This post follows on from my post from yesterday on memorization. I can’t access the comments for now, so let me post some thoughts here.
First of all, there’s a difference between memory, which is obviously the basis of all learning, and rote memorization, the technique of cramming information. I was referring to rote memorization. As I said, I believe that rote memorization is not a particularly useful strategy in learning languages.
I take a constructivist view. I believe we learn by relating new knowledge to old, thereby ‘constructing’ it. Knowledge is not fixed, but assembled by the individual. Crucially, this is done through meaningful association. It is this association that makes learning cognitive. There’s also chemistry involved: Thinking and meaningful association, create new synaptic links, as tiny electrical charges bridge new items to existing ones.
Consider your ‘inter-language’. This is your make-shift, on-going, picture of the target language, the sum total of your existing knowledge (or ‘schema’) of the Chinese language. The interlanguage gradually approximates the target language as you build and learn more.
I believe you have 2 options in developing the interlanguage: You either look for as much natural language input as you can, or you memorize and repeat certain parts of it over and over again. My view is that the first way is the better way to create associations.
Rote memorization takes the meaningfulness out of the input. When you go over and over a list of words or sentences to memorize them, there’s nothing to think about. You generate no new hypotheses, make no inference, do no evaluation, experience no new feeling (apart from boredom, maybe). There is nothing new and if there’s nothing new, I’m not sure there’s much constructing going on.
Rote memorization can actually work. Kids certainly do learn math tables, the alphabet, and some other stuff through memorization. Beyond that, though, I’m not sure there’s much else that we really learn through rote memorization. (Learning Chinese characters is the subject of a whole ‘nother post, methinks.)
Just because it is possible to memorize something doesn’t mean it’s efficient. The history of western education mirrors the slow decline of unthinking rote memorization as a technique, to the point where it is used only minimally these days. It doesn’t seem like a 21st century skill to me.
Of course, flashcards can work, especially if you use them cognitively, but I’m personally not a huge fan of them. I would not discourage anyone who likes them from using them and we do of course, use them right here on ChinesePod.
Just my opinion.
Ken Carroll
pretzellogic on 
Andrew Cockerham on 
Dave on
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Lantian:
“In my mind the debate is over traditional academic and rote versus Cpod banter and contextual learning.”
Isn’t it the case that both are useful to most people?
Learning or acquistion?
Dear Dai,
Saying that acquisition is unconscious is rather misleading. Both acquisition and learning are conscious in the sense that one is always explicitly aware of “something” while your senses are engaged. I understand acquisition to mean that your mind is attending to one thing (word meaning), but absorbing something quite different (sentence structure). There is however ALWAYS some kind of attention taking place.
However a similar thing can be said about learning. Students may be studying how to use the BE verb while at the same time picking up the use of the word “tall”.
Neither learning nor acquisition happens in a vacuum. Both require conscious interaction with your environment and both require that you attend to something. The difference is that acquisition, being a tacit process, posits that you profit most strongly from that which you are not attending to. Saying that acquisition is unconscious is a bit misleading and makes it seem like are minds are not engaged in the process.
Using this formulation, any time you make the focus of a person’s learning EXPLICIT you move from acquisition to learning. A great deal of what takes place in the dialogs on Chinesepod is actually LEARNING not acquisition (I don’t see any place for translation in acquisition). Also a great deal of the learning on Cpod (if self-reports can be believed) can seemingly be ascribed to REPETITION not acquisition.
Isn’t: EXPLICIT LEARNING + REPETITION = TEACHING ?
Krashen found little place for teaching except to create an environment for i+1. This is a conundrum that I’ve had to deal with for 20 years.
Dai also said:
“One of the problems is that adults, unlike children, bring a critical-thinking skill to the table, an ability to analyze and synthesize.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the critical thinking skills of children. Most children in the 6-10 year age group can operate at a level Piaget called the concrete operation stage, which is a level at which “intelligence is demonstrated through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects”.
