Wha? You go to read dis article before commening here
Wha? You go to read dis article before commening here
@vito ,
Interesting perspective from Stephen Krashen,
"It could be the case that researchers are defending their own economic interests. They continue to search for a role for grammar not because they believe in it but because they have sold out to big publishers who make profits from grammar-based materials. I have no evidence that scholars have been deliberately dishonest, but the potential for conflict of interest exists."
?
There is a thing called Google Translate. I can understand Sinhalese, but unable to produce words my own so I used Google Translate to convert English to Sinhalese then edited out some silly words manually@kingsultan111 Ponz haven't you told that you don't know sinhalese? how da fuck did you write this then? Misfire
Yeah I believe youThere is a thing called Google Translate. I can understand Sinhalese, but unable to produce words my own so I used Google Translate to convert English to Sinhalese then edited out some silly words manually
Stop your sarcasm. I didn't even use a Sinhalese keyboard. Translators gotten better. See yourself.Yeah I believe you
There is a thing called Google Translate. I can understand Sinhalese, but unable to produce words my own so I used Google Translate to convert English to Sinhalese then edited out some silly words manually
I used to, but no more. I can just read and understand. I have issues with producing Sinhala words
I used to, but no more. I can just read and understand. I have issues with producing Sinhala words
this a bit of a stretch without any evidence to back it up, but an interesting notion nonethelessWha? You go to read dis article before commening here
@vito ,
Interesting perspective from Stephen Krashen,
"It could be the case that researchers are defending their own economic interests. They continue to search for a role for grammar not because they believe in it but because they have sold out to big publishers who make profits from grammar-based materials. I have no evidence that scholars have been deliberately dishonest, but the potential for conflict of interest exists."
I think it should be: you seem to have missed my edit
Nonsense. This is entirely disputed by the hypothesis.
The paper is here,this a bit of a stretch without any evidence to back it up, but an interesting notion nonetheless
but on the hypothesis suggested by the input hypothesis, they certainly ring true based on my own experience
we learn more from out of class experiences than the rote learning methods that are being used in most classrooms
I think it should be: you seem to have missed my edit
(couldn't help myself)
If it is nonsense then tell me why kids learn much faster than adult.Nonsense. This is entirely disputed by the hypothesis.
The paper is here,
http://sdkrashen.com/content/articles/why_support.pdf
Regarding his point, I can relate via Climate Change. You have all sort of academics who dispute climate change and they are funded by Oil & Energy companies.
Steve Jobs tried to fix education, but he couldn't because of bureaucracy
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/apple-education-jobs/
Yup, it's a myth based on non-compelling evidence. In-fact, recent studies display that Adults learn faster than kids.
