears or reads. Any item will stick in some people's heads, while it won't in others' -- for the latter, if they don't check, they'll think they know how to say X... until they bump into reality. Simple as that. Every single learner will find him/herself in ALL those situations at one point or another; they can be archetypical if they're 90% this or that, but that's all. We all must 1) understand, 2) analyze, copy and adapt, (stay passive) and 3) go active and have others judge on how well we do. If everything's going well you should need to do less stuff as you move from 1 to 3, but there's no real need to worry if one actually needs to read more or get more corrections than others to write or speak equally well, assuming there's an adequately objective way to measure that. Edited by mrwarper on 29 April 2013 at 7:23pm 5 persons have voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
