Is it even possible to increase your efficiency in learning languages? What techniques have you found to be more efficient than other techniques? Why? How are you sure that it’s an efficiency increase?
Opinions, stories, research, debate is all welcome.
This is from another thread.
This was what I was referring to. Do they vary greatly in efficiency? I don’t know.
On a more practical level, there are definitely some efficiency gains to be had not necessarily by choosing a technique per se, but rather by removing non-language time during your studies. For instance:
If efficiency gains do vary greatly (do they?), would this be the major variable? That is, by removing non-language study. If efficiency of technique actually exists, does this explain the majority differences in efficiency? Is the main reason you learn your second L2 faster than your first L2 merely this simple, rather menial answer?
Or is it mainly that these Internet polyglots we are exposed to (selection bias) now have a larger basis for cognates? It’s common that they are Westerns learning more Western languages, such as Lydia. With Lydia’s mother tongue of Slovenian, she learnt English and German going through the formal education system. After that, all of her better auto-didactical languages are similar to languages she already knows - Spanish, French, Esperanto, Polish, Russian. This is definitely a factor to some extent.
There is also a serious survival bias in auto-didactic polyglots though - they are the people who have not given up.
My personal approach in learning in general, not only in regards to languages, has always been to try out different things and to do “research” on learning techniques. As a student this simply meant that I talked with friends about how they and I approach learning for a test, for example. Sometimes some friends of mine used an approach I didn’t think of myself or vice versa.
Nowadays I dedicate some time in watching videos on the matter of language learning or languages in general, read what people write, for example here in this forum and than try what works for me and what not.
I guess that the efficiency of a learning method depends on both the individual and the language one want to learn. Different languages might come with different challenges, and one has to adopt to that to some degree. If a language differs strongly in phonetics you may have to use a different approach as compared to when learning a language that comes with a lot of unfamiliar grammatical concepts. It also depends on your individual learning goal. Do you want to be conversational, or do you want to use the language in a more passive way, like for reading? Switching between different learning techniques and shifting the focus of your learning may also be efficient.
In the end the most efficient approach probably is to always invest some time in the how of language learning - or learning in general - and to accept, that no one starts super efficient from the get go. If I remember how I started three years ago I can surely say that I wasted a lot of time in completely inefficent methods that provided me almost no gain. However
I have not failed, but found 1000 ways to not make a light bulb, Thomas Alva Edison
Apologies for the length of my reply. For reference my French is ~C1 comprehension, ~B2 spoken and written, and my German is a low B1. My thoughts are below, I hope others chime in, to provide their personal perspective,
My belief, based on personal experience, testimony from others, and some research, is that there are indeed methods by which one can improve the effectiveness of learning. Some of these will apply to everyone, some may not.
There has been quite a lot of research into learning and the following are recognised techniques:
Spaced repetition. Recalling a piece of information just as you are about to forget it reestablishes and strengthens its storage in long term memory.
Regular testing. Students who are tested at the end of a lesson on the content of the lesson have been shown to retain more information on the long term. Testing during lessons can help. I suppose you could argue that this encourages students to pay attention, but I believe the mechanism is deeper than that.
Interleaving. If you carry on testing the same skill, it tends to remain in short term memory. But if you test one skill (such as a point of grammar) for a much shorter time, then do the same for other skills, and then repeat for each skill again, and do this multiple times, the students feel more uncomfortable, but they are more likely to remember the skills. This is because they cannot rely so heavily on short term memory.
Huge amounts of input. I don’t want to call this comprehensible input (CI) as I don’t accept Krashen’s model, which I consider to be simplistic, sometimes wrong, and not supported by research. It is well known that most language learning takes place implicitly, or unconsciously. Consuming huge amounts of input allows the brain to process language unconsciously, reinforcing vocabulary and grammar learnt explicitly, and acquiring new vocabulary and grammar implicitly. Input does not have to be comprehensible, in which case the student explicitly studies the text or transcript, and starts the process of learning new vocabulary and grammar and reinforcing known material. Input can be consumed while doing activities e.g. driving somewhere.
