Enda Kenny to make irish optional?

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The point entirely eludes you yet again.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've already posted the "evidence" *twice*. I'm not particularly surprised you missed it, truth be told.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sorry, you're only really making a fool of yourself by asking a question and then attempting sarcasm when the answer is the exact opposite of what you hoped and expected.:D

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yeah, I feel really wound up when I squash some kid to the point he can only come back with ad hominems. Oooh, really wound up.:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, you'd hardly need to be Cicero or Lincoln to do that, would you.
I might come back to this thread when an adult next posts here.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Another simple post you failed to comprehend.
I said I'd come back when an adult posted, not that I was leaving for good.
0/10 for you as usual.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thanks, your post is worth a million of the kiddies' ones.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Maybe if you spent more time on stats and less on a second language you'd get this.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, I do, in the form of a sarcastic analogy to your ridiculous question.
Hear a whooshing noise up there anywhere?

Admitting to your sarcasm while rubbishing a perfectly acceptable question.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I will rubbish anything I like that doesn't make sense.
I do not need to provide any evidence of a counter claim to show your own claim is not proven.
Also, your school year is irrelevant. I don't have to pretend you're right because you're inexperienced.

You have no respect for other people's opinions.

And how are my opinions any less, because of my so-called "inexperience?" I'm an adult here too.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's what everybody says who doesn't get the sarcasm, isn't it?:D

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Wow, nice rambling, specifics free waffle.

Utterly sarcastic, dismissive, condescending in all of these posts.

Originally Posted by Dan_Solo
This is of course completely lost on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Solo
Maybe some people "would like to see" whatever nonsense you're on about there at the end. Pity you've made no case that it applies to anybody posting on this thread. Pure strawmanning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Solo
Did you miss it the first time? Maybe you were reading in Irish but I was typing in English?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Solo
What's the matter, can't your computer copy and paste the full sentence I wrote?

^^These quotes are from another post trying to point out your condescending inclinations.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Show it or shut it. Another baseless claim. If you're so sure you have a personal attack to quote then by all means get the mods in.
Go on. I dare you.

Enough evidence for you? Don't even try and argue that they're taken out of context. Nastiness is as is, it is the same in every context.

deise go deo

The only outlet required for Irish usage is the mouth, and most people have one of those yet choose to speak English.

LOL, People who dont know how to speak Irish dont choose to speak English, A monolingual English speaker has no choice in what language they use.

For someone to speak Irish or any other language, they have to have the oppertunity to do so.

If Irish were to disappear tonight some lecturers would have to get new jobs tomorrow.

Not to mention some Actors, Journalists, Raidio Presenters, Translators, Sectaries, Civil Servants etc...

If you want to force people to learn a subject then it "being kinda pretty" is not a good reason to do so.

No, But the proven benefits of second language learning are a perfectly good reason.


Learning a second language.

Makes you better at your first language.

Learning another language can enhance knowledge of English structure and vocabulary (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004).

A study of 13,200 third and fifth graders in Louisiana public schools revealed that, regardless of race, gender, or academic level, children taking foreign language classes did better on the English section of the Louisiana Basic Skills Test than those who did not. (Dumas 1999)

Can make you better at Maths:

Strong evidence shows that time spent on foreign language study strongly reinforces the core subject areas of reading, English language literacy, social studies and math. Foreign language learners consistently outperform control groups in core subject areas on standardized tests, often significantly. (Armstrong & Rogers 1997; Saunders 1998; Masciantonio 1977; Rafferty 1986; Andrade 1989; Kretschmer & Kretschmer 1989)

Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day. Again, this research upholds the notion that learning a second language is an exercise in cognitive problem solving and that the effects of second language instruction are directly transferable to the area of mathematical skill development.

