You mean everyone should change their perspective until it magically aligns with your own?
Of course people's opinions are biased. Thats just how opinions are.
Furthermore, I've learnt things in this forum that i'd never learn from my classes. My Japanese tutor didn't know about ANKI, or the Core 2k, or Tae Kim, or subs2srs, or a multitude of other things that I've found really helpful... and she'd have been making her job pretty redundant if she did share all this with us.

Whether classes are good or not depends on what type of person you are, how you prefer to learn, and how far into a subject you already are.

this is my opinion, and its a biased one, because thei is how I see things.

Zgarbas Wrote:EDIT: Welp. I misread that totally.

Self-study is naturally more efficient than class study.

Quote:Not to mention the fact that you're wasting someone else's time with the building of your curriculum and can focus on the study part, whereas with self-study a good amount of time is spent looking for resources, figuring things out, etc. .

I think self-study *can* be more efficient than a class but a lot of students get bogged down in trying to figure out what they should be doing, especially at the early stages. And motivation can be a big problem in the beginning stages where you can't really use your Japanese to do much. Classes help some people with that.

One concern I have for turvy is that classes run by untrained native speakers on an informal basis are a large crap shoot -- they can be good depending on your level and the person who's running it, but they can turn out to be useless too.

@Tzadeck

that seems like a fairly good holistic sort of a course. Especially those free talking labs with all the emphasis on speaking/listening after learning basic grammar. I think that may be the killer app in that course. Being forced to listen and comprehend stuff spontaneously and respond is really good mental exercise I think, and really builds up one's subconscious grammar intuitions. Because I learned primarily from reading at first, I had a relatively high vocabulary, could read relatively complex things, and had a decent on-paper understanding of grammar before I ever felt even half decent at speaking simply because I almost never spoke. Once I started though, something clicked and reading/etc became easier because I could process the grammar more quickly.

Arupan Wrote:Someone already mentioned it but classes are structured way better. You won't be able to structure your studies the same way alone since you don't have the prior knowledge to do so.

This is true, but at the same time doesn't necessarily matter (at least not in the way you think it does). It's true one can go down dead ends, study bad materials etc, but it's not so clear that there even exists some clearly structured linear order of what to learn in languages, be that in terms of grammar or vocabulary. Effective learners are able to use the tools (dictionaries, references, teachers, people) to deal with the situations or content they encounter. Keigo might be super important right away for some people but others might never need it.

Arupan Wrote:The one who answers is knowledgeable in Japanese without a doubt. Trusting random people on the internet without any knowledge of their true ability (no offense meant) sounds way more strange in my opinion.

not necessarily. A group of foreign students once visited a school I was working at in Japan, and their full-time Japanese teacher could not speak Japanese...at all. That's an extreme example, but the complete laymen can be fooled quite easily. That's not to say to that half-experts have nothing to offer, but it is probably the case that foreigners who have not spent a good chunk of time living Japanese (presumably in Japan) their Japanese won't be that good, how could it be? They can still be decent teachers though.

Self-study won't work well for people who aren't able to recognize when they're on the wrong track. There are quite a few dead ends you can go down. Same can be said for classes. Some classes (sadly perhaps the majority) teach according to obsolete methods that are inefficient or designed in such a way they could never really work.

.

Classes are nice in theory, but they don't really proceed at a reasonable pace. They're too fast for anyone doesn't care about the language, and too slow for anyone who does. It makes me cringe to see that the amount of kanji studied per year by American majors in Japanese is less than that of Japanese schoolchildren.

If you're worried about "holes" in learning from self-study, I would think that private tutoring is much better than classes. Classes just go at their own pace unrelated to what you are actually having trouble with, but if you are a diligent autodidact, a good tutor would probably cover your weak spots very quickly.

Silty Wrote:Classes are nice in theory, but they don't really proceed at a reasonable pace. They're too fast for anyone doesn't care about the language, and too slow for anyone who does. It makes me cringe to see that the amount of kanji studied per year by American majors in Japanese is less than that of Japanese schoolchildren.

If you're worried about "holes" in learning from self-study, I would think that private tutoring is much better than classes. Classes just go at their own pace unrelated to what you are actually having trouble with, but if you are a diligent autodidact, a good tutor would probably cover your weak spots very quickly.

