Just curious to hear peoples opinions on this. Do you believe it, or not? Please explain why.

Allow me to start out. I'm a big believer. I used to think I knew the right way to study stuff, and I would argue with people all the time, trying to get them to see the logic of my methods. Then I took a few wrong turns, following advice of people who knew the "best" way to progress in various aspects of Japanese. That really opened my eyes to the possibility that what was the best path for others, was not necessarily the best path for me.

I then came across some blogs & forums about teaching and learning, and found out there was a great deal of controversy about this subject. Two things really supported the statement, in my mind. Most teachers are trained in several different teaching/learning methods. And the other thing, I embarassingly reminded myself, was that I was trained in different methods when I taught in the Peace Corps. Oops; maybe I should have tried a little more variety in my classroom.

Anyway, now I'm pretty careful about taking people's enthusiastic advice about certain learning techniques. I try just about everything I hear about to see what's best for me. It's good to keep an open mind, but it's also god to be cautious.

I think there is absolutely no doubt that this is the case. There is even a great deal of difference in how different people approach RTK itself (compare Raichu's and Charlie's stories, for example). I am sure there are lots of people for whom RTK won't work as well as other methods.
I too have tried things that looked great in theory but did not work out quite so well in practice.
It is good to see what other people are doing though.

Brian: You are all individuals!
Crowd: YES, YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Brian: You are all different!
Crowd: YES, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!
Lone Voice: I'm not.
Person next to him: SHH!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Pytho...e_of_Brian

leosmith Wrote:the best path for others, was not necessarily the best path for me.

I agree. My mate, not an RTKer likes to learn everything about a kanji in one hit. Even though he is wrong, who am I to tell him

A book 'Language Learning Strategies' by Rebecca L. Oxford is an interesting read on this subject. She relates strategies, many of which we use unconciously, to available research.

I bought the book with the intention of helping my students however it is equally if not more beneficial for myself! To be honest, I'm a crap learner...been in Japan for over 3 years and am no where near being fluent...but this book, along with many others, has helped me become a more self-directed learner.

leosmith Wrote:It's good to keep an open mind

Always!

'Language Learning Strategies' by Rebecca L. Oxford

I think that most people would agree that different methods will work better for different people. However, sometimes you're not the best person to judge. You really need to assess why you dismiss or accept one method when compared with another. Is it because it's more or less effective, or because you like it more or less? More importantly, which of those is more important to you? i.e. are you looking for results quickly at any cost, or do you want to enjoy yourself?

One thing that language teachers don't do enough of is drill. That's because it's boring and it's difficult to make it interesting. However, there is no disputing the evidence for how effective proper drilling can be. A learner might be tempted to say that drilling doesn't work for him/her when it is actually very effective, they just don't enjoy it.

So when you make your decisions about your learning process, I think you have to think about it very carefully.

wrightak Wrote:However, sometimes you're not the best person to judge. You really need to assess why you dismiss or accept one method when compared with another. Is it because it's more or less effective, or because you like it more or less? More importantly, which of those is more important to you? i.e. are you looking for results quickly at any cost, or do you want to enjoy yourself?

Interesting theory. Suppose someone tells you learning Japanese by using "Japanese only" doesn't work for them. They'd made a serious effort it, and got very poor results. But they are doing very well using their native language for things like mnemonic devices, flashcards, etc. Would you believe them, and wish them good luck, or suspect that they'd done something wrong?

leosmith Wrote:

wrightak Wrote:However, sometimes you're not the best person to judge. You really need to assess why you dismiss or accept one method when compared with another. Is it because it's more or less effective, or because you like it more or less? More importantly, which of those is more important to you? i.e. are you looking for results quickly at any cost, or do you want to enjoy yourself?

Interesting theory. Suppose someone tells you learning Japanese by using "Japanese only" doesn't work for them. They'd made a serious effort it, and got very poor results. But they are doing very well using their native language for things like mnemonic devices, flashcards, etc. Would you believe them, and wish them good luck, or suspect that they'd done something wrong?

Actually I have a very hard time understanding how a "foreign language only" strategy can be effective for anyone (if it means flashcards in target language only, etc) -- but if people tried other things and find that it works better, who am I to judge -- I have no reason not to believe their words.