In working with children I have found they do have an ability to both analyze and synthesize.
Some of this debate is probably the result of people having different concepts of the meanings of such terms as “rote memorization” and “traditional academic” learning.
To me “traditional academic” refers to the “study grammar rules and memorize wordlist” types of strategies. I believe that such methods have a very limited usefulness and if I ever use them now, it would be for less than 1% of my study time. Yet they are still widely used in academic institutions.
Translation is a crutch that should be abandoned as soon as possible. I think that the best and most effective program that could be devised wouldn’t use translation at all. It would use pictures and game controllers etc to indicate meaning. The one advantage that translation type programs have is that they can be used in the car in the early stages of language acquisition.
When people talk about the word “context” in language learning, they seem to think that there is only one type of context. I agree totally that learning in context is critically important. But one shouldn’t forget that phonemes appear in the context of words. Words appear in the contexts of sentences. Sentences appear in the context of related groups of sentences, dialogs conversations etc. And the full meanings and nuances of conversations etc will not be grasped without hearing and eventually participating in them in live and natural conditions with native speakers. To me, effective language learning involves carefully working through each level and gradually moving toward the top level. (Though attentively listening to and/or observing levels above the one you are at speeds progress greatly)
The audio/lingual methods stemming from WWII were and are very effective AT WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO! Which is to automize the mechanics of the language, to turn them into reflexes. I would be the last to argue that this is the end of the story. But someone who has acquired the automization that these programs instill, is able to concentrate their attentions on the meanings of the words they are using, rather than having to worry about word order, and what the tongue is doing. My biggest criticism of the materials I have used are that they based on the fallacious notion that the newbie tongue should, within the first five hours of instruction, be able to move at native-speaker speed. At any rate, such methods are not as necessary in Mandarin as they are in European languages with their multiplicity of word endings.
Methods that involve having the learner construct and output novel sentences run up against the problem of the learner not yet having the required structures necessary to only,
or even mostly, produce correct sentences with accurate meanings. The learner develops a degree of fluency, but in a language that no native speaker would use. The theory is that time and teaching will fix this problem, but its not what I hear in practice. The learner is left with language “fossils” which are very difficult to eradicate. My solution to this dilemma is to delay the spontaneous production of sentences. First be able to imitate and understand most of what you hear, at least within the subject matter you are studying. When you do start to produce your own sentences, passive knowledge will turn into active knowledge quicker than you might believe with far fewer mistakes.
When Dai talks about “circling”, he is, I think, describing the same thing I was saying in an earlier post about how to teach a non-native English speaker how to use the word “get”. But its not clear to me whether he expects the speaker to supply the examples of the use of the word in context or if the teacher should supply them. Personally, if I were a newbie or even intermediate ESL student, I would want the instructor to supply me with the examples since I am certain I would be unlikely to come up with authentic sounding examples.
Of course the best way to proceed depends a lot on the aspirations of the individual learner. Myself, I’m patient and think long-term, and I place high value on the pure esthetics of speaking a language well. The procedures I advocate are what I have found to best lead me towards that goal. But I have known, and sometimes envied the people who simply learn a bit of a language and then start hanging around bars and trying to have fun with it. Some of them very quickly attain functional fluency and if the quality of their language doesn’t meet with the approval of someone like me, well, they don’t really care do they?
Perhaps some of the controversies here are caused by people not making precise which level of learner they are talking about. As a person progresses through a language, points of emphasis and methods of study need to change.
automize = automate? grrrrrr
Hi Chris,
About what you said regarding my comment of academic/rote versus Cpod/contextual, “Isn’t it the case that both are useful to most people?
To play devil’s advocate, I’d actually say no, it isn’t the case. If I look at results and don’t worry too much about method,language instruction has some of the worst metrics out there. Math classes are pretty successful at teaching people math, pretty much everyone gets a decent foundation in it. Same with social studies, biology, etc.
