Most Effective And Quick Way To Learn Thai? (Bkk)

[AAACEEE]

i want to learn thai ASAP... i live in BKK

i found out there are several methods.. pimsleur or classes etc etc.. what would u recommend and why?

how can i get the pimsleur method? and is it any good? or bettor off taking classes?

also a recommendation from a good and good priced language school in downtown BKK will be really apreciated !!

many thanks

[HappyInCM]

Learn Thai ASAP - you must be energetic! I hope you mean get started ASAP as there don't seem to be many (any?) shortcuts (but if you find one, let me know).

As for good schools:

As for pimsleur, you can search google for pimsleur download and probably find it for free.

Personally, I think a mixed approach is best, so I have used a school, a tutor, the becker series and Pimsleur. Many will tell you to tackle reading early on if you are serious about your pronunciation (which you probably should be ). That's important but remember the main thing is to get the sounds of all the consonants and vowels nailed down and then of course the tones.

Good luck!

[desi]

i found out there are several methods.. pimsleur or classes etc etc.. what would u recommend and why?

Those recommending methods will mostly be selecting from their language learning style. So, do you know how you learn? Have you taken one of those online tests? I'd personally start from there, then go searching around for a method fit. No point in you sitting in a class if you don't learn best that way...

Btw - I do like Pimsleur Thai. Along the same lines, I found Assimil Thai good as well.

[SoftWater]

Those recommending methods will mostly be selecting from their language learning style. So, do you know how you learn? Have you taken one of those online tests? I'd personally start from there, then go searching around for a method fit. No point in you sitting in a class if you don't learn best that way...

Btw - I do like Pimsleur Thai. Along the same lines, I found Assimil Thai good as well.

An oft-repeated myth, this one. There's actually little empirical evidence for the 'we all have different learning styles' theory. It mostly came about in the early 1980s due to Howard Gardner's ideas of "Multiple Intelligences", an idea that itself has been criticized for lacking any empirical support (amongst other things). It's a very attractive idea because we do have different talents and tastes, but it by no means follows that these are equally pedagogically effective.

Teachers and schools also love to repeat this mantra because it gives them the opportunity to throw in (or sell as 'the latest technique') novel activities at a whim without really undertaking any solid research that these activities are beneficial (or indeed not harmful) to students' progress. As an historical aside, this rise of the 'multiple learning styles' theory is correlated with the rise of TEFL/TESOL as a worldwide business model and, as part and parcel of that phenomenon, with the vast majority of English language teachers having little formal training (8 weeks TEFL cert) and who only speak their own native language (i.e., have no experience of learning a foreign language themselves). You could, and probably should, read a lot into that.

But I digress from the OP's question .

As a long-time language teacher, I'll repeat what I've said on this forum many times - whatever method or school you plump for, underneath all the gimmicks and sales techniques the only effective methods/schools all employ the same techniques in the end: exposure (showing you new material), repetition (getting you to practice it repetitively until it becomes intrinsic and unconscious), and graded learning (giving you short and frequent goals to attain). Don't take my word for it, examine all the major techniques and see for yourself. You'll find these are common to all successful methods/schools/teachers.

My own answer to the OP's question is pick any reputable school and STICK AT IT. Persistence is a prerequisite of success in language learning just as it is learning any new skill. The commonest form of failure is ceasing to study/practice, and has little to do with the school itself (unless the school is the reason why you stop studying!). For the reasons stated above, it doesn't matter much which (reputable) school you go to (you can search the pinned 'best language schools' thread to get an idea of the reputable ones. Tod Daniels posts in there are invaluable).

I'd also second Eljefe's solid advice about mixing it up with as many different sources as you can.

Edited August 27, 2010 by SoftWater

[desi]

An oft-repeated myth, this one.

I totally disagree.

[SoftWater]

An oft-repeated myth, this one.

I totally disagree.

On what basis?

[desi]

SoftWater, to explain...

I am not comfortable in language schools so any of their methods would not work on me. So you saying to stick it out with a school is too generic of a suggestion. It's not for a lot of students which is why so many wander away.

It just so happens that I learn best with audio and visual. Writing down while listening works. Photos with sound does as well. I'll play with Pimsleurs and Assimil only if I'm reading/writing in Thai script while listening. But forget classrooms.

And I do agree that combos work. But it needs to be a combination that suits the student. So call it a learning styles, call it whatever, but each of us do learn in our own way.

Some selfstudy, others depend on a classroom setting, some one on one.

Some jump out in the street with phrase books.

Some learn by quizzing themselves with thousands of flashcards.

Some listen to teachers and don't talk for xxx amount of hours.

Some thrive on Pimsleurs or TYT or Becker.

Some swear by Rosetta Stone.

And who's to say if any one of those methods/learning styles is better than the other, if it works for them?

One more agreement - whatever works, stick to it... common sense.

[SoftWater]

Some people try to diet with Atkins, some with WeighWatchers, some on their own, some by fasting, etc. Just because there are many methods that appeal to different people does not mean all methods are equally effective. The only diet that works is one in which the intake of calories is less than their expenditure over a prolonged period.

My point about language learning is the same. The only methods that work have the same basic methodology. I take your point that the delivery of the method is a significant factor, thanks for bringing that out. However, my point is that if the basic methodology is lacking, the learning style won't work no matter how much you enjoy your lessons.

(BTW, by 'going to a school' I didn't mean 'sitting in a classroom with others', necessarily. I went to AAA school for six months and only did one-on-one tuition. I meant it in the wider sense of 'paying for tuition [with a reputable teacher]').

