Alternative: watch native content. Start with easy short content, build up to vlogs, series, movies.
The idea of 'convenient 10 minutes a day' will get you nowhere. People who seriously want to learn a language know it takes 1-2-3 hours of daily immersion. The only way '10 minutes a day' would work is if you lived in a country, were surrounded by the language and only counted 10 minutes you spend reviewing a grammar book.
What all those tools want are users who pay regularly. So if they taught you a language well you'd be gone in a year or two. Duolingo can is great at teaching you a language if you then had to use that language in Duolingo.
Are you joking? Starting to learn a language by watching native content? Get out of here with your bullshit. And fuck you for implying I don’t actually want to learn a language on a thread defending a language learning app.
Getting to the point that you can consume media and actually learn a language is the hard part. That’s where Duolingo excels. Obviously fluency takes additional work.
Duolingo’s lessons for foreign alphabets are perfect examples. Some are better than others, but they all teach you how to read the script in a fun and time-manageable way. This aspect of Duolingo is free, fun, and it works.
I’ve made multiple attempts to learn languages with foreign alphabets before, and they’ve failed because of the logistics of studying the basics. Practicing and consuming content once you can function in the language is different, and it requires a different kind of motivation. I’ve never struggled with picking up additional vocab or grammar once the initial hurdles were overcome.
First of - rude. Why would you post something like this on a comment that was actually trying to share some tips with you? I kind of want to ignore it now and say 'well good luck then' but at the same time I want to ignore it and actually give you some advice.
That's how I started with language learning. There are channels that are dedicated to native content that's easy to understand. For example: Dreaming Spanish. You listen to content in you target language and learn sentence structure and vocabulary.
You asked 'is there alternative to Duolingo' and I gave you one. In return I got abuse. Not sure this was worth it.
Ironically, I’m realizing now that you may just be good in English as a non-first language. I assumed you were a native English speaker; your comment comes across as intentionally snarky and antagonistic. If I interpreted your comment as intentionally offensive, where you didn’t mean it as such, sorry. I only returned what I thought I was given. You implied my approach is ill-informed, and you gave absurd alternatives for my use case. I’m still pissed off thinking about it.
I’m not talking about Duolingo’s Spanish course. I have no experience with that. I actually speak decent Spanish learned from much more traditional means including textbooks, teachers, and then native speakers who enjoyed conversing with me once I was good enough.
I’m having great experience with Duolingo as the very first step of a much different language. (It’s the first thing that’s ever worked for me in this space, and at least my third try.) Your original comment suggested native content as a way to learn a language. This is ridiculous if you don’t even understand the alphabet. A children’s show specifically made for native children doesn’t work if you don’t have the very bare foundation. I can’t say I’ve tried your suggestions for these first steps because they are absurd.
Duolingo, on the other hand, makes these first steps particularly easy. It’s a free, structured, mobile-first, SRS-aware, active recall for alphabets and basic grammar where no decent comparable alternative exists.
Moving beyond the alphabets, basic grammar, and basic vocab: sure, consume native content. Personally I’m planning Pimsluer as my next step with my current undertaking as it’s SRS-aware and focuses on native media.
No, English is not my first language. "You implied my approach is ill-informed, and you gave absurd alternatives for my use case. I’m still pissed off thinking about it." - that was not my intention at all. Because there isn't a right approach to learning a language. Your original comment asked for an alternative to Duolingo so I provided you with one.
I believe there's been more research done to the method I recommend than to Duolingo - that's why I thought it's worth mentioning it. But if it doesn't work for you, don't use it. If you want to study 5min a day - do it. My comment was recommending a specific approach that I (and the community I'm a part of) use and believe it works.
But if you look at 'content' kids experience first it's words and sentences used in specific situations. Only later having this knowledge they learn the alphabet, numbers, grammar. I know more English grammar than I do of my own native language - I'm pretty sure I know more English grammar rules than an average native English speaker (at least looking at my group of friends). It makes me better at taking a test or writing a very detailed and technical article (which currently I do none of) but won't help much in normal conversations.