But what percentage of people in the U.S. actually learn a second language or have any kind of basic working ability with a second language due to their school studies. Is it like 10, 20%. I know no way is it 50%. Imagine if Toyota’s assembly line had a 50% failure rate?
So to be very frank, except for those very few where the methods seem to work, I’d say most people are spending wasted cash on community college courses, hours in the listening lab, hours with flash cards and texts.
I guess my hope is that Cpod serves people better because being able to communicate with others in another language is something very precious.
Hmm, I’m not from the US but I learned French at secondary school, with very regular methods, and could get by now, just about, despite not having spoken more than a tiny bit for the past 10 years.
My problem with all this is twofold: first, that no one here has yet told me that top universities have abandoned the academic approach to learning languages. so the advocates of an alternative appear to be extremely radical indeed.
and second, nobody seems to say that CPOD is good enough to use as the main tool to use to attain good Chinese.
I don’t see why ChinesePod wouldn’t be good enough to use as the main tool to use to attain good Chinese. Just someone please explain why not?
that would mean tons of content to explore, memorize or otherwise get immersed in.
There are 430+ podcasts across all levels, recordings, transcripts, lots of Q&A though a little unstructured and scattered but lots of useful comments, an abundant supply of expansion material, flashcards stuff, not to mention the games and such like they keep coming up with. Granted, the recordings are short compared to a lot of the BLCU-type material, and may be not entirely systematic but that reflects conversations one is likely to come across, and they cover such as range of topics.
Assuming ChinesePod keeps going for another 8 months (when my subscription runs out
Chances are you’ll end up speaking like Jenny with some influence from Connie, Xiaoxio or John, but so what? Of course you’ll need to practice at some stage, depending on your own goals and learning style (Like RedViolin I place high value on the pure esthetics of speaking a language well), and you need intellectual curiosity to go and explore other sources, movies, tv-series, Chinese websites, you name it. You’ll also want to get a few tools along the way, Wenlin, PlecoDict that kind of thing, you might even go buy grammar books. But why on earth would ChinesePod only be a supplement to a more traditional classroom approach?
For me it certainly has been the main tool for the past 4 months and I have evidence it works, was on the phone with my former teacher yesterday for the first time in 6 months, words just came out, and I had absolutely no problem understanding him.
Yv
Yv
Yv,
Yes!!! Go, go go. You tell ‘em. There’s definitely enough materials on ChinesePod to do some serious acquisition. I’m glad to hear you’re doing that.
How did your teacher react on the phone?
Ken Carroll
In my opinion as far as many subjects are concerned Universities as they stand now are screwed. Eventually the only thing that may save them is snobbery and slow employees.
A motivated, smart person can learn more, and faster in many areas with the resources available today. What about the unmotivated, un-smart people I hear you cry. Well they have no business being there. Currently they are only likely to pick up pass degrees in “mickey mouse” subjects anyway.
Smart Universities will adjust perhaps to provide better for those areas where specialist expensive equipment and tuition still has value (Physics, Astronomy, Engineering, Music (yes I am not against the arts, but “History of Music” as a subject just makes my blood boil) etc.). Then we might have some more Engineers etc. rather than more “Creative Writers” than any planet could possible use over the next 1000 years (perhaps we could cryo-freeze some as spares, after all they only have a shelf life of sixty years or more).
Sorry for the rant and the nested brackets (the computer programmer in me, another subject that doesn’t require Universities).
Although this response to chris(mandarin_student)is taking this thread even further off topic I felt compelled to respond. The real value of universities is in their ability to bring people together into a close community where thoughts and ideas are shared and exchanged 24/7; where students, teachers, intellectual leaders can grow and in the case of students learn how to think. That will never be replaced by the internet or any number of ChinesePods.
Ken, teacher was amazed at the progress, ‘what, I can talk to you at normal speed’, let’s see how it goes with his wife over the w.e., talks at least as fast as Xiaoxiao
Yv
Some of the teachers at my university taught students how to think alright–think like Marx and Lenin. That said, I enjoyed going to university and I got top marks. But I’m sure I have the record for missed classes.
