dilandau23 Wrote:OK then please tell me what in the quotes I numbered #1 and #2 is not all encompassing? In those two posts, and in the title of the thread, you seem to be implying that it is wrong to say students learn by rote.

Well, let's look at statement #1: "Anyway, thought you guys might be interested to know that whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today."

This statement is clearly true, because there exists at least one textbook that does not teach kanji using constant repetition. Therefore, one could assert there is at least one child (taught using this textbook) who has not been taught using constant repetition. Note: this statement is clearly NOT the equivalent of "No Japanese schoolchildren are taught solely using constant repetition." which you seem to be implying I am saying.

If you take the second statement: "My original post was pointing out that Japanese schoolchildren do not learn Kanji by rote memorisation either."

This is also true, via the same argument. If there was at least one child in Japan who has been taught techniques other than rote memorisation, then this statement is true. And again, the existence of at least one textbook is evidence that this is so.

Now, let's look at your statement: ""the official textbooks approved by MEXT for grades 1-6 do not explicitly encourage the use of deconstruction and or story generation".

At first, I was happy to let this pass, but then it started to bother me, along with some of your other statements.

So, just in case I am misunderstanding what you are saying, can I ask a few clarifying questions:

1. You say you teach at a Japanese elementary school (in fact, two, I believe is what you said). Do you actually teach Japanese to Grade 1-6 students, or do you perhaps teach another subject, say, English?

2. If you do teach Japanese, then can you show me where in the syllabus guidelines does it prohibit teachers from teaching techniques OTHER than rote memorization? If there is no prohibition, how do you know other teachers are not teaching these techniques?

3. If you don't teach Japanese, then how do you know Japanese schoolchildren are NOT taught techniques other than rote memorization? Again, we are back to the question: have you exhaustively determined this to be the case by tracking every teacher and every child and therefore convinced yourself that no child has ever been taught in elementary school by any technique other than rote memorization?

4. You offered to "scan" the prescribed textbooks. By this, can I assume that you are in fact not a Japanese teacher, since if you were, there would be no need to scan, you would already know?

5. If you are not a Japanese teacher, then, how would you determine whether or not techniques other than rote memorization are taught or not? Do you ask your colleagues who teach Japanese and they have assured you that never in a million years have they even hinted to their students that there are multiple ways of learning kanji? Even they have, how can you be sure that other teachers in other schools behave exactly like them?

6. If you do scan the prescribed textbooks, how will you demonstrate that they "do not explicitly encourage the use of deconstruction and or story generation?" Remember, the presence of kanji copying sheets do not necessarily indicate the primary purpose of these are for rote memorization. Many people make this assumption, but as my mother pointed out, this is not necessarily the case. How do you know that "deconstruction and story generation" is not something a teacher would do verbally and on the blackboard, and therefore no need to be explicit in the text?

Quote:Do you agree with the statement "in the public education system rote methods prevail."

I noticed you have now softened your stance to "prevail." Isn't this backpedalling? :-)

As to whether your statement is true or not, I can't comment. I don't think it will be easy to substantiate, so it is merely your personal opinion. But let's suppose someone has done the research and revealed something like "70% of schoolchildren learn primarily by rote memorization, 30% learn from a number of other methods." That would make your opinion true, but it doesn't invalidate any of my statements.

My personal opinion, and one that I can't substantiate either, is that your statement is wrong. My mother, who taught Chinese to primary school students before I was born, says she tries to teach kids to recognise patterns and common components in kanji. She also tells stories to the kids to help them understand how to remember the character. Many of these stories are handed down from generation to generation - Henshall documents a few of them, I even remember my mother telling some of them to me when she was trying to teach me.

I really wish I had learnt kanji from her. But when I was young, I was much more comfortable with English and all those funny squiggles just scared me. But clearly, if there are teachers teaching techniques other than rote memorization in the 60s, then there are teachers today doing the same thing.

Quote:On a side note, I would like the ISBN number of any books intended for Japanese children that you have that teach deconstruction and story building methods. If they are good I will show them to my elementary school teachers. Maybe together we can make a difference.

Sure. The Grade 2 textbook that I sighted has an ISBN number of 8337-153002-3068. It's called ２年生の漢字：漢字の楽しいおぼえ方. For every kanji, they show (pictorially) what the different components are, and how they have evolved over time to the present day shape. There are also practice pages asking students to identify the missing component, and write down other kanji sharing the same components.

The other textbook I have quoted earlier (you should be able to search for it by name in Amazon), and appears to be a reference book for Grades 1-6. This has a story per character, that describes the character in terms of it's components and relating them to the overall meaning of the character. In addition, there is a paragraph on etymology. I showed this to one of my teachers today, and she said it's a popular textbook that a lot of students would probably have bought. I had no problems ordering it from Amazon Japan - they shipped it immediately which confirms it's a popular item. I am a little disappointed that the newer edition which I receive is not as good as the older edition which I borrowed. The older edition groups the characters by bushu and have several pages of pictures grouping kanji sharing the same components. The new edition is grouped by Grade order and is missing many of these pictures.