There are also benefits from output, with and without feedback. I will leave that to others to comment.
Then there are some techniques that I have discovered, often independently, only to discover that they are well known:
A) Listening to audio input while reading the transcript. In the past I used to either listen to input, or read the transcript. I found this dual method massively beneficial, as it greatly increased my comprehension. In essence it trains the brain to recognize words as they are actually spoken, since native speakers make countless phonological shortcuts, and of course pronunciation varies between speakers due to age, gender, region etc.
B) Listening to audio input whilst trying to simply absorb the content, and not trying to understand it. The temptation is to try and actively decode the content as it goes along. The aim is to let the brain deal with the content at an unconscious level. Oddly enough I was talking to a friend today, and she translates classical Arabic texts to English (she recently had a book published), and she has in the past been fluent in French and Russian. She recommended this method as one that she uses.
C) Don’t learn verbs in isolation, and be careful when learning isolated nouns. Verbs usually require prepositions, and they have a context. We can say prices are rising or increasing. We can say the tide is rising, but not increasing. My solution is to learn phrases such as Il a été placé sous contrôle judiciaire, and also to listen a lot.
D) Talking to oneself. When I am doing a household chore, I try and describe it in French, and I often find words and expressions I don’t know, such as étendre le linge and aérer les chambres, which I look up. When I read something, a news article say, I try and express it in French.
E) Listening to input that you barely understand. Oddly enough I find this to be beneficial. It’s hard work, I have to concentrate hard, and most of it goes over my head.
F) Don’t worry too much about pronunciation at the start. It takes many months, or even years, for the brain to correctly recognise foreign vowels and consonants. Initially you will confuse distinct L2 sounds with ones from your own language. Only when you can hear the sound can you begin to try and reproduce it accurately. Having someone teach you a sound can work, but only if you can hear it. I recall a French friend making monkey noises to unsuccessfully teach me the u and ou distinction. On the positive side I can make A grade monkey noises.
G) Grammar study including memorising verb conjugations. I know Steve Kaufmann is dead against this, but input just does not expose me to the full range of verb conjugations and noun forms e.g. dative singular form of a masculine noun. I also find that it is quicker to learn grammar, then practice it, and listen to input, than to magically figure it out from input.
H) Self believe is crucial. I talk about this later.
I agree with Obsttorte’s approach. I believe that a large part of language learning is how to learn including discovering techniques that work for oneself. I have spent several years trying different methods, and abandoning those that are ineffective. Thus I tried and dumped Duolingo, Babbel and Busuu. And I have tried many approaches with LingQ. I don’t doubt that what works for me might not work for others.
The first L2 is hardest in part because the student needs to learn how to learn, but also because an adult makes countless implicit assumptions, in other words, they simply don’t notice many aspects of the L2. In general an English speaker assumes stress timing, English vowels (especially diphthongs) and consonants, and English phrasing, such as Ça me fait fou rather than Ça me rend fou, or Je suis 24 rather than J’ai 24 ans. The process of learning the first L2 allows the student to become aware of their assumptions, they learn more about how languages work, and hence they become more adaptable and sensitive to new ways of expressing themselves. Thus when I learn German, my second/third L2, I do not learn verbs in isolation, I learn phrases using the verb and associated preposition, if any. And when I learn how to pronounce words, I am aware that the phonetics and stress are quite different from English, and that it will take me time before I can correctly hear German vowels. Only then can I try and articulate them and get a reasonable approximation.
A second L2 may also be easier because the student has acquired more cognates. Thus Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are relatively easy for a French speaker. And Dutch is much easier for a German speaker. Russian will be easier for a Polish speaker and so on.