Sure, learn the alphabet, learn the most common words but that can also be achieved with free online content. I wasn't saying you shouldn't be doing it. I was only answering your first comment where you said everyone complains on Duolingo but no one has an alternative. I provided you with one that I know others (like myself) use.
I have tried Duolingo in the past and the only dangerous thing is that it was a great experience. Did it teach me anything other than hello/bye/boy eats bread? Not really. I also can compare my experience of focusing on consuming content to Duolingo because one of my mates did Duolingo for a long time.
After about 6 months he looked at content I watch - in this case it was Dreaming Spanish. I was at a point of watching Intermediate videos (short ones because they required a lot of focus), he couldn't understand any of it. I'm not saying that's the case for all users, this is just me comparing 2 users of different systems.
"Moving beyond the alphabets, basic grammar, and basic vocab: sure, consume native content." - that's my worry with Duolingo. People get so used to the little level ups and 'X day streak' that they continue doing it feeling like they're progressing. Which they probably are but very slowly as it doesn't teach conversational language. The only part of Duolingo I felt like I enjoyed were the stories (the old version of them) or the conversations. But all the animations and videos around them made it so difficult to focus on learning that I gave up.
If you read my first comment, you’ll see that I have had my sights towards moving away from Duolingo (and towards conversational material) from the beginning.
Dreaming Spanish sounds nice. Now that I see this is what you were talking about when you said “native content”, I see the breakdown in our conversation. Typical wisdom for enhancing fluency is to find random/varied media to consume. This is what I was calling absurd for building a foundation. Dreaming Spanish, on the other hand, is literally advertised as a language learning tool. And it does seem like a very modern evidence-based approach.
Were there a Hebrew version of Dreaming Spanish, I would likely supplement my learning with it after finishing some basic courses in Duolingo. Mostly, in the case of Duolingo Hebrew, I’ve been greatly enjoying how well their alphabet course is made the last few months. Currently my next plan is Pimsleur because they have a nice mobile app.
I don't see Dreaming Spanish as a structured course. If you do, ok, my recommendation might not make as much sense.
The way I see Dreaming Spanish is an adult version of kids shows where they point at things and explain things in simple terms. If kids shows were more interesting to adults I'd happily watch them over Dreaming Spanish. And there are shows like Bingo that are easy to understand, short and engaging enough for adults (or at least engaging enough for me).
How is it NOT structured course? It was literally designed as a structured course teaching you the language step by step. It was made by teachers for students with the intention to teach the language. I am inclined to believe you that it is effective. If I ever get serious about Spanish, I might try it out.
And also, undestading shows like bingo or kids shows requires already existing knowledge of words. You will not figure out meaning of words purely based on watching them.
Maybe we just have different definitions of a structured course?
To me a structured course is:
*Here's a video, here's exercise, that's homework, this is a little fragment to read.
The videos are not connected in any way, I can watch them in any order. Most of the creators aren't teachers, they don't talk in a way that a usual structured course would: 'here's a list of 10 animals: dog, cat, fox' asking you to repeat after them.
A lot of the videos are pretty much 'day in life', 'my thoughts on', 'something interesting about..' - I could see them as early 2000s youtube videos where everyone had a vlog.
I wouldn't call it a structured course. I see it as a great contributor to a learning system that's comprehensible input - but there are many other creators that contribute to it. But if you see it as structured course, ok :)
> People who seriously want to learn a language know it takes 1-2-3 hours of daily immersion.
That is considerable amount of effort that will definitely get you far. However, I know many people who did learned foreign language and the amount of concentrated effort you write about would be unusual for them. Sure, it took years, but no, full hour of daily immersion on regular would be exceptional.
It really depends on the language, Japanese takes much longer than Spanish for English speakers for example.