One study found students scored significantly higher in math and language arts after one semester of foreign language study 90 minutes per week. (Armstrong 1997)

Can make you better in all subjects:

Students who started kindergarten in the first Kansas City foreign language magnet schools in 1988 had surpassed national averages in all subjects by the time they reached fifth grade.These foreign language students performed especially well in mathematics. (Eaton 1994)

Here is a quote from Savill-Troike that brings all three together:

Mastering the vocabulary of a second language enhances student comprehension and abilities in reading, writing, mathematics and other subjects. (Saville-Troike 1984)

Improves problem solving skills:

Language learners show greater cognitive flexibility, better problem solving and higher order thinking skills. (Hakuta 1986)

Research suggests that foreign language study "enhances children’s understanding of how language itself works and their ability to manipulate language in the service of thinking and problem solving." (Cummins 1981)

Early language study results in greater skills in divergent thinking and figural creativity. (Landry 1973)

Improves Memory.

Foreign language learners have better listening skills and sharper memories than their monolingual peers. (Lapkin, et al 1990, Ratte 1968)

This is not about learning a Language as an 'Extra Subject, more than their peers do' It is about learning a language as a subject in school.

The evidence is perfectly clear, There are many benefits to learning a second language.

Enkidu

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course, Irish is unlikely to have been assessed for difficulty of learning in this situation, but as I expected, Semitic and Sino-Tibetan, i.e. languages of distinct classes were deemed more difficult than other Indo-European languages to learn.

Of course, I never disputed that. I'm only saying it is difficult to gauge the benefits of Irish because it is an extreme Indo-European language with some features typical in non-Indo-European languages.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I will assume from this that other languages classes are more different from English than English is from other Indo-European languages.

Of course they are, there is no linguistic relationship. You don't need to assume it.

Dan_Solo

@meehan
Whatever. TLDR.
If you have an issue, and you're sure you read it properly this time, take it up with the mods.

Dan_Solo

Enkidu wrote: »

Of course, I never disputed that. I'm only saying it is difficult to gauge the benefits of Irish because it is an extreme Indo-European language with some features typical in non-Indo-European languages.


Of course they are, there is no linguistic relationship. You don't need to assume it.

Well then would you care to make the final step and agree, that assuming "more different" languages confer greater benefit to the student, Irish is a poor choice of language for this purpose?

An gal gréine

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I will stick by my definition of Irish as "useless" at anything other than an aesthetic level. I really am not too concerned if you think this "colours my comments", whatever that means. If there is a specific point of logic you think I have made in error (and no Insect Overlord and _meehan_, saying "all of them" isn't the same thing) then you are quite welcome to do so.
The only outlet required for Irish usage is the mouth, and most people have one of those yet choose to speak English.
If Irish were to disappear tonight some lecturers would have to get new jobs tomorrow. If English disappeared there would be armageddon.
This isn't an aesthetics discussion in any case. If you want to force people to learn a subject then it "being kinda pretty" is not a good reason to do so.

Irish speakers dont "choose" to speak English. If your next -door neighbours in an Irish city are Polish on one side and on the other side an Irish person who speaks only English, then this outlet is closed to an Irish speaker. Any 2 or more Irish speakers conversing in Irish will immediately change to English when a non-Irish speaker joins the company. Gaeltacht areas for a long time have had doctors, gardaí, priests, bank employees and others come to live among them and force their language on the locals.
I notice you have qualified your expression of "useless" now.
What I said about it colouring your comments was that it narrowed your focus. Something is either useful or useless- no in between. Clearly not everybody see it like that.

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

LOL, People who dont know how to speak Irish dont choose to speak English, A monolingual English speaker has no choice in what language they use.

But aren't 99% of Irish people ABLE to speak Irish, as they were forced to learn it at school? Any two Irish people should then theoretically be able to strike up a conversation as Gaeilge. The vast majority don't and clearlt don't want to.

deise go deo wrote: »

For someone to speak Irish or any other language, they have to have the oppertunity to do so.

What do you want, more Irish speaking public servants for them to have a chat to about the weather?

deise go deo wrote: »

Not to mention some Actors, Journalists, Raidio Presenters, Translators, Sectaries, Civil Servants etc...

Most of whom are not public servants and therefore can do what they like with their own time and money. What have they to do with state responsibilities or my taxes?
If English disappeared civil servants would not lose their jobs as they would still be required to run the state in whatever language we adopted. Another non-argument from you.

deise go deo wrote: »

No, But the proven benefits of second language learning are a perfectly good reason.