As for drilling -- it is much underrated (at least in the US), and not just in foreign language education -- it is a problem everywhere. It's really a major, major issue in American education, all throughout the system. People are not taught to accept it as a necessary thing which it is. Creative thinking is good, but without good drilling of the basics it is useless.

leosmith Wrote:Interesting theory. Suppose someone tells you learning Japanese by using "Japanese only" doesn't work for them. They'd made a serious effort it, and got very poor results. But they are doing very well using their native language for things like mnemonic devices, flashcards, etc. Would you believe them, and wish them good luck, or suspect that they'd done something wrong?

Of course I would believe them. I'm just really happy that so many people on this forum are enthusiastic about learning Japanese using any method. I suppose I've gained a reputation for being a "Japanese only" learner but it's not quite true. I really believe in maximising the Japanese and minimising the English in my learning. That doesn't mean that I don't use English, I use it just when I think it's necessary. At least that's what I try to do.

laxxy Wrote:Actually I have a very hard time understanding how a "foreign language only" strategy can be effective for anyone (if it means flashcards in target language only, etc) -- but if people tried other things and find that it works better, who am I to judge -- I have no reason not to believe their words.

I love the "foreign language only" strategy for speaking and listening; for me, it can't be beat. I recently spent a week in a Japanese full-immersion course in Fukuoka. My speech dramatically improved. But I learned almost nothing in the grammar classes. So I like a nice mixture.

laxxy Wrote:As for drilling -- it is much underrated (at least in the US), and not just in foreign language education -- it is a problem everywhere. It's really a major, major issue in American education, all throughout the system. People are not taught to accept it as a necessary thing which it is. Creative thinking is good, but without good drilling of the basics it is useless.

Were you ever taught how to study and how to memorize? I don't think I was. I was told when to study, how long to study, and what to study, but not how. Or maybe all that classroom stuff we did was supposed to teach that, but it was a disorganized mess. I guess I ended up developing my own study methods, which worked, maybe due to my persistence. With all the cool memory tricks and methods out there, it's a pity I didn't learn them earlier in life. Maybe if kids learned this stuff, and experienced more sucess, they would be a little more likely to drill. Just a theory.

wrightak Wrote:Of course I would believe them. I'm just really happy that so many people on this forum are enthusiastic about learning Japanese using any method. I suppose I've gained a reputation for being a "Japanese only" learner but it's not quite true. I really believe in maximising the Japanese and minimising the English in my learning. That doesn't mean that I don't use English, I use it just when I think it's necessary. At least that's what I try to do.

Yeah, I suppose most folks use a mixture. It's just a matter of where to draw the line.

I find it odd that some people on this forum are very much against taking things out of context. After all, RTK is not exactly in context. I believe that each person needs to determine where best to draw the line with regard to this. Any thoughts?

When I learn each new kanji, I prefer to look at how it's used in words and phrases and try to understand it's range of meanings. Otherwise I find the RTK keyword can be misleading. Often the RTK keyword does crystalize the range of meanings into a single English word, but unless I look at the kanji in the context of language use, I don't appreciate that. (Of course other times it shows that the keyword is off the mark so I have to invent another one.)

EDIT:

laxxy Wrote:...compare Raichu's and Charlie's stories, for example...

I'm not sure you want to use my methods. My RTK learning rate is only about 50% (after excluding kanji that I already new). Some say I have a wierd way of thinking and it's not for everyone...

Raichu Wrote:When I learn each new kanji, I prefer to look at how it's used in words and phrases and try to understand it's range of meanings. Otherwise I find the RTK keyword can be misleading. Often the RTK keyword does crystalize the range of meanings into a single English word, but unless I look at the kanji in the context of language use, I don't appreciate that. (Of course other times it shows that the keyword is off the mark so I have to invent another one.)

EDIT:

laxxy Wrote:...compare Raichu's and Charlie's stories, for example...