This is way off topic, but I think everyone should read “I am Charlotte Simmons” by Tom Wolfe for some perspective on modern university life.
Tom sez:
The real value of universities is in their ability to bring people together into a close community where thoughts and ideas are shared and exchanged 24/7; where students, teachers, intellectual leaders can grow and in the case of students learn how to think.
I don’t think that Universities have a monopoly on intellectual leaders. Perhaps far from it.
Rather than being off-topic I think understanding Universities is key to understanding why certain ideas and ways of thinking will thrive in that environment and why others will not (not always based on their teaching merit).
I have been to university, worked in a research company on a university, currently work in academic publishing(Journals etc.), and my wife has recently finished a degree as a mature student. Whilst I don’t doubt that the things you describe actually occur, I also know that there are many many other agendas played out and that many decisions (whether deliberately or not) are made to benifit the institution or the teachers (rather than the students or society).
I guess my point about the university experience wasn’t presented very clearly. The learning process isn’t what’s injected into students by professors during class. That’s only the smallest fraction of the learning that goes on there (at least at US universities). The special sauce is constantly created and recreated by the debate and discourse that happens across the table at the student union or betweeen a group of students soaking up the sunshine on the library lawn or by chatting with the TA during office hours or attending the guest lectures that happen on all kinds of topics. Yes of course it can and does also happen in the local pub between high school dropouts or online in chatrooms but at nowhere near the level that happens when you’re surrounded by intelligent, thoughtful, motivated indivduals who are there to grow. That’s what universities are supposed to be for and that experience will never be replicated on-line.
Chris,
I never had the pleasure of taking regular classes at a university but I remember that Chairman Mao Zedong once said that in a crisis the man who know how to make the sewers work becomes the most important person. That’s when folks like me get their opportunity to shine, shine, shine
Who’s Xiaoxiao?
AuntySue,
Check it out:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/fight3.php
I learned more from the university than chinesepod. Yes, chinesepod has more material but our teacher focused on speaking so everyday we had a chance to practice chinese something chinesepod does not provide.
Chris said:
I also know that there are many many other agendas played out and that many decisions (whether deliberately or not) are made to benefit the institution or the teachers (rather than the students or society.)
That is well put and exactly right.
Ken,
After reading this utterly fascinating discussion I would like to put forward four hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1:
Using a listening method that is loosely leveled (like cpod) works “best” with people who have already learned to communicate in a second language.
Hypothesis 2:
People who have never learned to comfortably communicate in a second language need a strongly ordered system. One possible reason for this is that a strongly ordered system reduces their anxiety thus lowering their affective filter (and yes, Krashen allows for explicit instruction to reduce affective filters).
Hypothesis 3:
Repeated listening of a given pod cast accelerates acquisition even after a student his been able to fully understand a given pod cast (thus meeting the minimum condition, according to Krashen, for acquisition to occur).
Hypothesis 4:
People who pay for a subscription learn faster than people who don’t.
I think CPOD is on the way to becoming “good enough to use as the main tool to use to attain good Chinese” but I don’t think they are there yet. It take a LOT of material to learn a language.
I just figured out that BLCU refers to Bejing university material. I was using their course (Chinese for Today) along with a lot of other material before I discovered CPOD. While their discussion of the phonetics of Mandarin is excellent, it is most definitely NOT a method I would suggest for a beginner student. The Fudan university stuff is better but still nowhere near as good as CPOD for a new student. I own pretty well all the audio Mandarin material available from Amazon.com. It ranges from pretty good to really bad.
Michael Butler:
Your post mentions “listening” a lot. Is CPOD really a listening method? Listening alone can develop understanding of a language, but in order to speak it you have to open your mouth and practice making those funny sounds. Lack of this realization is, I think, the most important reason for the failure of language learners.