If it is extra study. With no clear benefit above similar time at any other study.

deise go deo wrote: »

Learning a second language.
Makes you better at your first language.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

deise go deo wrote: »

Can make you better at Maths:

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

deise go deo wrote: »

Here is a quote from Savill-Troike that brings all three together:

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.
No data provided as to whether those who mastered a second language were already academically superior.

deise go deo wrote: »

Improves problem solving skills:

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

deise go deo wrote: »

Improves Memory.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

deise go deo wrote: »

This is not about learning a Language as an 'Extra Subject, more than their peers do' It is about learning a language as a subject in school.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not (but for some reason you assure me there is!). Or if another subject would do just as well.

Of course there are benefits from learning a second language. I have never denied this. (don't bother to look, you'll waste your time)
Are these benefits any greater than studying something else? Who knows? YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED THIS DATA.

Dan_Solo

An gal gréine wrote: »

Irish speakers dont "choose" to speak English. If your next -door neighbours in an Irish city are Polish on one side and on the other side an Irish person who speaks only English, then this outlet is closed to an Irish speaker. Any 2 or more Irish speakers conversing in Irish will immediately change to English when a non-Irish speaker joins the company. Gaeltacht areas for a long time have had doctors, gardaí, priests, bank employees and others come to live among them and force their language on the locals.

Oh poor discriminated against Gaeltacht people. How much is the grant these days for free double glazing if you can speak Irish? Poor things.
Wow, so despite years of forced Irish teaching to almost every student who went through an Irish school, the Irish are apparently incapable of speaking a single word of it to each other. Make you wonder why they bother at all then, wouldn't it?

An gal gréine wrote: »

I notice you have qualified your expression of "useless" now.

A qualification is not a retraction. Sorry.
Quake and icr cream are nice, but are they "useful" to me? Nope.
Same with Irish. Nice to have around, but if it disappeared? Meh.

An gal gréine wrote: »

What I said about it colouring your comments was that it narrowed your focus. Something is either useful or useless- no in between. Clearly not everybody see it like that.

See above. Useless things can be nice. Don't pretend that makes them "useful" in anything other than an entertainment fashion though.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

@meehan
Whatever. TLDR.
If you have an issue, and you're sure you read it properly this time, take it up with the mods.

TLDR eh? From a fella who can't get enough of the long posts himself...

And I read it properly every time.

If you just apologise to everyone, I won't take it to the mods, and we can go back to having a civilised debate, without the sarcasm etc.

Salty

Everything about the benefits of second-language study aside, reform is inextricable from rendering the language a non-mandatory subject.

I would suggest that severely decreasing the number of poems and short-stories etc and having more oral classes would make the subject much more enjoyable and interesting for students.:)

dubhthach

_meehan_ wrote: »

Everything about the benefits of second-language study aside, reform is inextricable from rendering the language a non-mandatory subject.

I would suggest that severely decreasing the number of poems and short-stories etc and having more oral classes would make the subject much more enjoyable and interesting for students.:)

One proposal I've seen is to spilt the leaving cert subject in two. There would be a compulsory subject that would be mostly based on communication plus some written parts. Then second subject which would be optional would include all the heavy literally bits (poems, plays, books, etc.)

In my opinion though the standard of teaching in this country needs to improve. This covers all subjects not just Irish.

An gal gréine

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A qualification is not a retraction. Sorry.
Quake and icr cream are nice, but are they "useful" to me? Nope.
Same with Irish. Nice to have around, but if it disappeared? Meh.
.

I never said it was a retraction but it was still an omission.
You can contemplate a possible disappearance because it has a value that you dont grasp or appreciate with your linking it to ice-cream. This is Ireland, it is our own and it's up to us to preserve it; and there's no reason to believe it's growth in the urban areas will not continue.

