The use of FSI, a question of efficiency.

[klvik]

I have a love/hate relationship with the FSI Spanish Basic course. I can see the benefit of the drills but I also find them tedious and the grammatical explanations are not comprehensive (as to be expected for material not designed as a stand alone course). Recently, the topic I was covering in Gramátical del Uso del Español B1-B2 and FSI Basic overlapped to a great extent and I found that this overlap greatly increased both my enjoyment of these units and the ease with which I internalized the material. If I were to start again or to do a second pass with FSI, I think I would synchronize my use of GdUdE with FSI. I would use FSI as a tool to get more out of the material covered in GdUdE.

[iguanamon]

You seem to have convinced yourself that FSI is "inefficient" so, perhaps nothing I say will sway you from that. I can only speak to my experience in language-learning and to my observations over six years on this forum and HTLAL. There are many paths to learning a language. Personally, I prefer to rely on "effective" rather than "efficiency".

...I wonder sometimes about all the praise for FSI. Do products like Pimsleur, Glossika, Supercoco (new app on iOS), etc. not serve a similar purpose when it comes to automacity? And wouldn't a tutor/conversation partner be better than any of it? These other products I mention at least have the benefit of being relatively painless, straightforward, and mostly easy to use early on to help push you into working in the language (as with a tutor or partner). I see them as training wheels basically. ...

Not all learning resources are the same or interchangeable. Pimsleur does what it does well, with a limited vocabulary at an early stage in a language-learning process. It uses repetition and graduated interval recall to a good effect. Pimsleur is in no way equivalent to what FSI does nor is it interchangeable. FSI concentrates on drills and getting grammar right. Pimsleur is about getting a learner from zero to limited communication skill. Pimsleur is self-learning intended. FSI was not developed with self-learners in mind but can be used by self-learners to a good effect. Yes, a tutor can help, but the expense of a tutor is more justified, in my experience, after I have a good base in the language. FSI (DLI in my case) and Pimsleur have helped me to do that, along with making my own connections with a multi-track approach.

...Even if FSI courses are a superior set of training wheels there still seems to be a lot of potential to not really be honing in on your actual problem areas amid the massive amount of content, which seems possibly inefficient, and may outweigh any benefits for time conscious individuals (many of us). What is the argument of going this route with all the tools we have available today (SRS is a big one for many) and the ease in which we can use a tutor online (or conversation partner)?...

SRS is only as good as what the user inputs into it. You must know what to put into your deck. FSI has already done that for you. Tutors and conversation are limited. If you are having problems with the subjunctive and how and when to use it, a native-speaker conversation partner may not be able to adequately explain exactly why a usage or pattern is used in their own language. An hour of tutor instruction on a topic or usage is usually not sufficient to get it fixed in my mind, but if I do a week's worth of drills and then start recognizing it in reading and listening, and using it in speech and writing- I can internalize it. Why would I pay a tutor by the hour to teach me something I can learn on my own? In my experience a tutor is most useful in conversation when I already have a good idea of what I am doing. They help me to consolidate my knowledge in use. Speaking helps to further cement what I am learning by other methods.

...I also wonder about automacity, apart from FSI. It seems to be it would be like muscle memory with everything else. The more you use it the more it becomes reflex. So why go through a lot of effort and boring drills to create this automacity instead of simply using the language more? One answer I obviously can think of is simply, when you can't use it all the time. But is that the only reason? So for me personally, living in the US and learning Spanish, between local spanish speakers and online, I can easily have opportunities to speak everyday. Honest question, is there merit for a self-instructed program like FSI for automacity when this is the case?...

To answer your last question, yes, there is merit to doing a formal course alongside with using the language. Simply using the language doesn't give anywhere near the amount of repetition of a pattern as a set of drills does- especially if I'm not corrected and if I don't even notice what I am doing wrong. In conversation, there are patterns and usages that are just not used as regularly as others are. Some patterns and usages can even be avoided entirely (as a conscious effort) by a learner. With drills I can "drill" how and when to use a specific usage or pattern into my brain. to me, using a self-instruction program helps me to consolidate and gain synergy with conversation and use of a language. Drills may not be efficient but they are very effective , at least in my experience. What I do is not efficient, by any measure, but it has worked for me more than once, and I have seen it work for others too. YMMV

[jsega]

You seem to have convinced yourself that FSI is "inefficient" so, perhaps nothing I say will sway you from that. I can only speak to my experience in language-learning and to my observations over six years on this forum and HTLAL. There are many paths to learning a language. Personally, I prefer to rely on "effective" rather than "efficiency".

On the contrary, I'm not convinced of much, but I certainly believe that efficiency matters. I don't think you can even really appreciate technology and how far we've come, small improvement by small improvement, without accepting the fact that efficiency matters.

