610 replies to this topic
Posted 2009-11-14 10:23:47
ST, this is where you are getting it wrong. I am at liberty to chose my teachers myself. I have simple criteria.
1. Good voice.
2. Good pronunciation.
3. Pleasant personality.
4. Energetic.
5. Interested in mastering the method.
I really do not care a bit if somebody is certified B.Ed in teaching Thai Language, they most likely would not follow the method and every class would be a different story.
If you want to go to a 'no method school, every class different story' then Walen is certainly not the place, we have a system, every class taught the same method with the same delivery.
You still did not get the point that we have a certain way of teaching the method and this is what I want from my English as well as Thai teachers. It works very well. I am not interested in your academic approach. I'm in the business of teaching languages not 'talking' about languages.
Your turn ST.
www.thaiwalen.com
Walen School
For priority service please register
www.dcs.walenschool.com/1mw290910.eng
Edited by macwalen, 2011-02-28 21:34:38.
Posted 2009-11-14 12:46:29
Thanks macwalen, a discussion of methodology is quite pertinent to the topic of ‘what is the best language school’?
There are usually two polarized views about methodology. Either people will hold that one methodology trumps all, or they will say ‘learners have different learning styles, its up to each person to find the method that suits them best’. The truth, as usual, is somewhere between these two extremes.
There are not THAT many different learning styles, and there are not that many different EFFECTIVE methods (there are many different methods, but not all of them are effective). All the effective methods that I have studied, learned, and used in my own teaching have the same basic principles, and indeed, it is these that make those methods effective, not their unique properties.
The basic principles any effective school must use are:
Exposure
Practice
Repetition
Feedback & Correction
Graded Assessment and Advancement
This is true not just of languages but of all skills, from learning Karate to playing the Piano.
The "unique methods" offered by some schools are sales gimmicks that if anything reduce the effectiveness of the learning due to limiting the variety of exposure or practice available to students. The ‘Ours is a unique method’ schools will never admit to this because their whole sales and marketing strategy relies on denying it.
If that’s true, why do they adopt a ‘unique method’ in the first place?
Their answer: we’ve found it works better;
Their proof: (always) it is our experience;
Never can these schools cite INDEPENDENT academic research to support their theory for the simple reason that there isn’t any. They will either cite research by their own founders or affiliate schools, or they will dismiss ‘academic’ research as not relevant. AUA’s youtube site is a classic example, where they referred first to their own founders research and later admitted that there is no research supporting the method. Asher’s TPR method employs the same trick, citing multiple articles in support of the theory which turn out to be have written by...you guessed it, “Dr” Asher. As for the Callan method, they similarly gloss and hide the ‘research’ that is supposed to support the method. On the main website page where they discuss ‘About the method’ you can find this quote:
“There is a wealth of evidence to prove that students at a Callan Method School learn English faster than students at other types of language school, and further details are available elsewhere on this website.”
Where? You would think they would link to it right at this point, or cite the details here in the page dedicated to discussing the method rather than 'elsewhere'. But they don’t. And I can’t find any ‘further details’ anywhere else on their site either that would support it. Making a big claim and then deferring the evidence that would substantiate that claim to another time or place is classic sophistry. The sum total of their "evidence" appears to be two testimonial quotes from satisfied customers. Take that for what its worth.
AUA, Callan, TPR schoos (e.g., Lanta) and Walen (see post above) all like to say, ‘we’re interested in what works, not academic research.” What about that?
It’s a nice play on words, where it is implied that ‘academic’ means ‘theoretical’ but not ‘practical’. The opposite is true, however. In language learning, almost all academic research is ‘action research’ = conducted in classes and assessed on real students over long periods of time. Nothing could be MORE valid to the testing and verification of methodologies.
So, back to the question: why do these schools adopt a ‘unique’ method in the first place?
My answer: because the language-learning market is fiercely competitive, schools are businesses, and businesses need something to differentiate themselves in the marketplace.
Do they work? Probably, but only insofar as they stick to the basic principles of language learning that are employed by other schools that are dedicated to their students first, and methodologies second.
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-14 13:13:45.
Posted 2009-11-14 12:58:40
I think that what is happening here is a dispute between TRAINING and ACDEMIC LEARNING. Macs schools concentrate on training....in other words practice doing and the theoretical element is of little relevance.
It is the same with training in Australia. When the TAFE colleges adopted Competancy Based Training the existing teachers had a lot of dificuolty accepting it and kept trying to adapt it to their old methods. This never worked.
SoftWater seems to be complaining because his academic university style teaching methods are not used by Wallen. There is a place for both but learnig about languages is something to be done in a University while Wallen is a Competancy based training establishment.
Mac has every right to teach using his methods with his staff. It is up to others to decide if they want to study this way. This does not make macs school the best or the worst. If it is right for you use it if not go somewhere else or start your own.
