Education, Learning Processes

When I first began to learn the French language, I set out a very scientifically-designed plan of action. I wanted to break it up into pieces which I could tackle independently. I chose to learn the elements of reading first. That would help with everything else I wanted.

The reading skill involves vocabulary, grammar, translation to my native language, sentence structures, and comprehension. This led to a further breaking down of vocabulary to groups of words related to Maslow's Pyramid.

 

It said, basically, which words are most important to know and common to use. Fortunately, there are word lists which provide the words we need.

 

I found quickly enough that the French use both avoir (to have) and être (to be) as helping verbs, so that the pure needs list had to be adjusted a bit. When I studied grammar, there were similarities to and differences from English. When I studied sentence structures, some other differences appeared. Thus, it became clear that I could learn a lot about French through comparison to something I already know -- English. Punctuation, “false friend” words, colloquial phrases, difference ways of saying something, all that became more apparent.

 

So, the “scientific” method of learning has some advantages. Some years later, I realized that when I began to tackle listening to a French speaker, that there was a problem -- I could hear the words, but at the normal speaking rate, it was very difficult to comprehend. Even worse, when I began trying to speak, I found it very difficult to form sentences quickly enough to sound normal. There were some INVISIBLE tasks to learning the language.

I prefer to exercise an idea, to test its validity or to perfect use of it. I would read French news stories every day, thus encountering and learning words and expressions.

In the early days of this process, I used Duolingo (anything free) and it was helpful. It's hard to say how helpful it was, though. Many people have debated its utility.

 

As I began to read comfortably and tried to listen, I realized the early basic educational process had ended. I recollected when I was a teenager and went through something similar with English. The next step looked disorganized, ragged, unsystematic, yet it was familiar. A child who had never learned his native language fully wouldn't yet have had this experience. As a second-language learner, I had that history to help me.

 

What was the form of this next phase? When I would read a book with new words, I had to look them up. That's tedious, but the only way. When the word wasn't one of the most commonly used, it wasn't certain I would see it very often. When I wanted to learn about the usage of the prepositions "à" and "de", I had an entirely different need for explanations (I used AI for that). When I needed to know a peculiar phrase, I typically learned it was a colloquial thing, au courant. These small points were random, yet extended my basic knowledge of words, grammar, expressions, and so on. For this phase of learning, the books with language appropriate for a certain level of reader are very useful. Fewer new words means reading more fluidly to practice comprehension and proper pronunciation. It also gives a strong feeling of success to read more normally.

 

So, the early learning required a grammar book, word lists, dictionaries to translate with English, low-level stories to read, and a translator that speaks. More advanced learning requires higher-level (meaning they use less common words or phrases) stories, and references for grammar, definitions, and so on. For this phase, I have found AI to be very useful. At first, the apps didn't have translation to audio, but that was produced later, along with the facility to draw pictures. I can also practice writing by having conversations with AI. A student in a classroom typically doesn't do that in an unlimited way with their teacher. Other students need teacher time too.

 

A great advantage of having a practice partner is that language is used that way. We can say or write anything and an AI partner will offer corrections, as well as continue the main points of the conversation. If I discuss basketball with AI, it can continue that discussion while also showing the correct way to do something I had done wrong. If I misspell a word or conjugate a verb incorrectly or anything else related to the language, an AI will typically use that thing again, but showing proper usage. If we truly copy what we see, that's where we would gain the most. If we copy what we hear, then listening is crucial, so that we can copy it.

How is it done? Once you have this basic grasp of the language (e.g. words, grammar, common phrases, differences from your native language), then listening to a book or news articles or podcast gives us time to hear, recognize the level of formality being used, comprehend, and then copy. Sources which we can use are valuable when they're slowed down to your preferred rate. If done well, that rate will increase over time to become more normal and perfect. Conversing in text with AI is entirely at YOUR rate. Audio stories or conversations that can be slowed (news articles or podcasts or books) are great.

The best practice is to the student's capability. Vladimir Horowitz, the great pianist, said it isn't correct that "Practice makes perfect". He said, "Perfect practice makes perfect". That can't be achieved at normal speed from the start. It has to start slowly and increase. French language spoken very slowly loses its integrity or sensibility, but there are still slower rates of speech which are useful.

So, the basics can, and perhaps have to be, taught from books, but we need other sources of materials to demonstrate HOW it's done. Then our natural ability to copy kicks in. AI is a great help in all of this, but there are some other familiar tools too (dictionaries, story books, word lists, etc.).