I'm not sure you want to use my methods. My RTK learning rate is only about 50% (after excluding kanji that I already new). Some say I have a wierd way of thinking and it's not for everyone...

well don't we all Apparently mine way of thinking is rather similar to yours. And Charlie's, probably very different (although I think I did use a couple of his stories, too)... Not to say one is better than the other...
This is not really about your methods -- I do not know what they are, it's just about how our memory works, which is different from person to person.

How we learn is an interesting subject in its own right; never mind restricting it to learning a foreign language.

Here is a link to some good free books and software.

http://www.circle-of-excellence.com

I found a book by Hermann Ebbinghaus (sp?) which explores memory and the memory curve. It's interesting to take on the Japanese language and to take it one step at a time....It's revived my interest in learning other seemingly impossible things...I'm learning guitar....just taking it one step at a time...thanks Heisig!!! this link is for teachers but it might help people to think about their learning and forgetting curves
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american...ntist.html

Here's a terribly interesting paper from FSI:
http://www.govtilr.org/PapersArchive/TES...ngFull.htm
Anyone interested in learning foreign languages will probably find this useful. I post it here because this Lesson seemed particularly applicable to the thread.


Lesson 3: There is no "one right way" to teach (or learn) languages, nor is there a single "right" syllabus.
Students at FSI and in other government language training programs have learned and still do learn languages well under a range of learning conditions and types of curricula. As Spolsky 1988:383 writes, "Any intelligent and disinterested observer knows that there are many ways to learn languages and many ways to teach them, and that some ways work with some students in some circumstances and fail with others'."

It is also clear that learners' needs change over time; sometimes rapidly. Types of activities that worked very well for certain learners at an early stage in a course may be almost completely useless a couple of weeks later for those same learners (Larsen-Freeman 1991: 336-37). At the same time, the lesson plan that works beautifully for one class may not work well at all for another class that is at the same stage. Learning is more efficient when the focus is on providing each learner with what he or she needs in order to learn right now, not on following an established curriculum.

A generalization that can be made here is that there is a need for changes of pace in long-term language training. This is one reason why immersions and excursions are so valuable for learners at the advanced levels; they afford the learners the opportunity to try out their language skills in new contexts. Especially in long-term language training where learners typically encounter extended plateaus in learning,such breaks in the routine can re-energize and refocus the learners.

Explicit grammar instruction of some kind is helpful for efficient language learning by most people, and essential for many. We do not mean the learning of formal grammar rules necessarily, although as Rod Ellis (2002) has recognized, some of the most brilliant adult language learners will demand such rules. But most adults are helped by having the form, meaning and use of grammatical patterns and paradigms pointed out to them so that they can focus on them. A broad overview of the grammatical system early in a course also appears to make language learning more efficient for our adult students: creating awareness of forms and functions to be learned that learners can anticipate as they move through the course.

From what I've seen and experienced myself. We learn by connecting what we're learning to what we already know, incorporating the knowledge into the whole of what rests in our heads. This would be why some "perfect methods" for others might not yield "perfect results" for everyone. If it's not connecting properly with the contents of a learner's brain then it won't be very effective.

I would disagree that rote learning or drilling is a good way to go about these things. Drilling it in sticks things in a temporary spot in your brain and gets wiped clean once enough time has passed for it to lose it's momentary importance. Somewhere along the way one might find a way consciously or unconsciously to connect what they're learning into the major framework of their brains, but unless that happens... drilling will drill it in for a short time, and then drop it out later (Learning and forgetting).

I would urge everyone to find personal ways to connect what they are learning to what they are already familiar with and then seek some repetition, practice and reinforcement on that front. I think back on many things I "drilled" on and supposedly "learned" back in schooling only now to have pretty much forgotten. Then there are the things I connected with... many times I didn't really practice them or drill them to death... but I really connected with them... those are the things that survive the fragile slope of memorization and forgetting.

I find a word or phrase really becomes more mine when I hear it on Japanese television or hear it in conversation. At the same time, the automated methods (mnemosyne, flashcardexchange.com, and kanji.koohii.com) keep words and kanjis steadily available. The advantage is that you aren't necessarily "drilling to death." Having words crop up for review on a schedule offers more opportunities for those words to really become mine through the contextual level. Which is better--memorization or context? Yes!!!!!!!!