Nukemarine Wrote:Ok, here's my full opinion on the matter:

1. Heisig picked the Joyo list as it was the easiest reference in his thinking. Personally, if you wrote me a book teaching the top 2000 Kanji based of top Newspapers, Books, and Mangas (and other relevant/popular sources) from last 10 years, I'll go for that one instead.

2. If that same book utilized radicals and pseudo radicals with English names more close to Japanese equivalents, yet unique enough to be of use in stories, I'll go for that one instead.

3. If you organized the order of the Kanji better, I'll go for that one instead. Still, keep the concept that the radicals and pseudo radicals get taught first if they appear in a Kanji.

4. If your book offered some historical reference, all the better. Granted, it would be a HUGE book. Hell, throw in the pronunciations and

Heisig was just a student. He presents to us what he found worked for him. The reaction to it shows that it works for many people, so stop poo pooing it entirely. Get a more developed approached based off what Heisig started and you could have a big winner. I would definately go for a list that organized by popularity (still teaching base symbols first though), but I'm sure a little grouping will occur. Any other opinions on how to improve on the Heisig book?

No single book has what you want. However, a combination of books will give you what you want.

1. There are kanji practice books that sort the characters roughly by popularity. Not sure I would recommend them.

2. Kanji ABC does this. De Roo does this as well.

3. Kanji ABC does this. I really like their ordering system, because they systematically order all characters by grapheme, and they group related graphemes together. If I wanted to study a Heisig like system that's arguably better than Heisig, I would choose Kanji ABC.

4. Henshall and De Roo both do this. I would say, use both - Henshall is better at etymology, De Roo is easier to remember and is more concise.

My method is essentially combining all the best bits from all the above books. You are welcome to photocopy it when I have finished, but I am only up to character #245. Each character takes one page, so I have hand written 245 pages so far.

If you want my opinions on how to "improve" Heisig, I have already given them in the other thread I linked to in one of my posts. Basically, Kanji ABC has answered nearly all my concerns, so that is the one I would probably recommend if your concerns are similar to mine. I ended up not using it though because I decided to go for my "composite approach."

Christine_Tham Wrote:The students in my class who have mastered over 1000 don't think it's a huge obstacle learning new kanji, even though they haven't done RTK1. They say getting to 1000 was a challenge, but after that it was clear sailing.

Quote:Teachers and doubtful learners saying that this method is a waste of time are nothing new.

Are you implying by this statement that *I* am saying that? Because I am not, as I have repeated many times. So you don't need to justify Heisig to me. I am already convinced. However, I don't think RTK1 is suitable for my needs, for various reasons already cited. That doesn't mean I think it's a "waste of time." For the record, I have never heard anyone actually criticizing Heisig. The other students in my class are not even aware of Heisig. I know this because the other day our teacher was asking us how we are studying kanji. I kind of showed everyone my method, and they were impressed, although probably a bit worried at how much effort it needs. Someone else was using Heisig, and he's one of the ones who have mastered over 1000: he says he has no problems learning new ones. No one mentioned Heisig.

Woah, woah, woah. hold on a second. my dear, i also graduated at the top of my class from a top university, in philosophy. so, even though i am done with the arguments on this thread, i really feel the need to point out that the structure of what you are saying is so sloppy here, that you are not helping yourself, and this is why you constantly face accusations of contradicting yourself and backpedaling.

take a quick look above at what you just said within two adjacent paragraphs in the same post.

--"The other students in [your] class are not even aware of Heisig."

--"Someone else was using Heisig..."

--"No one mentioned Heisig."

maybe everyone knows what you meant here, or maybe they don't: i really don't care. i think you were just being sloppy. but when you are among the sharks, this kind of sloppiness makes a mess in the water...

one more issue with the way you are consistently using examples inconsistently. observe:

--"The students in [your] class who have mastered over 1000 don't think it's a huge obstacle learning new kanji, even though they haven't done RTK1. They say getting to 1000 was a challenge, but after that it was clear sailing.

