--- Forwarded Message from Lauren Rosen Yeazel <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Subject: Re: #5661Using technology to save $$ and to revolutionize learning
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:45:43 -0500
>From: Lauren Rosen Yeazel <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "LLTI message" <[log in to unmask]>

Interesting question Rachel.

My first reaction was NO, not in first year. Then I stepped back and
decided to think a little creatively as we have the opposite problem of
not enough students in the LCTL's to sustain courses on some of our UW
campuses. We have been using ITV to deliver these languages but it can
get very expensive.

So you asked for thoughts. I took a quick look at the FL National
Standards executive summary which I keep close at hand. It seems to me
that if we are looking for language proficiency through the 11 content
standards presented in this document under the umbrella of the 5 C's,
there are really only the 3 under communication that are, IMHO, not
possible through computer technology. Of course these 3 are often the
ways we use to have students demonstrate their proficiency in the other 4
C's and they are ultimately the most important and useful for students to
take with them when they are in the international workplace or overseas.
So, for some LCTLs I wouldn't recommend it. Language acquisition research
already shows that students find  it requires more time to learn certain
skills in those languages because of complexities that they don't face
with the romance languages (ie. verbal skills often come before written
rather than side by side).

What I would wonder, and it might be a good experiment/dissertation, is
to offer every other day classroom work and computer-based learning on
the out of classroom days. In doing this, you could potentially have the
TA teach the same thing twice (ie. Mon. & Tues.) and split the classes in
half. The TA's would still have a larger number of students but they
would meet with them at separate times so the class size itself doesn't
grow. This would allow the students communication time and they would be
able to demonstrate their grasp of the other 4C's (learned in the
computer sessions) through whatever in class performance assessment the
instructor wants. The computer sessions would have to be very focused and
well organized to ensure that students are meeting the learning goals set
forth and that they are acquiring the abilities and knowledge outlined in
the standards.

Just a thought. I'd love to hear feedback, arguments, etc. from anyone
willing to offer them.

Lauren Rosen
Collaborative Language Program Coordinator
University of Wisconsin
618 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI  53706

[log in to unmask]
608-262-4066 (voice)
608-265-3892 (fax)
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clp.htm

>--- Forwarded Message from Rachel Saury <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
>>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:00:01 -0400
>>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum
><[log in to unmask]>
>>From: Rachel Saury <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Using technology to save $$ and to revolutionize learning
>>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>------------------
>Dear colleagues and friends,
>
>I have an interesting nut for everyone to chew on.  It is a commonly
>expressed view in our field that the new digital technologies are primarily
>being used within a curricular model that differs little from when we
>relied on analog technologies.  This manifests as students primarily
>listening to digitized audiotapes and video with some recording of their
>responses.  If the digital technologies are being used in innovative ways,
>it is still within the traditional classroom structure: students meeting in
>class 3-5 hours/week (depending upon the level) with a single instructor
>with homework assignments, both written and oral, to be done at home and in
>the lab.  It is interesting to note that the report from the Mellon
>Foundation in 1998 after years of funding foreign language instructional
>technology projects, came to the conclusion that making the leap into using
>the technology in ways that could truly cut costs is challenging.
>
>I have been intrigued by Virginia Tech's Math Emporium model.  About four
>years ago, VA Tech decided that they needed a more cost-effective way to
>deliver basic math instruction.  They dismantled the traditional structure
>of the class, with students meeting in large lecture halls with a single
>instructor--usually a TA under the supervision of a full-time faculty
>member.  They purchased an old Rose's building (Rose's is a southern
>version of K-Mart), installed a few hundred computers in various
>configurations and groupings to allow for individual, paired and group
>work, created learning modules, and restructured the commitment of faculty
>and TA time.  Students primarily did their work using the computer-based
>learning modules.  They had paired and group projects and could also choose
>to go to lectures on various areas of mathematics, if they felt they needed
>extra help.  Faculty members and TAs held their "office hours" in the lab
>and were available to tutor students.  Small group sessions with
>instructors were also scheduled for group discussion and questions.
>
>Here at UVA, the Spanish Dept. is facing a crisis:  enrollments in first
>year Spanish are up, with the result that each class has 30 students with
>one instructor.  There is no end in sight in terms of enrollment, but
>funding for more TAs is not keeping up with demand.  I have been
>considering whether the Math Emporium model could be applied creatively to
>foreign languages in such a way that students could actually get more
>one-on-one tutoring, more opportunities for communication with an
>instructor and with other students, and more drilling and rote pratice to
>reinforce grammatical forms and vocabulary.  In the end, I don't think what
>students would learn in terms of quantity or quality would be
>sacrificed.  But I do think that learning could be more dynamic, with
>students being exposed to more varied communicative contexts and
>opportunities than in the current structure.
>
>I would be interested in your ideas and thoughts.  Are there any programs
>out there right now that are trying this out?  Do you think this could
>work?  If so, how?  Can you refer me to any sources?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Rachel Saury
>
>
>Rachel E. Saury, Ph.D.
>Director, Arts & Sciences Center for Instructional Technologies
>P.O. Box 400784
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, VA 22904-4784
>(804) 924-6847 ph.
>(804) 924-6875 fax
>www.people.virginia.edu/~res4n