My issue is how vague and fluid the definition of ALM is.
My first understanding of the term was grammar rules and phrase/sentence-translation exercises, but then I saw someone describe it as being a method for learning to read the classics, and actually an "authentic materials" approach because it actually took in passages of proper classical Greek/Latin really early on. Now there's talk of back-and-forth translation in the mix, so I don't see the point of even talking about "ALM". (Which is not a criticism of you, as you've been very clear on what you're talking about.
Speakeasy wrote:Third, by way of explanation, it seems to me that both here on the LLORG and on the HTLAL, there have been a few brief discussions of how one should proceed with Assimil Active Wave. However, I have not come across a clear statement of the benefits of this type of practice, of its possible weaknesses, or of any alternatives. As there has been not much discussion, I suspect that most users of the Assimil courses simply ignore the Active Wave but that, were they to be queried on the matter, they would likely reply: “Oh, yes, I always complete the active wave, it works just fine!”
I've only completed one Assimil (Catalan) and I didn't do the active wave. In fact, I just had to pull an Assimil off the shelf to check what the active wave actually is. I think I was put off by the idea of going right back to lesson 1 -- surely after 50 lessons of Assimil, lesson 1 is going to be stupendously easy? I get that receptive skills trail productive skills, but surely not by that much. I suspect that the nature of the active wave isn't a pedagogical decision as much as a practical one -- "the medium makes the method", as Wilfried Decoo said, and the content of the active wave is led by trying to keep down the amount of paper needed in the book (and until and unless Assimil realise this, they'll be unnecessarily hampering the e-Méthode product by continuing as though paper was still of concern).
Ultimately, it was the absence of both (a) an audio prompt and (b) an opportunity to compare my vocalized translation with a recorded model, that put me off this type of practice. In other words, the translation activity in itself may very well be beneficial; however, to my mind, the limitations of the Assimil recordings prevent its being exploited properly.
Yup -- I hear ya.
I would hope that the e-method interface makes this process more user-friendly. Is there anyone here who has tried it and would like to comment?
2. Another alternative are the oft-decried audio-lingual sentence-pattern drills, the Glossika mass sentence files, and the possibilities of SRS applications such as Anki. In these types of exercises and applications, the user is provided with an L2 auditory prompt and a short pause in which to respond. Some exercises involve L1-L2 translation practice. Recorded materials are available up to and including the lower-intermediate level.
I would say that they are not "an" other alternative, but "other alternatives". My biggest beef with audio-lingual drills is how little they rely on recall. If you have a pattern drill or a substitution drill, almost all of the sentence is given to you, and you are never asked to recall the target structure from memory.
I think that's the key thing to think about in any prompt-response teaching/learning format -- recall, and the variation between prompts.
At one extreme we have audio-lingual drills where there is very very little grammatical variation (low demand on memory); at the other extreme we have SRS where there is no attempt to relate one prompt to the next and you could have things that are entirely unrelated (high demand on memory).
Pimsleur and MT sit in the middle and are very different beasts. Pimsleur's variations are moderately minimal (Do you have reals? No I have dollars.) and tend to be quite predictable (so areasonably low memory load). Thomas, on the other hand, managed his variation quite deftly -- he would focus on one new point and keep the variation in it reasonably low, but integrate it with other, better known language that would vary more; and it was very difficult to predict what he was likely to ask next, which meant that the student always needed to use memory at all times.
3. Another alternative involves question-answer exercises. In this type of practice, the user is listens to an L2 recording of a dialogue or narrative for which a transcript is available. He then listens to, and responds to in the pause provided, a series of questions in the L2 on the content of the recorded passages. Finally, he listens to a recorded model response and repeats it in the pause provided. To a large extent, this type of practice is similar to the Pimsleur and Michel Thomas programmes: prompt, think, reply, compare.
One of my issues with L2 QnA is that you're stuck with a choice between two suboptimal solutions:
1) The student must reply to the prompt in full sentences mirroring the question in order to practice grammar. However, in natural conversation, we only reply in full sentences if we are
not mirroring the question. Unnatural answer-in-sentences seems to be tiring, boring and off-putting to most students.
2) The student responds naturally in sentence fragments. Obvious downside -- no practice of sentence syntax.
The other issue is the frustration of giving an answer you think is correct, hearing a different answer, and not knowing whether you made a mistake or just used a different form from the course author. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't know you've made one!