And lastly (phew) there is a strong psychological element. It can be frustrating and demoralising when after several years one still does not feel comfortable speaking due to a mediocre accent, or an insufficient vocabulary. It can take huge mental energy to spend an hour or more every day, and have the feeling that little progress is being made, One needs a positive outlook, a belief in oneself. Learning one L2 to a B2+ level is a huge confidence boost. My German is poop, but I know that one day it will be at least respectable, and maybe even good. As a polyglot friend once said to me, If those damned foreigners can speak their language, then so can I. I have paraphrased her words,
What you say above makes complete sense, I have no argument with it. I don’t really have an answer except to note that psychological studies suggest that the one key element for achieving life goals is something they call grit i.e. a determination to achieve that goal, to put in the required amount of work and to overcome challenges and setbacks. I believe - a subjective opinion - that the average person can master one or more L2s, but most won’t of course, not because they lack the ability, but because they lack the determination and drive. Thus polyglots are primarily people with drive. Of course I could be totally mistaken …
I will add to the last section that speaking three or more languages is not particularly rare, though it is relatively rare in England. A friend grew up in Malaysia, speaking Malay, English and two Chinese languages, as did her family. She subsequently learnt other languages including German. Another friend grew up in Andorra and speaks Catalan, French, Spanish and English. I’ve met countless Indians who speak several Indian languages plus English, I think that is common among the more educated Indians. Africans often speak several African languages plus English or French. I worked with a Berber who spoke Berber, Arabic, French and English. At university I came across many people who spoke three or more languages, they tended to be from well to do families. An Indian friend spoke many languages and could also speak English with a standard southern English accent, an upper class English accent, and an American accent. Italians often speak their local language as well as Italian, and sometimes English. Admittedly these people tend to learn their languages when young, but it does suggest that speaking multiple languages is within the grasp of most people, exposure to the languages - i.e. circumstance - being the key requirement. However you could argue that learning multiple languages as an adult is not the same, and it requires different mental attributes that are not possessed by everyone.
Some interesting points.
@LeifGoodwin With your list of “recognised techniques,” I note that some of those are actually used by “traditional” language classes, namely, testing (eg. translating sentences in line with the grammar rule of the day, which you receive feedback on if you were correct), and output (generally every lesson will have at least one speaking activity). Furthermore, these classes use didactical content, which generally results in the higher use of high-frequency words. Besides, isn’t Zipf’s Law just the “natural spaced repetition system,” if you actually expose yourself to any input?
The huge amount of input is generally lacking in “traditional” classes though, especially at the absolute beginner level. However, once you’ve passed the absolute beginner phase, the teacher is predominately only using the language to communicate to the class (i.e. input, which is designed to be understandable). The issue is that many people don’t get past the absolute beginner or beginner stage for the teacher to then start using the technique of explaining instructions in the language as a form of input.
Why then are “traditional” classes given such a bad rap, if they follow some of your “recognised techniques,” which are techniques confirmed by research as effective? Is it because they are still not efficient enough? Is the bad reputation of “traditional” language classes as a language learning technique actually justified? (Note: Do all countries even have a bad reputation for language classes? The Swedes, the Norwegians, and the Dutch all managed to learn English with the help of them, for example. @Dominic_Olofsson-Tuisku) Is the general judgement of “traditional” language classes being inefficient really just based on one’s experience in school many years ago (which, to put it blantantly, is probably the worst form of “traditional” language classes, mainly due to all the distractions created by large class sizes of children who don’t want to be there)?
I would assume mainly because there is a huge difference between how something is supposed to be taught and how it actually is taught. I was very lucky with my English teacher that I had the last five years in school. In another class they had an English teacher who only spoke German in class. So you have to be very lucky with the teacher you get.
Another aspect is that different pupils get different results, so even though the other pupils in my class shared the same teacher, not all of them were equally good. So the pupils themselves play an important role, too. The problem is that most people tend to either blame the others or to refrain to a lack of talent and so one first.