My only complaint is the way language school students subvert the visa process by not attending which in my view will lead to a crackdown in which genuine students will be unable to get visas.
Edited by harrry, 2009-11-14 13:27:56.
Posted 2009-11-14 13:27:29
 macwalen, on 2009-11-14 10:23:47, said:
. . . . Your turn ST.
Walen School
Mac,
I am satisfied with your 'transparent' answer that your criteria for selecting teachers means that you look for people with a good voice, good pronunciation, a pleasant personality, who are energetic, are "interested in" mastering the method and as all you want them to do comply with your method is to be able to read out the textbook parrot-fashion and therefore they do not have to possess any (other) teaching skills.
So as not to be unfair to the teachers you currently have, I will say that despite your selection criteria, many posts on here confirm that you have been "unlucky" enough to have recruited some 'teachers' who exceed your basic criteria and try to help students with their problems. Why "unlucky" for you? Because the "natural" behaviour to assist struggling students, (and to relieve the boredom that they endure consistantly repeating the same text from the 3 books hour after hour, day after day, month after month) which they "helpfully" exhibit means they do not actually teach lessons that comply with your method of pure and speedy compliant repetition of the text in the book. Do you sit in on lessons to prevent this?; yes, to give you credit, I believe you occasionally do; but the fact remains that you are not in the majority of unobserved classes and your "attending" students (I won't mention the non-attending ones so as not to disadvantage the purely humanitarian service you provide to those who are in need of a visa but have no interest or time to attend classes) therefore do not get "Walen method" classes. Why do students therefore not complain? I am not "all" your students so I can only provide my assessment that the majority appreciate the teachers personal attention to their problems/questions and that they also appreciate the relief from the "natural" bordom of the repetition. You will no doubt argue that the lessons are not boring as the speed of the class prevents this. In practice, the majority of classes are not fast enough to do this for many students, and if they were/when they are then many other students would be so lost and confused that they would silently suffer (believing that they themselves are at fault), complain, or leave. A bit Catch 22.
I do not envy your problem "ensuring" that "the method" is taught at your school and (despite what you may believe) I would genuinely really like to see real evidence of whether your "Walen" system works or not, if and when you actually start "consistantly" teaching using "only" the method. (I stressed the 'Walen' method specifically because as Thai and English are not even in the same family of languages then, even if undisputed proof that the Callen method worked was shown, it (the Callan proof) would not necessarily apply to the Walen method).
Ok, I have said a lot more than I intended to in this reply. As I said in the related previous post, "I am not going to get into a debate with you about this." I have highlighted what I believe to be issues for you to address if you insist on your current belief that academically trained and Educationally qualified Teachers are not required and that method trained 'teachers' are sufficient, and that the Walen method is the correct way to teach. What I expect to see, and what I do not personally need, is your argumentative response on here, though you are (of course) welcome to provide one. What I would like and prefer to see is your addressing these issues in your classes and then see existing and future students come on here and confirm that "at no time" does the teaching in a class violate the method by wandering into discussions, and, as I do not expect you or anyone else to scientifically measure the efficiency of your method in the near future, at least see some students praise the correctly deployed method as at least equivalent, or even as you claim, "4 times quicker" than other methods.
How could this be measured? One poster, Harry, has just said that Softwater and I are concentrating on a difference between academic and Practical learning. The only balanced test between academic and practical learning that is easily available (I know, it is very far from ideal) which covers basic knowledge and comprehension, with elements of reading, writing, listening, and speaking (which are all 'practical' measures as well as academic), and can be used to quantify and compare the results of each schools' students' abilities and measuring progress is the "Prathom 6 exam". I know you [Mac] avoid this when mentioned by other posters by continually arguing that formal certification not what "all" students want to achieve and I fully and wholeheartedly agree. However, of course, some students do and therefore it would be good to see your first, and hopefully many more students pass this that have "only" been taught "from scratch" by your method. At the risk of being repetative, and stealing another posters argument/comment (sorry, I forget who it was), hopefully, in the next P6 exam will see at least 'one' purely Walen taught student out of the hundreds (or was it thousands) of the students you are 'teaching' sit and pass the exam. This would be more convincing than your personal (understandably biased) 'experience' in confirming to some degree that your system has merits. I look forward to your good news of, as the biggest and most successful school (your claim), posting the highest number of P6 graduates.
Ok, as you put it, you have already 'had your turn' and now I have I have 'had my turn' in response. You, I assume (I hate assuming) will therefore help to stop this topic wandering off point again by not taing another turn. To ensure I am more than fair, as I feel that you will feel agrieved that you did not get the last word on here, I will give you the opportunity to have the last word. I have stated my preference for how you should respond. If you are polite enough to comply with my preference then we need not see any more posts on here other than those from your students supplying 'independent' confirmation of "100% method classes", and, one from you, supplying a list of 100% Walen trained P6 graduates, letting this topic, once again, remain fully on topic.