And yeah, you don't need to invest several hours each day - that's unrealistic for most people. But I also think you get nowhere by doing just 10 minutes a day, even if you do it every day for years. You need to set aside time for conscious learning, e.g. on weekends. Then you could e.g. do the 10 minutes a day during the weeks for reviewing vocab, or reading short texts, or whatever.
I don't think you can do it without the occasional "crunch time".
(There's also the fact, of course, that the better you get at your target language the less will consuming content feel like a chore to you and so you can tolerate more of it, and even enjoy it.)
I actually think that 10 minutes a day can get you pretty far, especially for beginner. Namely, to slowly get you to a stage when you are able to read those short texts over weekend. Ability to read a short text is fairly large step in learning language. And even then, reading 10 minutes day is going to be more effective then reading for 70 minutes once a week.
10 minutes a day, whether duolingo or not, will get you further then 70 minutes once a week in a crunch mode. That holds for language, playing musical instrument, sport, whatever. The hardest part in those is to keep interest and touch with activity over the long time it requires. And the big enemy are months when you pause the activity entirely.
Obviously you have to mix the learning modes. And obviously the more time you put into it the better.
---------------
I also think that people get naive about amount of time people actually spend learning when going to classes in school or after school club. Typically, get 1-2 lessons a week plus some homework. Sometimes you get 3, but any more then that is unusually intensive. The typical expectation when going to in-person classes is that yes, it will take years till you are anywhere near good command of the language. That a year after, you can survive your way, but still cant consume most of normal media without subtitles. Those are reasonable expectations.
> 10 minutes a day, whether duolingo or not, will get you further then 70 minutes once a week in a crunch mode. That holds for language, playing musical instrument, sport, whatever. The hardest part in those is to keep interest and touch with activity over the long time it requires. And the big enemy are months when you pause the activity entirely.
My point is that you need both. Reviewing vocab etc. can be done as part of the "daily 10 minutes" (although it usually takes me longer). But learning about new grammar etc. usually takes longer than just 10 minutes. And once in a while you just have to sit down and read a more complicated text, looking up vocab, etc.
Again, it pretty much also depends on the language. For Japanese, I think it's impossible to get anywhere with just 10 minutes a day, I think.
It is a lot of time. But at some point, when you start understanding more, something as simple as watching 20 minutes of The Simpsons in language you're learning instead of English is an immersion. You listen to a podcast or a radio and when you feel like watching random YouTube videos you do it in that language. All of this adds up.
I'm currently averaging 1.5h of video/audio a day and sure, some days it feels like a lot - work is busy, I have to go to the office, gym, and all.
But I'm trying to cross the line of 'I can understand without having to focus really hard' as quickly as I can because then immersion is so much easier. TV, books, podcasts - what I do on a daily basis will all count towards my immersion.
Watching The Simpsons is not simple. If you watch movies and shows, you are pretty far along. Podcasts and radio are even further, they are super far. You get no subtitles with these, you get no context clues from visuals. Just the sheer size of vocabulary you need and ability to parse spoken sentence. I was able to converse with Americans (have actual discussion) long before I was able to understand English in shows.
I am not native English speaker. I did learned 2 foreign languages. One of them was through very intensive program, the other one without that. It consistently seem to be that these advices are skipping the beginning and also do not conform to either my personal experience or what I observed in others.
Like, obviously you learn faster if you go in super intensive. No question about that. And your interest will fluctuate.
What I said is "But at some point, when you start understanding more, something as simple as watching 20 minutes of The Simpsons in language you're learning instead of English is an immersion. "
I don't suggest watching shows from day 1. It did take me some time to build up to being able to sit through a 20/30/40 minute TV show and actually be able to follow the story. I wouldn't recommend it to people who are just starting out though. It's best they start with very short and very simple content that's fully in their target language but is created by people who know their audience is learning.
I use Stacked. But only because I enjoyed books & content written by the creator. It's not as easy to adjust as other apps, but it's totally free and I think it's visually pleasing.
