- 1. Rosetta Stone for Language Learning:YAY or NAY?Gillian
LordUniversity of [email protected]
2. How many have heard of Rosetta Stone? How many have used
Rosetta Stone? How many work for Rosetta Stone? 3. Why this topic?
Powerful, omnipresent marketing Asserts that Rosetta Stone is
theonly way to learn a language K-12 and higher education programs
feelingthreatenedRosetta Stone spent $98.5 million onadvertising in
2011,up from $70.5 millionin 2010, according toKantar
Mediawww.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/business/media/rosetta-stone-ads-emphasize-fun-not-efficiency.html
4. GOAL OF THIS PRESENTATION:to provide a global understanding,
usingmultiple data sources, of the advantagesand disadvantages of
the Rosetta Stoneprogram for learning (Spanish as) asecond/foreign
language 5. How to assess such a program?1. Professional
assessments2. (Previous) Empirical studies3. Student attitudes (a
priori) *4. Perceived quality of materials *5. Affective factors
*6. Outcomes The Does it work? question, consideringlearning in
terms of:a) Self-perceived communicative abilities *b) Quantitative
measures of communicative abilities *c) Qualitative measures of
communicative abilities ** = my data 6. My data Participants
University of Florida students enrolled in BeginningSpanish 1 (avg.
age = 20) L1 English No other L2 proficiency (beyond h.s.
requirement) Course designed for those with NO prior
Spanishinstruction 3 environments: Classroom (C): N=4 Rosetta Stone
(RS): N=4 Classroom+Rosetta Stone (RS+C): N=4Original population
had20-25 participants ineach of the three groups. 7. My data
Learning EnvironmentsClassroom In-tact section Followed
regularsyllabus withstandard materialsRosetta Stone Self-selected
(required byIRB) Not required to attendany regular class Used RS
package(ConversationalSpanish): 16-week course designedto cover
materialcomparable to a face-to-facebeginning class 6 units of
Rosetta StoneVersion 4 TOTALeSpanish, each has 4lessons [Level 1,
half ofLevel 2] Minimum of 6 RosettaStudioTM sessions Minimum of 8
hours inRosetta WorldTM Monitoring of programaccess and time on
taskRS + Class In-tact section ofBeginning Spanishclass Same
instructor ascontrol group Used Rosetta Stonematerials as
theirtextbook (including allfeaturesdescribed for RSgroup) 8. Data
used here (1)Quantitative Data Portion of Spanish CLEP test
(grammatical competence) Versant Proficiency Test in Spanish (oral
proficiency) Attitude survey (Likert, style, pre- and post)
Acoustic analysis of vowel production in Spanishinterviews 10
tokens of /e/ extracted from each participantsinterview. Tokens
separated for male and female Each formant measured at midpoint
using Praat F1 and F2 extracted using a script and compared to
standardnative values 9. Data used here (2)Qualitative Data Fluency
analysis of Spanish interviews Total number of words spoken Number
of Spanish words; Number of English words Number of dysfluencies
Lexical density (number of unique Spanish words) Number of
fillers/non-lexical items Content analysis of English interviews
Affective factors Reactions to instructional materials Student
perceived learning Language communication and use Other specific
language problem or comment 10. Criterion 1:PROFESSIONAL
ASSESSMENTS OFTHE ROSETTA STONE PROGRAM 11. Professional
Assessments Godwin-Jones (2007, 2009) Traditional computer-based
training programs often informed by technology specialists,not SLA
specialists Rosetta Stone provides visualization feedback for
specific sounds (pronunciation); mostlyaccurate Lafford, Lafford
& Sykes (2010) Evaluate if programs provide the tools necessary
for effective language learning, based onfeatures that research has
shown to be important (interaction, relevant contextualizationof
language, etc.) these products do not incorporate a number of the
[necessary] research-basedinsights (e.g., the need for culturally
authentic, task-based activities) that informed SLAscholars might
have given them. Santos (2011) Lack of context General inability to
respond to spontaneous student speech What Rosetta Stone calls
interaction is a rather poor and limited version of what onewould
encounter in a real-life conversation DeWaard (2013) Based on
personal experience, professional reactions Not a viable
replacement of current instruction at the postsecondary level 12.