This makes sense, but I guess private tutoring is very much expensive I believe..

pauro02 Wrote:

Silty Wrote:Classes are nice in theory, but they don't really proceed at a reasonable pace. They're too fast for anyone doesn't care about the language, and too slow for anyone who does. It makes me cringe to see that the amount of kanji studied per year by American majors in Japanese is less than that of Japanese schoolchildren.

If you're worried about "holes" in learning from self-study, I would think that private tutoring is much better than classes. Classes just go at their own pace unrelated to what you are actually having trouble with, but if you are a diligent autodidact, a good tutor would probably cover your weak spots very quickly.

This makes sense, but I guess private tutoring is very much expensive I believe..

I feel like you could cover a lot more weak spots in a couple-hundred-dollar tutoring session than in a couple-thousand-dollar class, if you spend the rest of the time studying on your own. These prices are in the states, though, where classes for anything are insanely expensive. It could be different elsewhere.

Tzadeck Wrote:Hmm, I don't know. I had a Japanese ex-girlfriend

Also, there are a lot of little instances I can think of when I or other people did self-study and it turned out better. For example, Richard Feynman

Well since you're on the fence allow me to retract and explain a little bit.

1. By formal education, I mean formal instruction. So anything from a private tutor to a specialized school.

2. Public education is generally bad, so I will exclude it for that reason

3. Richard Feynman is an example of what I was trying to say: someone who puts equal efforts into self-study and formal instruction.

I didn't say this well the first time, although I tried, but ideally one would have a formal instructor and self-study outside of that. Generally, this is how they teach you to learn at the university level (as you well know), but most people are just far too lazy to do it. After all, an instructor is really just a guide..a form of structure to your learning. But learning does you no good unless you are actively engaged, which is where self-study comes in.

Sure, one person can teach a lot, but they can't teach you everything. Some things, some details, you will have to learn yourself through diligence and study. And just as there are limits to what an instructor can teach you, there are limits as to what you can teach yourself. Thus it stands to reason that someone who teaches themselves AND commits themselves to formal instruction would be FAR more practiced than someone who only did one or the other.

I have no doubt your friend was proficient in English. But I am also certain it had its limits, and even more certain that she'd be far better had all that effort been combined with formal instruction. For most people, self-study will get them as far as they want to go; but for others, I believe a formal instruction is necessary for *anything* you want "mastery" in.

amtrack Wrote:2. Public education is generally bad, so I will exclude it for that reason

Does this include public universities, in your opinion?

Silty Wrote:

amtrack Wrote:2. Public education is generally bad, so I will exclude it for that reason

Does this include public universities, in your opinion?

From my experience, yes. But there are some public universities that are known as one of the top schools in the country. It really comes down to luck/research if you plan on getting instruction at a public university. Of course any formal instruction can only help you, not hinder you, so I suppose it does not matter a whole lot; however, if your primary purpose is to learn Japanese, I would look at a specialized language school or private instruction.

Obviously if you're doing an undergrad and would like to learn Japanese as well, by all means just take Japanese classes at your university. You have your whole life for specialized training, like after your undergrad/grad.

amtrack Wrote:I have no doubt your friend was proficient in English. But I am also certain it had its limits, and even more certain that she'd be far better had all that effort been combined with formal instruction.

No, you are not certain. And saying that she was proficient in English is the understatement of the year.

Tzadeck Wrote:No, you are not certain. And saying that she was proficient in English is the understatement of the year.

Of course I'm certain. Everything has limits; it is illogical to assume otherwise. I'm not saying anything groundbreaking. To put it mathematically: A+B > A, where both A and B are finite. Unless your ex-girlfriend is infinite in her knowledge (which is impossible) than I am certain what I said is correct. In this case, Self-study + formal instruction > either by itself.

What you are saying is that, essentially, I am not certain that 1+1=2. Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreement? Don't take the proficiency thing too seriously. I obviously don't know her personally, so there's no way in the world I could ascribe an accurate adjective to her abilities. Take no offense, I was just using what I could for sake of understanding.

EDIT: Ah! It just occurred to me that perhaps you hold this person in high esteem, and were offended at my casual treatment of her and her abilities. I meant no offense, so if that is the case I do apologize.

amtrack Wrote:Of course I'm certain. Everything has limits; it is illogical to assume otherwise. I'm not saying anything groundbreaking. To put it mathematically: A+B > A, where both A and B are finite. Unless your ex-girlfriend is infinite in her knowledge (which is impossible) than I am certain what I said is correct. In this case, Self-study + formal instruction > either by itself.

