Gaelic Activities Programme

[GunChleoc]

'S e aiste glè inntinneach a th' ann, tapadh leat!

I guess I'm of the eclectic school then

[Seonaidh]

I guess I'm of the eclectic school then

THA mi duilich, CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh, Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh? THA facal Gàidhlig ann - "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" - ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.
MAE'n ddrwg gen' i, DYDW i ond dysgwr, Beth MAE "eclectic" yn golygu? MAE gair Gaeleg iddo - "roghainneachadh", sy'n edrych fel y bydd yn gysylltiedig a "taghaidh" - ond DYDY hynny fawr gymorth i mi.

[eideard]

I guess I'm of the eclectic school then

THA mi duilich, CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh, Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh?

Eclectic means borrowing freely from different sources. For example, if your taste in music is eclectic you like listening to the blues, the classics, folk music, rock, bagpipe music, etc. If you're an eclectic interior designer you would furnish your rooms with an assortment of Victorian, Modern, Rococo, Art Nouveau, etc . In other words you're prepared to accept just about anything that comes along.

[neoni]

I guess I'm of the eclectic school then

THA mi duilich, CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh, Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh? THA facal Gàidhlig ann - "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" - ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.
MAE'n ddrwg gen' i, DYDW i ond dysgwr, Beth MAE "eclectic" yn golygu? MAE gair Gaeleg iddo - "roghainneachadh", sy'n edrych fel y bydd yn gysylltiedig a "taghaidh" - ond DYDY hynny fawr gymorth i mi.

[Níall Beag]

THA mi duilich, CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh, Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh? THA facal Gàidhlig ann - "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" - ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.

Duilich-fhéin ach 's e neach-ionnsachaidh a th' annam. Dé a' chiall a tha air "eclectic". Lorg mi facal Gàidhlig oirre -- "roghainneachadh", 's esan a' coimhead mar "taghadh" -- ach cha do chuidich seo mis'.

Now I don't know if that's all idiomatically correct on my part, but you are really demonstrating one of Finlay's most important points -- you're using the is am are will be was were a hell of a lot. This is because of what you've been taught. I argue that it is not the medium of instruction at fault, but the material of instruction. The benefit of immersive methods is that there is not the same level of meta-linguistic knowledge (conciously knowing about a language, rather than simply knowing how to use it in conversation naturally) required of the teacher.

Your teacher probably told you that there is two present tenses in English, and only one in Gaelic -- that "I am doing" and "I do" are both "tha mi a' deanamh", but look back at my earlier post in this thread about the myth of the so-called "simple present" in English. "I do" is not the present -- it is habitual, so Gaelic future "Nì mi".

Now let's break down what you've written and see why I changed it (whether I'm right or wrong -- I'm only a learner too)

THA mi duilich,
"I am sorry" -- well in English you probably just say "sorry". Maybe it's not traditional to cut the Gaelic down, but I've heard it said that way. Maybe it's following English. Who knows?
If I say "I'm sorry", I'm being emphatic, and "tha mi duilich" isn't an emphatic Gaelic form.

CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh,
I'm sure you've already been taught the patterns Tha mi nam X and 'S e X a th' annam, but you've reverted to an incorrect form, because it is the most familiar. Your teacher has allowed you to overuse the tha form and it has "invaded" your brain. It shouts "use me" the loudest so you can't hear the voice of the other patterns whisper "I'm more appropriate here".

Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh?
Now think: back-tr*nsl*t*ng this comes out as "what is eclectic meaning?" You're saying "right now", as though it will mean something different later. What you really want to say is "what does it mean?" which, as I have demonstrated, is not the present tense. Using the Gaelic future tense feels wrong to me, so I've asked "what is it's meaning?" just as you would ask "what is your name?"

THA facal Gàidhlig ann
Well, there's nothing wrong with that technically, but it's a bit blunt and misses the opportunity for subtle additional meaning. You should have a choice here, if you've been taught appropriately.

- "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" -
You've said "that looks as though it is like "taghadh" -- the extra "bhios" has expanded it significantly. You can cut it down to "that looks like"

ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.
Again, that looks OK to me, but again, you've got (or should have) a choice.