Hopefully yours,
ST
Posted 2009-11-14 13:40:12
Scottish Thailander, on 2009-11-14 13:27:29, said: How could this be measured? One poster, Harry, has just said that Softwater and I are concentrating on a difference between academic and Practical learning. The only balanced test between academic and practical learning that is easily available (I know, it is very far from ideal) which covers basic knowledge and comprehension, with elements of reading, writing, listening, and speaking (which are all 'practical' measures as well as academic), and can be used to quantify and compare the results of each schools' students' abilities and measuring progress is the "Prathom 6 exam".
In fact this isa my point of disagreement....the Prathom 6 is a test of Academic learning not of competency.
Maybe a look at Competancy based Training is in order. It is generally difficult for people with an academic background to comprehend that a totally new way of looking the way to achieve the desired outcome is needed.
I know even after having been trained in delivery and assesment of compentancy based training I kept wanting to apply academic rigor to my delivery and assessment.
The reliance on testing by Prathom 6 is an example. It has no place in assessment of Competency.
Edited by harrry, 2009-11-14 13:42:38.
Posted 2009-11-14 13:46:21
harrry, on 2009-11-14 12:58:40, said: I think that what is happening here is a dispute between TRAINING and ACDEMIC LEARNING. Macs schools concentrate on training....in other words practice doing and the theoretical element is of little relevance.
It is the same with training in Australia. When the TAFE colleges adopted Competancy Based Training the existing teachers had a lot of dificuolty accepting it and kept trying to adapt it to their old methods. This never worked.
SoftWater seems to be complaining because his academic university style teaching methods are not used by Wallen. There is a place for both but learnig about languages is something to be done in a University while Wallen is a Competancy based training establishment.
Mac has every right to teach using his methods with his staff. It is up to others to decide if they want to study this way. This does not make macs school the best or the worst. If it is right for you use it if not go somewhere else or start your own.
My only complaint is the way language school students subvert the visa process by not attending which in my view will lead to a crackdown in which genuine students will be unable to get visas.
You couldn't have got it more wrong, Harry. I'm talking about the effective principles necessary to teach language proficiency. That is what most private language schools focus on because that is what students will pay for.
University courses, at least those in Thailand, tend to grade students on achievement at passing certain predefined objectives, many of which have little to do with proficiency in reality (though they are supposed to, in theory). Courses like these use a different methodology - they effectively 'coach' students to pass exams, and the methods used in doing this vary according to the objectives of the course and the nature of the exam.
As I said, I was talking about principles necessary for learning a SKILL. Graded achievement and advancement doesn't mean academic study - look at the 'colored belt' system used in karate. Its basic psychology needed to keep students motivated - short achieveable goals, recognition, and an easy way to see one's progress.
So, in short, no. I am not talking about academic learning. I'm talking about proficiency - the ability to actually use a language.
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-14 13:54:30.
Posted 2009-11-14 14:22:34
harrry, on 2009-11-14 13:40:12, said: . . . . In fact this is my point of disagreement....the Prathom 6 is a test of Academic learning not of competency.
Maybe a look at Competancy based Training is in order. . . .
Harry,
I may not have phrased that sentence well. What I was trying to say agrees mostly with you. The P6 is not a competency based exam. I also agree with SoftWater in that, more often than not, students are coached in how to pass the exam, not encouraged to study the 'content' of the coursework/language behind it. I futher agree with you that a look at Competency Based Training should be looked at.
However, the only current formal comparison of 'ability' (whatever that may mean) that I am aware of for Thai learners is the P6 exam. and that is why I mentioned it.
The only other way is to sit students from each school down in some form of practical test with each other to see who can perform better in daily life as that is "practical". However, that in itself as you no doubt know is fraught with problems.
The following are examples only: no stereotyping, sexual, racial, social, or otherwise, or any other offence intended:-
Is a practical test designed for the daily life of a horny young male university student going to be comparable with that of a middle age staid married housewife? How different would the daily life of a married (to a poor Thai) housewife be compared to the daily life of a married (to a well paid expat) housewife be? Sure, there would be some overlap, but a huge difference in what they each deem to be 'essential' Thai vocabulary. For example, some of my friends are amazed at the legal vocabulary I have as I needed it early on in my learning for 'practical' purposes. (No not because I was defending something criminal I had done, but a child (not mine) custody case I was involved with). I however lack what they deem to be everyday 'practical' language that they have acquired to suit their exposure and purposes.
I suggest this "measuring/testing competency" discussion, although has the potential for some very interesting discussion (at least for a few of us), would be better suited to its own thread, not this 'best language school' one.