What you are saying is that, essentially, I am not certain that 1+1=2. Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreement? Don't take the proficiency thing too seriously. I obviously don't know her personally, so there's no way in the world I could ascribe an accurate adjective to her abilities. Take no offense, I was just using what I could for sake of understanding.

Your argument is nothing like 1+1=2. Even if you did express your argument in formal logic that was sound, which you didn't, I could still disagree with the premises.

First of all, there are opportunity costs to formal instruction. Time (and money) spent doing formal instruction takes away from time spent doing self-study. So if self study is more efficient than formal instruction and studying time is limited, there is a chance that self study and formal instruction can lead to worse results than only self study over the same period.

There's no question that formal instruction ranges from very good to very bad, and it's perfectly possible that misleading or bad formal instruction, even if well intentioned, could have led to worse results for her. For example, an instructor could have recommended studying techniques to her that were worse than the ones she eventually stumbled upon herself. Not only would they have been less efficient, but they also might have discouraged her from finding her own learning techniques that ended up working really well for her.

So no. You THINK that formal instruction would have improved her English even more. You are not certain, by any means.

amtrack Wrote:EDIT: Ah! It just occurred to me that perhaps you hold this person in high esteem, and were offended at my casual treatment of her and her abilities. I meant no offense, so if that is the case I do apologize.

True to some extent. She really was impressively good at English at 20, and I work with tons of people who went to univerisity for English, and continued learning English in graduate school.

Actually, amtrack -is- certain because certainty is a feeling a person has. One can be absolutely certain while being dead wrong. If amtrack claims 'certainty' then that's indisputable.

However, there's a flaw in the analogy that 'self study' + 'formal instruction' is similar to '1 + 1 = 2'. Namely, that -time- is a limiting factor in human activity. Formal instruction requires time and money that could otherwise be spent on self-study. If money is no problem, then a highly-qualified personal tutor who travels to where you are... is almost certainly better than pure self study. Otherwise, you have to factor in materials not purchased, time wasted traveling, time wasted listening to other people's 'stupid' questions about material you understood on the first reading, etc.

This isn't to say people -shouldn't- take classes. If classes help you motivate and help you pick up the pace, then you should. If classes bore you and your self study regularly has you racing ahead of the class, then you shouldn't. However, it's not so cut and dry as 1+1=2.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:Actually, amtrack -is- certain because certainty is a feeling a person has. One can be absolutely certain while being dead wrong. If amtrack claims 'certainty' then that's indisputable.

Yeah, I suppose I was mixing up two different definitions of that word ("I am certain that"など vs. "It is certain that"など). But, the heart of my point was that he should be less certain than he is for this particular conviction.

Tzadeck Wrote:But, the heart of my point was that he should be less certain than he is for this particular conviction.

Well you're absolutely right, I should be. Technically, as you said, there are nearly an infinite amount of variations and outcomes in regards to self study, formal instruction, and a combination of the two. I was being a tad idealistic in my assumptions (maximum efficiency was one of them), so I'll put it another way:

The best of both worlds is certainly better than the best of one world.

Imo, it is worth trying to get the best of both worlds. After all, both formal instruction and self-study have their opportunity costs and limits. There are a lot of things are you highly unlikely to learn without being taught directly. Similarly, there are a lot of things you won't learn without being proactive/adventurous with your learning.

What I'm trying to say is that you stand to gain a more complete understanding by utilizing yourself and an instructor of some sort, if that is indeed the goal. It is not for every learner.

amtrack Wrote:There are a lot of things are you highly unlikely to learn without being taught directly. Similarly, there are a lot of things you won't learn without being proactive/adventurous with your learning.

Are there any specific examples on your mind?

TwoMoreCharacters Wrote:Are there any specific examples on your mind?

If we're talking Japanese, use of honorifics and keigo are a couple of specific examples. I'm not sure how it is for Japanese natives, but even natives of America/Europe generally get trained in that sort of thing depending on the job. Also, academic writing/language is probably another one. Grammatical nuance in general is pretty much restricted to more formal studies.

As for the other side of the coin, colloquialisms are something you probably won't run into much in a formal setting. Then there's a whole host of conversational nuances, male vs female speech, fun expressions, vocabulary specific to certain interests, etc etc.

It is a bit more complicated than that though. For example, in formal study you are likely to speak more often and be forced to roleplay through different social situations. Its very difficult to mirror this in self-study, as you are unlikely to know how to roleplay that situation or where to find out; however, self-study will likely cover situations that formal study won't concern itself with (ie ultra casual, hanging out with the homies, nerd talk).

