The Linguist On Language

Education is very expensive. In the US it costs about $9,000 per child in the K-12 sector and $25,000 per student in the post-secondary sector. The reason is that most people who work in the education sector are mercenaries and not volunteers. They quite natural y like to get paid for their work. They sometimes even try to prevent volunteers from teaching in schools, and vote against e-learning to protect their jobs, at least here in Vancouver.

I do not understand why David thinks the fact that he was a teacher is somehow an indication that he has "done his bit" to help others. We can argue that some jobs are more useful than others, but most jobs provide a service that is valued enough by others to justify a wage. Al jobs are altruistic in that sense. Most people do feel a sense of satisfaction from doing their job, but they also expect to get paid, usual y more than they are getting. So, unless he was a volunteer, David was just doing his job.

Education is not, therefore, free. It can, however, become much less expensive, and much more general y available. There are tremendous resources available at low cost or free of charge. There are all kinds of people who are happy to volunteer their knowledge and skill s.

Learners need to be shown what they can do on their own, rather than waiting for a teacher to teach them. Volunteers and resources need to be mobilized to be more readily available to learners. The Internet can be an agent for a revolution in education, making it more generally available at a lower cost, although not necessarily free. That is the role that I see for LingQ.

Education will always require professionals, and others who for profit and for personal gain, although not only for those reason, will devote themselves to helping others learn, while earning a living themselves. So education cannot be total y free.

We would not expect to get milk from the farmer free of charge, nor shoes from the shoemaker. Why would education be different? But we can make it less expensive.

LingQ in the classroom: Feedback Part 3 - Putting the learner in charge

Dr. Pepper has a number of objections to my proposed LingQ based language class proposal. I believe the good doctor's views are important because they faithful y reflect orthodox language teaching pedagogy.,

It is worthwhile going through her main points because they are so representative of an approach that I believe is not efficient or effective and not fun for the learner. It is, however, satisfying for the teacher because it puts the teacher in charge. I prefer to see the learner in charge, hence LingQ.

1) "Listening to audio in class is a waste of time unless you are gauging comprehension."

 To me, if I am listening or reading in a new language, I do not want to report to a teacher on my comprehension. It will gradual y get better, at my pace.

2) Listening is best ―in a study group where each student can help each other out with comprehension difficulties"

 I do not agree. I just want to listen, and listen again if I want, or go on to other things if I want. I do not want to discuss my listening, neither in the target language, nor in a common language, with other learners.

3) Listening - ―It’s all gibberish unless you have some base knowledge"

 Yes, that is why you need to read the content you are listening to, and look up words using LingQ. If you are starting from scratch you can listen to a short episode and read the text in your own language, while listening. We offer this for beginners at LingQ. Then you can listen in the target language while reading along. Eventual y you can listen without reading.

4) "What makes unknown content comprehensive are things like body language, promemics, miming and so on"

 These things can help but cannot always be provided in a classroom. So sound and text are pretty effective. A lot of content has nothing to do with body language etc.

5) "Reading in LinqQ seems to be essential y a grammar-translation method"

 No. It is reading, and saving words for review, and listening to the same content for reinforcement without worrying about whether you can translate the text or not. No translation, no comprehension tests.

6) "It seems like a bit of a waste of class time to do new reading in class for the first time"

 No. Reading in class is a great use of the class time, and the teacher is available to answer questions. Usual y the learner will have listened first, and if the text is too difficult, will have read it in their own language first. One lesson that all learners have to learn is that many things remain unclear for a long time. if they cannot accept they will have difficulty. The teacher hopeful y can explain this basic concept to the learners.

7) The classroom time should be ―to do work in class to get the passage translated and share it with classmates"

 No. No translation and no sharing for reasons already explained.