BBC article

[Flickserve]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160811-the-amazing-benefits-of-being-bilingual

Most of the article is preaching to the converted here. In the article, it implies one can concentrate too hard in learning a language.

So, are 90 day challenges suboptimal learning strategies?

[Silent]

Not really sure or the 'concentrate too hard' remark applies to natural languages and in real learning. The remark is made in a context of an artificial language with the explanation that the time given for the test is too short to figure it out. My interpretation on that is that random answers are best and that concentrating too much just results in pattern recognition of made up patterns. Something we humans are really good at. 

 

Though learning a second language is certainly beneficial, I think many of the benefits mentioned in the article have little to do with language learning and are mainly the result of other factors such as intelligence, education level and keeping mentally active. I suspect that the identified benefits and being multiligual have no cause and effect relationship but that both arise from common root causes. 

 

And yes, 90day challenges are sub optimal, though it also depends on how they are set up, in what context they are done and how you measure the results. I think however that it's an unrelated discussion. 

[Shelley]

I think the most important thing this article has to say is how it is beneficial to keeping the brain active and working well.

 

The point of 90 day challenges I think is to bump start the learning process or to try and get past a learning plateau.

 

What I disagree with when it comes to 90 day challenges is the expected levels that will be reached, much too unrealistic in my opinion and only serve to discourage the student. If it is taken just as means of a implementing a short, sharp learning period then it may have merits.

 

I grew up in Montreal, French was required by the education system and by the need to communicate. I had French and English friends, we all played baseball and hockey together. You automatically shouted in the appropriate language "catch it/attrape ca" for the needs of that person.

 

It was second nature to switch from one to the other as needed, you would never know which one the person behind the counter in the shop would speak, so you would pick one and if it is wrong you switch. There was for some reason a very defiant attitude from French speakers that we had to speak French but they wouldn't speak English. I think it has changed now as it seems to have become a very bilingual place.

 

One of the reasons I am learning chinese is to keep my brain busy, I really believe an active mind is a healthy mind. I have seen too many people be healthy, happy, and sane retire from their job/career and just go downhill at an alarming rate. I have other friends who have kept busy or not retired and are thriving.

 

It may be trite, but I think it's quite true - Use it or Lose it.

[Angelina]

ah, the myth of monolingualism...

[querido]

What Silent said, and also...

 

I think the lesson (from this article) is that one can employ a wrong (or suboptimal) part of the brain for the job. I do recognize that but it can be a habit almost impossible to stop. And, it can be hard to *prove* that it's suboptimal because in time (and for some people this time can be very short), the knowlege they gather by whatever means does end up in the right place. This is seen when someone sets out to first memorize a dictionary (e.g. HSK flashcard sets), or a grammar book. If they have talent they'll end up ok if they persevere; if they are very talented they will seem to prove by example that there was nothing wrong with their approach. And for them maybe there was nothing wrong because they have, let's say (in the context of this article), a strong channel between the wrong place and the right one in the brain.

 

Learning to ride a bicycle requires a letting-go of conscious analysis, but *some part* of the brain must be working hard, and listening to audio in the new language also demands this letting-go. One obvious reason is that there is no time for such analysis, but the less obvious reason (according to this article) is that the more powerful processes are subconscious. I do believe that. Easier said that done to apply it.

 

"One of the reasons I am learning chinese is to keep my brain busy... Use it or Lose it."

Yes, Shelley.

[Silent]

 

 

And, it can be hard to *prove* that it's suboptimal because in time (and for some people this time can be very short), the knowlege they gather by whatever means does end up in the right place.

You might prove it's on average suboptimal in a controlled setting with two groups that apply different study methods. However the individual variety is large so on an individual level it's virtually impossible to prove. As motivation and talent hugely impact individual results. A cognitive inefficient study method may influence motivation making it a very powerfull study method for some individuals and an extremely poor one for others.  

 

 

 

 

One obvious reason is that there is no time for such analysis, but the less obvious reason (according to this article) is that the more powerful processes are subconscious.

Completly agree. Subconscious processes can be extremely powerfull. They certainly should help in uncovering patterns.

[querido]

Although it digresses into the usual methodology stuff I've written before, this post is on topic because it follows from the ideas in the article. So, I think that if one were to take this article seriously, then...

 

"Searching for a word in one language - while suppressing the corresponding word in another - gently taxes the brain, helping to train our concentration"

 

...that is an argument for L2-only flashcards: If the front has only L2 (like a sentence or more with a fill-in-the-blank), then this "searching" must be for hints in the given L2. And if the L2-only answer (probably with Romanization) says I'm right, then there's no need for L1 on the back either (It can be in a field not shown - click edit to view the field and then fail the card. I do this almost never.). That's what I do and my flashcarding time is all L2. That's good, but in the context of this article, what would be the criticism? I think it would be that, ideally, those cards should be L2 *audio* only and would be auto-flipping after a short delay (which can be done with a plugin I think) (with maybe L2 text and Romanization on the back to check yourself). 

 

So, to sidestep that annoying distraction from language learning, I have suggested rejecting Minimum Information Principle guided flashcarding and just using the flashcard program as a scheduler for much larger pieces of audio, whole paragraphs at the very least. The front can be L2 audio only and everything else about that lesson or book could be in fields that aren't shown (in Anki, just click edit to view them if needed and then fail the card). Lastly, the flashcard program itself could be rejected, but it still seems useful to me.

 

I have audio files (in my current L2), up to thirty minutes or more in length, of which I definitely know every word. Does it "gently tax the brain" to let that audio fly by and try to grasp everything? Yes. It sort of leaves nowhere to hide and I embarrass myself. It's tough to make myself do it, but I believe this is real language and real language learning. This is unlike MIP conventional flashcarding, which seems to be done by a different part of the brain. Since we were on that subject, I wanted to say that again.

[querido]

Ok, this is still on topic, barely, and I'll quit after this.

 

The distance from [learning the names of the parts of a bicycle and learning its physics from a textbook] to [riding a bicycle] is so great that we can say the effort spent on the former is very nearly 100% wasted. It looks "beside the point".

 

In my experience, the distance from [building a dictionary in my brain via Minimum Information Principle conventional flashcarding] to [conversing] is so great, for me personally, that I would say that the effort spent on the former was (hmm, pick a number) 95% wasted: If my goal had been conversation (listening and speaking) from the beginning, I should have attacked that more directly, and that dictionary would have been built *from the other direction*. I suspect that it would have been more accessible, and automatically, almost instantaneously accessible, then, as it must be.

 

By the way, in my experience reading aloud - even quite convincingly - is also still almost uselessly far from conversation; the study materials should have been audio all along.

 

The end. :-)