Long story short, you can't really gain a complete understanding without exposure to both. There's a reason why we are all formally educated in our native language.

[Zgarbas]

I think your opinion is biased because you start from the assumption that formal study=top-notch classes whereas self-study is severely restricted. While I envy your academic experience if it's mirrored in your opinion, formal study is not often that advanced or thorough, whereas self-study is not that restricted. You can self-study by having conversational partners on skype, where you can practice keigo to your heart's content, and you can make up the roleplaying situations and practice them on your own as well. Similarly, you can simply practice academic writing by... writing academically at home. Since most undergrads start from the assumption that you're a beginner at Japanese I doubt they involve any academic writing in Japanese throughout the course.

Of course, if by formal study you mean highly specialized, grads&PhDs or directly in Japan that's a whole different cup of tea. But to get there you already need to have a certain level, and that is achieved mainly via self-study, if only because there aren't too many advanced-level Japanese courses for the lower age groups in most places.

In other words, if you want to compare ideal formal study to something, compare it to ideal self-study. If you go from the assumption that self-study is limited, then that should also go for formal study. The difference is that self-study is limited almost entirely by the self, whereas formal study is limited by outside factors (time, money, teacher quality, location, other classmates, curriculum, etc).

While I do agree that formal study can provide quite a boost in language ability, I think it is dependent on self-study, whereas self-study can achieve good results despite lacking formal support.

amtrack Wrote:The best of both worlds is certainly better than the best of one world.

At the end of the day, it is in the individuals own brain that the learning takes place so it's what the learner is doing that matters. It is not the classroom that leads to learning, it's the activities undertaken by the learner within the classroom, and there's very little (or no) activities that are exclusively confined to the classroom world. "Expert" opinion, grammar reference, speaking practice, you can find any of these things online easily. The classroom only has something going for it when the teacher is in a position of higher insight in terms of terms of what the student should do, and they can act as a sort of guide. Any individual who has experienced success in self studying is probably in a position of greater insight than most teachers at least in terms of what works for that individual. I think a willing tutor who can offer easy conversation and act as a living dictionary can be valuable but I think many teachers see that as a role they don't want to be relegated to. Ie. they don't feel they are really teaching unless they are explaining things or directing activities.

Some of the people I have met with the best foreign language skills didn't intellectualise the process anywhere as much as we do at this forum. They just happened to be in the position to do what worked, and in my experience that tends to be a period of immersion (the more total the better) involving a lot of exposure to speech after reaching the critical mass of basic ability for immersion to be effective. For many Japanese, they are at critical mass after their 6 years of schooling and are just lacking the immersion. But motivated learners can and do self study their way to critical mass in 1 to 2 years. I think 6 months may even be enough if you really know what you're doing, and have the time and resources.

Zgarbas Wrote:I think your opinion is biased because you start from the assumption that formal study=top-notch classes whereas self-study is severely restricted.

You are the only one making that assumption. If you reread my last few posts I think you'll see you had a big misunderstanding. I said quite clearly that both formal instruction and self-study have their limits.

I'm going to put it really really really simply. You cannot teach yourself everything, and no one person on the planet can teach you everything. There is no substitute for experience, and there is no substitute for a formal instructor.

You can teach yourself enough to be fluent. Even village idiots in your own language are fluent. It's not really saying much in terms of intelligence. Heck, a child learns to be fluent, so be aware i am not talking about fluency.

If fluency is the goal, pay no heed to what I'm saying, though I think formal instruction would speed up the process by a ton. Of course, you would have to optimize your time, and then there's the matter of $$

The advantage of self-study, in my opinion, only applies to those individuals able to spend enough time to the endeavor. To those who meet this requirement there is one thing that trumps most paid classes: quantity. The best among us have learned heaps of vocabulary, covered a year or more's worth of grammatical conventions (Tae Kim by itself satisfies this) while others have built the essential scaffolding to at least differentiate thousands of Kanji, in reasonable chunks of time.

I know relying only on my experience with university classes is hardly authoritative, but it does at least suggest that classes are quite slow in comparison. After two semesters we have covered what is found in Genki I, and nothing more. I don't know how other classes compare, but if we take what others have said about catering to every student (such courses assume all are complete beginners) it will likely lag behind the motivated self-learner for quite some time.