Now, I don't want you to be discouraged by this, but you need to be aware of this over-developed habit (it is a result of teaching, not of learning, so it's not a fault of yours) if you are going to be able to avoid letting your brain use it everywhere by default.

[neoni]

THA mi duilich, CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh, Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh? THA facal Gàidhlig ann - "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" - ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.

Duilich-fhéin ach 's e neach-ionnsachaidh a th' annam. Dé a' chiall a tha air "eclectic". Lorg mi facal Gàidhlig oirre -- "roghainneachadh", 's esan a' coimhead mar "taghadh" -- ach cha do chuidich seo mis'.

Now I don't know if that's all idiomatically correct on my part, but you are really demonstrating one of Finlay's most important points -- you're using the is am are will be was were a hell of a lot. This is because of what you've been taught. I argue that it is not the medium of instruction at fault, but the material of instruction. The benefit of immersive methods is that there is not the same level of meta-linguistic knowledge (conciously knowing about a language, rather than simply knowing how to use it in conversation naturally) required of the teacher.

Your teacher probably told you that there is two present tenses in English, and only one in Gaelic -- that "I am doing" and "I do" are both "tha mi a' deanamh", but look back at my earlier post in this thread about the myth of the so-called "simple present" in English. "I do" is not the present -- it is habitual, so Gaelic future "Nì mi".

BHITHINN a' smaoineachadh GUM BIODH na BI's mòra a' dèanamh sin soilleir. 's e cuimris a' chiad chànan aige, is tha mi gu ìre mhath cinnteach gur e an aon shiostam a th' aca le gnìomharan.

THA mi duilich,
"I am sorry" -- well in English you probably just say "sorry". Maybe it's not traditional to cut the Gaelic down, but I've heard it said that way. Maybe it's following English. Who knows?
If I say "I'm sorry", I'm being emphatic, and "tha mi duilich" isn't an emphatic Gaelic form.

cha chreid mi gun gabh "duilich" a ràdh na aonar

CHAN EIL mi ach neach-ionnsachaidh,
I'm sure you've already been taught the patterns Tha mi nam X and 'S e X a th' annam, but you've reverted to an incorrect form, because it is the most familiar. Your teacher has allowed you to overuse the tha form and it has "invaded" your brain. It shouts "use me" the loudest so you can't hear the voice of the other patterns whisper "I'm more appropriate here".

chan eil fhios nach do rinn e sin a dh'aon ghnothaich

Dè THA "eclectic" a' ciallachadh?
Now think: back-tr*nsl***** this comes out as "what is eclectic meaning?" You're saying "right now", as though it will mean something different later. What you really want to say is "what does it mean?" which, as I have demonstrated, is not the present tense. Using the Gaelic future tense feels wrong to me, so I've asked "what is it's meaning?" just as you would ask "what is your name?"

le corra ghniomharan - ciallachadh nam measg - 's e "tha a' xeadh" a chleachdas daoine, an aon rud le a' fuireach.

THA facal Gàidhlig ann
Well, there's nothing wrong with that technically, but it's a bit blunt and misses the opportunity for subtle additional meaning. You should have a choice here, if you've been taught appropriately.

mar a thuirt thu fhèin, chan eil càil ceàrr le na thuirt e, 's dòcha gum b' urrainn dha barrachd a sgrìobhadh nan nan togradh e - tha a chuid gàidhlig air leth math.

- "roghainneachadh" a sheallas mar a bhios coltach ri "taghadh" -
You've said "that looks as though it is like "taghadh" -- the extra "bhios" has expanded it significantly. You can cut it down to "that looks like"

tha thu ceart le bhith ag ràdh gun robh na sgrìobh esan ceàrr, ach tha coltas gu math neònach air ""roghainneachadh", 's esan a' coimhead mar "taghadh" " dhomh. 's e a chleachdainn "'roghainneachadh' a tha a' coimead mar taghadh"

ach CHAN EIL sin mòran cobhair dhomh.
Again, that looks OK to me, but again, you've got (or should have) a choice.

dh'fheumadh de/a no g no rudeigin a bhith ann

Now, I don't want you to be discouraged by this, but you need to be aware of this over-developed habit (it is a result of teaching, not of learning, so it's not a fault of yours) if you are going to be able to avoid letting your brain use it everywhere by default.

