I would like to make it clear that my questions do not constitute an argument for an approach.  They were presented to find out what others think about how learning works. 

 

(I'M USING CAPITALS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT SCOTT AND I SAY).

 

HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT SCOTT MAKES REPETITIONS A CORNER STONE OF HIS QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY IMPLIES A POSITION HE HAS ADOPTED ON THE NATURE OF LEARNING

 

a) Since these are general questions, they do not address a specific activity, but should be true for all (or a set of all) learning environments.  "Level, subject, purpose, etc. " are irrelevant if we are looking at basic principles of how learning occurs. 

 

UPON WHAT BASIS IS THIS ASSUMPTION MADE?  THE FACT THAT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE PROVEN UNABLE TO LEARN LANGUAGES KNOCKS THIS ASSUMPTION ON THE HEAD.

 

b) I do not know that there are real differences between grammatical concepts and regular concepts regarding how they are learned, though I would not be surprised by evidence suggesting that they are learned differently, and I would be glad to become more acquainted with research addressing this.

 

WELL AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IS THAT CREATED BY L2s HAVING A GRAMMATICAL CONCEPT NOT PRESENT IN THEIR L1.   PERFECTIVITY IN ENGLISH WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE.  HOWEVER, LIKE SCOTT, I KNOW OF NO RELEVANT RESEARCH.

 

c)  The point of disregarding explanations was not to treat them as irrelevant, but rather to focus on the point about needing examples and non-examples to learn concepts (either regular, grammatical, or other) whether we have a rule or explanation given before the examples, after the examples, after some then before others, or never.  

 

THIS EMPHASISES A PROBLEM WITH SCOTT'S WHOLE LINE OF QUESTIONS.  IT CRIES OUT FOR EXAMPLES AND PRECISION AS TO WHAT IS MEANT BY REPETITION.  I'VE ALREADY ASKED SCOTT TO PROVIDE SUCH PRECISION BUT HE APPEARS TO CONSIDER IT IRRELEVANT.

 

d) Regarding repetition, I am not claiming in my question that one kind of repetition is better, though I do believe that some types are more efficient and effective than others, but rather making the claim that, in general, without repetition we generally forget more quickly than without repetition.  Of course, there are likely some activities which look like repetition, yet which do not increase retention.   I am not making a claim that repetition alone will, in all cases, reduce or eliminate forgetting, but that without repetition forgetting will generally occur more quickly than with repetition. 

 

I FIND THIS TO BE LARGELY MEANINGLESS UNLESS SCOTT EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS BY REPETITION.  IT WOULD HELP WERE SCOTT TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SOME CONCEPT OR OTHER AND  DESCRIBE HOW HE THINKS REPETITION MAY BE PRESENTED.  THE FACT THAT SO FAR HE HAS OFFERED NOTHING IN THE WAY OF CONCRETE EXAMPLES TO HELP MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS GETTING AT POSSIBLY EXPLAINS WHY NOBODY HAS RESPONDED SUBSTANTIVELY TO HIS QUESTIONS.

 

AN EXAMPLE I GAVE RECENTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW SIMPLISTIC IT IS TO GIVE THE IMPORTANCE SCOTT GIVES TO UNSPECIFIED REPETITION..

 

IN DESCRIBING HERB'S EPIGRAM I USED THE WORD 'LACONIC'.  NOW, THIS IS A WORD THAT I HAVE HEARD USED MANY TIMES OVER THE MANY YEARS OF MY ADULT LIFE.   YET, I DISCOVERED ONLY LAST YEAR THAT I HAD IN FACT ACQUIRED THE WRONG MEANING.  I HAD ALWAYS ASSUMED IT MEANT  'CASUAL, RELAXED'  AS PERSONIFIED BY THE COWBOY STYLES OF THE LIKES OF HENRY FONDA AND JOHN WAYNE.

 

HOWEVER, I DISCOVERED LAST YEAR THAT THE WORD ACTUALLY MEANS 'TERSE', 'ABRUPT' BASED ON THE STYLE OF SPEAKING OF THE LAKON SPARTAN TRIBE.

 

NOW, HAVING LEARNED THIS CORRECT MEANING, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, I HAVE ASKED A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHAT THEY THOUGHT 'LACONIC' MEANT AND INVARIABLY THEY HAD THE SAME FALSE IMPRESSION I HAD.  I, THEREFORE, WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT SOME MEMBERS HAD THE SAME IMPRESSION.

 

ALL THIS IN MY VIEW ILLUSTRATES THAT THE QUALITY AND CONTEXT OF THE REPETITION IS A CRUCIAL FACTOR.  SCOTT APPEARS TO DISAGREE WITH THIS.

 

Ron Sheen

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/