--- Forwarded Message from "Read Gilgen" <[log in to unmask]> --- >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:17:05 -0500 >From: "Read Gilgen" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: #5746 The LRC conundrum ------------------ Ursula will be collecting your comments to share with us at MWALL! <grin>. BTW, it's just been announced that the "Whiz Bang 5000" has been upgraded to the "Whiz Bang 9000." And the virtual lab (or virtual lab director) may not be so far off the mark. OK... a more serious response. The issues you state are very real. We've had some experience with this recently. We surveyed faculty and asked them what they wanted/needed and they came back strongly requesting a multimedia computer lab for all the language software they need their students to use. So we built it based on (stated) needs, and they didn't come. For nearly two years the lab went virtually unused until we closed it three days a week and made it available to instructors to bring in their classes for class-based activities (mostly web stuff). Now it's getting used (just in time to upgrade the computers!!) In terms of facilities planning... I'm not sure that we should be focusing on space, but rather on function. If we can get students to work with materials online, we've accomplished the same objectives without using space. Instead, we can use freed up space for other purposes. University administration is just as willing to showcase innovative virtual labs as they are "field of dreams" labs. Actually, the virtual ones are easier to show to alums in far flung locations. We do have some challenges here, but we also have some great opportunities. >>> [log in to unmask] 10/05/00 07:31AM >>> --- 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.