>>You can't expect to be fluent enough in a language JUST with Duolingo
This is true, but I don't think it's damming. It's also true of exercise books, flash cards and such that they replace.
Duolingo teaches a basic vocab grammar, "spoken" in one-liners. Within that scope, it is, imo, a nice app. The core theme is "no pain," and it is enjoyable.
"Not good as a tutor" is a high bar. Not sure it's fair.
OTOH, "as good as a tutor" is the right bar. It would be awesome if they (or anyone) had software that teaches through to working fluency.
In any case, I think we should avoid thinking of good outcomes in tech monolith/monopoly terms.
We don't need Duolingo to "eat the world" of language learning. Say we have 20 or 30 duolingos^ that add up to online language learning.
This is true, but I don't think it's damming. It's also true of exercise books, flash cards and such that they replace.
Duolingo teaches a basic vocab grammar, "spoken" in one-liners. Within that scope, it is, imo, a nice app. The core theme is "no pain," and it is enjoyable.
"Not good as a tutor" is a high bar. Not sure it's fair.
OTOH, "as good as a tutor" is the right bar. It would be awesome if they (or anyone) had software that teaches through to working fluency.
In any case, I think we should avoid thinking of good outcomes in tech monolith/monopoly terms.
We don't need Duolingo to "eat the world" of language learning. Say we have 20 or 30 duolingos^ that add up to online language learning.