My biggest problem with connectivism concerns quality. Every time I hear you comment on connectivism my mind retreats to “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”

To wit, your claim is clear:

“Central to connectivism is the primacy of the connection, the belief that more connections lead to more learning.”

Against this I have nothing to offer but the notion of quality and the idea that there is a limit to the value of any single good.

To a man without salt, it is a precious commodity, to a man surrounded by the sea it is nothing more than a slow poison.

Let me be even more explicit. For the individual, what are the limits to these fantastic connections? Is ten a good amount? Ten times ten? ten times ten times ten? Can you tell me what the optimum number is?

Obvious there is a limit, just as there is a limit to the amount of salt we can consume. The problem however is that you go on as if this limit doesn’t exist. As I see it, the key to language learning is not quantity it is quality. Why is it someone can be surrounded by a language for five years and not learn more than 50 words (I describe my own experience) while others can soak up 50 words in ten days?

And before you try to figure out what the optimum number of connections is I would ask you to define in great detail the simple quality of a single connection and then I would ask you if the quality of any one single connection can differ from another?

If so, if these connections can differ in quality then it is conceivable that a single connection is more valuable then 10 or 20 or 30 connections all bundled up together working at top speed.

When you define progress at C-pod by the number of connections, asking us to believe that this is the primary reason that more learning is taking place, it sends shivers up my spine.

When I listen to your podcasts and look at what you have done I am overwhelmed by your quality. The attention to detail, the systematic feedback, the simplicity of your teaching materials, the utter joy that I hear in your podcasts. Well, I guess I just don’t get connectivism.

I totally agree that grammar is a worthy subject of discussion and activity in the community and I heartily encourage it.

My point is that I would not *base* the learning on it, as the old textbooks did. Grammar isn’t something we could make central to the audio lessons, for example. It’s so abstract and contingent that it woudlk require endless explanations, exceptions, etc. Instead we use a concrete event,or short drama that encapsulates the language, context, mood, etc. Instead of talking about how we *might* use language in certain contexts (a necessity with grammar) we have a concrete exampple. Explanations are therefore not contingent, but specific.

And if people want more grammar discussion, great. We could provide more of it and you chaps are free to discuss it to your heart’s content. It is one more way to build those neural configurations around the subject - clearly some people really like it.

Ken

From what I have seen so far I, bet the ranking of on-topic lesson post types will be:
5. Changye providing ultra-deep language background
4. Smalltalk, personal anecdotes, cultural stuff
3. Praise / Criticim / Bugs
2. Vocab related questions and
1. Yes: Old-fashioned Grammar questions (”Why is the word order not different?” “Where does that 了 come from?” etc.)
With No. 1 taking by far the biggest share of the on-topic posts.

If you also take the popularity of Qing Wen into consideration indeed a pattern emerges. Those concepts we all get together and interconnect neurally for are indeed dusty little grammar concepts from the bottom drawer!

I am convinced that the human brain just loves rules and structures to come to an efficient road to learning. Of course those rules are a crutch and do by no means replace “language feeling”. But they are at least a dim little flashlight on a dark path in the deep woods.

Which answer is more satisfying?
The typical native “Well, it is just wrong, accept it. There is no particular reason. You will never learn it.”
Or the experienced language teacher’s “It is because there is no change of state involved. Similar examples include […]”
At best the pattern the teacher referred to is actually *tested* later with *challenging* exercise that forces you to become active and *think* about sentences.

Aren’t “grammar dills” in the very end nothing but enhanced “language chunks in different contexts”? Don’t those seamingly warring worlds blend happily together?

Of course, and especially with Chinese, Grammar should definately not come in the very beginning and does not help in the very advanced stages. But at Intermediate it is a cornerstone that you can rub against.
And I definately include function words in “grammar”. Those are the hinges languages revolve around.

Sidenotes: Interesting is also what the groups are about. Some of the highest frequented onces address written or writing chinese.

I really do love the lessons as they are. But moving ahead the road ahead should not be defined to narrow just because of some rigid academic stance.

Feel free to enrich CPod with:
1. Grammar and grammar exercises
2. HSK drills. I recently found those to be perfect for honing skills. Even if I don’t plan to take the test short term.
3. Lessons and content on formal and written Chinese.