> Audio is the most important and hardest component of learning a language so apps have a huge advantage over textbooks any day.
Assuming the apps actually use native speaker audio. Which Duolingo doesn't do.
> I really don't think recommending textbooks is at all relevant these days.
I disagree completely. Textbooks are still, in my opinion and experience, the most efficient way to start learning a language.
> really you have to be pretty far along for grammar to be the main stumbling block (over listening, pronunciation, and vocabulary).
I wouldn't agree you have to be "pretty far along". Grammar becomes a huge stumbling block as soon as you get outside the pleasantries section of learning. Once you start trying to talk about your day and what you'll do and did, then the grammar really starts to matter.
I'm aware of stories, but given that it's only available in a small minority of languages, I'd say it's fair to say DL doesn't offer it when the majority of their languages don't (and likely won't ever) have stories.
> The old is still gold when it comes to language learning.
Absolutely. Maybe I'm just inclined to the grammar-translation model, but I've found the older editions of books like Teach Yourself so much more helpful to me. Couple that with self-created immersion and it goes a lot quicker.
If you could do step one that wasn't based entirely on anime I'd love it. That's always been my biggest hurdle with the Japanese learning community -- almost all recommendations seem to be anime, and I'm just not that interested.
> I had learned Spanish a decade ago and completely forgotten it.
I would argue this is why it worked well for you. You already knew the language and just needed to revise, which is something I would argue DL does do good at, especially the web version.
> Also, that it has you practice reading, writing, saying, and listening.
The thing is, in most courses (the home-developed ones with stories might be exceptions), you don't practice those skills. You learn to translate stuff from the target language to English; that's not reading. You don't learn to read texts and interpret them in the language. The writing is awful as well, since it's just reverse translation, not actually responding to a prompt or natural conversation.
The speaking leaves a lot to be desired, unless it's massively improved since I last tried it. I once said "blah" on the Spanish course and it was accepted as correct; I've also had it accept background noise before too. And the same with listening -- it's a TTS, you don't actually practice listening to native speakers and understanding what's being said with comprehension questions, etc.
It doesn't really teach the four skills as they would be applied in the real world at all. Not to mention that default on the app has you click words in the proper order instead of actually recalling them. That's another huge negative.
> Nobody is claiming that any single tool - much less Duolingo - will make you proficient in a language.
Lots seem to have that belief, though. As I said in another comment, it's something you can see quite often in various language learning forums in Reddit (/r/duolingo) and Facebook, as well as on the DL forums themselves.
> If Dolingo is claiming this, that would be false advertisement / scamming.
They might not explicitly claim it, but they certainly imply it in my opinion.
> I don't think anyone is seriously under the delusion that Duolingo alone will make you fluent in a language.
I'm active in various Facebook/Reddit groups dealing with language learning. The average user, who's never learned a language before, does think DL will make them fluent. And DL advertises themselves in this manner as well. It's a common issue: "I've got my entire tree gold, why can't I understand natives?"
> I cannot think of a single more effective method than Duolingo to get over this first hurdle.
I think an actual coursebook is more useful, but it also likely depends on person. DL doesn't really teach language skills for most the courses. It has you translate, you never practice reading for comprehension, listening for comprehension (or listening to natives at all, in the courses with TTS), or writing. And not to mention the default of 'click the words' in the mobile app doesn't force recall at all.
In the elementary schools in my district, kids are lucky if they get 30 minutes of recess a day (more often it's like 15-20), even at kindergarten. It's a huge mess, and we're expecting 5 years olds to behave like 15 year olds. No nap-time anymore either.
> We really need to tell kids to get up and do jumping jacks, come back in 15 minutes with milk and cookies.
Honestly, in my opinion we need to do this at school still, especially elementary level. We're expecting too much out of these kids, even when they're in the classroom, and it's no wonder we're seeing a rise in issues. Let the kids be kids, give them longer than 30 minutes of recess (if they even get that anymore!), give them naptime still, etc.
I'm generally against charter schools (being a high school teacher myself), but man, I wish I had the funds to start a charter elementary school. There's so much I would change.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you're misinterpreting what kindergarten is in the States. Kindergarten here is the first year of schooling, and is associated with primary schools. Generally, 5 is the minimum age to start, with a cutoff month. Thus, the kids are expected to be taught in the structural way of school.
The district I teach at (high school) is requiring two hours for kindergartners, three for 1st and 2nd graders, and 4 for all the rest. Everyone is done by noon, and teachers are there until three to answer any questions people have while working on assignments. I think for the lower levels, it definitely might be best.
Though a coworker has a son starting kidnergarden in a neighboring district, and they're there from 8-2:30, with planned time for recess and lunch. However, they're only in the main class for 30 minutes at the beginning and the end, and then each kid goes into a small group instruction with an instructor, and gets one-on-one time. I'm interested to see how that will work out overall, as it sounds like it could be a good compromise if you can get enough instructors.
Yep, I've noticed this. I'm in the younger part of the millenials, and am a teacher. My students pretty much all use Snapchat for group chats, and quite a few are using Discord, even if they're non-gamers. I use Discord, and have recently found myself trying to get more of my real-life friends into Telegram, and have multiple group chats running via SMS. It's just so much better, imo. Only reason I have Facebook is for some event notifications but I might delete it soon (deactivated it for over 6 months, didn't miss it).