ST
Edited by Scottish Thailander, 2009-11-14 14:27:41.
Posted 2009-11-14 14:42:04
Oops, sorry, looking back I can see that I could bee seen as starting this "measuring/testing competency" discussion deviation, so I would definately . . . .
Scottish Thailander, on 2009-11-14 14:22:34, said: . . . suggest this "measuring/testing competency" discussion, . . . would be better suited to its own thread, not this 'best language school' one.
. . . if anyone wants to discuss it further.
ST
Posted 2009-11-14 15:57:09
Having completed Walen's 30 hours "method" of private lessons of Book 1 - I am now in the self-study/consolidation period Softwater desribed as: "Erhhh, that was 2 years ago....still haven't quite finished that self-study/consolidation period..."
I prefer to limit my "self evaluation" to only 2-4 weeks (I think) - I therefore have certain questions:
1) According to the posts I have read so far there appears to be an "implied but never actually mentioned consensus" that to reach "proficiency " in Thai language takes a "long time".
How long approx. is the consensus of time required with "normal (little) exposure to Thai people? Reaching "proficiency" for me means being able to understand most conversations and certainly Thai TV News.
2) There are obviously many "Teaching Professionals" posting on this site - therefore, with your experience - What do you consider the "Best effective methods of teaching Thai"?
As ST indicated, English and Thai are not even in the same family of languages. Therefore, a direct translation of "Callan method to teach English" into a (Walen's) method to teach Thai is obviously not appropriate at all times. In my opinion - this is exactly where Walens teaching materials/book are faulty.
Having personally experienced "Walens Method", I also feel "Walens incredible method" is just a "Sales gimmick" to differentiate Walen from his competitors. However, I still believe in the essential merit of "repetition-repetition- repetition (Walens "secret" Formula)" - to gain Thai language proficiency.
I believe, Walen could best proof "his method" by passing "P6" Exam himself. But, according to some comments - my ability to speak Thai surpasses his ability to speak Thai (despite my age). I certainly do not consider myself to be proficient in the Thai language yet - but I have lived in Thailand only 3 years (and studied intensely only 2 month).
Perhaps one of your criteria to choose a Language School should be - how proficient is the owner/manager in the Thai language?
Comments highly appreciated.
Posted 2009-11-14 16:27:38
SoftWater, on 2009-11-14 12:46:29, said: Thanks macwalen, a discussion of methodology is quite pertinent to the topic of ‘what is the best language school’?
Edited by BlueTerrace, 2009-11-14 16:31:27.
Posted 2009-11-14 16:40:40
Parvis:
Comprehension always precedes production: so you can expect (and should focus on) listening and reading skills to develop faster than speaking and writing skills. In that sense, the AUA method has things the right way round. However, learning to speak gives more opportunities in which to listen to native speakers, so I don't recommend the 'listen/don't speak till you can understand' approach of AUA.
Repetition is key - and as I think I said in my very first ever post about Walen, his school should be commended for not shying away from that fact and, indeed, making it central. Like AUA, the flaw in Walen's approach is limiting the variety of interactions the student can have. Some free speaking is necessary, as is some attention to grammatical and structural rules. There's no need to go overboard on learning rules, but they have a useful role to play in accelerating learning up to a certain level.
Time to Proficiency as 'understand most conversations and the TV news' - The variables are the amount and frequency of input, your attitudes and motivations on each exposure to input, the frequency of production, its variety, your necessity to learn...I'd factor on at least a good 2 years of regular study and practice at a decent school from the level where you are now. But really, its an impossible thing to guess.
As a teacher, I'd dispute the whole idea of 'the most effective methods...' what you need is variety but also consistency, i.e, stick with a school/method for a while till you've outgrown it, then move on. You'll learn something from each. I outlined the principles in an earlier post today of language acquisition. Go to a school that follows them, and stick with them till they don't motivate you, then move on to another. Tod-daniels gave a very comprehensive review of the major schools and their merits earlier in this thread. Pick one and go. Let us know how you get on.
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-14 16:42:30.
Posted 2009-11-14 17:45:51
Softwater
Your comments, as always, provide insight in being able to learn Thai with presently available resources. I have gone through the process of learning other languages a few times. Thai has some unique challenges I would like to be able to identify - and therefore understand.
My interest goes beyond the ability to speak Thai myself (which I am sure will happen - as you said - it is a question of motivation). In my opinion there is no Thai-language School out there at the present time whose PRIMARY purpose is to impart knowledge. It is typically all about making money as efficiently as possible - rather than "imparting knowledge" as efficiently as possible.
In other words "what if there is someone wanting to find the most effective way of teaching Thai rather than making the most amount of money in the shortest time possible". What would be the Criteria?
Knowledge has changed - I cannot accept the premise that there cannot be new more effective methods.