I'm still hoping to find a list of all libraries you can sign up to online. I found one in New York and Essex (UK).
I will probably never get through all the books they offer but I want MORE! :)
As I'm a complete 0 at IT, would you mind explaining how one gets started with this?
I have VPN, I've torrented before.
How does Jellyfin work and what do I need? Does it sit locally on a laptop/PC (so takes up space) and if it uses the same WiFi as my TV I can play it? That's the bit I really don't understand...
I'm only using it in the most basic form (streaming to my roku from my PC), so hopefully someone with more experience with it can chime in here, but I'll do my best.
I saw the software mentioned on reddit a while back, and then I just Googled each product to learn more or download/install it. They are all pretty straight-forward click and launch products with minimal configuration for which you can find guides by a quick search.
Honestly if you already have the content downloaded or don't want to tinker with other software too much, you only need Jellyfin to serve that content. Jellyfin server runs as a service on the device housing your content. This server has a URL that you will provide to whatever device is connecting to it. For me, my home PC is my server. In its most basic form, yes, it uses the same WiFi as your TV. Most home WiFi routers allow communicating with other devices on the WiFi (typically referred to as your "local network") easily.
Serving Jellyfin outside of your local network (e.g. if you wanted to share with extended family across the internet) requires configuring your router for it and that can be a bit more tricky (and poses security risks), but there's a bunch of guides out there that help you do this safely without compromising your local network's security.
When you install Jellyfin, you're presented with a screen asking you to create an admin login. You can then create additional user logins in the software (which launches its UI in your default browser), so you can use it when connecting to it on your network. The way you "consume" it on your TV is through the Jellyfin client software. They have software available for the popular OSes like Windows and macOS as well as phone software for Android and iOS, but also Roku, Android TV, FireTV, etc. Lots of options on how you consume it. My Roku was able to automatically detected it running on my network, so all I had to do was input login info.
Really appreciate it! I'll have to look into it in a bit more detail. I'm a little tired of having to plug my laptop in via HDMI every time I want to play a movie I can't find on netflix.
The only problem is, I don't have a PC and I really don't want to mix my mac I use for work with torrented movies. So I would have to look into getting a cheap windows machine :)
I use DeepL for Spanish to English translation on a daily basis and can honestly say this tool made language learning so much easier.
It's amazing to see how it can easily change the translation of the word as you type in the full sentence.
Congrats! I'm actually quite surprised because you must be the first person that learned a language using Duolingo. Most people I spoke with said they only learned how to answer Duo questions, not the language itself.
During my German B1 test I met a person who had only used Duolingo for learning the language. They had successfully passed most of the test... except for the spoken part, which they had already failed once and which Duolingo doesn't really help you with. And based on what I heard, they probably failed it again. So I guess you can learn something with it to a decent level.
On the other hand, I once had trouble repeatedly failing a German lesson so I gave the phone to my German girlfriend. She failed the lesson too, probably because she was answering as a German and not as a Duolingo user.
I’ve used Duolingo quite a bit as a part of my Norwegian training, and to brush up on my French now and then. It’s definitely been effective for me. And I’ve seen others become tourist-proficient in languages with no training aside from Duolingo.
I definitely don’t consider it passive consumption.
I didn't exclusively use Duolingo. I also got real world practice. But Duolingo was great for practicing in free moments, and for about 1-2 hours every day. Something that was hard to match with real world conversation partners.
I always tell folks that Duo is a good place to start learning but you need to augment/replace it with other methods/tools after learning basic pronunciation and grammar.
Google Analytics has 3 layers:
-the vanity metrics anyone can look at - this is what you described. How many pages did they view, how much time did they spend on the page?
-users interactions - this requires some skill. You can set up custom tracking to view specific user interactions to answer questions such as: Which page of my sales funnel gets users frustrated and makes them abandon it?