--"Someone else was using Heisig, and he's one of the ones who have mastered over 1000: he says he has no problems learning new ones."

because the grammar of your second premise (intentional or not) clearly includes the heisig guy as one of the group of 1000 kanji masters but you claim that they haven't done rtk1, this is a logical contradiction.

of course, if i give you the benefit of the doubt (which i do) that this was just sloppy wording on your part, then this is not necessarily a logical fallacy. it is certainly possible that there are several students who have mastered over 1000 kanji, and one of them was using heisig. and i assume this is what you meant. however, since you didn't give us any idea how many students you are talking about in the first statement, but we find out later that one of that unknown number is using heisig, it still makes your argument seem pretty disingenuous overall. and again, this sloppiness is certainly not helping you out here.

i think both you and dilandau should probably back off the pure deductive logic a bit or risk looking fairly foolish. the conversation has been much too messy leading up to this point to try and shove it into pure logical form so late in the game.

besides, an argument of this type should really rely more on inductive reasoning anyway. but as i pointed out above, you need to clear up your use of examples (namely, keep the examples and counter-examples clearly separated instead of including the "mastered 1000 kanji with heisig student" with some number of other "mastered 1000 kanji students") before you can make strong statements for an inductive argument.

sorry for the lecture, but while i can certainly tolerate arguments for or against heisig, i have a very low tolerance for bad form when it comes to the argumentation itself.

enjoy the fight!

Quote:Well, let's look at statement #1: "Anyway, thought you guys might be interested to know that whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today."

This statement is clearly true, because there exists at least one textbook that does not teach kanji using constant repetition. Therefore, one could assert there is at least one child (taught using this textbook) who has not been taught using constant repetition. Note: this statement is clearly NOT the equivalent of "No Japanese schoolchildren are taught solely using constant repetition." which you seem to be implying I am saying.

When you resort to showing you are correct on a technicality, it essentially invalidates your whole point. If your goal was to show that rote memorization is no longer the norm, you have failed completely. And if that's not what you were trying to say, what were you trying to say? That Japanese do, in some cases, use methods other than rote learning for kanji? I have do resurrect a buzzword from the '90s to respond to that one: Duh. I think everyone here was already aware of that.


Besides that, your logical deconstruction above is completely bogus. Look:
-whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today.
(that = that Japanese schoolchildren are taught using constant repetition)

substitute
-whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that Japanese schoolchildren are taught using constant repetition doesn't seem to be the case today.

trim
-that Japanese schoolchildren are taught using constant repetition doesn't seem to be the case today

commute
-it doesn't seem to be the case that Japanese schoolchildren are taught using constant repetition today

So you did say that it doesn't seem Japanese schoolchildren are still taught using rote methods. Therefore you are saying it seems nobody is taught by rote anymore. So anything you have to say about "at least one child" is irrelevant. The above is what you said.

Come on guys, let's let the poor girl be. Like us, she has more productive things to do with her time, namely studying kanji and learning Japanese, something we all agree is good regardless of method. (I plead for myself also, because I simply cannot tear my eyes away from this trainwreck. While I was immensely entertained, I barely studied anything today!).

no we have to keep going until this thread overtakes the anki thread!!

gogogogogogo!

Christine_Tham Wrote:

yukamina Wrote:If you're planning to read novels, you'll probably have to learn a lot more than 1200.

I don't think anyone, least of all myself, is saying all you need is 1200, and once you get there, stop. The point is get a good foundation, and then learn new characters as they come along, rather than progressing down a list systematically.

Yes, I guess what I'm saying is that 1200 kanji isn't a good enough base for reading novels. Even though I can recongize 2000 kanji, I still see many unfamiliar kanji. If I didn't recognize as many as I do now, it would be very intimidating. It's hard to read when you have to look up every other word. Anyway, when you get to the point of wanting to read fiction(not kid's stories or material from textbooks), you could try reading stuff off the internet. It's much faster looking words and kanji up that way.

Quote:

Quote:At 200-300 kanji, it's a bit early to know how well your method is working for you. Sounds like a good method, though, if it's working for you so far. I just found that when I had learned about 200-300 kanji traditionally, I stagnated shortly after.

Yeah, I hope this doesn't happen to me. If by "traditionally" you mean "without a system", I agree. But the whole point is that: there is a system - it's not just about learning 1000 random characters and hoping that they stick.

You may have already heard, but once you get to around 500-600, it gets a lot easier. So, it might get harder soon(for any method, I think), but if you keep going, it'll pay off.
One thing to think about, if you're learning kanji at a slower pace, that gives you more time to forget them. But I guess if you're using them all the time, that wouldn't happen... You're very lucky you get to take such good classes.

[ファブリス]

Christine_Tham Keep in mind that RtK was and will always be a focal point on this forum. You have plenty of members here who have attained the competency to write 2000+ Japanese characters from memory. Some who have even gone as far as the 3007 covered by RtK1 & RtK3. So you shouldn't be surprised from the reactions.

With that said, please let's get back to a positive exchange of experiences and opinions rather than a contest to see who's right and who's wrong.

[ファブリス]

dingomick Wrote:This topic has been covered before somewhere. I distinctly remember a person learning through Heisig trying to help their child with kanji and their Japanese spouse yelling at them 'not to break it down into primitives and confuse them, they just need to learn it.'

