4 ms·

Totally agree in using it as a supplemental. It's basically the TikTok of language learning with its dopamine-based point scoring and streak building system, bu

Totally agree in using it as a supplemental. It's basically the TikTok of language learning with its dopamine-based point scoring and streak building system, but I've known people who never missed a day for 3 years and still sound like a 3rd grader when they speak that language they were learning.

inspector-g 4y ago
I mean, it does take 3rd graders about 8 years of immersion to sound like 3rd graders…
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
If there were doing one lesson a day at 2 minutes per lesson, that would be about 36 hours of study total. Sounding like a third-grader seems pretty good for that amount of study. Most estimates I've seen are more like 100+ hours to gain basic conversational proficiency.
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  Besides, you’d have to evaluate them on the skills they were practicing which is mostly reading on Duolingo. You can easily end up dismissing someone’s language skills who can read the news and even books in a language yet can’t speak the language.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - cranky908canuck 4y ago
    Agreed on this. One of the courses that I took (that didn't achieve the goal) was 'Reading Knowledge of $language'. The textbook said at the outset words to the effect of "To be fluent in $language and operate in that society takes years of study and immersion. This (book/course) is for those with less ambitious objectives, and less time to achieve them". I'd say that simply being able to read the Francophone news (this is Canada) would give a very different interpretation of how things are seen politically. Total mastery (able to pass for a native speaker) isn't the only valid outcome.
- mistyvales 4y ago
  Yeah I could have phrased it better, but my point is that they were doing more than just a 2 minute lesson a day for years and couldn't really communicate that well beyond very basic stuff, including not knowing proper conjugation structure.. which is fine I suppose - people can still understand you for basic communication. But then what's the ultimate goal? To post "streak" badges on Instagram? I know I'm sounding cynical, and I'm sure people DO actually learn a lot using the software, but I also wonder if it was used as a supplement to another way of learning that they'd be able to communicate better.
  - cranky908canuck 4y ago
    I agree. I'm thinking that online exercises won't get proficiency. If that's all one does, it's just a game. What I'm seeing for me (and it's incomplete, it might be a fiasco in a year) is that it keeps me doing at least some daily roadwork. Once you get to reading news/magazines/whatever (that's how my father expanded his ESL vocabulary) or childrens books, you can start to work beyond. The real hazard is that once you break the chain, the incentive to do something (even when you are tired) is gone, then you probably drop it altogether. So I see the gamification of 'keep the streak' as helpful.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cranky908canuck 4y ago
The thing for 'sounding like (whatever)' is, a chance to practise. The thing that Duolingo does not provide is the live with real people forum. (Well it does, sort of, but it would feel like sending FB 'friend requests' to strangers.) So I'm not surprised that DL learners sound like three-year-olds, I'm actually impressed that there's the courage to speak at all. Give them a couple of beers, that might help.
cranky908canuck 4y ago
A general point: not all foreign language users need to pass for locals --- or, not all foreign language use-cases require that. An extreme example (not one that Duolingo caters for) is opera singers (and singing in general): they need flawless diction, and thorough understanding of the text, syllables, and how they map to the meanings that they are singing. But they don't need to speak, read, write, or understand the language for day-to-day communication --- and there are anecdotes about being cornered in (eg) Russian, and having to 'fess up that they don't actually know how to chat in the language.

inspector-g 4y ago

I mean, it does take 3rd graders about 8 years of immersion to sound like 3rd graders…

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

If there were doing one lesson a day at 2 minutes per lesson, that would be about 36 hours of study total. Sounding like a third-grader seems pretty good for that amount of study. Most estimates I've seen are more like 100+ hours to gain basic conversational proficiency.

hombre_fatal 4y ago
Besides, you’d have to evaluate them on the skills they were practicing which is mostly reading on Duolingo. You can easily end up dismissing someone’s language skills who can read the news and even books in a language yet can’t speak the language.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cranky908canuck 4y ago
  Agreed on this. One of the courses that I took (that didn't achieve the goal) was 'Reading Knowledge of $language'. The textbook said at the outset words to the effect of "To be fluent in $language and operate in that society takes years of study and immersion. This (book/course) is for those with less ambitious objectives, and less time to achieve them". I'd say that simply being able to read the Francophone news (this is Canada) would give a very different interpretation of how things are seen politically. Total mastery (able to pass for a native speaker) isn't the only valid outcome.
mistyvales 4y ago
Yeah I could have phrased it better, but my point is that they were doing more than just a 2 minute lesson a day for years and couldn't really communicate that well beyond very basic stuff, including not knowing proper conjugation structure.. which is fine I suppose - people can still understand you for basic communication. But then what's the ultimate goal? To post "streak" badges on Instagram? I know I'm sounding cynical, and I'm sure people DO actually learn a lot using the software, but I also wonder if it was used as a supplement to another way of learning that they'd be able to communicate better.
- cranky908canuck 4y ago
  I agree. I'm thinking that online exercises won't get proficiency. If that's all one does, it's just a game. What I'm seeing for me (and it's incomplete, it might be a fiasco in a year) is that it keeps me doing at least some daily roadwork. Once you get to reading news/magazines/whatever (that's how my father expanded his ESL vocabulary) or childrens books, you can start to work beyond. The real hazard is that once you break the chain, the incentive to do something (even when you are tired) is gone, then you probably drop it altogether. So I see the gamification of 'keep the streak' as helpful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cranky908canuck 4y ago

The thing for 'sounding like (whatever)' is, a chance to practise. The thing that Duolingo does not provide is the live with real people forum. (Well it does, sort of, but it would feel like sending FB 'friend requests' to strangers.) So I'm not surprised that DL learners sound like three-year-olds, I'm actually impressed that there's the courage to speak at all. Give them a couple of beers, that might help.

cranky908canuck 4y ago

A general point: not all foreign language users need to pass for locals --- or, not all foreign language use-cases require that. An extreme example (not one that Duolingo caters for) is opera singers (and singing in general): they need flawless diction, and thorough understanding of the text, syllables, and how they map to the meanings that they are singing. But they don't need to speak, read, write, or understand the language for day-to-day communication --- and there are anecdotes about being cornered in (eg) Russian, and having to 'fess up that they don't actually know how to chat in the language.