--- Forwarded Message from Pat Miller <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:25:26 -0700
>From: Pat Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum     <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #5746 The LRC conundrum
>References: <[log in to unmask]>

------------------
Ursula et alt,

I could not agree more! Indeed as we look at lab design we need to
balance the dream with the reality.  I redesigned our lab several years
ago and attempted to make it as state-of-the-art as possible all the
while keeping in mind the immediate, projected and realistic needs and
uses of the facility.  I do not believe in purchasing equipment which, as
you mentioned, will sit idle and simply (and ideally) serve to elevate
the institution's status. Recently I have been elected to the CSUN
Academic Senate Technology Committee and, as one of our tasks, we were
asked to submit suggestions for SMART GOALS for academic technology. One
of the most belabored issues was the idea that the level of technology
must be curriculum driven. Though the concept seems to be closely related
to basic common sense, convincing the administrative echelon is quite a
different story!  We may be opening a Pandora's Box but one which needs
to be looked into nonetheless. We can build the "verdant field with night
lighting" and surely they will come...question is: will they stay and
will this utopian environment  increase the chances of them hitting
'academic' home runs! Just my $.02 worth.

Pat Miller

LLTI-Editor wrote:

> --- 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.