LLTI Archives

August 2005, Week 5

LLTI@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:21:54 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (265 lines)
--- Forwarded Message from Ralph Schultz <[log in to unmask]> ---

>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>References: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:31:57 -0400
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum              
<[log in to unmask]>
>From: Ralph Schultz <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #7954.8 Rationale for digital language lab systems (!)

>I find that it seems more to be the teacher than the language. 
>Teachers that are comfortable using the technology and are willing 
>to spend the time to see how it works. The teachers who are willing 
>to work with me and come up with creative ways of using the 
>technology that fits what they are trying to teach, are more 
>successful in the lab than others.

I also see the "Pendulum effect". It is new, therefore we need to use 
it! Sometimes it does not work well as a teaching tool. But it does 
take trying it and getting a feel as to what does work for you and 
what does not.

Ralph Schultz
Language Technology Specialist
University of Virginia


>--- Forwarded Message from "Carol Reitan" <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
>  >Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:41:20 -0700
>  >From: "Carol Reitan" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>  >Subject: Re: #7954.7 Rationale for digital language lab systems (!)
>
>Hi all,
>
>I've noticed that use of the language lab systems seems to depend 
>quite a bit on
>the nature of the course and the nature of the language being taught.
>
>When it's a phonetics course or another type of course where pronunciation is
>the main focus, the language lab systems seem to be used more (whether digital
>or analog).
>
>When it's a course in a tonal language or a language that generally takes a
>longer time to achieve basic proficiency (Chinese and Japanese come to mind),
>the language lab systems seem to be a higher priority especially in the lower
>level courses.
>
>I've observed at our school that the teachers of Chinese rely on the language
>lab quite a bit in the first year course and in  the course of Mandarin for
>speakers of Cantonese (where pronunciation is the BIG thing) more 
>than teachers
>of French or Spanish.
>
>The teachers of French, Spanish, German require the audio work, but they also
>are happy when students participate individually in other activities using
>web-based resources, or CD-ROMs, or video. This is not to say that they aren't
>concerned with pronunciation, but that their students are able to do 
>other, more
>communicative activities perhaps earlier in their language studying 
>careers than
>the students of Chinese and Japanese.
>
>The teachers of Chinese and Japanese bring in their classes, listen in on
>assigned converstion activities, have students record, etc.
>
>What have the rest of you observed?
>
>
>
>Carol H. Reitan
>Technology Learning Center
>City College of San Francisco
>50 Phelan Avenue, LB2
>San Francisco, CA 94112
>-------------------------------------------------
>415.239.3554
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.ccsf.edu/tlc
>
>  >>> [log in to unmask] 8/17/2005 1:12 AM >>>
>--- Forwarded Message from "Chen Xiaobin" <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
>  >From: "Chen Xiaobin" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >To: "Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum"
><[log in to unmask]>
>  >References:  <[log in to unmask]>
>  >Subject: Re: #7954.6 Rationale for digital language lab systems (!)
>  >Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:53:29 +0800
>
>Hi,
>     Sitting far away from each other doesn't mean that we are building
>barriers among students. On the contrary, using language lab can certainly
>enhance the learning process.
>     Firstly, when students are all at the beginning level, it's almost
>impossible for them to communicate in the target language. At this state,
>they need to accumulate more materials and be familiar with what they are
>going to use. If teachers "force" them to use the target language face to
>face, they might lose confidence too. Rather, using computers and language
>labs enables time and space for them to think about. Learning a language is
>not like learning physics. Understanding doesn't mean being able to put them
>into actual use. So they need time and space to practice.
>     Secondly, hiring more teachers can certainly help. However, if we know
>the common acquisition process and can figure out how human beings learn a
>foreign language, why don't we put them into use and program some
>courseware that helps? From the perspectives of economy and effectiveness,
>using modern technology is way better.
>     Thirdly, different people have different personalities. Some are more
>outgoing and eager to communicate with others. Some don't. If someone is
>timid and doesn't like talking with others, they would feel even more
>embarrass in front of a teacher if they are not proficient enough in
>language. This may also prevent them from acquiring the new language.
>     Saying all these, I don't mean that language labs and computers are
>better than a language teacher in every aspect. What I want to say is that
>they should be used as a supplementary part of language learning. Using them
>can in some ways enhance the learning process.
>C.X.B
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "LLTI-Editor" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:54 AM
>Subject: Re: #7954.6 Rationale for digital language lab systems (!)
>
>
>  > --- Forwarded Message from "Daniel M. Wescovich" <[log in to unmask]> ---
>  >
>  >>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>References: <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>From: "Daniel M. Wescovich" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>Subject: Re: #7954.5Rationale for digital language lab systems
