--- Forwarded Message from "Jean-Jacques d'Aquin" <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:30:57 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
>From: "Jean-Jacques d'Aquin" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #5661.1 Using technology to save $$ and to revolutionize learning
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Organization: University of South Alabama
------------------
Greetings, Samantha!
It might be worth your while to contact the US Military Academies to see
how they are incorporating the new technology into their courses at this
time. I personally don't know what they are doing, but when I was a cadet
at the US Air Force Academy over 40 years ago, they were using an
"adjusting" (my term) system in all beginning classes that allowed for a
sort of self-pacing. I have always felt that a similar system would be
beneficial for the students wherever there were multiple sections of the
same course being taught. No faculty wanted to discuss it because it was
"inconvenient" for them.
It went something like this: Students were originally placed in
different sections according to estimated ability. The sections
differed somewhat from each other in pacing and depth of coverage of the
material. At the end of each week of a term students took a proficiency
test that was scored immediately and the results posted that same day.
On the first day of the next week, the top 10% of each section moved up to
the next section in difficulty and the lower 10% dropped down one section.
By the middle or the 2/3rds of the term every student had found "their"
best level and the switching dwindled out.
I remember dropping like a rock to the very bottom of the 1st year Russian
class and barely surviving. On the other hand, I gravitated to the top of
the Freshman English sections and studied semantics and comparative
literature. I was unable to survive calculus and physics and eventually
left the Academy after two years.
The point I am trying to make is that there is much benefit to be derived
from "out of the box", atypical thinking that differs from the knee-jerk
instructional delivery models that exist solely for the benefit of the
faculty and administration (as we are presently seeing with the different
models of distance ed. programs). And technology wasn't even part of the
equation at that time!
So I say bravo, to you and others that would like to focus and adjust
instructional delivery to individual student potential. I have always
felt that EVERY student should have the same opportunity for "customized"
instruction as the "special ed" (formerly "disabled") students are
entitled to by law. That is, if the QUALITY of education REALLY is of
importance to the managers of educational systems and the public.
"There, I think, is the rub." But, what do I know ...
Cheers!
Jean-Jacques d'Aquin, Language Lab Director
University of South Alabama, HUMB-322, Mobile, AL 36688
VOX 334-460-6291 FAX 334-460-7123
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, LLTI-Editor wrote:
> --- Forwarded Message from Samantha Earp <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
> >Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Samantha Earp <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: #5661Using technology to save $$ and to revolutionize learning
> >To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>
> ------------------
> I've kicked around an idea for years to have students
> move through language instruction at their own page,
> supported by lots of technology work and smaller,
> lab-like (or travaux pratiques sessions, for you
> French-speakers) sessions with teachers. They would
> move through based on mastery, and all the materials
> would help move them in this direction.
>
> (A former colleague and I at a previous institution
> briefly considered putting on a small pilot project
> sequence in German in this way, but the institutional
> barriers and resistance from other colleagues shot us
> down in a big way, very fast.)
>
> Writing this very basic description in this way
> glosses over a whole lot of learning & SLA theory that
> would need to be examined carefully, not to mention
> the logistics of organization and extremely careful
> instructional design that takes into account the
> unique technology-enhanced learning environment
> (rather than tacking technology onto a pre-existing
> pedagogical structure). But I'm still very interested
> in this idea, and along with Rachel would love to hear
> more about any forays into this area...
>
> Best,
> Samantha Earp
> Duke University
|
