--- Forwarded Message from Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:54:25 -0600
>From: Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #5661Using technology to save $$ and to revolutionize learning
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
------------------
Research in the 1920s demonstrated convincingly that the traditional
lecture format is not a very effective way to teach any subject.
This conclusion is verified every few years by yet another study. It
is amazing that anyone still teaches this way.
Thankfully, I don't think anyone still teaches foreign languages this
way. We know that learning a language requires lots of talking and
lots of human contact, so our classes are designed around maximizing
student participation and interaction. Even if the math department
shifted successfully from a lecture to a computer-based instructional
format, it would be unwise to assume that language teaching could
make a similar transition. Our initial techniques are different, and
the two fields require different teaching methods.
I must say that I am opposed to the current drive to cut costs, cut
salaries, cut staff and decrease the quality of education (often to
inflate the salaries of college presidents and football coaches). We
are unwise to aid enthusiastically in the destruction of our
universities, and in the sacrifice of our students to the dollar.
This kind of budgeting is very short sighted.
> In the end, I don't think what students would learn in
> terms of quantity or quality would be sacrificed.
I think both would be diminished. As would other important factors.
Our new lower division coordinator was involved with a University of
Illinois project which increased the student/teacher ratios more than
two-fold for Spanish classes. They spent $200K in one summer,
developing a web-based curriculum to go along with text book (how
long will it take to amortize that investment?). A team of twenty
professors, staff and grad students worked 10 hour days for the whole
summer to put together something that worked, or at least didn't fall
apart. The result? In many ways, they came up with a good, varied
and interesting product.
The teaching load required either very large classes or less frequent
class meetings. They chose the latter. TAs met with fairly small
groups of students (~20) once a week, and did everything else online.
All homework, quizzes and tests were done on the computer. Among the
negative reports from the TAs was that it was difficult to learn even
the names of all their students within the first month, and was
impossible to understand the learning styles, strengths, weaknesses
and needs of each individual. The TAs complained of the tens of
hours spent in front of the computer each week grading and answering
email questions. (The job of teaching took only a little more time
than before, but they enjoyed being in class with students much more
than spending the majority of their work time chained to the
computer). The curriculum was even more inflexible than before. It
is obvious that education will suffer under these conditions. Yet I
see nothing that they did "wrong" in implementing their program. The
wrong idea was to imagine that cutting staff and funding wouldn't
hurt education.
> But I do think that learning could be more dynamic,
> with students being exposed to more varied communicative contexts
> and opportunities than in the current structure.
I'd love to hear your ideas about this. From among all the programs
that I read and hear about, I don't remember any ideas that seem to
offer the above-mentioned benefits.
Derek Roff
>> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:00:01 -0400
>> To: Language Learning and Technology International Information
>> Forum <[log in to unmask]> From: Rachel Saury
> ------------------
> Dear colleagues and friends,
>
> I have an interesting nut for everyone to chew on. It is a
> commonly expressed view in our field that the new digital
> technologies are primarily being used within a curricular model
> that differs little from when we relied on analog technologies.
> This manifests as students primarily listening to digitized
> audiotapes and video with some recording of their responses. If
> the digital technologies are being used in innovative ways, it is
> still within the traditional classroom structure: students meeting
> in class 3-5 hours/week (depending upon the level) with a single
> instructor with homework assignments, both written and oral, to be
> done at home and in the lab. It is interesting to note that the
> report from the Mellon Foundation in 1998 after years of funding
> foreign language instructional technology projects, came to the
> conclusion that making the leap into using the technology in ways
> that could truly cut costs is challenging.
>
> I have been intrigued by Virginia Tech's Math Emporium model.
> About four years ago, VA Tech decided that they needed a more
> cost-effective way to deliver basic math instruction. They
> dismantled the traditional structure of the class, with students
> meeting in large lecture halls with a single instructor--usually a
> TA under the supervision of a full-time faculty member. They
> purchased an old Rose's building (Rose's is a southern version of
> K-Mart), installed a few hundred computers in various
> configurations and groupings to allow for individual, paired and
> group work, created learning modules, and restructured the
> commitment of faculty and TA time. Students primarily did their
> work using the computer-based learning modules. They had paired
> and group projects and could also choose to go to lectures on
> various areas of mathematics, if they felt they needed extra help.
> Faculty members and TAs held their "office hours" in the lab and
> were available to tutor students. Small group sessions with
> instructors were also scheduled for group discussion and questions.
>
> Here at UVA, the Spanish Dept. is facing a crisis: enrollments in
> first year Spanish are up, with the result that each class has 30
> students with one instructor. There is no end in sight in terms
> of enrollment, but funding for more TAs is not keeping up with
> demand. I have been considering whether the Math Emporium model
> could be applied creatively to foreign languages in such a way
> that students could actually get more one-on-one tutoring, more
> opportunities for communication with an instructor and with other
> students, and more drilling and rote pratice to reinforce
> grammatical forms and vocabulary. In the end, I don't think what
> students would learn in terms of quantity or quality would be
> sacrificed. But I do think that learning could be more dynamic,
> with students being exposed to more varied communicative contexts
> and opportunities than in the current structure.
>
> I would be interested in your ideas and thoughts. Are there any
> programs out there right now that are trying this out? Do you
> think this could work? If so, how? Can you refer me to any
> sources?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rachel Saury
>
>
> Rachel E. Saury, Ph.D.
> Director, Arts & Sciences Center for Instructional Technologies
> P.O. Box 400784
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4784
> (804) 924-6847 ph.
> (804) 924-6875 fax
> www.people.virginia.edu/~res4n
Derek Roff
Language Learning Center, Ortega Hall Rm 129, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131 505/277-4804 fax 505/277-3885
Internet: [log in to unmask]
|