Do you incorporate Duolingo as part of your learning approach?

[tastyonions]

I like pen and paper as well. It’s slower but I’m not sure being forced to slow down is a bad thing when it comes to learning new stuff. And I already spend a full forty hours a week in front of a screen at my job so it’s nice to step away from that.

The only app I use is Anki.

[Granrey]

I like pen and paper as well. It’s slower but I’m not sure being forced to slow down is a bad thing when it comes to learning new stuff. And I already spend a full forty hours a week in front of a screen at my job so it’s nice to step away from that.

The only app I use is Anki.

Time is your most precious item, you will never gain more of it.

I'm not saying don't do what you are doing but what I'm saying is people should not say something does not work or is not good because they have preference for something that is likely less efficient.

Honestly, the likelihood that someone will "self -learn" learn a language faster or better reading self teachings books and doing paper exercises compared to others using apps. It's realistically speaking close to zero.

These self teaching books are being around for many years without very low results to back up their efficency.


Saying that, combining books, apps and other tools is even better.

[jeff_lindqvist]

Another pen and paper user here. The feel, the sound ... in other words - feedback.

[Cainntear]

I do use apps and internet. But I simply remember better when writing things down, and there is research in education that states that that actually is the more effective way to learn.

phones can come with pens these days. myself I use an S23 with a Pen. and yes I used it often with Duolingo.

But Duolingo doesn't encourage you to do that. In fact, Duolingo has actively tried to follow whatever the user finds most convenient. This meant that at one point (IIRC) the choice between writing answers and "fridge magnet" exercises was a one-off thing. Most people used fridge magnets because typing on your phone is rubbish. Now we're at the point where typing and fridge magnets both appear, but phone predictive text and autocorrect means that even when you're typing, there's nothing forcing you to think about individual morphemes. If a word has a masculine -o ending and you try to swipe it with a feminine -a ending, your phone will go "there's no such word as ***a, the user must have meant ***o, and the user's error is never brought to their attention.

I talk about this with AI, but it's true of all language technology: the tech's job is to work out what you probably meant, which is exactly the opposite of what language learners need -- if your errors aren't an impediment to completing the task, you won't even notice them.

Still saying that, you are picking a single benefit to justify outdone the many other ones benefits.

Say a windowcleaner is wanting to clean an upstairs window; if he chooses to use one ladder just because it's longer than the other, can you criticise that he was picking a single benefit (length) and dismissing the other advantages of the other ladder (width, rungs with better grips etc)?

If you think that other features make up for a weakness, say so. Personally, I think my one year streak including a diamond league win is enough evidence for me personally to be convinced that high volume practice is much less effective than focused conscious practice. I would tell you that in Portuguese if I could, but if I could, it would not be true. The fact that I cannot speak Portuguese is proof it's true. I learned Catalan to a fairly solid standard in far less time than I spent on Portuguese.

[Cainntear]

I like pen and paper as well. It’s slower but I’m not sure being forced to slow down is a bad thing when it comes to learning new stuff. And I already spend a full forty hours a week in front of a screen at my job so it’s nice to step away from that.

The only app I use is Anki.

Time is your most precious item, you will never gain more of it.

I'm not saying don't do what you are doing but what I'm saying is people should not say something does not work or is not good because they have preference for something that is likely less efficient.

Except tastyonions is saying he doesn't think it's less efficient. I don't think it's less efficient.

As I believe I said earlier in the thread, just because something takes less time, doesn't mean it's more efficient if your goal is to learn.

Reductio ad absurdam:
It is quicker for me to using machine translation than to write answers myself... or at least it would be if I installed an appropriate app.
If I installed that app, I would get through my learning tasks quicker, and therefore complete more learning tasks.

But of course I wouldn't learn, because learning is not what you get as a reward for completing the task, it is something that happens while you are completing the task. It is something that happens while you are carrying out the mental processes required to get the answer.

Honestly, the likelihood that someone will "self -learn" learn a language faster or better reading self teachings books and doing paper exercises compared to others using apps. It's realistically speaking close to zero.

