An opinionated critique of Duolingo

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Effectiveness and Limits of Duolingo

  • Widely seen as decent for “0 → A1-ish”: alphabets (kana/kanji, Cyrillic), basic vocab, simple reading; several users credit it with getting them ready for a short trip or skipping a school level.
  • Many report strong gains in passive skills (reading, some listening) but very weak speaking and real‑time comprehension, especially once natives speak at natural speed.
  • Teachers and university instructors say Duolingo users arrive with lopsided skills: lots of words, little grasp of grammar, declension, tense, or gender; rarely able to “test out” of beginner classes.
  • Some long‑term, highly motivated users did reach roughly B1–B2 when Duolingo was paired with grammar books, tutors, immersion, and other resources.
  • Consensus: useful as one tool in a broader strategy, poor as a standalone path to fluency, especially beyond early stages.

Gamification, UX, and “Enshittification”

  • Streaks, leagues, XP, potions, and constant notifications strongly divide users:
    • For some, they are the main value: they turn zero effort into a daily habit and “beat doomscrolling.”
    • Others feel trapped: chasing streaks while learning plateaus; “cheat‑streaking” with trivial lessons; interface full of pop‑ups and animation that slow down actual practice.
  • Several note the app has worsened over time: removal of grammar “Tips & Notes” and discussion forums; replacement of native audio with buggy ML voices; tree view replaced by a rigid path; more childish visuals and dark‑pattern nagging.
  • Some argue gamification crowds out genuine learning by rewarding engagement metrics over challenging, effortful activities.

Pedagogical Critiques

  • Heavy focus on recognition (tapping word tiles, matching pairs) and L2→L1 translation; relatively little forced production from L1→L2 or free sentence creation.
  • Exercises are narrow and repetitive, with many odd or unnatural sentences; not enough variety to infer grammar rules, especially for inflected languages.
  • Mobile UX encourages fast tapping over reflection; no (or weak) spaced-repetition compared to tools like Anki.
  • Duolingo is criticized for marketing (“5 minutes a day”, “best way to learn”) that fosters unrealistic expectations and displaces more effective methods.

Alternatives and Complementary Approaches

  • Mentioned successful complements: Anki and other SRS, Babbel, Pimsleur, Assimil, Language Transfer, Mango, Memrise, SpanishDict, comprehensible‑input platforms, language tutors (e.g., iTalki/Preply), meetups, and in‑country immersion.
  • LLM‑based tools and AI conversation apps are promising but seen as most useful only after a substantial base (vocabulary, grammar) is built.
  • Several express interest in non‑commercial or community‑driven alternatives (LibreLingo, custom apps, story‑based tools) that prioritize pedagogy over engagement metrics.