Thank you for all the feedback. I will comment here in a separate entry. There is a lot to say, so I will divide my comments into two blog posts, at least. Here goes.
First of all let me be clear. These are ideas. There may be levels or age groups for which this approach is better or not so suitable. That remains to be tested. In fact the whole concept needs to be tested out in real life. I hope some teachers give it a try
With regard to some of the issues raised:
1) Is reading and listening on an MP3 player a good use of classroom time? (raised in several comments)
a) I feel that many of the interpersonal, team learning, role playing, reading out loud, etc.
activities that are designed to use classroom time, are not all that efficient when it comes to acquiring the language. I do not want to hear 20 other learners reading or speaking and butchering the language. I prefer to read and listen to the language as spoken or written by a native speaker. That is my model. That is what I want to acquire. Language learning, especial y at first, is an individual voyage of discovery. The other learners are a distraction. Even the teacher can be a distraction if I get too much of him or her.
b) The main goal of the language classroom is not to provide interaction, social or otherwise, although that natural y takes place. The main goal should be, in my view, to inspire the learner, to encourage the learner, and to give him or her some learning habits that can be taken out of the classroom.
c) Many learners will not read or listen on their own. At least they can do so in the classroom.
2) Will kids read and listen on their own without supervision?
a) It is not without supervision. The teacher is speaking with another group, and can occasional y look over at what the class is doing. He/she should not be reading the newspaper, to refer to Friedemann's example.
b) If they choose content of interest, if they know that they will be reading, listening to,
'mining' words and phrases and eventual y talking about, the same content, I think kids will do it. That remains to be seen.
3) What about kids who do not have computers, MP3 players, printers etc?
Obviously the school or other resources have to make these things available, otherwise this approach will not work.
4) How to motivate kids? (Sebastian)
This is the big question. How motivated are they now?
I do think that it is not necessary to have native speaker teachers. LingQ and other resources can provide the listening material, and if online access is available, online native speakers can be made available.
The availability of native speaker teachers should not be an obstacle to language learning at a school.
David objects to using LingQ because it means asking kids to pay out of their pockets, to use his words. In fact, kids seldom pay out of their pockets, but that does not mean that education is free. Usual y parents or tax- payers pay, and they pay a lot.
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.
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'