I'm pretty sure that's from Mary Noguchi (just pointing out).

[ファブリス]

Christine_Tham Wrote:And I bet you if you ask a Japanese person to name some trees, many would struggle beyond sakura and ume, especially those born and bred in a city.

I doubt that, this is the land that produce Nintendo DS games with quizzes on flower names, the same land that has tags all over the place with the names of countless breeds of flowers and trees. I thought nothing of it until I went to Japan in April and when I saw those tags (and tried to read the tree's name), I thought "Ha ha!! So that's the famous tags Heisig was talking about!" (in RtK1 frame #212).

decamer0n Wrote:"Someone else was using Heisig..."

Sorry, I meant to say someone else was using *Henshall*, not *Heisig*. My apologies for the error, I can see why it caused a great deal of confusion.

So to summarise, one other person in the class was using Henshall, no one mentioned Heisig. Hope that makes things clearer.

JimmySeal Wrote:So you did say that it doesn't seem Japanese schoolchildren are still taught using rote methods. Therefore you are saying it seems nobody is taught by rote anymore. So anything you have to say about "at least one child" is irrelevant. The above is what you said.

No, because the two sentences in your paragraph are not the same. Your use of the word "therefore" is incorrect. If I say "it doesnt seem that B applies to A", that's not the same as saying "B never applies to A". "Doesn't seem" and "never" are not the same thing.

So when you say that my "logical deconstruction above is completely bogus" it is in fact your inference that is "bogus", if you don't mind me using that word.

Am I trying to say that I believe rote memorization is not the norm in terms of kanji teaching techniques for Japanese schoolchildren? Yes.

Do I have absolute proof that this is the case? No. But the existence of the textbooks that I pointed out is certainly suggestive.

However, I did find out something interesting from my Japanese class yesterday that provides strong anecdotal evidence.

In class yesterday, I was trying to write down a kanji, and I got it wrong. [okay, okay, maybe I should have done RTK1 first!]. The Chinese student sitting next to me, who is very familiar with Kanji, pointed out my mistake to me and helped me correct it.

I noticed that as she was correcting my Kanji, she recited a story explaining the kanji. When I realised what she was doing, I asked her to repeat that story and the origins of that story. What she said was very interesting: she said her teacher taught her that story when she was very young.

This led to an interesting conversation, which I have been able to confirm with a few other Chinese people today.

Most Chinese people are taught how to write Kanji using stories (very much like the stories my mother taught). In fact, these stories are standardised and more or less passed down orally from generation to generation (from parent to child, teacher to student).

These stories are very much like Heisig stories in that they describe the components of the characters and relate them to the meaning. They are standardised to the extent that different Chinese people brought up in different countries around the world all share more or less the same stories.

Two quick examples: the story for 毎 is "every person has a mother" or something to that effect. The story for 東 is "the sun shining through the trees". I discovered there are variations, but essentially the stories for the characters are similar.

So you can see the key to remembering the characters is the story. The copying is part of the process to get kids to be comfortable writing the character, and to improve calligraphy, and no doubt helps in memorization, but is not the primary technique for memorization.

Of course, Japanese schoolchildren may not learn Kanji the same way as Chinese schoolchildren.

However, the textbooks that I have read suggest otherwise. I looked up the stories in the textbooks for the two characters, and both textbooks essentially repeat the same stories, with minor variations and using different sentence constructions.

So whilst all this is anecdotal and doesn't prove anything, it is strongly suggestive that rote memorisation is NOT the prevailing technique for teaching Kanji, but instead there is an oral storytelling tradition that is passed down from generation to generation. This is almost certainly true for Chinese, and I dare say true for Japanese as well.

Now I understand why several weeks ago when I was explaining my story for 食, my teacher leaped on that and said my story was "wrong" and here's the correct story ...

At that time, I did not understand why he was so angry with me. Surely the story doesn't matter as long as it is effective to help remember the character. But now I understand. For the oral storytelling tradition to be maintained, it is essential that the stories are not changed by each person. Changing stories, or telling a different story, will break the tradition.

Many of these stories are documented in Henshall, which is why Henshall is a good reference book. Although my teacher says Henshall often gets the stories wrong (and now I understand why he is so passionate about this).

Quote:If your goal was to show that rote memorization is no longer the norm, you have failed completely.

You may be right. Perhaps I have failed completely. I hope this post goes some way to redress that failure.

ファブリス Wrote:Christine_Tham Keep in mind that RtK was and will always be a focal point on this forum. You have plenty of members here who have attained the competency to write 2000+ Japanese characters from memory. Some who have even gone as far as the 3007 covered by RtK1 & RtK3. So you shouldn't be surprised from the reactions.