Posted 2009-11-14 18:31:03
Parvis, on 2009-11-14 17:45:51, said: In other words "what if there is someone wanting to find the most effective way of teaching Thai rather than making the most amount of money in the shortest time possible". What would be the Criteria?
Knowledge has changed - I cannot accept the premise that there cannot be new more effective methods.
It's a great question, Parvis, but one i'm not qualified to answer, as I have not done the necessary research.
I would say, sort of like a stuck-in-the-grove record because this is just repeating my earlier opinion but from a different angle, that I don't really accept your premises.
i. I don't see that the specific challenges of learning Thai (let's say, for the sake of example, the fact its a 'tonal language') change the basic approach to how adults acquire a second-language.
ii. I don't think the requirements of learning a language change in response to time or technology (the principles are the same whether you are in the age of Marco Polo or Luke Skywalker). I'll explain why below.
'Knowledge has changed' - I'm not sure what you mean by this - technology has changed, and can deliver information to us in new ways? Would that about capture it?
If so, yes; I agree, but all technology can do is give you different ways to practice, repeat, correct and advance in a language (e.g., you can practice writing by chatting on MSN or in chatrooms instead of writing letters with an ink pen; that has the potential to speed up the process of learning, but it doesn't change the essential method of what you need to do - which is to write frequently in meaningful correspondence).
It's our brains that are the same, and the social interactions in which we use language and the purposes we use it for are different only in form not in substance from now than in the past.
Yes, all schools are businesses, and even state-run ones have other things than imparting knowledge on their priorities list.
How would someone ideally teach a language? Intensively and with complete immersion. The learner should be removed from any environment where their native language could be utilised, and these days, and especially in Thailand, that's almost impossible; it would mean being incarcerated in a totally artificial environment or perhaps a stint in a Thai jail with only a Thai language teacher for a warden 
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-14 18:33:48.
Posted 2009-11-14 18:55:10
"Comprehension always precedes production: so you can expect (and should focus on) listening and reading skills to develop faster than speaking and writing skills"
I've heard this before, but I'm the opposite. When I learn a new word the lag between wanting to say it and being able to is far shorter than the time it takes for me to understand it after hearing it. I guess I just need more listening practice.
"the principles are the same whether you are in the age of Marco Polo or Luke Skywalker"
But both of these ages are in the past ?!?! 
Posted 2009-11-14 19:06:07
kikenyoy, on 2009-11-14 18:55:10, said: "Comprehension always precedes production: so you can expect (and should focus on) listening and reading skills to develop faster than speaking and writing skills"
I've heard this before, but I'm the opposite. When I learn a new word the lag between wanting to say it and being able to is far shorter than the time it takes for me to understand it after hearing it. I guess I just need more listening practice.
"the principles are the same whether you are in the age of Marco Polo or Luke Skywalker"
But both of these ages are in the past ?!?!
What I meant by 'comprehension precedes production' is that when you're exposed to native speaker input over a long period of time you can understand more of what they say than you can actually produce yourself. There are a variety of reasons for this, some being non-linguistic cues such as behaviour or environmental context, others being linguistic ones like filling in the grammatical place holders between words you know with the most likely ideas that make sense, so-called 'interpretive hypotheses').
Likewise, with reading and writing. I can often understand the meaning of a text in Thai when I read it, but if someone had asked me to write down that meaning in Thai before I read the text (and often, even after it!) I wouldn't have been able to do it.
On a word for word basis I agree with you. Some words that I use in speech I don't recognize when I hear them from others. That's usually because of either speed of delivery, or the natural sound of it from that speaker doesn't match the sound of it when I learned it.
ps. I thought Star Wars was still something we had to look forward to??! And universal translators perhaps.
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-14 19:09:07.
Posted 2009-11-14 19:37:15
"What I meant by 'comprehension precedes production' is that when you're exposed to native speaker input over a long period of time you can understand more of what they say than you can actually produce yourself."
I agree with this since it's obviously true with my native language. There are thousands of words which I almost never use that I would struggle to say in conversation but can understand immediately upon hearing or reading them. I guess the question is, "what constitutes a long period of time?' Currently my overall listening skills are far lower than my speaking or reading. I expect these will converge as I improve.
"ps. I thought Star Wars was still something we had to look forward to??! And universal translators perhaps"
It is, in our galaxy. But the age of Luke Skywalker was "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." 
Posted 2009-11-14 21:47:48
"'Knowledge has changed' - I'm not sure what you mean by this - technology has changed, and can deliver information to us in new ways? Would that about capture it?"
Softwater - I agree and I disagree - depending on what perspective I choose to take.
There may be little difference between Marco Polo's time and Luke Skywalker (...a long, long time ago in a Galaxy far far away...).
