tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 05 21:52:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Repetition
- From: [email protected] (MR PAUL J COFFEY)
- Subject: Repetition
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 00:50:16 EST
According to Matt Gomes:
>Being an instructional designer, I'd disagree with you that repetitive
>drilling is any kind of instruction. What does that teach you? And how
>effective is it?
It never ceases to amaze me that people recognize the need for
repetitive practice of people like Jascha Heifetz, Placido Domingo, Beverly
Sills, Mickey Mantle, Lee Trevino, in fact all the musicians and sports
figures in the history of the world, not to mention your plumber, carpenter
and the local handiman, but do not see the need in the field of language
learning. One might understand the attitude, perhaps, if you think of
repetition as mindlessly repeating phrases, although even that can have its
salubrious effect. Repetition in language training should be, as with
Pavarotti singing scales and Babe Ruth in front of the batting machine,
accompanied by monitoring. You do not merely repeat, you listen to
yourself and observe what you did wrong and do it better the next time.
You compare yourself with your model, a native speaker if you can get one,
(or Okrand's explanations in KLD, whatever you have) and you try to imitate
that model's intonation, grammar, syntax and diction. You observe what you
did right and reinforce yourself with congratulations and strive to repeat
your success. Think of all the skills you have acquired in your life and
how many of them were acquired by dint of doing them over and over again
until you had mastered them. Not for nothing do you hear coaches tell
their teams "We'll run that play until we get it right!"
>There are a number of studies out there that show a highly effective way
>to learn is through EXPERIENCE. Sit someone in a Klingon bar and they'll
>start to LEARN. Or, on Earth, sit with some of the fluent people and
>just have a conversation (or listen in). This is ACTIVE learning (as
>opposed to your repetitive drilling which is more passive).
I fully agree on the experience angle. I invented, lo these many
years gone by, the immersion theory of language learning. Others invented
it independently. They published and I didn't {sigh}. I used it when I
went to Mexico. Within the year I was fluent enough and had acceptable
enough pronunciation, intonation etc. to be able to deceive Mexicans, on
the telephone, as to my nationality. Person to person it's impossible, of
course, the forehead gives me away. {{;-] What charghwI' said about the
qep'a', listening to the more fluent and conversing with them, is one of
the very best ways to go. The swimming pool, I mean the linguistic
activity described {G}, was great practice, judging from his description.
But repetitive drill passive? Not on your hope of sailing in the
Black Fleet! Repetition is an active learning/acquiring process. You are,
or should be, while repeating phrases, sentences or single words in a
target language, constantly monitoring and correcting your own speech (or
writing for that matter). You are actively involved in improving your
skills. When you learned your native language, whatever that might be, you
went through just such procedures, aided by the reactions of people around
you, including overt attempts to correct you. In language courses
repetition is usually built in, to a greater extent in the beginning
lessons and to a lesser extent as the student begins to master certain
facets of the target language. Even in the Postal Course, where you are
operating by long distance with your teacher, the individual can use
repetition, devising his own drills, making his own practices, and I most
heartily recommend it. The more you use the target language, and that
includes the repetition of words and phrases you have said (or written)
many times before, the greater your fluency will become, providing you
monitor with some diligence.
Qapla'
qeSmIv HarghwI'