With that said, please let's get back to a positive exchange of experiences and opinions rather than a contest to see who's right and who's wrong.

Thanks ファブリス, in hindsight I should have realised any discussion of perceived weaknesses in Heisig will likely generate a strong reaction from members of this forum! I can now see why my posts can be interpreted as implied criticism.

If you feel I should stop posting, please let me know. My intent was a positive one (the point out that Japanese schoolchildren may in fact be taught using similar techniques to Heisig).

Like you, I do hope that people would talk about the positive aspects of different methods rather than see any positive praise for one method implying criticism for another method (although the sentences could be viewed that way). But I guess this is a sensitive subject to people who have invested a lot of time learning Heisig.

Wow, what a thread.

Well, Christine, I think you have been comparing apples and oranges. I think the way you have downplayed the effective of Heisig is pretty careless. You are in a full-immersion type of environment, with multiple classrooms and multiple textbooks, with apparently an extraordinary teacher. Given the choice, (assuming one had the time, resources, etc), who wouldn't take that path?

If someone told me "Hey, you can take all these classes, interact with a bunch of other eager Kanji learners, and be taught by some awesome instructors....OR you could try memorizing some stories in this old book", what serious learner wouldn't jump at the opportunity.

Of course your method works better for you. Your method would be better for anyone, lol.

Now if you were on a self-studying path like most of us, then your argument would hold a lot more merit.

For the record, I am almost approaching one year since I started RtK. I quit after a few months, re-focused, ripped through the book properly, am now diligently working through Kanji in Context, and am amazed at my own progress. I should be done with workbook 1 within 4-5 months. (all readings/compounds/etc)

Before this, I took some courses at my University, tried a ton of different things/textbooks/software/etc and none of them had a lasting effect on me. Heisig worked for me. You should be grateful you are in the position you're in and leave the rest of us less fortunate to wallow in our mnemonics.

nilfisq Wrote:Instead of completing my reading of this thread I started to study kanji. It is a bit like sex: talking about it is not as good as doing it.
However, I'd like to make one comment.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Perhaps you and Jimmy are the sort of people who would interject "Japanese Judas tree" and "Pawlonia" into a casual conversation (and hundreds of other obscure characters relating to nature, manufacturing, literature), but not me! I would not be reading the sort of books where these characters are likely to appear. I don't even use these terms in English!

Christine, bear in mind the following comment made on schultz's terrible kanji help page:

"WHY-BOTHER KANJI -- so-called because you look at the bastard and think, "Jesus, i got 100 things to do today plus i can barely write "car", and you want me to learn some shit like "high plain"原？ what the hell?? how often do i say "high plane?" but actually you DO need it, to say common words like cause 原因 and please お願い。　likewise, the kanji for the ancient Wu Dynasty (呉) is necessary for such useful words as "apologize" (誤) and "entertainment" (娯)"

Sorry, but I can't help responding to this. Your analogy is inappropriate, because whilst 呉 is a building block for 誤 and 娯, the characters for "Japanese Judas Tree" and "Pawlonia" are not building blocks for other characters (at least, not that I know of).

Also, it not necessary to completely learn the building blocks prior to learning the characters. I know Heisig says so, and logically it makes sense, but if you use the "etymology" approach to teaching Kanji, it's not necessary.

Furthermore, the Kanji for 呉 does not really mean "Ancient Wu Dynasty" (at least not in Japanese), it actually is used as "give (to an inferior)" or くれる. So it's quite a useful character to learn, and the above paragraph that you quoted, whilst it makes entertaining reading, is actually a bit off the mark.

In Heisig, this character is frame #1897, which Heisig labels as "give", so the quote is not even accurate with respect to Heisig.

suffah Wrote:If someone told me "Hey, you can take all these classes, interact with a bunch of other eager Kanji learners, and be taught by some awesome instructors....OR you could try memorizing some stories in this old book", what serious learner wouldn't jump at the opportunity.

Of course your method works better for you. Your method would be better for anyone, lol.

Thanks, you've actually summarised quite well what I was trying to day. It's not about trying to "downplay" Heisig, but if you were serious about learning Kanji, why wouldn't you explore more effective methods?

Self study is good, and cheap, and I did it for nearly a year. But I discovered it's much better to learn in an interactive environment, and it doesn't prevent me doing self study on the side.

I noticed you live in Los Angeles. Have you tried contacting the Japan Foundation:

http://www.jflalc.org/

They should be able to help you, in a similar way that they have helped me. Just remember, these guys are funded by the Japanese government to encourage Japanese learners.

Of course, there's the issue of cost and time. Cost is not as big an issue as you might think - the Japan Foundation in my city offer courses that are partially subsidized by the Japanese Government. And the Japan Seminar House where I go to is also partially subsidized by both the Japanese and Australian governments. By paying a membership fee, I can effectively attend any class I want to at any time, which is effectively what I do - I try and attend as many classes as I can fit into my schedule.