mar a thuirt mi, cha shaoilinn gur e sin a th' ann le seonaidh co-dhiù

[Seonaidh]

A Nèill, creididh mi gun do chaill thu a' phuing. Cò mheud den Chuimris a th' agad? Chì mi seantans as dè seantans sa Bheurla agus smaoinichidh mi, "Be'dy o'n ceisio ei wneud yn union?", no 's dòcha, "Cha toil leam sin". 'S dòcha gum bi na puingean gràmair agad ceart gu leòr, ach cha toil leam Gàidhlig ionnsachadh tron Bheurla.

Dè tha thu ag ràdh - Be wyt ti'n dweud
Dè chanas tu - Be ddywedi di

Tha fios agam air an diofar - bha mi airson puing a dhèanamh. A bheil thu eòlach air facal mar "snaidheadh"? An tuig thu an càil a chuireas dheth muinntir nan neach-ionnsachaidh?

[Tearlach61]

"But the only natural method is in infancy: you cannot recreate a child's infancy in an adults class."

I don't buy that at all. I learned French through immersion by getting dumped into an all French envronment when I was in my teens. I had no prior knowledge of French. It was a natural environment because I learned vocabulary and especially grammair by hearing the languagge all day long, seeing it used in context. It wasn't that I did not learn grammair. I did. It's just that was a side activity that assisted the main engine of language learning that occured in the immersion environment. When I spoke, spoke correctly because of what sounded correct. Only occasionally, would my head knowledge of grammair inform speech.

I have met many many people over the years who have been in an immersion environment and I can't recall a single one who failed to learn that language to conversational fluency. Compare that to the night class crowd. How many of them learn their target language to fluency, 1/20? If that?

The problem with language teaching methods based in an immersion concept that there isn't anywhere near enough time. Most of us have day jobs and a one or two hour 'immersion' class once a week doesn't even come close to the massive amounts of time that are involved in a true immersion environment. When I was in French school, from the time I walked out the door in the morning, till I came back late that evening, (probably upwards of 15 hours later) all I had was non-stop French. It even invaded my dreams. An immersion class can't even come close to that.

I think however, that as one learns, if they start to make use of the listening resources that are out there, Litir-do-luchd-ionnsachaidh, audio books from Ur Sgeul, the Gaelic TV which sadly is not available outside of Scotland, one can to some degree create for oneself, a kind of immersion environment that will helpful to the learner.

[Níall Beag]

Seonaidh,

Sorry, I did miss the point, and I see it now.

I learned French through immersion by getting dumped into an all French envronment when I was in my teens. I had no prior knowledge of French. It was a natural environment because I learned vocabulary and especially grammair by hearing the languagge all day long, seeing it used in context. It wasn't that I did not learn grammair. I did. It's just that was a side activity that assisted the main engine of language learning that occured in the immersion environment.
[...]
I have met many many people over the years who have been in an immersion environment and I can't recall a single one who failed to learn that language to conversational fluency. Compare that to the night class crowd. How many of them learn their target language to fluency, 1/20? If that?

First up, I find that most of the people I have met who praise any particular learning method say things "I was studying Kiswahili for five years and couldn't say a word -- until I bought Panacea Language School's <i>Swahili in a Moment</i>". I'm not aware of having met many TIP learners, but those that I have met, I met at short courses at the SMO. Which aren't TIP. The students that did best in my English classes were working out of books at home as well. Personally, I've always done small bits of study and coupled it with an immersive usage environment. Words are easy to pick up immersively, but the grammar's a bugger, so I do it through English.

The problem with identifying the universality of one method is that most people have done some other learning, so could you clarify one thing:
"<i>It wasn't that I did not learn grammair. I did. It's just that was a side activity that assisted the main engine of language learning that occured in the immersion environment. </i>"
Do you mean that you had a side activity of the conscious study of grammar, or that you inferred the grammar rules from the immersion?

I also wonder what you think the main engine of <i>language</i> is if the grammar is not the main part of learning. Words words nothing grammar, be and without, proper.