If anyone is interested, perhaps I should add that my favorite audio material, (for supplementation, not stand-alone) is contained in the eight all Chinese audio recordings of the Assimil method. I want to rave about how well these are done. The recordings are found in the textbook in Pinyin, Chinese script, idiomatic French, and word for word French. Even someone who knew no French at all might find them worth obtaining. The recordings are done in such a way that you can play them many, many times, without getting bored or frustrated, each time gaining a little more understanding.
RedViolin-
I’d call Cpod a situationally based, cognitively centered, listening structured approach that makes an explicit attempt to redress the defects of the current ways of teaching Chinese by explicitly leaning heavily in the direction of supporting students acquire (rather than learn) Chinese.
It is not, obviously, conversational unless you have conversations with yourself (which does work for some people). And given this conversational deficiency (mainly a technical issue) I find it hard to call Cpod communicative although communication is the perceived goal of everyone working at and studying with Cpod.
Cpod is not only one thing but rather a number of things that can perhaps be plotted on the continuum below. This is however far from an authoritative answer and I wouldn’t be surprised if I was corrected along a number of lines.
Acquisition———————-Learning
Listening————————Reading
Cognitive———————–Behavioral
Situational———————-Grammatical
Modular————————Linear
Michael Butler:
Well, we are talking about different things here. I was just trying to make the point that whatever method you use, you have to open your mouth and practice making sounds, that passive listening simply doesn’t cut it. That may seem obvious to you and I, but in my experience it isn’t to many newbie language learners.
Is it my imagination, or is there a tendency for people who like rote memorisation to wish that everyone would use similar methods, while those who usually avoid rote memorisation themselves tend to be more supportive of other students who choose methods that they wouldn’t touch with a barge pole themselves? Or to put it another way, rote people can’t imagine another tool being as effective, while non-rote people spread and modify their beliefs across all methods and contexts?
It could be that my perspective is influenced by being a member of the second group.
Aunty Sue:
There may be some truth to what you say. I hope you don’t think I’m part of the rote memorization group because I certainly don’t consider myself one of them. I’m actually kind of neutral on the subject. A lot depends on your definition of “rote memorization” In any case, I’ve yet to memorize a single dialog in Chinese but I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing so. I loathe the idea of memorizing word lists. I don’t use flash cards though I own a set and sometimes wonder if I shouldn’t be using them.
Auntie Sue, Xiaoxiao is one of Jenny’s co-hosts on the zh-Advanced podcasts, together with Connie (and others occasionaly).
RedViolin, BLCU refers to Beijing Language and Culture University, and they, like a number of others, produce loads of learning / teaching material. The recordings are still largely available on audiotapes, but you increasingly find CDs and mp3. That doesn’t mean all content is useless or uninteresting, there’s new stuff all the time too, don’t throw the baby with the bath water, there’s lots more than all the audio Mandarin material available from Amazon.com. I do agree with you though, Assimil recordings for Chinese (different quality for other languages) were probably amongst the best, most engaging stuff available for beginners before ChinesePod emerged.
michael butler, I would guess your Hypothesis 4, People who pay for a subscription learn faster than people who don’t. has a lot to do with motivation
Yv
Yv, Pssst….她的名字是《肖霞》(Xiāo Xiá)。;)
Goulnik
I’m happy to know that someone else besides me is aware of and likes the Assimil Chinese material. My enthusiasm for their Chinese recordings does not extend to their Spanish or Italian recordings.
I wasn’t totally knocking the BLCU stuff, I still work on some of it. I just feel the recordings I have would be totally inappropriate and discouraging for the total beginner that they are supposedly aimed at. I would love to check out more of it.
I always like to have new material, even though I have yet to work through all the stuff I have now. Even though different material may be aimed at the same level of learner, each author brings a different perspective on the language. Often one persons take on a particular topic will demystify material by other people.
I’m spending much too much time on these posts. Time to give myself and others a break.