Time is another issue, but what I've found out is that one can learn much faster in a class environment than in self study. Of course, this depends on the pace of teaching and the quality of the teacher, but again if you contact the Japan Foundation they should be able to recommend something suitable.

If you cannot attend courses physically, there are also other options. Japan Seminar House, for example, offer on-line learning (using Skype).

So don't see my posts as "hey, this privileged idiot who has the opportunity to access all these great teachers is coming onto this site to disparage Heisig. How dare she!" Instead, say to yourself "Hmm, I'll like some of that. Where can I get a similar opportunity?"

Okay, I have to jump back in after that one.

Christine_Tham Wrote:These stories are very much like Heisig stories in that they describe the components of the characters and relate them to the meaning.

First, thank you for finally acknowledging that your methodology (of assigning identities to primitives and making stories out of them) is the same as Heisig's. Your insistence that you're method is different is one thing that has caused ire for many people here. You have said repeatedly that assigning English keywords to primitives is "pointless". But as I replied repeatedly, whether its "computer and fire" or "soot and red" you are employing the exact. same. method. And guess what, you've just said a sixth of the world's people use it too!:

Quote:the story for 毎 is "every person has a mother" or something to that effect. The story for 東 is "the sun shining through the trees".

Let me be sure to clarify first, are you saying these examples are ones that Chinese people use? If so, they must be terrible stories, because they're the exact same ones Heisig uses.

Quote:They are standardised to the extent that different Chinese people brought up in different countries around the world all share more or less the same stories.

As to them being the same ones that all Chinese people uses, it seems you are implying they're some how superior. Everyone learning the same method doesn't mean it's superior or more effective, just common. Who cares if tradition is broken? When my father said, "I'll teach you a way to do division twice as fast as the method they teach you in school," I begged him to show me since it was obviously a superior method even though it was different. I am not saying Heisig's stories are superior, but that his idea for each student to employ the story that helps them remember kanji best is. The goal for everyone is to remember the kanji as easily as possible, regardless of method.

dingomick Wrote:Your insistence that you're method is different is one thing that has caused ire for many people here.

But I have never said my method is different. Show me exactly where I said that. You are putting words into my mouth that I have never said. I have always said I'm studying through a combination of different things, and Henshall, De Roo, Kanji ABC are all using methods similar to Heisig.

If you go back to post #3, this is the first time I mentioned I was no longer using Heisig:

Christine Tham Wrote:As you may have guessed, I have pretty much given up learning using Heisig, and I'm learning the "traditional way" (well not really traditional, I found the Heisig primitives that I've picked up useful every now and then).

Now, read this carefully in the context of post #1, where I am asserting that the "traditional way" is in fact the same approach as Heisig, based on stories and decomposition. So, once again, show me where I say my "method" is *different* from Heisig.

What I am not doing however, is follow Heisig "by the book", and I have illustrated exactly those areas where I am diverging from. You are interpreting these statements as me claiming that somehow my hodge podge method is "different" from Heisig, but I have never said that.

I am not using Heisig's frame sequence, and I am not using his primitives, and I'm not using his keywords, and I'm not using his stories - therefore I am not really using Heisig, am I? That's what I mean by "pretty much given up learning using Heisig." But it never implies that I am not using the same underlying approach, because all the books I am using are effectively based on the same principle.

Quote:You have said repeatedly that assigning English keywords to primitives is "pointless".

And I have also said repeatedly that it is "pointless" to me, in terms of meeting my goals. If I am studying the readings and compounds at the same time as studying the characters, why would I want to assign and memorise an English keyword as well? Therefore, it is "pointless" - to me. Get it?

Quote:Let me be sure to clarify first, are you saying these examples are ones that Chinese people use? If so, they must be terrible stories, because they're the exact same ones Heisig uses.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Why are you trying to interpret everything I say as an attack on Heisig? I have already told you my intention, can we move on?

Quote:As to them being the same ones that all Chinese people uses, it seems you are implying they're some how superior.

Sheesh, can we move on, please? You are becoming paranoid. In a whole post where I did not even mention Heisig even once, suddenly every sentence is seen as an attack on Heisig. Why? Why does describing how some people learn Kanji be seen as any kind of comment on a specific method of learning Kanji?

Nobody is saying these stories are "good" or "bad", but the existence of these stories imply an oral tradition, which implies rote memorization is not the prevailing method for teaching Kanji. Get it? If anything, this is praise for Heisig, because he has somehow devised a similar method independently. And the effectiveness of this method even on non-native speakers shows how powerful it is. However, some of the contraints in his method are artificial constraints and there are ways around them. No single method is perfect, so let's move on.