However - knowledge has changed in the respect that we know more about ourselves - more about our brain patterns, more about accessing our brain patterns more efficiently, more about limitations of our brain - etc. etc. etc. in addition to having Technology available to train/teach more effectively.
Walens secret method of "Repetition, repetition, repetition" may just have merit. His execution - along with his attitude - or perhaps especially his attitude - may deserve an "F" for fail.
Posted 2009-11-15 09:36:05
Parvis, on 2009-11-14 21:47:48, said: Softwater - I agree and I disagree - depending on what perspective I choose to take.
There may be little difference between Marco Polo's time and Luke Skywalker (...a long, long time ago in a Galaxy far far away...).
However - knowledge has changed in the respect that we know more about ourselves - more about our brain patterns, more about accessing our brain patterns more efficiently, more about limitations of our brain - etc. etc. etc. in addition to having Technology available to train/teach more effectively.
Walens secret method of "Repetition, repetition, repetition" may just have merit. His execution - along with his attitude - or perhaps especially his attitude - may deserve an "F" for fail.
It is worth remembering that language-acquisition is not just a 'knowledge skill' – knowing what words means and how to put them together sensibly – it is also
a motor skill – training the muscles in your mouth and tongue to go into different positions to make unfamiliar sounds; and
a social skill – learning when and which utterances are appropriate and when not.
When you can use a second language without conscious monitoring (x in Thai means x1 in my language, therefore I have to say that word now and like this...), you have internalized it. That's fluency.
Repetition – no secret, by the way – is certainly key, but it is not all.
A good analogy is learning to drive a car. In the UK, you will spend about 40 hours with a driving instructor before taking the driving test. In that time you will learn motor skills – how to control the car with your hands and feet, "social skills" – when certain 'driving behaviour' is appropriate and when not, signaling for example, according to the laws and conventions of the UK; and 'knowledge skills' – what road signs mean, what certain visual clues tell you about the traffic in front and behind you are doing, and so on.
You can't learn to drive by just focusing on repetition, or just practice, or just correction, or even just passing the test (you usually get taught things that are not in the test, at least in the UK!).
Someone once said that learning a second-language is the most complex skill an adult human being can choose to undertake (piloting a space shuttle is a breeze in comparison and can be learned a lot faster!), and I tend to agree. Therefore, I think limiting yourself to one method or one kind of input – while it may give quick results in the beginning – will ultimately prove unsatisfactory.
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-15 09:37:00.
Posted 2009-11-15 12:03:16
Sure, repetition is key, but surely there's a place for context and variety?
Our brains are essentially pattern-seeking mechanisms, so I would guess that repetitive rote learning is the feeblest method of implanting solid learning. We have to be interested (even if not truly motivated) for the most natural learning processes to kick in.
I think I would have had enormous trouble remembering the months of the year in Thai if someone hadn't pointed out that a) the words have a particular ending based on the number of days in the month and b ) the words are linked to the familiar zodiac. Thus 'สิงหาคม' is not just a word, it has a pattern in my brain of Leo the lion (สิงห์) and the '31-day ending' (คม).
Are there any Thai schools which attempt this kind of explanatory approach, or is it seen as inefficient?
Edited by RickBradford, 2009-11-15 12:04:29.
Posted 2009-11-15 12:34:36
RickBradford, on 2009-11-15 12:03:16, said: Sure, repetition is key, but surely there's a place for context and variety?
We have to be interested (even if not truly motivated) for the most natural learning processes to kick in.
That's exactly what I've been saying Rick - every study I've ever read in second language acquisition agrees that student motivation and attitude is THE most important factor in success. And indeed, that makes sense, because the only ultimate reason students fail to learn a language is because they stop studying and practicing it. That's normally because they become demotivated about success and is one of the reasons why schools should (and do) have regular achievement tests - as I've said before, rather like the colored belt system used in karate - the whole point of it is motivational. Students also need to be reminded that failures are inevitable and natural, and teacher's need to encourage students to build on them rather than become despondent.
To your other points - mnemonics and explanations are not normally an approach of schools per se, but rather techniques employed by teachers in class around certain learning points as and where necessary and appropriate. All good teachers use these techniques, so long as they are teaching in a school that allows them the freedom to tailor their lessons to suit students needs and questions.
(As an example of why its student/teacher specific rather than methodologically desirable, I personally could never learn the months in Thai, even after I knew the คม/ยน rule - that didn't help because i'm not that good at remembering in English which months have how many days, in fact, i'd say the thai months now help me to remember that better! - I finally cracked the months in Thai when I started using Anki. Fast, spaced repetition; in a couple of days I had it cracked. That was a few months ago, and I can still remember them, including how to spell them, perfectly.)
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-15 12:42:26.
Posted 2009-11-15 13:02:40
We are beginning to agree more and more. Motivation and attitude are the most important factors in learning a language (etc.), - well - for that matter - the most important factors in everything in your life. Therefore an individual (Walen) telling you - you are just getting too old and therefore your ability to learn is limited - is just totally "off his rockers".