RedViolin,
I used Assimil about 7-8 years ago and stopped doing so because
1) it was boring
2) my wife regularly pointed out that the contents are not 100% accurate and standard (especially in the volume on writing).
Chinesepod is the first provider that offers material that both interests me and that is also 100% approved by my wife.
Ah ah, sorry XiaoXia for having mispelt your name, 不好意思. ok, Xiaoxia is a ChinesePod host who speaks really fast. Her picture doesn’t show up in the “about us” section, not sure there’s any correlation
thx Henning for pointing this out, back to work, lesson time now
Yv
Henning:
I have made no attempt to learn to read and write Chinese, I only use the audio sections. The two speakers on the recordings are both native speakers so I can’t imagine how they would be inaccurate but I can’t be the judge of that. Perhaps they are a different dialect?
My enthusiasm for those recordings does not mean I dislike CPOD, both are good.
I’m sure that if I had a Chinese wife, I too would find the recordings boring.
You can take a look at the Assimils transcripts on my website, under the link Miscellaneous Textbooks for Learners of Chinese, along with quite a few others I have almost forgotten about
Yv
Sorry to ask, but could you see if you can ressurect a comment I posted the other day? It got flagged as spam and never showed up – I know I’m not the most interesting guy in the world but at least I wasn’t trying to sell diet pills!
chris(mandarin_student): I guess my thinking is that in this learning versus acquiring, traditional versus radical, discussion, the “acquiring” and “radical” nature of CP is exaggerated by some people here.
I think the podcasts are great. not because they are a radical new take on language, but because they are good lessons: convenient to listen to, engaging hosts, and good choices of vocab and grammar.
but they’re still lessons, which explicitly teach vocab and grammar and usage (as well as implicitly teach the same). the lexical chunks idea is good, but hardly radical.
and the other parts of CP — vocab, transcripts, etc — all involve some degree of repetition and memorisation: see http://chinesepod.com/method.php .
I’m not saying this is bad; it’s good. but it’s hardly revolutionary. that which is much newer is the format, the manner of the presenting, the interaction, etc.
goulnik says:
“I would guess your Hypothesis 4, People who pay for a subscription learn faster than people who don’t. has a lot to do with motivation”
That was my thought to at first until I considered that the determining factor may not be motivation it could also be; 1. the tools that c-pod offers; or 2. the fact that on average they spend more time using the materials (time on task).
Of course this all begs the question of whether this hypothesis is actually true. I’m not sure it is.
Hi Henning,
I think they should add your comment to their marketing materials, “Cpod, approved by my wife.” No kind of stronger endorsement possible in this world.
About 肖霞》(Xiāo Xiá),
I don’t find that she speaks particularly fast, Cpod dialogues and banter still aren’t reeeally at full natural pace dialect inflected multi-speaker pace…
What I find is special about her contribution from the other hosts is that she more often than not finds simpler words, phrases and analogies that are familiar to me when describing the topic vocabulary. She was a key factor in providing me ‘access’ into the advanced podcasts.
Hi Goulnik and Chris M,
I would agree with Goulnik, basically right now Chinesepod is my core curriculum. Unless I was to say my daily engagement with Chinese in China was the core curriculum. Cpod is like the teacher that shows up each day, day in day out with new interesting stuff. Whether I play hookey or not is up to me!
The only thing one could say is lacking in Cpod in a comparison to academic curricula, and I have gone thru both a US/Taiwan instructor university 10-week course, and a BLCU-based China university format, is a compilation of grammar points and tests. Regarding the grammar I’d say that the tags might work better than anything in academia. For me the university tests just got me down. About talking, that varies a lot from teacher to teacher, and my classes had very little ‘conversation’ practice.
Hi Tom,
About universities as places for bringing people together. I couldn’t agree more. And also disagree completely. College made some of my best friends, I met people, networked, learned, etc. But I also remember the various cliques in my language class. There’s a pretty strong argument that there exists in Cpod a very motivated, talented and all focused on learning Chinese community.