Edited August 27, 2010 by SoftWater

[dobadoy]

Some people try to diet with Atkins, some with WeighWatchers, some on their own, some by fasting, etc. Just because there are many methods that appeal to different people does not mean all methods are equally effective. The only diet that works is one in which the intake of calories is less than their expenditure over a prolonged period.

And there's still a plenty of "dieticians" telling people that the basic science ain't truen (for $99/month)...and worse, folks that believe it, despite often having a good education. We believe what we want to believe, that's why advertising works.

Answer to the question:

i. live upcountry

ii. find yourself a girl (or boy) that don't speak English.

You'll beat these guys hands down in 12-months.

[SoftWater]

Answer to the question:

i. live upcountry

ii. find yourself a girl (or boy) that don't speak English.

You'll beat these guys hands down in 12-months.

Do you mean i and ii together or as alternatives? In any case, the jury's out on that one. J. Marvin Brown (founder of AUA, who I'm not a big fan of, but...) has an interesting anecdote (and, I say 'anecdote' with emphasis, as I'd love to have seen the evidence...) about two different kind of learners who both tried to acquire a second-language by 'going native' (as we might say), but with radically different results (one successful, one not). His analysis makes interesting, if not entirely convincing, reading. However, I mention it here just to flag the idea that immersion alone is not the panacea it is often (romantically) cracked up to be. Though approached in the right way, the evidence suggests that it does seem to be provide both the fastest and the most natural results.

What does 'approached in the right way' mean? There are posters on this forum who will berate other learners for not 'getting out there and talking', then there are others (mostly of the later-AUA persuasion) who will say going out and talking is exactly the wrong thing to do till you've 'listened' for some indeterminate amount of time. I can give a number of reasons why the AUA theory is flawed (tho' I'm coming round to the idea that this doesn't necessarily mean the method is flawed, maybe they just don't understand how it works...in any case, their theoretical explanations are definitely wrong, IMHO), and I can think of various reasons why the 'get out and talk' theory is flawed (one being that some people are not naturally outgoing).

Which brings me back to what I said above. It doesn't matter how you do it - and there may be different ways of doing it as Desi argues - but what you must do is expose yourself to more and more of the language, and find avenues to practice it repetitively. For some, that might be going out talking to strangers, for others it may be in the safety of a classroom, and for yet other by skypiing on the internet or making self-videos. Who knows, but at the risk of breaking my own record for repetition:

1.expose

2.repeat

3. set short achievable goals

+

persevere

ad infinitum. Those are the only magic ingredients. All else is gimmick. If you find this unconvincing let me ask you this: think of a skill you have (playing chess, guitar, woodwork, Taekwondo, or even something as mundane as learning to drive or touch-typing on a computer), how did you learn it? You learned it by 1 & 2, and unless you were highly motivated and the skill was acquirable in a short amount of time, you almost certainly did 3 too. Language learning is a skill just like any other - there is nothing 'mysterious' about it. It is only different in its huge complexity, which should convince you yet further that no simple 'trick' will ever do, and you need far more of 1. & 2. for this skill than you ever did for any other.

Edited August 27, 2010 by SoftWater

[Joosesis]

I think the biggest secret to learning Thai is..... that you have to study Thai. In the 3 days or so that this post has been open, you could have (an maybe you did) learn all of the consonants... or the vowells, or could have learned how to ask someone their name and where they are from.

If I had a nickel for every book I've purchased, every fresh notebook that will be "perfect" for collecting vocabulary, for every magazine, for every lakorn, for every for every for every. ....I'd have my ticket to Thailand.

We often spend so much time pondering starting or deciding the best way to start that we forget we have to actually start.

I found that a structured routine helps. I know that every lunch at my desk will include reading the latest headlines on Thai newssites. I know that every night before I go to bed. I'll read a chapter or two in a book. I know that every Saturday, I have Thai class (and homework to be done before that).

This question of 'best way to study' comes up on all of these forums about every month or so. I probably could have learned a word or two in just the time it took to respond.

[SoftWater]

^Wise words, indeed.

[AjarnPasa]

Great treatise Softwater and excellent point Joosesis. Agree totally.

... now to read something on the internet that isn't in English.

[Asianrider]

too many people chasing shortcuts to learning a new language. As Softwater indicates time, practice, repetition, different sources, and sheer hard work will work wonders.

[SoftWater]

I blame the teachers, and those who market things like 'fluency in 3 months'

"Hard slog" is a truth that never sells in any market.

Edited August 29, 2010 by SoftWater

[desi]

I blame the teachers, and those who market things like 'fluency in 3 months'

Agreed (especially your second point)

Did you read Stu Jay's latest post on Walking Dictionaries?

(He's started a new blog and it's going great guns)

[remiss]

I blame the teachers, and those who market things like 'fluency in 3 months'

"Hard slog" is a truth that never sells in any market.

"Rapidly learn thai in 10 days with Pimsleur" - if it were only that easy

[Hardie]

All of the above, AND DON'T FORGET TO CROSS-REFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. Learning to mispronounce something correctly every time is no help.

I only offer two cents because few have talked about reading, which I consider extremely valuable even if speaking is your main goal. For me learning is mostly visual, so it's nice to be able to see what you're learning. If the alphabet seems hard, then take comfort in the fact that it's far more accurate than the Roman one.

The larger question is whether you want to conduct your life here primarily in the Thai language. If not, then you may never totally learn it. If so, then you may have to blow off some English-speaking Thais.

Good luck.