If I was convinced I wouldn't have made the thread in the first place. I can't speak for others but pretty much every response so far has actually sparked some new ideas in myself so, so far so good I'd say. For example, the idea of potentially making FSI more efficient

[Ani]

I don't know how many hours FSI Spanish is, but French Basic is only 90 hours of tapes. On one hand it is a lot, on the other it is a drop in the bucket to C1, even if you do it twice. You really only need to repeat drills that you have trouble with or want to make more automatic in a hurry. Seems like the definition of efficiency to me, especially if you combine it with being able to do them in the shower or while walking the dog.

Of course then there are people like me who need to hear things a thousand times. The thought of that much face time with a native speaker makes me queezy. I'm very happy learning on my own.

[smallwhite]

The use of FSI, a question of efficiency.

If you care about efficiency and think about efficiency, likely your efficiency will already increase.

for people in a situation similar to mine, which is briefly: relatively comfortable monetarily and with ample opportunity to speak my target language ...

Efficiency is about achieving results with the least resources, so you have to state your desired results / goals as well.

is there merit for a self-instructed program like FSI for automacity when this is the case?

You can try designing from scratch an ideal and most efficient language learning path, and then look for existing resources that best fit your ideal; instead of looking at existing resources one by one and comparing their efficiencies.

any general thoughts on the developing of automacity and whether targeted practice is actually necessary.

I do drills and targeted practice a lot, but I don't see the need for drilling every aspect of the language, and I don't drill or target-practise things on first encounter. Can't say if targeted practice is necessary but by definition it should be more efficient than uncontrolled random practice?

Personally, I prefer to rely on "effective" rather than "efficiency".

"Effective" is achieving results and "efficiency is achieving results with the least time, money and other resources, so going for effectiveness and ignoring efficiency is really just for those with the luxury of sufficient time, money and other resources. But,

On the contrary, I'm not convinced of much, but I certainly believe that efficiency matters.

I think actually everyone wants to learn efficiently; they may just not realise it and probably don't like the word. They pick "value-for-money" resources and that's monetary efficiency. If a book comes in both paper and digital versions, they pick the more convenient version for them and that's time efficiency. Only when a random friend gives you a random textbook and you just use it anyway, are you ignoring efficiency.

In any case, in my culture at least, being monetarily thrifty is a virtue, so being time-thrifty should be so, too

[jsega]

You can try designing from scratch an ideal and most efficient language learning path, and then look for existing resources that best fit your ideal; instead of looking at existing resources one by one and comparing their efficiencies.

Good advice, thank you.

[reineke]

If you care about efficiency and think about efficiency, likely your efficiency will already increase.

Efficiency is about achieving results with the least resources

You can try designing from scratch an ideal and most efficient language learning path, and then look.

Can't say if targeted practice is necessary but by definition it should be more efficient than uncontrolled random practice?

Personally, I prefer to rely on "effective" rather than "efficiency".

"Effective" is achieving results and "efficiency is achieving results with the least time, money and other resources, so going for effectiveness and ignoring efficiency is really just for those with the luxury of sufficient time, money and other resources...
I think actually everyone wants to learn efficiently; they may just not realise it and probably don't like the word. They pick "value-for-money" resources...

In any case, in my culture at least, being monetarily thrifty is a virtue, so being time-thrifty should be so, too

On Effectiveness and Efficiency and Their Repercussions

"I have said that a well-managed organization is effective and efficient, in both the short and the long term.

It is interesting to note that some languages do not have a literal translation for the words “effectiveness,” “efficiency,” or both. Hebrew, for example, has a word for “efficiency,” but to communicate “effectiveness” they use the word “purposeful,” which, as I will explain below, is not literally accurate because not all purposeful systems are necessarily effective.

Russian, on the other hand, has a word for “effectiveness,” but not for “efficiency”; to communicate “efficiency,” Russian translators use the words “organized” or “productive” instead. Neither is truly accurate, because getting organized is only one means of becoming efficient, and not all productive systems are necessarily efficient.

To add to the confusion, it seems to me that the meaning of these words is not even clear in English. At least not to me...

What is ‘efficiency’?

“Efficiency” is the way in which you carry out a process. It is measured by how many units of input are needed to produce one unit of output. A system is efficient if it can carry out its process with the minimum energy possible. To become efficient, you need to get organized, systematized, and programmed.

To be efficient means to follow a process that uses the minimum energy and minimizes the waste of energy. Efficiency is the result of following the right form. There is no room for mistakes. When you use a system that was designed for efficiency, there is no learning process involved. You just have to follow the programmed, prescribed system, which tells you in detail where, when, how, and with whom to do what. You do not have to think or innovate or make choices. As a matter of fact, the more efficient you want to be, the more you must avoid making choices and innovating.