I also agree there are patterns in learning. An individual able to speak 6-8 languages does not have to "relearn" every time. This individual has "mastered his brain software program" and can use it for different applications (languages).
Repetition - repetition - repetition is just one part of the learning process. However I feel (as a scientist) this "learning process" can be defined into specific segments and therefore can be optimized.
Posted 2009-11-15 13:15:57
Parvis, on 2009-11-15 13:02:40, said: An individual able to speak 6-8 languages does not have to "relearn" every time. This individual has "mastered his brain software program" and can use it for different applications (languages).
Repetition - repetition - repetition is just one part of the learning process. However I feel (as a scientist) this "learning process" can be defined into specific segments and therefore can be optimized.
Yes, I have seen research evidence that supports the view that students in bilingual schools are more successful at academic English than students in monolingual English schools, suggesting that learning one language can help you to learn another.
As for the naturalistic approach to optimizing language learning, I'm sceptical simply because the variables are so great. However, you could be right, but I think you may have to be the one to pioneer the study, Parvis!
Edited by SoftWater, 2009-11-15 13:18:05.
Posted 2009-12-10 05:38:29
tod-daniels, on 2009-07-22 04:56:34, said: While I know nothing of the AUA branch in Chiang Mai, I can attest to the fact that the AUA school in Bangkok is initially a listening ONLY type of school.
It uses the "ALG" aka "Automatic Language Growth" method when learning thai. While I did research into the methodology, I was less than impressed. The innovators of the ALG system allege that after 600 hours of listening to two thai people interact on a stage using a variety of props, you will magically be able to converse in thai to thais. This is done with ZERO student interaction, no question/answers in class and not actually speaking ANY thai at all in the classroom. A dubious claim at best, but with that being said, I did meet several people who had attended 300+ hours and could speak some sort of semi-intelligible thai. Although upon further questioning; they were also learning thai with other resources.
To their credit the teachers or "actors" at AUA are innovative, interesting, theatrical and being thai nationals, speak clear thai. They tend to speak at normal speed and cadence so it's hard to hear the word breaks if you're not used to listening to thais speak. On the up side, if you buy blocks of hours, it's by far the most inexpensive thai language school to attend. The classes are offered many, many hours a day, and you can go at your convenience.
If I am not mistaken, AUA is one of the hardest schools to get an education visa from. Last time I was there they said you must attend class 30 hours a week to qualify for them to help you get your visa. Most private thai language schools stick to the Ministry of Education's minimum of 4 hours a week spread over a year to get a visa.
AUA does have a reading and writing course, but you must test into if you don't attend their whacky "learn to speak by listening only" class before hand. I spoke to the lady who oversees enrollment and it appears the test is such that even a marginal reader of thai, and/or a very basic speaker could probably get into the class if they pushed it, and were motivated to learn once they got in.
The good news is AUA sells all the old text books that they used (before they converted to the ALG method) to teach speaking, reading and writing thai at the bookstore. I couldn't get the cassettes that go with the speaking thai books (that shows you how old the material and method is) as they are all out of stock. Maybe bit-torrent has them I dunno.
...
As a former AUA student for whom the experience was wildly boring, there are a few mistaken impressions I should clear up.
While, as I said, I couldn't tolerate the endless hours of listening to stories, it is NOT true that there is no student interaction. While "Please don't speak Thai" is the stated theoretical optimum (per Marvin Brown, and, especially, David Long, the director of the school), in practice, students are encouraged to indicate their understanding (or not) of the subject being presented. Some of the more pragmatic (and less dogmatic) teachers even encourage answers in simple Thai. And I really believe that the method works for absolute beginners MUCH better than for folks with a smattering of conversational ability. Dictionaries are discouraged, in favor of 'sussing out' the meaning of the overall subject. As you learn, cross correlation begins to single out common words, and substitution becomes possible, so understanding of similarly constructed sentences dawns, albeit slowly.
My personal problem is that I already spoke too much Thai (although not necessarily well), and was placed in Level 3 when I first enrolled. I found it frustrating, because the match was spotty: On some topics, I was bored; on others I was in over my head. Also, I wanted to learn to read as soon as possible, which was going to be several hundred hours hence at AUA, even though I already knew the alphabet (no reading until Level 5).
As for what is the best school, of course, as tod-daniels points out, it depends on how you learn, and what your goals are. I learned to hear and reproduce tones fairly early, because I had a teacher who understood the problems farangs have with them. That occurred at a Wat Thai in the US, and was the true watershed in my Thai education, and I have continued at my normal (not-so-fast) pace ever since. The Union-type language schools were not the best fit for me, either. In the end, I probably took a lot longer with the eclectic approach to get to my current skill set. I get by.