The other thing is that people analyse and tr*nsl*t* in immersion classes. I was given a demonstration of an immersive class, and we had to work things out. We were expected to infer the rules of the language, so there was indeed concious work on the part of the learner. Surely it's more efficient to be told the rule and then given the opportunity to use it?

Which brings me to the core problem:
Yes, most evening classes are rubbish. The goal of immersive and communicative approaches is sound -- production of language. There is no reason production can't be the main goal in a bilingual environment, it is just that currently the majority of English-medium language teachers waste time on various analytical tasks and word quizzes.
Of course, most implimentations of the communicative approach combine the worst of both worlds, because they try to do standard style language exercises (gap fills, matching sentence halves, crosswords, rubbish like that), but they justify the lack of pedagogical value in the tasks by making the students talk about them in the target language. This means that while they're learning something as simple as the present continuous (I am doing sthg), they're left trying to hold a complex transactional discussion which strictly requires language more advanced than they have.

The problem with language teaching methods based in an immersion concept that there isn't anywhere near enough time.

Maybe because while they work, they are horribly inefficient. They fail to make use of mankind's greatest labour-saving device: language.

The main gulf in teaching principles isn't between immersion and native-language-medium -- these are just flags.

The gulf is between three schools of thought with three distinct principles: analysis, reception and production. (My terms.)

The analytic school sees language as a primarily intellectual affair, and that one can learn a language by knowing all the rules. Usually this means that tasks become word-juggling, because language becomes viewed in terms of structure, and dissociated from meaning and emotion. Most night-school learning is of the analytic school.

The receptionist school includes the so-called Natural Methods. The idea here is that like a child, anyone can learn a language just by "absorbing" spoken language, and that when one has "absorbed" enough, one will simply start talking. The problem with the natural methods was where to get the stimulus -- you actually needed lots of native speakers, and that was too expensive.

The productionist school says that language is not learnt conciously or by absorption, but through use. Learn by doing and learn from your mistakes. This is a sound principle for learning to ride a bike, because you know when you fall off, and you start to associate loosing your balance with hitting the tarmac. But with language there is no instant feedback -- you don't know you've fallen over, so there's no instinctive correction.

Now while Finlay talks about natural methods, it's clear he's of the productionist school of thought, yet his course still leans heavily on receptionist methods. But true receptionist methods were inefficient because of the amount of input, so modern receptionist thought relies on highly-tuned input that the learner then analyses. Once again we're back to the analytic school.

The communicative approach, as I've already said, is productionist in principle, but relies on analytic methods.

Now where these fall about is that reception and analysis inhibit the ability to produce -- the focus shifts to processing input rather than producing output.

If you instead break the language down and describe it in simple, familiar terms, you can give the student the ability to produce far more language that is far more meaningful. This is because a lot of the subtleties of meaning are in <i>abstract</i> words, and in the main we talk in abstract words -- we use on average 2 concrete words per clause in English.

So in English, for example, if you've taught "go" and "but", and then you teach "want to" and "need to", you can suddenly say "I don't need to go, but I want to". What does that mean? Lots! Everyone has somewhere that they want to go to. And pronouns: "she gave him it"/"she gave it to him" is more useful and reusable than "Eileen gave John the key". Even though the first has less intrinsic/explicit meaning, it can mean so much more than the second, depending on the context.

Kids learn concrete words first, not because these are more useful -- not by a long shot -- but because they're easier to learn, their meaning is clearer. But with the student's own language we can easily and efficiently explain the meaning of abstract words, and when they know what they mean, they can use them -- they can produce real language.

Once you know the grammar and abstract vocabulary (and by that I mean once you are able to produce grammatically correct sentences at a flowing pace) you can immerse yourself, because all you have to learn are concrete words -- car, phone charger, left buttock -- and these reveal themselves easily.

By building the language up through production, you can reduce the errors made by the student and produce language that is correct all the time.

[akerbeltz]

Tha bogadh ann an cànan cuideachail do luchd-ionnsachaidh inbheach ach cha soirbhich e as aonais teagasg mar is tric. Seadh, gheibh thu duine no dhà am measg ceud as urrainn dhaibh fuaimean is gràmar ùr a thogail cha mhór mar a nì a' chlann ach tha iad gann mar rionnagan san oidhche fhrasach. Chaidh sin a shealltainn anns na ceudean de phròiseactan rannsachaidh nach eil Fionnlagh deònach an leughadh.