In fact, why don't you go back to my very first post in this thread: post #1. Reread it again. Show me exactly where in this post is there any criticism of Heisig, implied or otherwise?

Christine_Tham Wrote:I can now see why my posts can be interpreted as implied criticism.

Finally, this is all I was trying to say. I followed this entire thread, so I understood the "context" and yet some of your statements still seemed to be criticism. Also you have still made a lot of comparative statements, even if you add "for me" to the end. Saying something is "more effective for me" is still comparing the two, even if it's not intended in a derogatory manner.

To summarize: If you put A above B in a statement, even if it is only in the sense of yourself, you are still comparing the two.

decamer0n Wrote:i think both you and dilandau should probably back off the pure deductive logic a bit or risk looking fairly foolish. the conversation has been much too messy leading up to this point to try and shove it into pure logical form so late in the game.

Ya I was afraid of that when I did it. I am no expert on the matter (as my bad grades in college will reflect). I just couldn't let it drop, I was feeling quite snarky by that point. Part of this may have been inspired by my watching too much "Penn and Teller's BS".

Christine_Tham, to answer your questions.

1) English
2) I don't but it is my suspicion that any methods a teacher can use to give his or her students a boost would be encouraged. For the sake of the children, I hope someone somewhere is using alternatives to rote.
3) I don't know that they are not used. I do believe that if they were used successfully the thousands of 研究授業 and 研修 would have spread them like wild fire across the Japanese educational landscape. (Like the "information gap" boom or "task based learning" boom) Japanese teachers don't teach in a bubble. No one wants to make the lives of the students any more stressful than they already are. If they see real world results (read an increase in test scores) they would be happy to adopt a technique.
4) Scan with a "scanner".
5) No in fact they say that anything that could improve test scores and by extension help them to avoid becoming the weak link EDIT:would be good. They often comment that alternative methods seem very attractive (when they saw me using Heisig for instance) but its fear of failure on test days that keep them bound to traditional methods.
6) Scan as in with a "scanner". Without getting to deep into cultural references, I am reasonably comfortable in saying that, at my school, the teaching methods are representative of the methodology of teachers throughout Japan. (I think you may have used a nice 1984 ref somewhere) I will not waste any EDIT: more time arguing this point. I don't have to. I invite you to go see for yourself. Take a vacation to Japan and visit some schools, ask Japanese people how they learned etc.

Quote:My intent was a positive one (the point out that Japanese schoolchildren MAY in fact be taught using similar techniques to Heisig).

We are finally on the same page. Thank you for agreeing with me.

cracky Wrote:To summarize: If you put A above B in a statement, even if it is only in the sense of yourself, you are still comparing the two.

Well, duh, of course, but that's different from "denigrating" or "downplaying" or "criticizing" B.

Put it this way. If someone asks "Why are you not using B?" and I answer "A is better, because ..."

Why is that interpreted as "B is bad"?

That is my point.

My observation is that a lot of people here have invested a lot of time learning B, therefore any statement saying something else is better is interpreted as "What? How dare you come here and say B is bad? Are you saying I've wasted my time? Well, that is not so, B is good ..." A lot of posts here are in that vein, but if you look closely, although my statements can be interpreted ambiguously, clearly in the overall context (particularly with reference to my original post) my intent should be clear.

Look at dingomick's post. He's managed to interpret just about every statement I have made in a post (that does not reference Heisig even once) as statements implying Heisig is bad.

Now tell me, is this rational?

Also, when you singled out a statement I made as "criticism", you deliberately or inadvertently quoted it out of context, because the previous line in the same paragraph makes the context clear. Why did you do that? Can I suggest: You see it as criticism, because you *want* to see it as criticism. But that is not what I wrote. So, either subconsciously or consciously, you left out the sentence prior to the sentence that you quoted that actually provides context, and then use it as evidence that I am "criticizing." Tell me now, is this fair?

dilandau23 Wrote:Christine_Tham, to answer your questions.

First of all, can I say thank you for a very restrained and down to earth response to my post. It's easy to get heated up in these sorts of forums (look at some of the other posts for example) so your ability to respond in a neutral way is a great testament to your self control and ability to think things clearly (despite your reference to your "bad grades" which I'm sure is not a reflection of your ability).

Quote:No in fact they say that anything that could improve test scores and by extension help them to avoid becoming the weak link. They often comment that alternative methods seem very attractive (when they saw me using Heisig for instance) but its fear of failure on test days that keep them bound to traditional methods.

I would suggest that you show them my other post describing anecdotal evidence of how Chinese schoolchildren are taught Kanji to your colleagues and ask them what they think.

My assumption would be that I would be surprised if these stories, which appear to be common across Chinese students from different backgrounds, would not be used in one way or another in Japan. In fact, the textbooks I have, which documents similar stories, seem to be proof that they are not unknown in Japan.