Dan_Solo

An gal gréine wrote: »

I never said it was a retraction but it was still an omission.
You can contemplate a possible disappearance because it has a value that you dont grasp or appreciate with your linking it to ice-cream. This is Ireland, it is our own and it's up to us to preserve it; and there's no reason to believe it's growth in the urban areas will not continue.

How do you know I don't grasp exactly how much value it has? Maybe you don't grasp how useless it is? Since its "value" in this respect is entirely a matter of personal opinion, let's just leave it at you can speak Irish whenever you want, but don't try to force anybody else to, OK?

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

Quote:
Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day. Again, this research upholds the notion that learning a second language is an exercise in cognitive problem solving and that the effects of second language instruction are directly transferable to the area of mathematical skill development.

This one (out of what, 20 duds?) might be going somewhere.:)
Do you have access to the full text? Were overall academic performance scores assessed? Were the students randomly assigned to the extra language lessons or self-selecting?

An gal gréine

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How do you know I don't grasp exactly how much value it has? Maybe you don't grasp how useless it is? Since its "value" in this respect is entirely a matter of personal opinion, let's just leave it at you can speak Irish whenever you want, but don't try to force anybody else to, OK?

It's clear from many of your posts that unless something is useful it has no value for you. Yes, it is a matter of personal opinion, as you say, but I did'nt read a denial either-another omission.
As I said previously, when a non-Irish speaker enters the company of Irish speakers, we accomodate them immediately; so, no, I dont "force anybody else to" OK?

LordSutch

deise go deo wrote: »

Making languages optional failed Misirably a few years ago in England. The same will happen here.

You already know my theory on this deis go deo, but for the benefit of others I would like to say that Enda Kenny loves the Irish language, and as many of you well know "he used to teach it", he passionately wants Irish to thrive in the future, but he also recognises the futility of the failed teaching methods over the last last eighty years. Those of you who are against Fine Gael's plans, please take a step back for just one moment & think about how somebody from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, or Poland might perceive the last eighty years of compulsion!
So you guys do irish all your school life, and many of you even pass leaving cert irish, but very few of you can speak it! (scratches head)

Its FAILED, and its FAILED miserably they would say (as Sharon Ní Bheoláin recently said), and it is also fair to say that every single compulsive initiative has failed since compulsion was introduced, and this is where the Fine Gael argument cuts in. > Take the compulsion out of the leaving Cert, while putting in place a structure that will encourage students to want to learn the language, take out the compulsion (which has obviously FAILED) and replace it with a more friendly, progressive, less forceful attitude that will encourage the Irish language to be Loved (& not Loathed).

The Fine Gael proposals are designed to help students aspire to speak the language, to embrace it, to love it (without being threatened with a metaphorical stick). Enda Kenny loves the Irish Language, he has a vision, & he wants to try something that has not been tried before, and I say give Fine Gael a shot at their Irish language revival plans . . .

Otherwise, its another twenty year plan, resulting in the same old, same old cupla focal, resulting in 5% fluency on a country wide basis, with the same old arguments that we have had since mandatory Irish was (wrongly) introduced after the foundation of the State.

PS My grandfather was fluent in Irish, and admittedly I don't speak it, but I do like the idea of the pressure being taken off the language, thus giving it a new image, and a new breath of life, which is what Enda wants.

Dan_Solo

An gal gréine wrote: »

It's clear from many of your posts that unless something is useful it has no value for you. Yes, it is a matter of personal opinion, as you say, but I did'nt read a denial either-another omission.
As I said previously, when a non-Irish speaker enters the company of Irish speakers, we accomodate them immediately; so, no, I dont "force anybody else to" OK?

No it isn't. Many things have value to me, but I do not count them as useful. Like I said, I value Quake and ice cream, I like them. But if they ceased to exist I wouldn't be off the nearest bridge. They serve no useful purpose for me other than entertainment. You didn't read a denial because it does not exist: I do not deny I think Irish is useless.
If you support compulsory Irish in schools then you do want to force people to speak Irish. Otherwise, just speak your Irish when you want. If doctors and Gardai can't understand you then that's your problem for not using the predominant language of the country.

Enkidu

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well then would you care to make the final step and agree, that assuming "more different" languages confer greater benefit to the student, Irish is a poor choice of language for this purpose?

