4 ms·

What do you mean by worse? I’ve spent a lot of time on Duolingo as well as in face-to-face language classes, in high school and university. I’ve also spent a sm

by sjy 7y ago

What do you mean by worse? I’ve spent a lot of time on Duolingo as well as in face-to-face language classes, in high school and university. I’ve also spent a smaller amount of time self-studying from books, CDs and software that predated Duolingo. I’m not fluent in any of the languages I’ve studied because of a lack of immersion, but I learned a lot more from Duolingo than any other source because it was so easy to establish a daily habit and stick with it without having to pay anything. I’ve had basic conversations as a tourist in France after learning French exclusively from Duolingo. I’m sure I would have learned more if I spent that time in class instead, but I didn’t because it’s very expensive and inconvenient compared to spending 30 minutes a day on Duolingo while I’m commuting.

benatkin 7y ago
It is inefficient. The vocabulary lessons on Spotify run through words a lot faster. You don't have free reign of what category to study things in. It teaches vocabulary when you should be learning grammar. It teaches pronunciation just by having you repeat words, which is inadequate - the specifics of pronunciation (including emphasis of syllables) must be explained.
- sjy 7y ago
  I don’t doubt that it’s less efficient than learning from a human teacher, if you just look at the time spent by the student and ignore the “efficiency” of software that interacts with millions of students at the same time. I’ve never heard of anyone learning a language by passively listening to Spotify, so I have a hard time seeing it as a Duolingo alternative, but I’m sure just like Duolingo and other language tapes, it would be a valuable complement to any other language-learning tool. None of them will make you fluent without immersion. What makes you say that explicit instruction in grammar (which does exist in Duolingo, although you’re right that the emphasis is on vocabulary) and pronunciation is necessary? That’s not how people learn their native languages. Considering that anyone can learn any language with enough exposure, and most people fail to achieve their language learning goals due to giving up after less than a thousand hours, I’m skeptical of this kind of pedagogical criticism.
  - wbl 7y ago
    Language acquisition after the developmental window is fundamentally different. Native language learning is not a good model for second language learning.
    - sjy 7y ago
      The evidence for that “is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis
      - foldr 7y ago
        You can't trust Wikipedia on linguistics.
      - yorwba 7y ago
        I think it's not so much that second-language acquisition is harder than first-language acquisition, but that first-language acquisition is horribly slow. After five years of full-time study, do you want to reach the level of a five-year old or do you want to be able to handle any communication you could handle in your first language? Not to mention that you probably don't have the time to study a language full-time anymore. Babies spend a lot of time babbling, basically brute-forcing their way to a correct pronunciation. But what if you could make use of phonological research and resources like https://www.seeingspeech.ac.uk/ipa-charts/ https://www.seeingspeech.ac.uk/ipa-charts/ to help you get there faster? Parents spend a lot of time playing "look at the X" games to help them learn vocabulary from examples. But what if you just look up unknown words in a dictionary and use spaced repetition to efficiently retain them? Second-language learners have already bootstrapped their way to being able to communicate with other humans. So why not just make use of that, rather than repeating the same slow process of trial and error for another language?
        sjy 7y ago
        This is a good point. I did take a class on phonetics at uni, and it helps a lot with learning the basics of a new language. Maybe Duolingo should do a phonetics course which teaches IPA using examples from a range of different languages!

by sjy 7y ago

benatkin 7y ago

It is inefficient. The vocabulary lessons on Spotify run through words a lot faster. You don't have free reign of what category to study things in. It teaches vocabulary when you should be learning grammar. It teaches pronunciation just by having you repeat words, which is inadequate - the specifics of pronunciation (including emphasis of syllables) must be explained.

sjy 7y ago
I don’t doubt that it’s less efficient than learning from a human teacher, if you just look at the time spent by the student and ignore the “efficiency” of software that interacts with millions of students at the same time. I’ve never heard of anyone learning a language by passively listening to Spotify, so I have a hard time seeing it as a Duolingo alternative, but I’m sure just like Duolingo and other language tapes, it would be a valuable complement to any other language-learning tool. None of them will make you fluent without immersion. What makes you say that explicit instruction in grammar (which does exist in Duolingo, although you’re right that the emphasis is on vocabulary) and pronunciation is necessary? That’s not how people learn their native languages. Considering that anyone can learn any language with enough exposure, and most people fail to achieve their language learning goals due to giving up after less than a thousand hours, I’m skeptical of this kind of pedagogical criticism.
- wbl 7y ago
  Language acquisition after the developmental window is fundamentally different. Native language learning is not a good model for second language learning.
  - sjy 7y ago
    The evidence for that “is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis
    - foldr 7y ago
      You can't trust Wikipedia on linguistics.
    - yorwba 7y ago
      I think it's not so much that second-language acquisition is harder than first-language acquisition, but that first-language acquisition is horribly slow. After five years of full-time study, do you want to reach the level of a five-year old or do you want to be able to handle any communication you could handle in your first language? Not to mention that you probably don't have the time to study a language full-time anymore. Babies spend a lot of time babbling, basically brute-forcing their way to a correct pronunciation. But what if you could make use of phonological research and resources like https://www.seeingspeech.ac.uk/ipa-charts/ https://www.seeingspeech.ac.uk/ipa-charts/ to help you get there faster? Parents spend a lot of time playing "look at the X" games to help them learn vocabulary from examples. But what if you just look up unknown words in a dictionary and use spaced repetition to efficiently retain them? Second-language learners have already bootstrapped their way to being able to communicate with other humans. So why not just make use of that, rather than repeating the same slow process of trial and error for another language?
      - sjy 7y ago
        This is a good point. I did take a class on phonetics at uni, and it helps a lot with learning the basics of a new language. Maybe Duolingo should do a phonetics course which teaches IPA using examples from a range of different languages!