Ultimately I think we've established this debate is completely dependent on what paid class we're talking about. Best wishes to those who had good experiences, and may it be put to the best use. One need not negate the other. If paid classes are effective, it doesn't suddenly make self-study ineffective or vice versa.

amtrack Wrote:I'm going to put it really really really simply. You cannot teach yourself everything, and no one person on the planet can teach you everything. There is no substitute for experience, and there is no substitute for a formal instructor.

No one can learn everything... so.... I also think many would disagree about needing a formal instructor. What exactly does formal instructor teach you that you could not find yourself by opening a book?

Quote:You can teach yourself enough to be fluent. Even village idiots in your own language are fluent. It's not really saying much in terms of intelligence. Heck, a child learns to be fluent, so be aware i am not talking about fluency.

If fluency is the goal, pay no heed to what I'm saying, though I think formal instruction would speed up the process by a ton. Of course, you would have to optimize your time, and then there's the matter of $$

If not fluency, then we're aiming for...

I just think that it is not apparent that given say 3 years that no one can possibly say that (1 year formal instruction, 2 year self-study)>(3 year self-study)(Or any other permutation) with any degree of certainty.

Quote:If we're talking Japanese, use of honorifics and keigo are a couple of specific examples. I'm not sure how it is for Japanese natives, but even natives of America/Europe generally get trained in that sort of thing depending on the job. Also, academic writing/language is probably another one. Grammatical nuance in general is pretty much restricted to more formal studies.

Also all of these things could be learned by yourself just as easily as formal instruction.

blackbrich Wrote:No one can learn everything... so.... I also think many would disagree about needing a formal instructor. What exactly does formal instructor teach you that you could not find yourself by opening a book?

A formal instructor can teach you the things you don't understand by opening a book. If you think a book can teach you everything, it cannot. Firstly, you won't even "get" all of it. Secondly, there's a huge difference between theory and applicable practice. Third, your learning is limited by your ability comprehend/understand in the first place.

Quote:If not fluency, then we're aiming for...

A ton of things. Don't make the naive assumption that fluency is everyone's main goal. Some people desire entire careers in Japan, and you will certainly need to be above the capabilities of an average Japanese high schooler. Others just want to learn as much as possible.

Quote:I just think that it is not apparent that given say 3 years that no one can possibly say that (1 year formal instruction, 2 year self-study)>(3 year self-study)(Or any other permutation) with any degree of certainty.

Of course not, there are an infinite amount of variations and outcomes. But if you could manage to get the best of both, you are far better off than the best of either.

Quote:Also all of these things could be learned by yourself just as easily as formal instruction.

Absolutely not.

amtrack Wrote:

blackbrich Wrote:No one can learn everything... so.... I also think many would disagree about needing a formal instructor. What exactly does formal instructor teach you that you could not find yourself by opening a book?

A formal instructor can teach you the things you don't understand by opening a book. If you think a book can teach you everything, it cannot. Firstly, you won't even "get" all of it. Secondly, there's a huge difference between theory and applicable practice. Third, your learning is limited by your ability comprehend/understand in the first place.

1.Whose to say I would get it because a formal instructor is teaching it? Even if you didn't understand it from a book, we now have a great resource in the internet so that we can get a better explanation if the book's(or teacher's) explanation doesn't make sense.
2.There is a difference, there is also Skype or real live people for applicable practice.
3.Yes it is, this does not change regardless of if you have a formal instructor.

Quote:

Quote:If not fluency, then we're aiming for...

A ton of things. Don't make the naive assumption that fluency is everyone's main goal. Some people desire entire careers in Japan, and you will certainly need to be above the capabilities of an average Japanese high schooler. Others just want to learn as much as possible.

My fault here, we both have different ideas of fluency. Your fluency is more conversational, perhaps. Even so, a Japanese high schooler will be more capable than anyone under probably ~10 years or less of studying Japanese. The person with a career will be more capable in a small number of things but overall, the cake goes to the high schooler and his experience. If you learn as much as possible, you'll still be behind a high schooler after 5,10 years.

Quote:

Quote:I just think that it is not apparent that given say 3 years that no one can possibly say that (1 year formal instruction, 2 year self-study)>(3 year self-study)(Or any other permutation) with any degree of certainty.

Of course not, there are an infinite amount of variations and outcomes. But if you could manage to get the best of both, you are far better off than the best of either.

Maybe. Depends on the person, I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

Quote:Also all of these things could be learned by yourself just as easily as formal instruction.

Absolutely not.

Misspoke. Without formal instruction.