--- Forwarded Message from "Ross, Andrew" <[log in to unmask]> --- >From: "Ross, Andrew" <[log in to unmask]> >To: "'Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum'" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: RE: #5657 To drill or not to drill >Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:50:16 -0400 ------------------ Hi, All: David raises a very interesting point -- one that is larger than simply the drill functionality of lab system cassette decks. To what degree do proprietary systems provide functionality that our students and faculty use on a regular basis? This post grows out of an experience that I and another list member shared yesterday . . . Pat Pecoy of Furman University and I just returned from a day-long workshop at Mary Washington College. We were asked to present our views on planning, structuring, administering, funding, and using a language lab. MWC is planning a new language lab, to be online in Fall 2001. They have had presentations by at least one turnkey lab vendor, and had, I think, pretty much decided on going with that type of product. Until Pat and I started talking. An issue that arose during our discussion was the fit between teaching styles and lab equipment - if proprietary systems are essentially set up to provide functions appropriate to audiolingual methods, why order a turnkey audiolingual lab if the department as a whole doesn't teach that way? To what degree should a department modify their overall approach in order to make use of the very expensive equipment they just ordered? Our view - correct me if I'm wrong, Pat -- is that turnkey labs, such as Tandberg, Sony and Can8 are not necessarily appropriate for many departments. I'd like to hear from the list on this: how many of you have proprietary systems in place that aren't being used by faculty, simply because they don't teach that way? What functions do your students use? What don't they use? Do faculty really sit in the lab, monitor, and correct students' pronunciation on a regular basis? Do students hand in recorded cassettes to your faculty which they then listen to and grade? Could your system's primary functions be duplicated in other ways? a. Andrew F. Ross, Ph.D Director, Multimedia Language Lab G15 Puryear Hall University of Richmond, VA 23173 Tel: (804) 287-6838 [log in to unmask] "Worrying about a large institution, especially when it has computers, is like worrying about a large gorilla, especially when it's on fire." -- Bruce Sterling -----Original Message----- From: LLTI-Editor [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:59 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: #5657 To drill or not to drill --- Forwarded Message from "David Pankratz" <[log in to unmask]> --- >Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:38:41 -0500 >From: "David Pankratz" <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: To drill or not to drill I recently conducted a small, informal survey of lab users asking them if they use the "drill" function on our cassette machines or not, and if so, how useful they find it. (The "drill" function allows them to record their voices as they listen to the tape, enabling them to replay the passages and compare their recordings to the native speaker.) My quick impression as I look over the results is that about 15-20% of those who filled out our questionnaire do use this feature _and_ find it beneficial. I intend to write up a complete summary of the results. In the meantime, I would like to ask if have any of you have done a similar survey, or do you know of any published studies on this topic? I often hear lab directors say something like "most students do not really use this function on our lab cassette machines." I find this issue very interesting and respecially relevant in light of the shift to digital delivery of listening materials, which to my knowledge does not provide the option--at least not yet--for students to "listen, record, and compare." Any observations you have or leads on studies would be appreciated. David Pankratz Loyola University Chicago