Order of introducing new vocab and its meaning

[FeralMina]

I just realized that, for people who’re hearing the words you’re introducing in the audio for the first time, is the order (i.e. first saying the new vocab and it’s variations, then afterward giving the definition of the new vocab) the most effective order? Maybe I’m weird, but for my brain, I can hardly even process the sounds of a new word, much less remember it, unless I first know it’s meaning in English. It’s like it doesn’t register unless I already know the meaning of it. So if I hear the word before the meaning, I always have to immediately go back and re-listen to the word for it to register, much less stick.

Words without meaning are literally just meaningless sounds, after all, so I guess it’s no wonder they’re much harder to get to stick in my brain.

Like you could say to me “blerbblerbgigglygoo… it means nonsenseword. Now what word means nonsenseword?” And I’d have little to no idea, even though I just heard it literally two seconds ago. However, I’m much more likely to retain the word “blerbblerbgigglygoo” if I already know it’s English meaning before I hear the word so that I can make an immediate connection in my mind between meaning and word.

Make sense? Thoughts?

[michael-conrad]

Really not sure on this one. I have a tendency to prefer hearing the Cherokee first, then the definition, but that's me.

Maybe others will way in on the topic.

[michael-conrad]

Mary Rae gave me permission to repost the following:

Mary Rae, [8/28/22 4:53 PM]
I think hearing the Cherokee first is best. That way, you are listening just to the sound and really hearing. Especially as you get beyond beginner stage. If you are hearing first, you might hear familiar sounds, and have an inkling of the meaning. Giving the definition first short circuits that process. Also very English-centric. In the same way, I like to see syllabary, phonetics and English in that order.

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 9:44 PM]
ᎺᎵ, would you be willing to repost that at the link as a comment?

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 9:45 PM]
And your point of view matches mine when it comes to learning.

Mary Rae, [8/28/22 10:15 PM]
Not on github, but you can copy and paste my comments if you like. I’m glad you feel the same way. You can’t start thinking in Cherokee if the lessons always start with the english.

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 10:15 PM]
ᎰᏩ

[cdrchops]

me: I agree with this and also disagree. If I'm wanting to learn a lot of vocabulary in a short amount of time I've found the English first then target language second helps prep me for what I need to know when the target word or phrase is coming up. It gives me a visual to associate with the word or phrase. If I'm studying or "recapping" then I want the target word first then the English word or phrase. I don't know if this is individual preference or not. It may be that I'm visual and when I hear a phrase like "how are you?" I am imagining greeting someone while learning. But later when I'm going over words and phrases I usually just have the target language because I've already got a visual for it. idk. I'm not saying change anything you're doing. I'm only saying I learn different than most people I know.

and OT said: Responding to Timo, and Magali I’m sure you already know this: comprehensible input (with translation only as a minimal crutch) is the best way to introduce new words, grammar, etc. So that would be lessons around a topic with visual learning aids (pictures). Timo, what you appear to be doing with vocab lists is similar, except you are relying as a first step entirely on English translation to provide the comprehensible input. It’s still comprehensible input, but relies too much on translation compared to the more effective conversation/visual method.

me: right, I agree - IF I was watching a video (as opposed to listening only) my preference is that it would have minimal English because the context should be clear. that's a good point

Also, if I had a book or some other visual guide (doesn't even have to be in English - pictures would work) that I can "read" while listening that'd also be ok for me to learn

[FeralMina]

Mary Rae gave me permission to repost the following:

Mary Rae, [8/28/22 4:53 PM]
I think hearing the Cherokee first is best. That way, you are listening just to the sound and really hearing. Especially as you get beyond beginner stage. If you are hearing first, you might hear familiar sounds, and have an inkling of the meaning. Giving the definition first short circuits that process. Also very English-centric. In the same way, I like to see syllabary, phonetics and English in that order.

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 9:44 PM]
ᎺᎵ, would you be willing to repost that at the link as a comment?

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 9:45 PM]
And your point of view matches mine when it comes to learning.

Mary Rae, [8/28/22 10:15 PM]
Not on github, but you can copy and paste my comments if you like. I’m glad you feel the same way. You can’t start thinking in Cherokee if the lessons always start with the english.

Michael Conrad, [8/28/22 10:15 PM]
ᎰᏩ

I hear what you and Meli are saying. And it does make sense for slightly more advanced learners (for whom the proper groundwork has already been laid) to hear the Cherokee first, absolutely, for exactly the reasons you said.

I think the concept in teaching is known as something like ‘staying in bounds’. It’s the idea of keeping in mind what a student can reasonably be expected to process based on what has been previously taught.

Rank novices, like those who are your target audience for this book/audio, have little to no foundation through which to process new vocabulary. (At least through Chapter 7 or 8.) You have to build their foundation before they can start making sense of the sounds, seeing connections, or inferring meaning. Without that groundwork, hearing a new word without knowing it’s meaning just seems like a nonsensical string of random sounds. Hearing sounds (especially sounds that don’t exist in English) without meaning/context is very hard for most people (especially those who only speak one language) to keep their brain’s from tuning out.

If you still strongly feel that giving the vocab in Cherokee first is always best, even in the first several chapters, then a compromise for people who learn like me might be that the Cherokee pronunciation can also be given again after the definition so that the student can hear the Cherokee first without meaning and then hear the Cherokee again (and its alternate forms) after hearing the meaning, making a stronger link between the sounds and the meaning. So this means the script might go something like… “Listen carefully: osiyo. Here is the phrase again: osiyo. Here it is in English: hello.” Then add “Here is the phrase again: osiyo. You will also hear the following: siyo.”

P.S. After that, you could also add a prompt like “How do you say ‘hello’ in Cherokee?” or something similar right after that, to try to encourage the student to try to actively use the language themselves instead of just passively listening to it.

P.P.S. Is there a reason that the student is only ever prompted to respond in English? To my mind, it seems that after a couple of times of hearing the Cherokee and responding in English, they should be prompted to respond in Cherokee some of the time (but with the word/phrase in Cherokee pronounced by the system after they respond so they can either be reinforced or corrected, as the case may be).