Mar sin dheth, tha e cheart cho cearr cànan a theagasg do dh'inbhich mar gum be clann a th' annta 's a bhiodh e cànan a theagasg do chlann mar gum be inbhich a th' annta. Òrd beag air tarrag bheag is òrd mhór air tarrag mhór.

Cha *tuig* a' chuid as motha na riaghailtean a th' air cùlaibh an t-sèimheachaidh, nan tuislean is an diofar eadar tha/'s e gun mhìneachadh is eacarsaich. Seadh, 's urra dhut abairtean is grunn sheantansan a theagasg dhaibh as urra dhaibh parrotigeadh aig deireadh a' chùrsa, ach an e soirbheas a th' ann? Tha deagh adhabhar ann gun do dh'ionnsaich sinn san sgoil mar a nì thu addition is subtraction seach air a h-uile addition as urra dhut dèanamh ionnsachadh.

Tha iomadh adhbhar ann carson nach eil na dòighean a chaidh an cleachdadh gu ruige seo ag obair gu math:
1) chan eil trèanadh aig a chuid as motha dhen "luchd-teagaisg"
2) chan fhaigh daoine ach uair no dhà san t-seachdain
3) tha cus cudrom air sgrìobhadh is leughadh
4) cha mhair na cùrsaichean fada (tòiseachadh, eadar-mheadhanach, adhartach ... agus fileanta 'nan déidh??)
5) chan eil Gàidhlig gu leòr mun cuairt air na daoine
6) chan eil goireasan ionnsachaidh gu leòr ann a tha math
7) chan eil cuid dhe na cùrsaichean freagarrach do dh'inbhich

Sin na h-adhbharan as motha a th' againn 's chan ann gun déid Beurla a chleachdadh anns an t-seòmar teagaisg. 'S urra dhut an cànan a tha thu ag amas air a' cleachdadh ann an seòmar a-mhàin ma tha 5 uairean san latha agad 5 làithean san t-seachdain mar a thachras ann an dùthchannan eile a tha nas soirbheachail ann an teagasg mion chànan do dh'inbhich ach sin pìos rannsachadh eile nach bi cuid deònach a leughadh.

Am Mìcheal Eile

[Tearlach61]

'"It wasn't that I did not learn grammair. I did. It's just that was a side activity that assisted the main engine of language learning that occured in the immersion environment. "
Do you mean that you had a side activity of the conscious study of grammar, or that you inferred the grammar rules from the immersion?

'

Both. I did spend time flipping through grammair, but also many times, both then when I was in French school, I found myself saying something a certain way, not certain why. I knew it was correct, but I couldn't recall having learned it. The thing is in Quebec where I was doing this, it wasn't long before I was being corrected by our French teacher, not for speaking incorrectly as an English speaker would, but for the colloquialisms I had adopted, the same as the other French speaking kids.

One of the things I did at the start of my Gaelic journey was use TYG. First chapters were fairly easy but when I got to chapter 8, I just gave up. I'll never learn all these rules I thought. I thought back to my French learning experience, I thought about my kids and how they learn language and pitched TYG. For the next year and a half anyway, I listened to massive amounts of Litir do Luchd-ionnsachaidh, pulling out the text and flipping through grammar as oppurtunity allowed. What the grammar did was accelerate the process by helping me sort out what was going on.

But the grammar books don't cover everything. There's a lot of stuff that goes on I have not seen covered in a grammar. When I get stuck, I don't think to a grammar, I imagine what a native speaker would say.

[Tearlach61]

a akerbeltz/ a Mhìcheil chòir,

As dheidh dhomh cur sìos air gràmmar, tha mi airson innse dhut air mar a tha an làrach agad air a bhith cho feumail dhomh ann a bhith obrachadh a-mach mar a tha cùisean a' dol leis a' Ghàidhlig. Mar as trice 's e an làrach agad-sa a' phrìomh làrach airson gràmmar a molas mi do fheadhainn eile .