Of course, there are instances were the teacher might be to blame (see my above example) or where the system could be improved, and in some aspects others may have an advantage. If you are from an uneducated family you have to take higher hurdles then someone for whom that is not the case. But my experience is that most people don’t tend to reflect on what they could do better or to even ask why other peoples make better progress then themselves. And they just stick to that attitude til they’re old.
In my perception here in Germany schools don’t have the highest reputation, but language classes are usually not seen negatively. Those of us who are younger can to some extent at least communicate in English. The older ones here in Eastern Germany usually learned Russian as first foreign language, but even that sticked to them to some degree, even though it isn’t of much use in everyday life. So there isn’t the perception that we are lacking in that matter. German and especially Mathematics are a completely different topic, though.
Good to see you again @nfera. My take on “efficiency,” which I imagine is essentially speed in acquisition, though I suppose it could also be progress made per unit of serious effort, which might not map to speed (relative to some arbitrary unit of time), is that it is largely a function of intelligence.
Given my personal experience, my experience teaching my kids languages, my experience tutoring a handful of kids and adults, chatting with other language learners in real life, is that the key variable is intelligence. Intelligence just is the efficiency of consolidation of new information, or the ratio of instances seen to accurate generalization / systematization made.
Once your basic language acquisition method is pointed in the right direction (you are no longer doing obviously fruitless, time serving stuff), what would really make your efficiency go up in a noticeable manner is not tweaking the method to squeeze out tiny marginal gains, but magically increasing your IQ ten points.
I don’t mean this to be discouraging, cynical, or cheeky. The most truly impressive feature of a person on a language acquisition journey is not how quickly they learn but how persistently and hard they work, but on a theoretical level that’s what I think.
I agree with a lot of your post.
I explained myself rather poorly unfortunately. You’re right that classes often have exercises or tests to do in class, and that these can be very valuable. What I was referring to by testing, is testing after an interval. Thus a class might cover five grammar points in sequence, ten minutes on each, with an explanation and some exercises. Then at the end the teacher will do a quick test by asking some questions on all five grammar points. A teacher might even do a quick test on key points from the previous lesson. The aim is to bring the key points back into the students mind, to refresh their knowledge. This delayed testing has been shown to improve performance. No doubt it encourages students to pay attention in the lesson but it also aids retention.
Our schools might use this technique, I cannot comment.
I had to look Zipf’s law up. Of course we learn through exposure, as you say. However spaced repetition systems (SRS) use a different principle. Research has shown that long term memory storage improves markedly if the student is forced to recall a piece of information by regular testing over gradually increasing time intervals. There is something about the effort of having to recall a word just as you start to forget it that is more efficient at moving it into long term memory than simply passively hearing the word. Plus, less frequent words are less likely to be learnt ‘naturally’. Thus an SRS can aid retention of less common words. As I mentioned earlier, I use an SRS with phrases, it’s much more efficient in my experience. Words on their own are often useless, which is why some people find spaced repetition does not work and they go back to passive listening.
However, I have just remembered that I bought some flash cards which cover the English French GCSE requirements i.e. the school exam taken at age 16. So our schools DO use SRS.
And a good teacher will test students regularly by showing them words and phrases, and asking them what they mean, or to translate them into the target language.
I think this is a good point.
You are right that school language teaching often gets a bad rap:
Two years ago I restarted learning French at the young age of 59. Like many here, I watched YouTube videos, read the entire internet and concluded that comprehensible input was the only true religion, and Stephen Krashen the one true God, Of course anyone who praised traditional classroom teaching, which of course revolved around rote learning of grammar, was an evil sinner, to be pitied and ridiculed. After all, CI is a modern method based on science.
Experience and listening to others has changed my mind.
Like many in England, I spent roughly 2 hours a week, 38 weeks a year, for five years studying French at school. That’s about 380 classroom hours. That’s enough study time to reach a decent B1 level, and I think I would have succeeded had I worked hard. I didn’t because I was lazy, and not interested. But I still gained a solid foundation which helped me progress in later years. Of course they could be improved, there is not enough time spent studying and listening to the language, and of course not all teachers are excellent. I think we expect too much from school lessons, the motivation has to come from within.