Honestly, you have no grounds to make that statement. What evidence are you basing your assessment of efficacy on? Have you read papers that deny the effectiveness of handwriting for learning? Have you studied language learning methodology in any depth? Have you done any professionally reviewed experiments to measure the effectiveness of teaching interventions?

These self teaching books are being around for many years without very low results to back up their efficency.

The existence of bad books doesn't disprove the effectiveness of pen-and-paper in learning, any more than the spectacular failure of Duolingo disproves the effectiveness of language learning apps as a whole.

What is my evidence for Duolingo being a spectacular failure?

Well, usually I would say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but Duolingo is now so ubiquitous that if it was effective, there would be clear, undeniable evidence of that. People would be talking about "the Duolingo effect", and my former colleagues in English language teaching would be worried about their jobs.

Saying that, combining books, apps and other tools is even better.

Yes, which is a common defence of Duolingo, but as I often point out: Duolingo actively discourages a balanced diet. Apparently if we just eat enough beans, it'll make up for never eating grains, meat, dairy and vegetables....

[Saim]

Not only the phone gives you access to immense amount of books or information in any topic but also to apps using latest tech and learning science.

This is a false dichotomy. I mostly use the phone or computer for my study activities and yet I don’t use Duolingo at all. I use Anki and online dictionaries and translation programs.

[Cavesa]

Honestly, the likelihood that someone will "self -learn" learn a language faster or better reading self teachings books and doing paper exercises compared to others using apps. It's realistically speaking close to zero.

Honestly, you have no grounds to make that statement. What evidence are you basing your assessment of efficacy on? Have you read papers that deny the effectiveness of handwriting for learning? Have you studied language learning methodology in any depth? Have you done any professionally reviewed experiments to measure the effectiveness of teaching interventions?

These self teaching books are being around for many years without very low results to back up their efficency.

The existence of bad books doesn't disprove the effectiveness of pen-and-paper in learning, any more than the spectacular failure of Duolingo disproves the effectiveness of language learning apps as a whole.

I disagree about the "close to zero" thing, even just based on anecdotal evidence (because even one person is more than the "zero" here ). I know quite a lot of people, who have managed to self-teach a language up to the level of their coursebook, the problems usually started afterwards. Basically most people, who complete such a book, can reach the promised level. That's not close to zero.

On the other hand, I have yet to meet a single successful user of Duo, who has really reached the promised level just with Duo and following its method. No matter how long is their streak, whether they've completed the course, how many points they go in some competition... I have yet to see a single successful person capable of using at least a full A2 just after Duo. The only people who've "succeeded with Duolingo", have been combining it with other stuff (such as a coursebook), but then it doesn't mean it's Duo's merit (just like we cannot say it's the merit of the chair the learner was sitting on while studying).

The issue of most coursebooks: most people don't complete the coursebook (most give up after just a few units), so of course they don't reach the level. But if you put in that 100-200 hours and get to the end, your chances to get the result are actually not bad at all.
The issue of Duo: even completing it and/or wasting hundreds of hours on it doesn't lead to the promised result.

And nope, I cannot quote a study, because studies are simply not done of self-teaching learners. It's dumb but it's true. But that doesn't mean at all that the self-teaching books don't work, just that studies done on easily accessible and more controlable samples (such as uni students) are cheaper and easier to make. But as the claim here was "close to zero", I think even a limited amount of first hand and second hand experience proves the opposite enough.

I like pen and paper as well. It’s slower but I’m not sure being forced to slow down is a bad thing when it comes to learning new stuff. And I already spend a full forty hours a week in front of a screen at my job so it’s nice to step away from that.

The only app I use is Anki.

Yes, that's very much true, I use some writing by hand also with my digital resources. It's actually been scientifically proven that reading paper and screen, and also writing by hand vs typing activate different neural pathways. So, why not use both?