Make the final step? I haven't being holding out on the truth or something similar, I've just being making minor linguistic comments.

Regardless, Irish would not be a poor choice of language for this purpose, it would simply be "sub-optimal". One could argue that Chinese for example would be too difficult to teach well in schools and that we don't have the resources of competent speakers.

I would view compulsory Irish as similar to compulsory Latin in the British school system, a language taught mainly for cultural reasons. There are educational benefits to such things, however like Latin in Britain the debate centres around cultural and general educational benfits versus practical benefits and ultimately the issue of choice both for the parent and the child.

An gal gréine

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You didn't read a denial because it does not exist: I do not deny I think Irish is useless.

We were talking about your denial of value. I'm not surprised at this stage you confuse both. Languages die out every year and the world is a poorer place for that, imo. I'm sure you know the price of all the ice-creams too.

Dan_Solo

Enkidu wrote: »

Make the final step? I haven't being holding out on the truth or something similar, I've just being making minor linguistic comments.

Regardless, Irish would not be a poor choice of language for this purpose, it would simply be "sub-optimal". One could argue that Chinese for example would be too difficult to teach well in schools and that we don't have the resources of competent speakers.

I would view compulsory Irish as similar to compulsory Latin in the British school system, a language taught mainly for cultural reasons. There are educational benefits to such things, however like Latin in Britain the debate centres around cultural and general educational benfits versus practical benefits and ultimately the issue of choice both for the parent and the child.

Fair enough. Though if we paid as much money for Chinese teachers as we do for Irish teachers, I don't see any problem really teaching it in schools here. Why not break the cycle of dependency right now?
Is Latin really compulsory in all British schools?

Dan_Solo

An gal gréine wrote: »

We were talking about your denial of value. I'm not surprised at this stage you confuse both. Languages die out every year and the world is a poorer place for that, imo. I'm sure you know the price of all the ice-creams too.

I do not deny that things have value to people. Does the Irish language intrinsically have value? No. It is personal opinion. No contradiction.
The "price" of ice creams? You know your Wilde? Irrelevant.

deise go deo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But aren't 99% of Irish people ABLE to speak Irish, as they were forced to learn it at school? Any two Irish people should then theoretically be able to strike up a conversation as Gaeilge. The vast majority don't and clearlt don't want to.

ROLF, You clearly know nothing about the Irish Language.

Are you seriously suggesting that most Irish people are able to speak Irish?

Just stop, your embarrasing yourself.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What do you want, more Irish speaking public servants for them to have a chat to about the weather?

Care to show me where I suggested this? Please stop with the strawman arguments.

Most of whom are not public servants and therefore can do what they like with their own time and money. What have they to do with state responsibilities or my taxes?

Can you show me where I suggested it had anything to do with your taxes? More strawman arguments. The post was in responce to a post where you implied that the only people with any use for Irish were lectures, I corrected you, it dosent go beyond that.

If it is extra study. With no clear benefit above similar time at any other study.

Where are you getting this notion of 'extra study' from? I have not seen it an any of the quotes I have provided. Are you making stuff up?

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.
No data provided as to whether those who mastered a second language were already academically superior.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.

No data provided in the titles as to whether this was extra study or not. Or if another subject would do just as well.



Of course there are benefits from learning a second language. I have never denied this. (don't bother to look, you'll waste your time)
Are these benefits any greater than studying something else? Who knows? YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED THIS DATA.

Why would they say it is not extra study when they are clearly talking about subjects people in school? Why would they need to confirm that it is not something that there is no reason to think it is?

There is clear evidience that it produces a better result than other subjects.

Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day

So students who study Language outperform students who study other subjects. Time and again this has been shown, you are just burying your head in the sand, please stop, its pathetic at this stage.

You are a troll that has been proven wrong and rather than accepting this and moving on, you are flaming this thread trying to dispute the sources I have provided on the basis of nothing.

You have failed to put forward anything to support your position, and you have not shown the sources I have provided to be in error in their findings that language learning is benifical more so than other subjects.