-full user journey - this might require using API and user data (instead of page data) where you get to view every single event they did during their visit. This is probably the highest level of GA skill and requires a good setup, but when you get there, you can answer pretty much every question you have about user interactions.
Not OP, but I have experience with the layers they describe. These are not separate Google Analytics products, but levels of implementation of the Google Analytics code.
The first level they mention is out-of-the-box, no setup Google Analytics. You install the site code and you get metrics. You don't need to be a developer or have any real skills to accomplish this. It is essentially low-effort, low-return.
The 2nd and 3rd layers do not require an investment in Google, but they do require an investment in people. You'll need someone who understands the Google Analytics API, the Measurement Protocol, how the script collects and sorts data, who can install, configure and implement Google Tag Manager, and who has at least an intermediate understanding of HTML/CSS/JS.
There is no nomenclature apart from the aspects of Google Analytics I described above, but you can read more about them here: https://developers.google.com/analytics/
1.: No - but you need people understanding your business and GA as well as being able to implement additional tracking events via Google Tagmager (for example) to be able to answer questions like: What percentage of our users came via paid social media advertising, viewed a product, added it to the shopping cart, but abandoned the checkout. And how many of them are newsletter recipients so that we might be able to send them a reminder, that they have items in their shopping cart.
2.: No official nomenclature - just deeper data analyst's knowledge to ask the business people the right questions, develop an understanding of what to measure, talk to the developers to have them help provide (if necessary) additional info in a dataLayer structure and implement the necessary tracking events in the tagmanager.
After that said analyst needs to build the necessary dashboards/reports so that management/business can have the initial questions answered.
Data/Web Analytics in a nutshell (and described way reduced).
Not OP, but the simplest ways to do the deeper stuff:
#2 - custom GA events implemented via Google Tag Manager triggers. only takes a few hours to learn.
#3 - once you identify a few particular funnels you want to dive deep into, just skip GA altogether and use an all-purpose recording tool like Hotjar that'll let you automatically record entire user journeys starting or ending at some page. go through those with your UX team/person and look for potentially confusing interactions. takes like 5 min to set up, several days to collect data, and then a good UX person to interpret likely pain points that your users are running into. it's really hard to do a good funnel analysis in Google Analytics. Hotjar, or to some degree Facebook Insights, make that analysis a lot easier because they're GUI-driven and monitor the DOM visually, not code-and-config based like GA
I AM THE OP (felt like I needed to say that to not break the chain :D )
I feel like your questions were answered - pretty much the answer I'd give.
1) The only cost is cost of a person who has a deep understanding of Google Analytics. Google Analytics courses are hours long but they only teach you the first layer. 2nd and 3rd come with experience - I've been working with GA for about 4 years and there are still things that surprise me, caveats that we sometimes forget about.
Quick example: Beginners will quite often select 2 dates (separately), get number of users from those 2 dates, add them together and say: that's the number of users we had in those 2 dates. But if you selected those 2 dates together, you'd see a lower number. Why? Because a user who visited in both periods would count as 2 if looking at separate dates, but only as 1 if looking together.
2) There isn't anything official but there's lots of blog posts - from great people like Simo Ahava and Julius Fedorovicius. If you're just starting out, I'd recommend sitting down and writing questions you want answering. Default GA implementation will not give you answers to all your questions - they had to create a product that works OK for most, so it doesn't answer specific business questions. The greatest problem with people saying Google Analytics doesn't give them the data they need is they don't start with the question. Examples of tracking I recently implemented because I taught the team to ask questions WHEN they change/implement something:
-Are users printing the pages? Tracking is set up to track when they use browsers print button.
-Do we have any searches on page that return no results? Do we have searches that return too many results?
-How accurate are our results - which position of the result do they normally click on.
Those questions you wouldn't answer with basic setup. By setting up custom event tracking, we can answer them.
Lastly, on the most advanced setup (keep in mind you might not actually need it) - new version of Google Analytics offers free integration with Big Query. This means you get to analyse the data using SQL.