I agree with @GMelillo that efficiency (language acquisition rate per unit time probably being the most useful form to refer to at the moment) is a mere trifle to the ability for people to persist in the learning process. As @Obsttorte mentioned in another post a while back, learning English in his school system in Germany entailed 4-6x the number of hours of @LeifGoodwin’s experience of learning French in the English school system.
There are large amounts of time in every school lesson where you are simply not studying, such as:
As you can see, the amount of non-study time is significantly increased by large class sizes of 20-30 students.
Despite this, all this time-wasting appears to not matter much, if you can just keep doing it year after year. That is, the end result of having some form of language competency is eventually obtained. Perhaps the reputation of the respective school systems (bad rap in England and the U.S. vs. Germany, for instance) is merely based on the end results (basic competency or not) of which the largest determining factor is simply hours spent.
Time-wasting activities are all well and good (that is, begrudgingly accepted) when children are involved, because children have all the time in the world, whereas we are time-constrained adults. If we were to take classes again as adults, we would have sufficient advantages over those classes in the school system:
If this is the case, as in not incredibly inefficient, why aren’t more of these Internet polyglots talking about classes and/or taking them? Is it a mere matter of convenience of studying at home, when and how they want, not necessarily efficiency?
@GMelillo The issue is ironing out the ‘basic language acquisition method’ to remove all the time-waste. How do we do this? How are we certain such activities are obviously fruitless? You’ve previously referred to using trial-and-error, adjusting your method based on evaluations every six or so months. Trial-and-error like this results in improvements to the method, but slowly, over the years. How do you judge that the latest adjustment to your technique was better than the previous implementation? Your children have the advantage that they can learn from your trial-and-error.
I seem to remember reading something, where it was still debatable on whether intervals performed better gradually increasing over other intervals, but I am not up-to-date on the research Has there been research to conclusively prove that increasing the intervals indeed does have a significant effect over other interval variants (eg. constant, etc.)?
Content as per Zipf’s Law is best considered constant intervals with a decent amount of randomness/noise.
The general opinion seem to be that spacing out repetitions does improve the effectiveness of the learning efforts, especially when combined with interleaving. One possible explanation is what is called repetition suppression: the neurons react less intense to a repeated stimulus. It is probably comparable to not feeling the clothes on your skin or not smelling the exhaust gases of the cars in your city because you somewhat accustomised to it.
Where there is no unison is on whether SRS as incorporated in Anki for example is of benefit (increasing the intervals of repetition). Unfortunately, the papers I found regarding that matter are locked behind a paywall, so it is hard to judge on the results.
But to sum it up: One should probably avoid repeating informations in a way were most of the repeated information is overly familiar to you. The learning effect seems to be higher if you are already uncertain on many things or about to forget them, especially in regards to long time learning. I guess that interleaving is a good way to achieve this. So using different sources that use different kinds of vocabulary and grammar, mixing reading with grammar studies etc…
Most of the texts I import into LingQ have a new word count of 15% +, simply because it is hard to find content with lower percentages that isn’t super easy. On top of that I have a similarly high amount of yellow words. So I get the spaced out effect due to my choice of learning material. In addition, I dedicate time for grammar and Hanja studies.
My personal impression is that I learn reasonable fast, although I have nothing to base this judgement on objectively. But from the list I’ve found (see below) I am early intermediate 2 after 1.5 years of studying Korean for 30-60 minutes per day as a native German who only knows some English and a bit of Spanish. My personal guesswork is I am somewhere at A2->B1 (CEFR). I did the TOPIK I on my own (yeah, reliable, I know 
) and managed to score around 80% of the points. I definetely can’t speak the language beyond some simple sentences, though, as I never practiced it. I don’t know if this means I have learned effectively or I am slow as a snail. As said, I don’t have any comparision to base my judgement on. I leave that judgement on to others.