Were you trying to argue there wasn’t in-depth discussion on a topic here in this 88+ post thread!!!
Ken,
It’s good to hear that there is an awareness of recycling materials (lexis) at the newbie/elementary level. Is it that explicit at the other levels though? Maybe what I mean to say is, do the writers at those levels thoughtfully put in a ratio of say 40% variations of previous patterns and 60% new?
RedViolen, fyi — I agree with pretty much all of what you posted. As you noted, we might diverge a little towards the final stages of how things ‘come out of ones mouth. Anyway, as you said time for a break.
Lastly, one of the things I love about Cpod, and Web2.0 or the internet is the ‘permanence’ of things which many might consider a strange concept in a virtual, ever changing internet world.
I think it was Tom that mentioned the value of the discussions in the student union, etc., unfortunately sometimes some lounges weren’t open to all. Here, however, anyone who wants to learn and contribute can. Plus a great discussion and conversation has been preserved here on the blog.
Institutional memory, Cpod’s is transparent, open, fair, cordial and just waiting for the next post.
Ken,
One maybe not so final jab. I find it disheartening that the advanced Cpod blog has not been left up, there’s material and discussion in there that I can continue to learn from, but it’s gone into digital vapor on some hard-disk in a closet that’s dark, dusty and I can’t get into. Any other Cpoders with me on this one?!
Lantian:
Thanks buddy
Lantian : whether «肖霞»(Xiāo Xiá) speaks particularly fast depends on how advanced you are I guess. For me she does, crunch being when I transcribe those discussions, how many words can I get in my short-term memory before having to backtrack. I certainly can make sense of most of what she says, but 分析-ing it is sometimes challenging. She certainly speaks faster than I can type (pinyin, let alone hanzi) though I wouldn’t want her to talk any slower. Fact is, the more I listen to those discussions the easier every new podcast gets. And don’t get me wrong, I also find her very special and really enjoy her contributions, cool voice too…
Yv
Ken, I think there is a slight problem with what you are saying because the category of ‘rote learning’ is probably more complex than you are making it out to be.
I imagine somebody in a white room memorizing terms that he or she does not even understand, and probably will never use. But surely nobody is that naive (not us cpod listeners anyways!).
Clearly some kind of rote techniques are needed. After all, you are the one who always says ‘drill down’ at the end of each lesson; does this expression not imply some kind of rote learning?
If you look in the dictionary you will see that the term for ‘rote’ has negative connotations, so it’s hard to argue that it is a good thing. This is from the OED:
2. by rote, in a mechanical manner, by routine, esp. by the mere exercise of memory without proper understanding of, or reflection upon, the matter in question; also, with precision, by heart. a. With say, sing, play, etc.
I thought the second part of the definition was interesting, as it has a more positive meaning; that is, to learn with precision, by heart (as in music).
You yourself have said on numerous occassions that we need to ‘hear the music’, so then if learning a language is like playing an instrument, we need to practice again and again (ie, by rote).
Sometimes memorizing and remembering things is not much fun, but then neither I imagine is drilling on scales or whatever it is that musicians do.
I don’t want to defend ‘rote learning’ because that, by definition, means learning without understanding or proper reflection. But I think there is a great deal to be learned through repetition, and good old fashioned word lists and flashcards (done properly). Whatever the case, repetition is the key. I do a lot of flashcards, and I think it would be a shame for people to think this is an ineffective way to learn. Top down is great and communicative learning is great, but sometimes we just need to bear down and memorize a bunch of stuff. Maybe it’s like piano lessons (not particularly fun, but effective and precise). I suppose it’s a matter of a person’s goals and the kind of music they want to play.
Jeff,
Well said!
Hello
May I know Chinesepod station? Did chinesepod broadcast on radio staion?Please leave message to let me know. Thank you very much.
← Previous Comments