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

ROLF, You clearly know nothing about the Irish Language.
Are you seriously suggesting that most Irish people are able to speak Irish?

Well they were forced to learn it at school. Best to abandon that since you admit it's a complete failure.

deise go deo wrote: »

Just stop, your embarrasing yourself.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

From the guy who hasn't the first clue how a causative factor is assessed? Nah, got my head held high giving out this lesson.

deise go deo wrote: »

Care to show me where I suggested this? Please stop with the strawman arguments.

When you whined about Irish speakers being forced to speak English because they couldn't find other Irish speakers to talk to, I thought it was the logical extension for an entirely state supported language. ;-)

deise go deo wrote: »

Can you show me where I suggested it had anything to do with your taxes? More strawman arguments. The post was in responce to a post where you implied that the only people with any use for Irish were lectures, I corrected you, it dosent go beyond that.

But I said they were the people who would lose their jobs, not that they were the only people with use for Irish.
All that whinging about strawmen and you go and do it yourself? Surprise? Nah.
Oh, and there's plenty of professional English users that don't bother my taxes. There's about 10 Irish professional Irish users who don't. That's what I mean.

deise go deo wrote: »

Where are you getting this notion of 'extra study' from? I have not seen it an any of the quotes I have provided. Are you making stuff up?

Er, that's precisely my point, duh. It most cases they seem to be trying to avoid the issue. Wonder why?

deise go deo wrote: »

Why would they say it is not extra study when they are clearly talking about subjects people in school? Why would they need to confirm that it is not something that there is no reason to think it is?

Where is this clear? You do know students do extra subjects "in school"? Were you at all aware of this fact? Only one study mentions the second language lessons take the place of another lesson. ONE.
Why is this? You simply don't know, do you?

deise go deo wrote: »

So students who study Language outperform students who study other subjects. Time and again this has been shown, you are just burying your head in the sand, please stop, its pathetic at this stage.

Nope. One study show this as only one study mentions that the second language is taking the time of another subject.
What's pathetic is that you are making up things that these studies simply do not say.

deise go deo wrote: »

You are a troll that has been proven wrong and rather than accepting this and moving on, you are flaming this thread trying to dispute the sources I have provided on the basis of nothing.

Haha, you're really cracking me up again with your "troll" lameness. You are completely fabricating what your data says, assuming all second language teaching is instead of another subject. Here, why don't you fail miserably again to show me the references that show what is required to prove the superiority of second language lessons?

deise go deo wrote: »

You have failed to put forward anything to support your position, and you have not shown the sources I have provided to be in error in their findings that language learning is benifical more so than other subjects.

I have comprehensively destroyed YOUR position. Only one reference you provided shows a benefit in a different subject when second language study is instead of another subject. And this does not say if the subjects are randomly assigned. Or if overall school grades are improved (it only mentions maths grades).
Yet again, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A COUNTER CLAIM to disprove your claims. You have repeatedly failed to grasp this which is indicative of your aptitude for analytical thinking.
You are clueless at this game. It's more sad than anything that you seem to be providing examples of the dire muck that passes for research in linguistics.

Dan_Solo

Quote:
Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day

Were the students randomly assigned to the second language group?
Were overall grades improved in the second language group?
You'll assume they were of course, but this synopsis says no such thing.

This is a pretty simple question then isn't it? All you have to do to prove you are right is show where the second language teaching was not supplementary to the normal curriculum and that the students were randomly assigned to each group.
No, assuming these things will not cut it.

Dan_Solo

Oh look
http://robotics.tmcnet.com//topics/robotics/articles/147101-brooklyn-community-foundation-grant-expands-nyu-poly-robotics.htm
Apparently extra robotics classes help all your grades?
But the children weren't randomly assigned!
So that's now "children who went to robotics classes were the same children who got better grades", not "robotics classes give you better grades".
Spot the difference?

deise go deo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well they were forced to learn it at school. Best to abandon that since you admit it's a complete failure.

Show me where I admited any such thing!
Do not misrepresent my arguments again.

