Correction... how useful...?

[Irena]

Actually, I don't think anyone is trying to sell a method. I thing Cainntear is just telling you about a method which works for him, and a number of other people. I get the feeling that you two are "reading past each other" and not really paying attention to what the other person is saying. You're both making good points, but you are arguing, not debating.

And here, I must disagree. Here's a clear summary of his position.

I say that the optimal way for everyone is more similar than everyone says.

Instead, the differences between learners are mostly in how well we cope with *suboptimal* teaching.

This implies that if I use one method, and you use a very different one, then at least one of us is wrong. And that's where my disagreement with him lies. But again, I don't have any issues at all with you using MT (or whatever else works for you). As long as you don't attempt to force feed it to me.

[Le Baron]

Actually, this works for a significant number of people. Many people (including me) would prefer NOT to start with a textbook or a grammar book.

I've not followed every post, but I too question the value of MT. Whilst I have to always admit that people learn differently. It does seem the method is being repeatedly touted as something greater than what it is. Like Irena I went to have a listen to the French course after reading about experiences with it here. I found it limited and that Michel Thomas himself isn't the best imitation model for the language. I'm also flummoxed in a way because MT does a lot of correction, whereas Cainntear seemed to think this doesn't work (am I wrong about that?).

I would assume the similar issues with MT as with Pimsleur, both positive and negative. That they pursue communicative speech. I'm limited in my comments because I have done neither of these for French, but I do know that the issue of the gulf between spoken and written French would in this case (and in any language really) put the learner at a bit of a disadvantage.

Nowadays practically all learners know they need audio input so the those inclined to book learning make that valuable effort; whereas those who feel they can make most progress lying in the sun listening to audio are still a bit recalcitrant with regard to the value of checking grammar and using written material to propel themselves. Reading information is surely the fastest way of getting it. I know I can read an article faster than I can listen to one.

[Irena]

@Le Baron

As far as I can tell, MT is one of many courses that you can use to get your feet wet. It won't get you very far, but you can use it as your first exposure to the language. Some people will like it, and others won't. Pimsleur is similar in that regard: a get-your-feet-wet course. I tried the free Pimsleur Polish lesson (since I'm toying with the idea of learning Polish), and it seemed an okay way for me to get used to Polish phonetics. If it had been a bit cheaper, I might have considered trying the whole course. But again, that would have been strictly an exercise in getting my feet wet, before I start serious study.

And of course, DuoLingo is another thing you could try for a few hours. If you like it, then why not? (Though it's not my cup of tea.) Just don't expect to get very far with it.

But cultishness is rather off-putting with regard to any language learning method.

[Cainntear]

Actually, I don't think anyone is trying to sell a method. I thing Cainntear is just telling you about a method which works for him, and a number of other people. I get the feeling that you two are "reading past each other" and not really paying attention to what the other person is saying. You're both making good points, but you are arguing, not debating.

And here, I must disagree. Here's a clear summary of his position.

I say that the optimal way for everyone is more similar than everyone says.

Instead, the differences between learners are mostly in how well we cope with *suboptimal* teaching.

This implies that if I use one method, and you use a very different one, then at least one of us is wrong. And that's where my disagreement with him lies.

Nota bene: "the optimal way for everyone is more similar than everyone says."

More similar, not "absolutely identical".

I am in favour of moving towards better teaching and learning -- I simply cannot abide people saying "what we do is fine -- the problem is the learners".

In my life I have been "proof" that various teaching methods work... because I do not follow the method. Credit for my success is taken by a method that I'm not even really using.

But again, I don't have any issues at all with you using MT (or whatever else works for you). As long as you don't attempt to force feed it to me.

I'm not force-feeding it to you. If nothing else, Michel Thomas didn't speak Serbian anyway so is likely to be less useful to you.

I mention Thomas here because I see him as an example of teaching better being useful to everyone. You have not discussed his teaching methods, but have rejected my evidence time and again.

Me: I have watched grown women cry because they're trying hard.
You: People cry for lots of reasons -- doesn't mean they're trying hard.
Me: I've met these people personally and I can assure you they're genuinely trying.
You: People cry for lots of reasons -- doesn't mean they're trying hard.

Me: Michel Thomas teaches in a way that works better for everyone.
You: Michel Thomas is just an introduction.
Me: Yes, but it's a good introduction because people learn to make accurate sentences with sophisticated grammar.
You: He has a bad accent.
Me: Yes, I never said he was perfect, but I said he's the best introduction to a language I've ever personally experienced.
You: I watched some stuff from his in a language I already speak and I don't like it.

[Cainntear]

Actually, I don't think anyone is trying to sell a method.

You mean you haven't bought my book yet? Maybe my advertising was just too subtle...

[Le Baron]

Or accurate?

[Cainntear]

@Le Baron

As far as I can tell, MT is one of many courses that you can use to get your feet wet. It won't get you very far, but you can use it as your first exposure to the language. Some people will like it, and others won't. Pimsleur is similar in that regard: a get-your-feet-wet course.

It's similar in that regard but it is fundamentally different in its teaching approach.

For one thing, there's a bit of an obsession with meaningless exchanges which are what I term "expository language". For example, consider a language with three locations -- I'll use "here" to mean "where I am", "there" to mean "where you are" and "yonder" to mean "where neither of us are". Similarly "this" (one near me), "that" (one near you) and "yonder" (one near neither of us).

I used to get Pimsleur short courses out of the library for fun, but they used to have all sort of dialogues that were like "is the bank here (where I am)?" "No it's there (where you are)," or "Do you want this one (near me)?" "No, I want that one (near you)."

The whole thing basically teaches the words incorrectly.

And of course, DuoLingo is another thing you could try for a few hours. If you like it, then why not? (Though it's not my cup of tea.) Just don't expect to get very far with it.

DuoLingo is something you could do for a year and not get anywhere near as sophisticated an understanding of grammar as a few days with MT.

The main message to take out of MT is that filling a course with vocabulary early on isn't much help to a learner as it makes grammar much harder to learn. Use the minimum words and learn maximum grammar then pick up more words later.

But cultishness is rather off-putting with regard to any language learning method.

When
I
Say
That
Michel
Thomas
Is
Not
Perfect....
...am I speaking like a cult-member?

[Cainntear]

Or accurate?

Who is this a response to...?

I've noticed a few times when I've posted almost simultaneous to you, that I see your post in the thing that asks me to confirm and for some reason I get this weird feeling that you're responding to me but not quoting me so that I don't get alerted to you and won't read it....

[Le Baron]

For one thing, there's a bit of an obsession with meaningless exchanges which are what I term "expository language". For example, consider a language with three locations -- I'll use "here" to mean "where I am", "there" to mean "where you are" and "yonder" to mean "where neither of us are". Similarly "this" (one near me), "that" (one near you) and "yonder" (one near neither of us).

I used to get Pimsleur short courses out of the library for fun, but they used to have all sort of dialogues that were like "is the bank here (where I am)?" "No it's there (where you are)," or "Do you want this one (near me)?" "No, I want that one (near you)."

The whole thing basically teaches the words incorrectly.

I've done two Pimsleur courses and I've never seen any dialogue of that type. Are these 'short courses' something else? Is there really any confusion as to what 'here/there', 'that/this' means when the context is clear, as it very much is in the limited and clearly defined dialogues of Pimsleur?

[Le Baron]

Who is this a response to...?

It's a complete mistake. I had two windows open to make sure I'd read previous posts to gain context. It was part of the reply I just posted about pimsleur, but I'd cut it out of the post because I altered the question. But like an idiot I press send on that instead of the actual reply! Which is to you btw.