We all have our own unique experiences, and our interest in the topic, and a friendly desire to talk about it all - I’d hate any sense of ‘[x] knows more than [y]’ in here, because I think that sort of pattern is very damaging to real academic (and personal) enquiry… [But I do of course see and appreciate enormously your kind and caring intentions… ]
[quote=“netmouse, post:96, topic:8234”]
Well, yes! After the courses, you just said “Read read read!”, which I did - and it basically worked, but it’s not very specific is it?! [/quote]
But ‘read read read!’ isn’t exactly hazy, is it?! Perhaps the underlying issue here is that if there are better ways to go from intermediate to advanced, I don’t know what they are (although I’m looking forward very much indeed to seeing what happens when we can build our bulk listening approach)…
I’d agree that it would be sweeping to say that exposure solves everything - but we’re into the kind of territory here that overlaps hugely with first language ability - how and why some people become more wide-ranging, ‘correct’ users of their first language - and apart from having parents who enjoy talking to their children (which makes an eye-watering difference), I’m not aware of any lines of enquiry there that seem to have ‘this is the solution’ potential to me.
In terms of getting people to conversational confidence, though, bulk exposure is tried and tested - so that has to be what we suggest - along with putting our hands up to admit that we don’t know what the linguistic fix is for someone like your husband!
I think they tend to exclude people who aren’t academically confident, and I think they’re an unnecessary distraction - and that they have the side-effect of nudging people in the direction of feeling that they need to ‘revise’ if they haven’t ‘understood’ it yet.
It was very helpful indeed when you raised these doubts at the point when we were just launching the Levels - it prompted me to look very specifically at the usage patterns I was seeing from people who’d started on the Levels versus the Courses. Of course, we haven’t revisited the conversation since then, but I’ve had far, far more exposure now to people who’ve come through the Levels, and it’s my perception that they are as a rule significantly more conversationally adept.
One of the main reasons that I started work on the Levels was that we had people arriving at Bootcamps having done the whole of Course 1 with problematic gaps in the conversational usage. The Levels have largely cured that. The emotional boost of ‘Oh, look, I can use past, present and future with all these verbs!’ at the start of Course 1 doesn’t actually translate into much actual communication - so it often translates into early and disappointing encounters, which can be a set-back.
I think where we’ve arrived is that you like the spaced repetition element of the SSi Method, but not the rest of it - which is fair enough! - and I’m very glad to have this kind of valuable conversation.
It seems to me, though, that rather than fundamentally changing the methodology, it might be an easier fix for grammar-interested academically confident learners to add a Gareth King grammar book to their learning mix? And I’m not saying that dismissively - I genuinely believe it would be a better solution than trying to build an ‘SSi+grammar’ course (to a certain extent, that’s what Course 3 is, and I think it’s my worst piece of work by quite some distance - probably better for me to play to my strengths than try and become a grammar teacher!).
That’s very interesting - one might have expected them to get slightly worse, since you’re dealing with a wider range each time. Good luck with the next one!
Out of interest - now that you’re approaching it in a much more deliberately experimental way, what sort of impact is that having on your emotions during a session?