>  >>Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:32:35 -0500
>  >>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum
>  > <[log in to unmask]>
>  >
>  > Hi:
>  >
>  > I've been paying attention to the responses to this initial question
>  > of the rationale for digital language lab systems because I
>  > personally have a different perspective on the rationale for an
>  > electronic language lab system of any kind.
>  >
>  > I think that the language lab system (analog or digital), which
>  > basically is going to be some electronic system to enable
>  > communication and instruction between teacher and students, is an
>  > obstacle to any goals of real, authentic learning. I observe lab
>  > sections using the lab system to communicate with people who are
>  > sitting two feet from each other. And it seems to me that in many
>  > cases we are placing a physical, technological barrier between the
>  > real human beings who are sitting there.
>  >
>  > Please understand, that I realize the utilization of a digital lab as
>  > a virtual lab which can enable communication between people who are
>  > in different classrooms, different cities even. And I appreciate this
>  > advancement because it breaks down barriers of physicality to enable
>  > communication and learning. But why do we insist on using computers
>  > to communicate with people who are actually, physically in the same
>  > room with us? Doesn't this create a psychological distance between
>  > us? Doesn't this hinder, rather than promote, real human
>  > communication? I know that the first round of answers will have to do
>  > with the conflicts that arise from large class sizes, obscene teacher-
>  > to-student ratios, and the like; and that these technologies help us
>  > to reach a greater number of students at once. But this is simply an
>  > attempt to create quantity over quality.  To those arguments, I say
>  > let's use the enormous amount of money we spend on technology to hire
>  > more teachers, to promote better teaching, support new teachers, and
>  > build better classrooms.
>  >
>  > Really, I could go on and on with this. These questions have been on
>  > my mind for a long time, and I have always been afraid to say them
>  > out loud because I don't want to seem like I am losing faith in our
>  > educational structures, not just at the level of language arts and
>  > second language acquisition, but at all levels of education,
>  > especially in America. And the truth is that I am losing faith,
>  > because at every turn it seems that we are trying to do everything in
>  > our power to ensure that no one learns anything very well.
>  >
>  > Just, one last thing. A while back I was speaking with a student (not
>  > mine, I actually do not teach anymore. I am a technology coordinator)
>  > who expressed to me that she thought it was funny that her foreign
>  > language teacher insisted on speaking to her through the headset and
>  > microphone of the computer. So I asked her why it was funny, and she
>  > said there were only seven people in the class, and they all sat five
>  > feet from each other.
>  >
>  > So, am i just crazy, or does it seem like the technology might
>  > envelop us.
>  >
>  > On Aug 4, 2005, at 12:28 PM, LLTI-Editor wrote:
>  >
>  >> --- Forwarded Message from "Lorraine Segal" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >> ---
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> Subject: RE: #7954 Rationale for digital language lab systems
>  >>> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:12:54 -0700
>  >>> Thread-Topic: #7954 Rationale for digital language lab systems
>  >>> Thread-Index: AcWSE8n45bKpLO7aTt6qJTqdokNCSgGS4+GU
>  >>> From: "Lorraine Segal" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>> To: "Language Learning and Technology International Information
>  >>> Forum"
>  >>>
>  >> <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>
>  >> I'd be very interested in hearing responses as well. Thanks.
>  >>
>  >> ________________________________
>  >>
>  >> From: Language Learning and Technology International Information
>  >> Forum on behalf
>  >> of LLTI-Editor
>  >> Sent: Tue 7/26/2005 11:56 AM
>  >> To: [log in to unmask]
>  >> Subject: #7954 Rationale for digital language lab systems
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> --- Forwarded Message from "Chapman, Annelie (ITC)"
>  >> <[log in to unmask]>
>  >> ---
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> From: "Chapman, Annelie (ITC)" <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>> To: LLTI <[log in to unmask]>
>  >>> Subject: Rationale for digital language lab systems
>  >>> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:44:41 -0700
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >> Hello to all,
>  >> And especially to those of you who are using digital language lab
>  >> systems
>  >> (e.g. Sony Soloist/Virtuoso, Can8 Virtual Lab, etc.). I would be
>  >> interested
>  >> in knowing why your campus chose to invest in these systems as part
>  >> of your
>  >> services for language instruction and learning.
>  >>
>  >> I would be happy to compile responses to this question for the
>  >> list, if
>  >> others express interest.
>  >> Summer regards,
>  >> Annelie
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Annelie Chapman, Ph.D.
>  >> Instructional Technology Coordinator
>  >> UCLA Center for Digital Humanities
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ***********************************************
>  >>  LLTI is a service of IALLT, the International Association for
>  >> Language Learning, and The Consortium for Language Teaching and
>  >> Learning (http://consortium.dartmouth.edu).
>  >> Join IALLT at http://iallt.org.
>  >> Otmar Foelsche, LLTI-Editor ([log in to unmask])
>  >> ***********************************************
>  >>
>  >
>  > Daniel M. Wescovich
>  >
>  > Coordinator
>  > Language Learning Center
>  > Saint Louis University
>  >

ATOM RSS1 RSS2