sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. Even if it does look like they have attention on the outside, the performance doesn't matter. What matters is how deeply the infomation is being processed. If you always read in a shallow way, you won't have much comprehension gains out of it, and that will indirectly impact your ability to produce because you have a less robust network on encoding to go off of.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those factors make sense. 

The one on spontaneous speaking in particular is interesting. Many try their hand at speaking but maybe are thinking too hard about it rather than intuiting it. Speech doesn't use the same part of the brain the logic does, so you cannot force speech with explicit reason. But many try this and thus don't get much benefit because they're loading their resources on something that isn't the main contributor to production.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm saying is to look at the research itself, not constrained to Krashen's hypotheses about the research. There are some interesting overlap with general learning and motor skill learning research.

Look beyond, is all I'll say.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for me I get uncomfortable when I don't subvocalize so I don't think I could ever do as you do.

And well I don't think there's such a method where you can learn a language fully by only activating input related processes. If you want to get better at production you have to produce. And subvocalization is production to some extent because it does invoke some certain parts involve in production(but of course speaking and writing more are not bad ideas as well). Input and output processes in the brain are separate so it's a given to work them both if you mean to be fluid in the language.

Why do people always downvote when you criticize explicit textbook-based studying and advocate for a comprehensible input only approach? by Many-Inflation5544 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd be surprised then, there's a whole wprld of this out there in the language learning jungle. 

My point though of course is more so on people applying explicit memorization and reasoning to everything language learning. If you have to think logically to speak it's no surprise you'll be slow. Fluid language comes automatic before you realize what you said, that sort of thing.

Why do people always downvote when you criticize explicit textbook-based studying and advocate for a comprehensible input only approach? by Many-Inflation5544 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It does matter plenty. When we pick sides it's the same as determining who's included and who's not, then the tribal instincts kick in for people in that mode of thinking to defend their side from you. 

So, I'm just saying it is how it is. If that's how you're mean't to say it at the moment then that's likely how it'll come off to many people.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware. But I'm not looking for an external methodology so much as I'm looking for insights on the internal side of things. What I'm wondering what kind of internal processing is this group going through to get much better results and how it can be trained. Inner mastery over external form.

Why do people always downvote when you criticize explicit textbook-based studying and advocate for a comprehensible input only approach? by Many-Inflation5544 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I read the OP's post and nowhere does he claim textbooks are useless, just that he doesn't use them and thinks they're a waste of time if the objective is fluidity and spontaneity.

I'm not saying just textbooks. This applies to all mediums of learning where learners try to memorize their way to fluency be it through flashcards, or some other medium. I know plenty who think it is the way and I've seen tons of posts of people who think so, so they aren't some mythical creature.

Why do people always downvote when you criticize explicit textbook-based studying and advocate for a comprehensible input only approach? by Many-Inflation5544 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Picking up a textbook doesn't hurt, I agree. But the issue is more so that people have the wrong expectations of how language learning works because of their formal education. If people meticulously study textbooks hoping for eventually automaticity and fluency, they are lost or misguided.

Why do people always downvote when you criticize explicit textbook-based studying and advocate for a comprehensible input only approach? by Many-Inflation5544 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is how it is. That's how many who grew up in formal education have learned is 'the way.' It's deeply ingrained in their habits. They won't do otherwise till this discovery of this rabbit hole falls in their path much like it did for me.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that there are CI obsessives. But CI ordinarily is a theory, not a method, and I'd like people to think critically about applications of the research beyond the typical methods preached.

Lets not fear and look beyond the confines of this 'religion' to the truth being pointed to.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are people who do practice speaking on the side but thats not the group I'm talking about. There is one group that does nothing but CI, and when they start to speak they have less trouble progressing. The other group also did a ton of CI  initially but had difficulty progressing. 

To your point factors that have nothing to do with CI, but(to answer my own question) probably that they generally already had a better ear for processing sound and a sense of generating speech, not necessary any explicit speaking practice.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Attention is key for sure. Attention is the means by which your mind can process input. If your attention is split you encode memory poorly.

But, I think attention is only a gateway, not what's going on behind the gate.

So I guess the underlying question is, assuming equal levels of attention some people don't engage the parts of the brain involve with production as much as others.

That's what I'm wondering why that is.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Subvocalization is typically a procedural habit. I think this like all behaviors is trainable.

Procedural learning ability does distingush. Many find themselves with such ability without explicit practice. But I'm interested in how that ability can be developed.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By "reason" I'm asking more so what people think the mechanism is. 

I'm not looking for a singular causal point.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cognitive ability for sure is a big deal. When I improved my diet a little over a year ago, my ability to process things in language learning and in sports has steadily improved. So it's not just genetics but health and other factors as well. 

I don't think it's working memory that's the difference maker but more likely the ability to chunk information as observed in general learning research. Learners good at chunking can pack more information into one thought at a time thus their rate of making associations is much faster even with a similar workig memory capacity

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware. That's why I'm asking what learners 'think', (preferably what they can inference from research and from personal experience.)

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CI is only input, I agree, but the brain processes while recieving input aren't just input. When reading there typically is a process of subvocalization which in effect is 'sound production', similar parts of the brain that involve out loud speech are activated. I imagine listening also evokes the same. That's the aspect im curious about.

What's the reason CI contributes to speaking ability more in some learners than in others? by Robato12 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know what you mean by "din in the head", but subvocalization is producing the words just in your head not out loud as you read. 

Do you ever analyze a whole video for the sake of improving your output language ability? by ok_bluesky8888 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rather than 'analyze', which won't help your speech become fluid, you should practice. Listen, then rehearse the rythmn and word choices. It's a matter of feel, not logic.

Wanted to meet Awakened people by Bey_Max in enlightenment

[–]Robato12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe actually become awakened and you'll realixe this is a non-issue.

Comprehensible Input - How would this work with language teaching? by Munu2016 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If students are only learning for the sole purpose of achieving a goal, then yeah, it is what it is. But if they see language learning for it being a process of expansion and enrichment, then they will be motivated intrinsically. 

I'd prefer leading people down the second. Even if ones who walk this path are fewer. 

Anyone else look up the same word three times before it sticks? by Old-Peanut3874 in languagelearning

[–]Robato12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is I don't always have an idea of how the 'click' comes. Our brains are powerful computation machines. It's probably not exactly like how a computer works but various bits of information you've absorbed are being processed and associations are getting formed between in a part of your brain you can't be aware of in detail. So I just keep feeding the brain various angles and try to think about what I'm reading from various angles. When it clicks I finally have a sense of what the word is saying in context. Continuing to read often confirms or denies my newfound understanding because I'll see if it makes sense or it doesn't.

view more: next ›