It's also been proven that active learning, active recall, is much more efficient than just passive activities. As a result, more and more students are switching the inefficient highlighting and rereading methods for active rewording of stuff, SRS, and other such tools. And many digital tools are trying to do more or less the same, to offer more active experience. But Duo's been going in the opposite direction, making the exercises easier and easier, and also more and more passive.

So, making the time to write on paper (especially when also saying the stuff, and/or actively recalling stuff, etc) makes total sense. Is it slower? Yes. But the quality definitely outweights the quantity here.

[Cainntear]

Honestly, the likelihood that someone will "self -learn" learn a language faster or better reading self teachings books and doing paper exercises compared to others using apps. It's realistically speaking close to zero.

Honestly, you have no grounds to make that statement. What evidence are you basing your assessment of efficacy on? Have you read papers that deny the effectiveness of handwriting for learning? Have you studied language learning methodology in any depth? Have you done any professionally reviewed experiments to measure the effectiveness of teaching interventions?

These self teaching books are being around for many years without very low results to back up their efficency.

The existence of bad books doesn't disprove the effectiveness of pen-and-paper in learning, any more than the spectacular failure of Duolingo disproves the effectiveness of language learning apps as a whole.

I disagree about the "close to zero" thing, even just based on anecdotal evidence (because even one person is more than the "zero" here ). I know quite a lot of people, who have managed to self-teach a language up to the level of their coursebook, the problems usually started afterwards. Basically most people, who complete such a book, can reach the promised level. That's not close to zero.

Exactly. So you're disagreeing with Granrey.

And nope, I cannot quote a study, because studies are simply not done of self-teaching learners. It's dumb but it's true. But that doesn't mean at all that the self-teaching books don't work, just that studies done on easily accessible and more controlable samples (such as uni students) are cheaper and easier to make. But as the claim here was "close to zero", I think even a limited amount of first hand and second hand experience proves the opposite enough.

I wouldn't ask you to, because
(a) you agree with me
and
(b) your post makes it clear that this is your opinion, and not a universal truth. I made that challenge to Granrey because he was claiming that he was talking about something like a law of nature, and was dismissing anyone as wrong (and by implication stupid) if they disagree with him.

I was kind of pushing towards the point that if there were universals, I'd probably be more likely to know them than most here, and definitely than him... but I still know that what I believe to be true is not guaranteed to be true. If someone who knows less than me talks like I'm an idiot, I'm offended. When I'm offended, I get kind of snippy.

[LisaNeverSayDie]

I'm late to the poll, but I recently spent a little while on Portuguese and it was not a bad experience. They even gave me some minimal pairs audio exercises which is nice (I wonder if they would attempt cem and sem, though). It may be only 1% of my time or less, but that is "part", and I'd use it more if could disable animated cartoons. To get through life at all nowadays one has to ignore the pressure to click on links or buy stuff or whatever.

A friend (phd in a scientific field, so no dummy), who is not a "language learner" used duolingo spanish before spending a week in mexico and she was very happy with the results. I don't know if she paid for it but most people nowadays just seem to not mind spending money on all kinds of streaming services, newspaper access, etc etc. And perhaps the way life works now is that you pay money to not be annoyed. Youtube is an even better language resource and the ads are possibly more annoying... they both give you the choice: see annoying ads or pay up.

[Le Baron]

I'm late to the poll, but I recently spent a little while on Portuguese and it was not a bad experience. They even gave me some minimal pairs audio exercises which is nice (I wonder if they would attempt cem and sem, though). It may be only 1% of my time or less, but that is "part", and I'd use it more if could disable animated cartoons. To get through life at all nowadays one has to ignore the pressure to click on links or buy stuff or whatever.

A friend (phd in a scientific field, so no dummy), who is not a "language learner" used duolingo spanish before spending a week in mexico and she was very happy with the results. I don't know if she paid for it but most people nowadays just seem to not mind spending money on all kinds of streaming services, newspaper access, etc etc. And perhaps the way life works now is that you pay money to not be annoyed. Youtube is an even better language resource and the ads are possibly more annoying... they both give you the choice: see annoying ads or pay up.

I've never seen an ad on YouTube!