Criterion 2:EMPIRICAL STUDIES INTO THEOUTCOMES OF THE ROSETTA
STONEPROGRAM 13. Empirical studies Vesselinov (2009) Commissioned
by Rosetta Stone; RS beginning usersdemonstrated increased
knowledge of the language after 55hours of use. Nielson (2011)
Self-study programs in workplace; some success amongcommitted
users, but extreme attrition. Stevenson & Liu (2010) Use of
social interaction in web-based language learning tools;lack of
ability to engage learners in true interaction; users donot take
advantage of network opportunities. 14. Criterion 3:STUDENT
ATTITUDES TOWARDSTHE ROSETTA STONE PROGRAM 15. Background
questionnaire Why did you volunteer for the Rosetta
Stoneclass-replacement option? I heard a lot of good things about
RS and wanted to try it. Can better manage my time and schedule and
move moreat my own pace without dealing with class. Sounded more
beneficial. I was going to use my own to supplement
educationanyway. 16. Criterion 4:PERCEIVED QUALITY OF THEROSETTA
STONE MATERIALS 17. Student Impressions of Materials Comments from
English interviews coded formentions of the Rosetta Stone materials
42/181 comments in RS group 80/124 comments in RS+C group Difficult
to classify as categorically positive ornegative Main themes:1.
Technology [Flexibility, Ease of use, Glitches]2. Approach to
language learning 18. Sample student comments(Flexibility) Like
youre able to kind ofdo it like on your owntime, you know, Im
notlike restricted. Its nice not to go to class. I have always
preferred tolearn language, like, onmy own. Its more flexible with
myschedule. 19. Sample student comments(Ease of Use) Because its a
lot of visual stuff,and I feel like Im a visual learner. I like
Rosetta Stone a lot. Itspretty easy to use. World is good, I do the
games. Oh, and you can do it on youriPad so Id do that a lot,
liketake it to peoples houses, andtheyll all be like watching TV,
andI would be like, doing my RosettaStone, so its very versatile. I
like how its like uh, more like agame, so Im more willing
toactually do it It was just kind of a lot harder [touse] than I
expected. I just didnt show what words Ineeded to use before it. I
[dont like] the lack of humaninteraction. Sometimes itll show the
personspeaking, and sometimes itll saylike he or she, and sometimes
itllbe I. And I couldnt tell thedifference. but it is tedious, a
lot of it. 20. Sample student comments(Tech glitches) Im still
having problemswith the computer. I cant get themicrophone to work
I was doing my Studiosession and I had noaudio, like, I could
hearthem, but they couldnthear me the wholetime. 21. Student
Impressions(Language learning in general) I feel like its more like
how younaturally learn the language insteadof like, These are your
vocabularywords this week. I think the Studio session was themost
interesting thing. Speaking it for sure [is hardest],because when
you see it on paper itsa little bit but when it gives youfour
options, its easier to be like, itsone of these four. The program
is really good with liketeaching like vocabulary. With like
vocabulary, its like reallygood, and you get by. Its just like the
grammar, and how to like,put it together. You cant ask questions.
You dont get any writing, and then all of asudden theres one
writing thing. You have that whole grammar andconjugation issue on
Rosetta, becausethey dont really explain it. You really need to
have communicationwith a real person. I would enjoy getting more
grammarlessons just to get a foundation ofknowledge, then building
up on that. But Im glad to be in the class, too,because its really
hard by itself. I think its helpful to have a teacher toexplain
like, why things are. Rosetta Stone doesnt like, I dont know,hammer
it down for you like they would ina normal grammar class. 22.
Criterion 5:AFFECTIVE FACTORS ANDEMOTIONAL REACTIONS TO THEROSETTA
STONE PROGRAM 23. Affective factors Comments from English
interviews coded forany mention of affect/emotion Related to using
the materials, learning, etc. andhow the learners felt in that
respect 33/181 comments in RS group 8 positive towards RS, 8
negative, 17 unrelated 24/123 comments in RS+C group 2 positive
towards RS, 9 negative, 13 unrelated 24. Student reactions/emotions
I dont have a problemwith staying focused onmy computer at all. I
like not having atextbook to worryabout. I like it a lot. Im kind
of struggling. I didnt like the stories. Im always justfrustrated
because Imlike, I dont reallyunderstand it. I feel like it should
bemore structured. 25. Criterion 6:LINGUISTIC OUTCOMES OF
THEROSETTA STONE PROGRAMa) Self-perceived communicative abilities
26. Perceived learning Comments from English interviews coded
forany mention of perceived learning oroutcomes 34/181 comments in
RS group 9 positive assessments, 22 negative, 3 unrelatedto
materials 14/123 comments in RS+C group 8 positive assessments, 3
negative, 3 unrelated 27. Perceived learning I understood like the
vocab. I feel like Im slowly learningand progressing to learn
thelanguage. I do like the studio sessionsWhen I do do them, like I
feellike it helps me more. I can understand almostalways what is
being said. Learning a language just likeon your computer as
opposedto like in person can actuallybe effective. Rosetta Stone
doesnt give youtoo much, like, actualinstruction so you dont learn.
