--- Forwarded Message from Ursula Williams <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:40:30 -0500
>To: [log in to unmask]
>From: Ursula Williams <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: The LRC conundrum

Dear llti colleagues,

I wonder if we could spend some time discussing two approaches to
Language Lab design philosophy, if you will. I know the issue comes
up from time to time in face-to-face discussions, but I do not recall
seeing it in this venue, and I  would be very interested in learning
what your opinions are.

The two approaches I have in mind are "Field of Dreams" (If you build
it they will come) and what we could call the Needs-Based Orientation
("Field of Needs?" Sorry.) I tend to look at these two approaches as
being at the opposite ends of some continuum, so that there are
points along a line that might include some of both bases; that word
not being the plural of "base" as in "baseball" but rather of
"basis," not wishing run (oops) too far with the baseball metaphor.

The reason for opening this topic is that the Language Resource
Center at Notre Dame is under review this year. One of the goals, as
communicated by the Dean of Arts and Letters to the review committee,
is for the LRC to be a part of the goal of elevating the stature of
the University as a whole. (Yeah, we're only in the top 20 of US
News; we want to be in the top ten. Really.)

This brings to mind the phrase "state of the art." I could easily
design a rip-snortin' whiz-bang 5000 Language Resource Center, but if
it sat empty because our instructors don't feel the need to use it
what would be the point? I don't think it would be ethical to have an
LRC that would be showcased in some national magazine if, as we have
experienced before, some of the equipment sits idle until the
warranty runs out. On the other hand, this year the LRC does sit
empty for an alarming amount of time, due to the fact that the
Spanish program (about 1200 students) has eliminated the lab
requirement, going instead to WebCT-based exercises, which do not, by
the way, include an audio production component. (No telling what
might happen next year.)

Another facet: I joke with my staff that one of these years it'll
just be me and a big old server, and that'll be the Language Lab. The
joke works, I think, because there is a grain of truth in it; it
certainly could be a possibility, if that's what the instructors and
students need.

So, at the risk of stealing an upcoming MWALL session, I ask,
"Whither the Language Lab?" If we go 100% needs-based, will we always
be out of date a few years later? If we go with the verdant field
with night-lighting, will they come?  Will we be out of date a few
years later either way?


Ursula
Language Resource Center
University of Notre Dame

PS Please don't worry about the MWALL folks not having anything left
to say at the meeting. That has never been one of their (our)
problems.