When you whined about Irish speakers being forced to speak English because they couldn't find other Irish speakers to talk to, I thought it was the logical extension for an entirely state supported language. ;-)

Take your bull elsewhere, You made the ridiculus claim that all you need to use Irish is your mouth, Without the oppertunities to use the Language people will not have the option to use Irish.

But I said they were the people who would lose their jobs, not that they were the only people with use for Irish.
All that whinging about strawmen and you go and do it yourself? Surprise? Nah.
Oh, and there's plenty of professional English users that don't bother my taxes.

There are plenty of people other than Lecturers who would lose their jobs if Irish disapeared in the morning, That is the point I was making. Where is the strawman argument in that?

There's about 10 Irish professional Irish users who don't. That's what I mean.

More unsupported claims, Please back this little gem up with some evidence.

Er, that's precisely my point, duh. It most cases they seem to be trying to avoid the issue. Wonder why?

What Issue? You are making stuff up to try and attack sources that contradict your opinions.

Where is this clear? You do know students do extra subjects "in school"? Were you at all aware of this fact? Only one study mentions the second language lessons take the place of another lesson. ONE.
Why is this? You simply don't know, do you?

Nope. One study show this as only one study mentions that the second language is taking the time of another subject.
What's pathetic is that you are making up things that these studies simply do not say.

Well I appologise that the professional study into linguisrtics dosent cater for you by treating its readership like children by explaining the blatently obvious.

Haha, you're really cracking me up again with your "troll" lameness. You are completely fabricating what your data says, assuming all second language teaching is instead of another subject. Here, why don't you fail miserably again to show me the references that show what is required to prove the superiority of second language lessons?

I have provided all that is needed to demonstrate the benefit of second language study.

I have comprehensively destroyed YOUR position. Only one reference you provided shows a benefit in a different subject when second language study is instead of another subject. And this does not say if the subjects are randomly assigned. Or if overall school grades are improved (it only mentions maths grades).
Yet again, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A COUNTER CLAIM to disprove your claims. You have repeatedly failed to grasp this which is indicative of your aptitude for analytical thinking.
You are clueless at this game. It's more sad than anything that you seem to be providing examples of the dire muck that passes for research in linguistics.

In your little mind maybe, but in reality? I think not.

If you want your claims to be taken seriously you will back them up with evidence, that you have failed to do so shows clearly that you are unable to.

I have provided evidence to support my claims at every step, That this evidence contradicts your opinion is something you will just have to live with, trowing a tantrum will get you nowhere.

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

Show me where I admited any such thing!
Do not misrepresent my arguments again.

You said most people can't speak Irish.
Irish is compulsory in schools.
Therefore compulsory Irish has failed to produce people able to speak Irish.
QED dude.

deise go deo wrote: »

Take your bull elsewhere, You made the ridiculus claim that all you need to use Irish is your mouth, Without the oppertunities to use the Language people will not have the option to use Irish.

Of course you have the option. Of you go. Nobody stopping you.

deise go deo wrote: »

There are plenty of people other than Lecturers who would lose their jobs if Irish disapeared in the morning, That is the point I was making. Where is the strawman argument in that?

Yes, plenty would lose their jobs but they are a net drain on the economy as what they teach is useless. The whole Irish speaking economy is entirely dependent on the state. Whatever the predominant language of Ireland is, be it English, Esperanto or even Irish, if that were to disappear another language would by necessity take its place.
If Irish disappeared? Meh.

deise go deo wrote: »

More unsupported claims, Please back this little gem up with some evidence.

Someone said a US university hires an Irish speaker every few years. Google have hired a few.
Did I miss someone?

deise go deo wrote: »

What Issue? You are making stuff up to try and attack sources that contradict your opinions.

ONE of the references you quote make a mention of second language vs other subject comparison. ONE!!
I am not making that up. Show me another one with these controls. And again, no, you can't assume they have done this unless they say so. It is not "obvious".

deise go deo wrote: »

Well I appologise that the professional study into linguisrtics dosent cater for you by treating its readership like children by explaining the blatently obvious.