I dont know how to use wordsin Spanish. Im just kind of like
nervousabout going back to class. I dont feel as confident as Idid
at that last meeting,honestly. We didnt ever have to likememorize
the conjugations, soI dont know them, so I cantsay that it was
super effective. It was just kind of a lot harderthan I expected.
28. Perceived learning(pre-post changes on relevantitems from
attitude survey) Significant decrease among RS on item #11:
Interacting via chat or telephone iscomparable to interacting
face-to-face. Significant increase among RS and RS+C on item#19: I
would prefer to learn a language on my owntime and at my own pace
than in a group orclassroom setting. 29. Criterion 6:LINGUISTIC
OUTCOMES OF THEROSETTA STONE PROGRAMb) Empirical measurements of
communicative abilities 30. CLEP testAverage scores (converted to
%)p = 0.16538.65
39.1747.50100.0090.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.000.00Classroom
Rosetta Stone RS+class 31. Versant testAverage scores (converted to
%)p = 0.62027.08
26.2520.00100.0090.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.0010.000.00Classroom
Rosetta Stone RS + Class 32. PronunciationAcoustic analysis of
vowel /e/ No significant differencebetween groups or testtimes.
Control males shows slighttrend toward more native-likeF1 values in
finalinterview.RS = RS+Class = Classroom? 33. Criterion
6:LINGUISTIC OUTCOMES OF THEROSETTA STONE PROGRAMc) Discourse
analysis reflecting communicative abilities 34. Final interview -
ClassroomINTERVIEWER: Cuntame, qu te gusta hacer en tu tiempo
libre, o los fines de semana?SL: Repitas, please.INTERVIEWER: Qu te
gusta hacer?SL: Qu te gusta hacerINTERVIEWER: Te gusta ir a
pelculas? Te gusta escuchar msica?SL: Uh, fin de
semana?INTERVIEWER: S.SL: Uh, s. En fin de semana, yo yo estudio,
uh, mucho.INTERVIEWER: S?SL: Uh, para mis exmenes. S. Yo tengo
muchos examines en qumica orgnica, biologa, y laboratorio. Uh,s.
Mucho, uh no, muy ocupado. So, no pelculas, no, uh,
deportes.INTERVIEWER: Cul fue la ltima pelcula que viste?SL: Cul
teINTERVIEWER: La ltima vez, the last time, que viste una
pelcula.SL: Phew Hmm. Lets see dos menses.INTERVIEWER: Meses,
mhm.SL: Meses. Ago. Cmo se dice ago?INTERVIEWER: Hace. Hace dos
meses.SL: Hace, s.INTERVIEWER: Wow.SL: Yo no yo no veo muchas
pelculas en Gainesville.INTERVIEWER: Qu pelcula fue esa, hace dos
meses? Cmo se llamaba?SL: Uh, el pella pelcula cmo se dice
was?INTERVIEWER: Era, o fue.SL: Era. La pelcula eraINTERVIEWER: No
te acuerdas?SL: Yo no s. 35. Final interview Rosetta
StoneINTERVIEWER: Mhm, y qu haces en Gainesville?SH: Um youre going
to have to forgive me, my minds like blown Um, yo estoy
estudiar.INTERVIEWER: T estudias? Y qu ms?SH: Yo trabajo en un
restaurante de Dragonfly.INTERVIEWER: Y, con mucha frecuencia, vas
de compras?SH: Yo no entend, repetirlo, por favor.INTERVIEWER: Con
mucha frecuencia, vas de compras? Ir de compras significa go
shopping.SH: All right, say that one more time, please.INTERVIEWER:
Con mucha frecuencia, vas de compras?SH: Uh, no, uh, no voy a what
did you, how did you say to go shopping?INTERVIEWER: Ir de
compras.SH: No voy de compras.INTERVIEWER: Y, qu vas a hacer este
verano?SH: Este verano, yo voy a visitar Brazil.INTERVIEWER: Vas a
visitar Brazil, y vas a estudiar en Brazil?SH: No, um, yo voy a
trabajar en Brazil.INTERVIEWER: Y, em, qu ms vas a hacer en Brazil?