Thus, the more efficient you try to be, the less you will innovate and the less effective you will be in the long run.

What is ‘effectiveness’?

To be “effective,” on the other hand, means to produce that for which the system was established. It means to provide the desired function. To become effective, you need to try out different solutions until you find the right one. Thus, by definition, you have to make what most people consider “mistakes,” but what I consider to be a necessary step in becoming effective. Nevertheless, making choices involves making mistakes, and mistakes do waste energy.

Furthermore, for effectiveness in the long run, you must innovate, because ...needs change over time.
...This applies to anything.

The efficiency/effectiveness trade-off

Can a system be effective without being efficient?

Yes, it can: The organization reaches its goals – but uses excessive resources and/or energy in order to do it.

Can a system be efficient and not effective? Sure. I can practice hitting a tennis ball from one spot on the tennis court until my movements are perfect. Now that I am so efficient, I tell my opponent: “Send me the ball right here!” and I hit only the balls that come to my racquet; if they do not arrive in precisely the right place, they are missed.

The higher the rate of change, the smaller the chance that effectiveness and efficiency will be synchronized...

The higher the rate of change, the more efficiency organizations have to sacrifice in order to be effective. If they are not willing to sacrifice efficiency, they will have to sacrifice effectiveness.

Now, the bad news …

It is easier to sacrifice effectiveness than efficiency. Why? Because reorganizing a company to remain efficient in a changed environment means making organizational changes – and that means stepping on some people’s toes. As Machiavelli said (I am paraphrasing): If you want to be hated, try changing people.

http://www.ichakadizes.com/on-effective ... rcussions/

[smallwhite]

When you use a system that was designed for efficiency, there is no learning process involved. You just have to follow the programmed, prescribed system, which tells you in detail where, when, how, and with whom to do what.
...
To become effective, you need to try out different solutions until you find the right one. Thus, by definition, you have to make what most people consider “mistakes,” but what I consider to be a necessary step in becoming effective.

That's comparing apples to oranges; comparing end product with design stage. Of course they have different characteristics. You try out different solutions and learn and whatnot, then you come out with a system to follow as a result. Completely different steps, so of course there's little trying out and learning in the already designed and in-use system and little to follow in the trying out stage.

You do not achieve efficiency at just the macro level, but at every micro level. And while macro level things don't tend to change much, micro level things can easily be changed. The beauty of self-learning is precisely that you can keep revising what you consider to be efficient, and keep revising your strategies and activities to incorporate efficiency, if you want to.

Can a system be efficient and not effective? Sure. I can practice hitting a tennis ball from one spot on the tennis court until my movements are perfect. Now that I am so efficient, I tell my opponent: “Send me the ball right here!” and I hit only the balls that come to my racquet; if they do not arrive in precisely the right place, they are missed.

Apples to oranges again here - the first case having "hitting a ball that comes right in front of me" as goal and the second, "hitting a ball that may be anywhere".

Why keep comparing apples and oranges to confuse people?

If you want to be hated, try changing people.

Have to agree with this, though!

[ilmari]

(I am referring to FSI Spanish Basic Course, which I know the best)

FSI cannot be sufficient by itself, for the simple reason that it is a bit old, and language is constantly evolving.

But FSI is also, in my opinion, an ideal complement to any other learning material you may use, because of its systematic and comprehensive character. FSI covers systematically and gradually all aspects of Spanish, not only grammar, but also vocabulary. One of the beauties of FSI is how carefully it is woven, building slowly upon former material. For example, the drills use only vocabulary previously introduced. Vocabulary items are also repeated many times in the course, so that there is no real need for separate vocabulary practice.

One aspect not often mentioned is the reading ability FSI imparts you. FSI teaches you how to make sense of increasingly complex texts, not only by carefully building upon what was previously learned, but also by showing you how to rely on cognate loan words and how to expand your passive vocabulary. It is just magic how you find yourself reading increasingly complex texts without clearly realising how you got there.

Having said that, we are all different, and the FSI approach may not suit everyone.

[blaurebell]

I think FSI is something for perfectionists who are incredibly resistant to boredom. Of course perfectionism is never efficient, so you're probably right that there are more efficient programs to pick up a language more quickly. There aren't any that are so effective though, the drilling really helps to speak correctly! It's easy to get understood, but speaking correctly can be extremely difficult. The problem for me is not that it's a lot of material - 90h is nothing - but that I just can't seem to face it. More than half an hour of it gives me a headache and I dread doing it, which takes the enjoyment out of language learning. Without having fun, I just can't do it. This means that I wouldn't be able to power through it in less than 180 days and that I would probably squirm my way out of it after 20 days. That said, I wish there was a longer FSI for Russian.