I would be interested to know if your colleagues are aware of these stories and use them. If they do, they may be subconsciously using a decomposition and storytelling method but call it "rote memorization".

For example, if I asked a Chinese student how they have learnt Kanji, I think many would respond "by rote memorization." But if I were to ask them to recall stories, I think they would be able to recite the stories that I mentioned. So perhaps this is a situation whether both student and teacher are subconsciously using a rather sophisticated technique without really being aware of it. But that's not a bad thing. Sometimes teaching techniques are best when they are implicit rather than explicit. Telling a school child that he/she will be using "component decomposition" will scare that person, but telling a story is very natural and even fun.

Think of it: you are a kid learning kanji. You heard a story from a teacher, and now you have been told to copy the character ten times. Naturally, you are going to assume that you've memorized the character from the copying process. However, years later, it's actually the story that sticks in your head. The teacher may also be assuming that the memorization comes from the copying, whereas it may actually be the story that is the primary factor.

Christine_Tham Wrote:

cracky Wrote:To summarize: If you put A above B in a statement, even if it is only in the sense of yourself, you are still comparing the two.

Well, duh, of course, but that's different from "denigrating" or "downplaying" or "criticizing" B.

Put it this way. If someone asks "Why are you not using B?" and I answer "A is better, because ..."

Why is that interpreted as "B is bad"?

Well I can explain one way people see it that way. If you say A is better because of C, then it goes to reason that C would have to be a weakness of B. I'm not saying this is the way it should be looked at, just explaining how people can draw conclusions from that.

Christine_Tham Wrote:Also, when you singled out a statement I made as "criticism", you deliberately or inadvertently quoted it out of context, because the previous line in the same paragraph makes the context clear. Why did you do that? Can I suggest: You see it as criticism, because you *want* to see it as criticism. But that is not what I wrote. So, either subconsciously or consciously, you left out the sentence prior to the sentence that you quoted that actually provides context, and then use it as evidence that I am "criticizing." Tell me now, is this fair?

Actually, no that wasn't fair. I'll apologize for that, it was unintentional though. I just grabbed the nearest comparative statement from you I saw, I didn't thoroughly reread it. The things I actually viewed as criticism were the things about the keywords, primitives and what not.

In that vein though. In your post about context you edited out my last line. Which would show that I also meant, even in context and with knowledge of your intent, some of your statements can still be viewed as criticism. That's really all I've been trying to point out.

cracky Wrote:Actually, no that wasn't fair. I'll apologize for that, it was unintentional though.

Thanks. For the record, I did not think it was intentional on your part. However, it shows the power of the subconscious as a filter on our perception.

Quote:The things I actually viewed as criticism were the things about the keywords, primitives and what not.

I think if you re-read what I actually said in the light of what you know now, the context should be clear.

Quote:In that vein though. In your post about context you edited out my last line. Which would show that I also meant, even in context and with knowledge of your intent, some of your statements can still be viewed as criticism. That's really all I've been trying to point out.

I think we both agree on that point. What I am trying to say, though, is that there's actually nothing I can do about this. Any positive comment I make on any method other than Heisig can and will be viewed as implied criticism, no matter how I phrase it or how much context I give.

You had an experience of that yourself: you jumped at a statement because your subconcious has already concluded that it must be criticism, despite any caveats or context made previously.

Similarly, if you look at dingomick's response to my post, everything is viewed as implied criticism of something that wasn't even the subject of the post. How bizarre is that?

Back at work but don't have any to do! So after a bit of study, it's forum time

The original post on this thread seems reasonable enough. Although we might not all agree with this part:

Christine_Tham Wrote:Anyway, thought you guys might be interested to know that whilst Japanese schoolchildren may have been taught using constant repetition in the 70s when Heisig first wrote RTK1, that doesn't seem to be the case today.

However this thread has moved on from this original point and reminds me of one from last year when the community got upset. The Commonly confused kanji thread.

Perhaps even more pertinent is Fabrice's About this forum and the rules for posting (or lack thereof)

ファブリス Wrote:This forum is first and foremost a means for the ReviewingTheKanji members, to support, encourage and help each other to complete the RTK self-study method.

Because of this, discussions on alternatives or modifications to James Heisig's original method will only be tolerated so long as their are done in a positive manner and aim to help members to reach their goal (be it completing RTK or attaining kanji literacy).

Furthermore, this website is a labour of love, and any kind of animosity or competition will not be tolerated on this forum.

Perhaps I'm slightly more militant than Fabrice. My personal take on things is that this forum is full of people who have completed or are in the process of completing Heisig's RTK1. People who don't fall into either of these two categories might want to think harder about why they post to this particular forum.

As Ali G says, "Respec!"