Vas a leer, vas a jugar deportes?SH: What am I going to do in
Brazil? I thought I just answered that.INTERVIEWER: Solo
trabajar?SH: I dont know, Im going on a missions trip, I dont know
how to express that in Spanish,butINTERVIEWER: Pues, buena suerte,
muchas gracias. 36. Ratio of L1/L2
words0.260.830.681.000.900.800.700.600.500.400.300.200.100.00Ratio
of English-to-Spanish words used, by groupControl AverageRS + class
AverageRosetta Stone Average0 = no English words produced1 = 1
English word produced for every Spanish word 37. Assistance
requestsAverage # of clarification / assistance requests by
group2.061.030.111.750.613.243.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00#
Clarification requests in Spanish # Clarification requests in
EnglishControl Average RS + class Average Rosetta Stone Average 38.
SUMMARY 39. Yay or Nay?1. Professional assessments2. Empirical
studies3. Student attitudes (a priori)4. Perceived quality of
materials5. Affective factors6. Outcomesa) Self-perceived
communicative abilitiesb) Empirical measurements of
communicativeabilitiesc) Discourse analysis reflecting
communicativeabilities 40. What about overall time on
task?GROUPCompletionRateAverageScoreTotal CourseUsage (hours)Total
ClassTime (hours)Classroom 96.99% 90.77% 70.00 39.00RS+C 93.67%
98.63% 32.81 37.25RS 97.67% 95.88% 30.69 NA 41. But ? 42. IN
CONCLUSION 43. 1. More research is needed. Further professional
assessments of theprograms, as new features are added Continuing
analysis of current data Empirical studies of outcomes
andeffectiveness Attitudes and reactions Linguistic outcomes
Larger, more diverse populations 44. 2. Rosetta Stone can be
effective. In certain circumstances: Introduction and exposure to
new languages Refresh skills previously acquired Excellent
vocabulary presentation and practice Flexible for varied
populations Highly motivated/diligent learners more apt tomake
progressUndoubtedly better than nothing! 45. 3. BUT Based on
multiple data sources, Rosetta Stonedoes not appear to be, or have
the potential to bemore effective,faster,easieror(necessarily) more
enjoyablethan other methods,such as common classroom-based
approaches. 46. Keep an open mind about RS and othersimilar
products. CALL continues to expand and develop. Rosetta Stone has
acquired new tools andcapabilities. Knowledge of another language
is alwaysvaluable. But dont believe everything the adspromise.
Claims are largely unfounded so far. Immersion or classroom
experiences remainmost promising methods of acquiring
FLproficiency. 47. Thank [email protected] thanks to: UF
College of Liberal Arts &Sciences UF CLAS Humanities
ScholarshipEnhancement Fund Carlos Enrique Ibarra (statistics)
Caroline Reist, Brandon Shufelt,Keegan Storrs, Diana Wade (RAs)
Laura Bradley, Lisa Frumkes(Rosetta Stone) 48. Works Cited DeWaard,
L. (2013). Is Rosetta Stone a viable option for L2 learning?
Forthcoming in ADFLBulletin. Godwin-Jones, R. (2007). Emerging
technologies; Tools and trends in self-paced languageinstruction.
Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 10-17. Retrieved 26
September 2012from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/emerging/
Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging technologies: Speech tools and
technologies. LanguageLearning and Technology, 13(3), 4-11.
Retrieved 26 September 2012
fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/emerging.pdf Lafford, B., Lafford,
P. & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre dicho y hecho : An assessment of
theapplication of research from second language acquisition and
related fields to the creation ofSpanish CALL materials for lexical
acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 427-529. Nielson, K. B. (2011).
Self-study with language learning software in the workplace.
LanguageLearning and Technology, 15(3), 110-129. Retrieved 26
September 2012
fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/nielson.pdf Santos, V.
(2011). Review of Rosetta Stone Portuguese (Brazil) levels 1, 2,
& 3.CALICO Journal,29(1), 177-194. Stevenson, M. P. & Liu,
M. (2010). Learning a language with web 2.0: Exploring the use of
socialnetworking features of foreign language learning websites.
CALICO Journal, 27(2), 233-259 Vesselinov, Roumen. Measuring the
Effectiveness of Rosetta
Stone.http://resources.rosettastone.com/CDN/us/pdfs/Measuring_the_Effectiveness_RS-5.pdf.
49. Sample CLEP test items 50. Versant proficiency test 51. Versant
proficiency test Instrument has been tested for reliability and
validity 52. Rosetta Stone interface 53. Rosetta Stone
interface(vocabulary) 54. Rosetta Stone interface(grammar) 55.
Rosetta Stone interface(pronunciation) 56. Rosetta Stone
interface(World play) 57. Rosetta Stone interface(World talk) 58.
Rosetta Stone interface(World explore) 59. Rosetta Stone
interface(Studio) 60. Attitude survey