'S e goireas air leth a th' ann.

Taing mhòr a charaid.

Chuck

[akerbeltz]

LOL tapadh leat a Thearlaich! Feumaidh an làrach sin sgioblachadh ge-tà, cha do dh'ùraich mi e fad ùine ach tha mi trang le cus rudan, a' gabhail a-steach an leabhar agam air fuaimneachadh agus na bùthan-obrach a bhios co-cheangailte ris.

Chanainnsa san dealachadh gu bheil gràmar ceart gu leòr ann an teagasg ach gum feum thu a chur air beulaibh dhaoine air dòigh a thuigeas iad agus an uairsin an driligeadh a-rithist 's a-rithist, cha dèan mìneachadh goirid a' chùis mar a nì air beulaibh clas cànanachais san oilthigh



Am Mìcheal Eile

[Níall Beag]

Both. I did spend time flipping through grammair, but also many times, both then when I was in French school, I found myself saying something a certain way, not certain why. I knew it was correct, but I couldn't recall having learned it.
[...]

One of the things I did at the start of my Gaelic journey was use TYG. First chapters were fairly easy but when I got to chapter 8, I just gave up. I'll never learn all these rules I thought. I thought back to my French learning experience, I thought about my kids and how they learn language and pitched TYG. For the next year and a half anyway, I listened to massive amounts of Litir do Luchd-ionnsachaidh, pulling out the text and flipping through grammar as oppurtunity allowed. What the grammar did was accelerate the process by helping me sort out what was going on.

Which is pretty much the same as I did: read up on a few rules and start using them. Then read a few more rules, and start using them. You had to stop TYG because you couldn't internalise them without real use, but you used TY because you couldn't use them without knowing them.

Now I've picked up lots of things from watching TV and having conversations in every language I've learnt, but these are lexical features -- words, phrases and word patterns -- but these have followed from the underlying logic of the grammar.

"Feumaidh mi aideachadh gu..." is a common phrase that you could learn/be taught as a phrase without having a clue about the future tense and non-finite/infinitive constructions. But if you've been taught the future, verbal-noun-as-non-finite and relative clauses, then you can learn the phrase on-the-fly. (You'll probably need aideachadh explained to you, but it's there to be picked up.)

But the grammar books don't cover everything. There's a lot of stuff that goes on I have not seen covered in a grammar. When I get stuck, I don't think to a grammar, I imagine what a native speaker would say.

Yes, the grammar books available are years behind what's available in other languages, and that's lamentable, but a good teacher can still teach you to produce grammatically and idiomatically correct Gaelic through English.

But going back to the main point:
You claim immersion courses are the best way to learn a language, from day one. But you've never done a pure immersion course. You claim it worked for you, but it was only a part of your learning. I've hardly spent any time in an immersive classroom -- maybe one out of four weeks at the Sabhal Mór was immersive (in other languages, one hour of immersive Finnish and two years of immersive once-a-month tutorials for OU Spanish) -- but I have done considerable amounts of immersive use at the conversation circle, in pubs and on buses in the islands and latterly at Am Bothan in Edinburgh.

Every successful learner tells the same story, when you get past surface claims: they learn the basic structure consciously, and use the language immersively.

These two stages both exist, and trying to reduce it to one is wrong-headed and counter-productive.

Before anyone mentions Ulpan in Israel or Wales as proof I'm wrong, answer me this: have you ever seen any figures regarding prior learning? If you turn up in Israel and you can't string a simple spoken sentence together in Hebrew, you will be put in the bottom class, and the stats call you a complete beginner. Do you honestly think any emigrates to Israel without having tried to learn some Hebrew? So when they go to their Ulpan, they don't need language learning, but language activation.

Now maybe these figures *do* exist, but they're not being made obvious by the guys that use them. If someone tells me it's an XX% pass-rate for beginners, I'll assume that's from everyone in the beginners class. If they can state clearly that XX% of people with no prior knowledge and no extra-curricular study pass, then I will want to look more closely at the method and find out what they are doing so effectively that makes this suboptimal environment (immersion) so successful.

[neoni]

opit suomea? muistat paljon? opiskelen sitä nyt