It's obvious that in all those studies the children in the second language classes were threatened with beatings unless their grades improved, and that the fairy godmother visited them each night for extra grinds. I mean, it doesn't *actually say this* anywhere, but it's obvious, right?

deise go deo wrote: »

I have provided all that is needed to demonstrate the benefit of second language study.

Again again again, that was never contested! Sheesh!
You have consistently NOT provided what is needed to demonstrate the benefits of a second language is above that of any other subject.

deise go deo wrote: »

In your little mind maybe, but in reality? I think not.

Yes, in actual reality a counterclaim is not required in order to demonstrate that a claim in unproven. Any ("properly" I should add I suppose) trained researcher will tell you that.
You are severely out of your depth on this. I suggest you doggie paddle back to shallower waters.

deise go deo wrote: »

If you want your claims to be taken seriously you will back them up with evidence, that you have failed to do so shows clearly that you are unable to.

What claim have I made? I have shown your claim to be unproven. I do not need to make a claim.
Again you have utterly failed to understand this. It is an absolute basic of the scientific method. You are patently unqualified to participate in such a discussion you are so inadequately skilled.

deise go deo wrote: »

I have provided evidence to support my claims at every step, That this evidence contradicts your opinion is something you will just have to live with, trowing a tantrum will get you nowhere.

"In your little mind maybe"? No tantrum evident there.
You have provided lots of evidence that a student who studies a second language as an extra subject is likely to be a student who achieves better grades, particularly in other languages.
You have provided no evidence (though you consistently assume you have) that second language lessons are superior to any other subject in this regard.
You have provided no evidence (though you consistently assume you have) that an equal time spent studying a second language promotes superior overall grades any better than any other subject does.
Back to the drawing board for you mate.

Salty

dubhthach wrote: »

One proposal I've seen is to spilt the leaving cert subject in two. There would be a compulsory subject that would be mostly based on communication plus some written parts. Then second subject which would be optional would include all the heavy literally bits (poems, plays, books, etc.)

In my opinion though the standard of teaching in this country needs to improve. This covers all subjects not just Irish.

That would definitely make the language more attractive to students. Wonder how long it would take them to actually implement this though.

The standard of teaching is very inconsistent. I have some excellent teachers, but there are one or two who are very poor. Many teachers just highlight the entire textbook and tell students to learn it themselves. That's not teaching, it's just stating the obvious, in my opinion.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, you're really cracking me up again with your "troll" lameness.

Well, if one were to call you something else, they would be banned, so troll will have to do.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are patently unqualified to participate in such a discussion you are so inadequately skilled.

In fairness, isn't the whole point of boards so that people can express their opinions and have friendly debate and discussion? I wasn't aware that one had to have "qualifications" of any description to do this. We are not participating in a scientific study here, we're just having a regular debate. Nobody is more intellectually superior to anyone else here. (And btw, I'm not saying that you think you're better than anyone else, but you're giving the impression that you do).

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

Well, if one were to call you something else, they would be banned, so troll will have to do.

More back-seat modding. Since you admitted yourself that in "the heat of the moment" you are incapable of reading posts correctly, I'm guessing the full time mods here aren't in fear for their jobs just yet.
TBH I couldn't care less what you call me. It's just more evidence that you can't answer the questions posed logically.

_meehan_ wrote: »

In fairness, isn't the whole point of boards so that people can express their opinions and have friendly debate and discussion? I wasn't aware that one had to have "qualifications" of any description to do this. We are not participating in a scientific study here, we're just having a regular debate. Nobody is more intellectually superior to anyone else here. (And btw, I'm not saying that you think you're better than anyone else, but you're giving the impression that you do).

I am quite definitively stating that a constant demand for a "counter claim" displays complete ignorance of the scientific method. That isn't really an "opinion" as such, in as much as 99.9999% of trained researchers would agree that it is sufficient to show a case is not proven on its own without having to propose an opposing theory.
I have already said there is one reference provided which showed some relevance in that the second language tuition was a substitute for another subject. My request for further clarification or expansion on this second hand synopsis were not only not met, they were completely ignored.