I have friends who swear by AUA, and I have friends who teach there, as well. I try to be unbiased, and I realize that AUA is a radical departure from the usual Second Language methods. I would neither praise, nor condemn it on that basis alone...
Find what works for you.
Sateev
Posted 2009-12-10 09:08:23
Sateev, on 2009-12-09 14:38:29, said: As a former AUA student for whom the experience was wildly boring, there are a few mistaken impressions I should clear up.
While, as I said, I couldn't tolerate the endless hours of listening to stories, it is NOT true that there is no student interaction. While "Please don't speak Thai" is the stated theoretical optimum (per Marvin Brown, and, especially, David Long, the director of the school), in practice, students are encouraged to indicate their understanding (or not) of the subject being presented. Some of the more pragmatic (and less dogmatic) teachers even encourage answers in simple Thai. And I really believe that the method works for absolute beginners MUCH better than for folks with a smattering of conversational ability. Dictionaries are discouraged, in favor of 'sussing out' the meaning of the overall subject. As you learn, cross correlation begins to single out common words, and substitution becomes possible, so understanding of similarly constructed sentences dawns, albeit slowly.
My personal problem is that I already spoke too much Thai (although not necessarily well), and was placed in Level 3 when I first enrolled. I found it frustrating, because the match was spotty: On some topics, I was bored; on others I was in over my head. Also, I wanted to learn to read as soon as possible, which was going to be several hundred hours hence at AUA, even though I already knew the alphabet (no reading until Level 5).
As for what is the best school, of course, as tod-daniels points out, it depends on how you learn, and what your goals are. I learned to hear and reproduce tones fairly early, because I had a teacher who understood the problems farangs have with them. That occurred at a Wat Thai in the US, and was the true watershed in my Thai education, and I have continued at my normal (not-so-fast) pace ever since. The Union-type language schools were not the best fit for me, either. In the end, I probably took a lot longer with the eclectic approach to get to my current skill set. I get by.
I have friends who swear by AUA, and I have friends who teach there, as well. I try to be unbiased, and I realize that AUA is a radical departure from the usual Second Language methods. I would neither praise, nor condemn it on that basis alone...
Find what works for you.
Sateev
Sateev's impression of AUA is very much like mine. I have attended AUA in Bangkok on and off for several years. It is true that speaking Thai in (or out of) class is discouraged but this rule is by no means rigidly adhered to. As Sateev said, many instructors routinely ask questions of the students during the lessons. It is my impression that when they do they are not looking for long detailed conversations but simple answers to judge how much the student understands the topic on which the teacher is speaking, but this is just my guess. He or she may also just be curious about a student's opinion or just simply trying to keep a dozing student awake. I don't know.
Like Sateev, I started AUA already being able to speak Thai fairly well. I was placed in the AT5 (highest) level when I began. I found the (mostly) listening only method an excellent way to improve my comprehension of rapidly spoken idiomatic speech with which I often have problems. Yes, there are times when it is coming so fast that I lose track but usually I can at least grasp the general concepts that are being discussed. On the other hand, depending on the subject matter, there are times when I can understand everything being said. Regardless, the more I attended the more I absorb. Like most other methods it builds upon itself.
What it doesn't have however is repetition and drills. If your learning style is such that repetition and practice are important to you then AUA alone will probably not be enough. There is no reason however why you can't augment the AUA comprehension lessons with other more traditional learning techniques. There is nothing keeping you from learning reading and writing at another school or on your own while also attending AUA for comprehension. One of the best things about AUA is that you can come and go as you like. You can attend lectures/discussions in the morning one day or in the afternoon or evening on other days and even skip days, weeks or even months between classes if you wish. (Doing this will disqualify you from an Ed Visa however.) Because David Long encourages you not to speak Thai out of class there is, of course no reason why you can't still do it if you so want. I do it all the time. I also review my old FSI and "pre-ALG" AUA materials all the time too especially when I am not in Thailand. (I only spend about half the year here.) I also have some of the newer computer based materials like Courage Thai and Rosetta Stone that I sometimes peruse over as well. Together they have all have served me well.
Newbie
-
-
Members
-
-
3 posts
Posted 2010-01-08 18:42:11
I'm Japanese live around sukhumvit.
I had taken thai lesson at
Thai Language Station about 10 month.
I am not sure for forigner but this school most famous school in japan.because they have thai school in tokyo
osaka in japan.and they run it long time.
i think their method get many students.
use phonetic alphabet at first.and after middle level
thier textbook use thai letters.
Now i work with thai language.
if i didnot learn thai language with thai lanugage station,
i might not use thai language like now.I can have many thai friend from here. 
i do not know another person , but i thank thai language station
and their teachers.
|
Sponsored by:
|
0
This topic is locked
