Comparing Methods of FL Instruction

Success in Foreign Language Acquisition:
Traditional Classroom Instruction Versus Rosetta Stone

“I think Americans who used to feel other people needed to learn [English] now realize that the time has come when that doesn't work anymore,” said Kathryn Groth, vice president of the Frederick school board who oversaw the addition of Chinese to their language department (Aratani 2006). In the times of increasing globalization, the world is witnessing more cross-national and cross-continental interactions than ever before. With this increased interaction in the business, political, and social realms comes an increased need for foreign language instruction. Businessmen and women learn new languages for advancement opportunities, ambassadors and soldiers learn them out of communicative need, and others learn them for personal or travel purposes. Regardless of purpose, all learners want to be fluent…fast. This raises the question: what’s the fastest and most effective way to learn foreign languages? In the search for the most effective instruction method, researchers and experts of language study assess factors such as retention rates, pronunciation, cultural knowledge, comprehension, fluency in speech and writing, and speed of learning (Hurley & Tinajero, 2001, p. 14). However, it should be noted that there is no single method that works best for every type of language learner; individual differences affect students’ learning styles. Assessing the types of language knowledge acquired using each method, I will show that traditional classroom instruction is more effective than the computer program Rosetta Stone in producing well-rounded bilingual students.

Regardless of differences in instruction, learners all use a certain set of learning strategies to acquire understanding and eventual fluency of a FL. According to Zoltán Dörnyei (2005) Professor of Psycholinguistics at the University of Nottingham, learning methods that incorporate certain types of learning strategies are called 1) cognitive: involving manipulation of input through repetition, summarizing, and using images, 2) metacognitive: using higher-order strategies aimed at analyzing, monitoring, evaluating, planning, and organizing one’s own learning, 3) social: involving interpersonal behaviors focused on increased amount of foreign language (FL) communication and practice, and/or 4) affective: controlling emotional conditions and experiences that shape one’s subjective involvement in learning (169). These strategies incorporate listening, vocabulary, speaking, reading, writing, and translation tactics. Specific examples of strategies include imitating native speakers, creating mental images of words, taking notes in the FL, and translating texts (Dörnyei, 2005, p.185-186). Repetition, memorization, and internalized rule-formation are additional strategies (Littlewood, 1984, p. 49-50). Furthermore, senior Lecturer C.J. Dodson of University College of Wales stated that in the process of learning a FL, all learners suppress their mother tongue (MT), essentially using only one language at a time. When producing output, the learners see images of what they wish to define and then label it in the FL; they connect the MT and FL through mental images instead of translation (Dodson, 1967, 47).

In the process of language learning, it remains unclear whether there is a single path of development followed by all learners, with variances in speed and efficiency of learning created by individual differences or whether these same differences cause individuals to follow different development paths entirely (Littlewood, 1984, p.51). Regardless, the influences of these differences are far from negligible. Students differ in motivation, learning opportunities afforded, nature of linguistic input received, and ability to learn. Some learn the FL out of communicative need, others desire to get involved in the FL community, and some see it as a useful tool for furthering goals. In terms of learning opportunities, chances to practice or study through immersion greatly affect fluency. The emotional climate of the classroom also helps or hinders learning. The personality of the teacher, his/her ability, and the quality of input he/she provides to students affect learning. Students’ ability to learn varies depending on personality, dedication, age, cognitive factors, and the active strategies they adopt (Littlewood, 1984, pg. 53-62). The variation in learning styles highlights the difficulty analysts face in labeling any single method as superior. For the purpose of this paper, a successful learner will be defined as a student who emerges with a high level of fluency and formal, conversational, and cultural mastery of the language. In course of the comparison, I will objectively list the advantages and disadvantages of both instructions methods, and then make a concluding judgment of their efficacy.

Classroom instruction
In the classroom, there exist two basic types of instruction, one focusing on audio-lingual learning and the other on grammar-translation learning. Dodson calls these styles the direct and indirect methods, respectively. The direct method focuses on oral instruction and stresses that the FL should be learned the same way as the MT. When taken to the extreme, this means keeping written materials off the syllabus until students acquire basic oral fluency; it claims that learning to read and speak in a FL develop as two separate languages in the mind. Through in-class immersion, students make direct associations between the FL words and objects (Dodson, 1967, p. 37-43). Conversely, instructors using the indirect method focus on grammar rules and vocabulary; students are taught to combine the two to formulate phrases. They spend the majority of class time writing and translating passages. Accuracy is valued, and oral learning only plays a small role (Dodson, 1967, 44-54). Dodson concluded that the best method of instruction, called the bilingual method, is a fusion of positive elements from both extremes. This method encourages instructor-student interaction and teaches students to learn new words and phrases through association with images and text (1967, p. 67-71). Most instructors use methods that incorporate characteristics of both styles, and as a result, they teach some variance of the bilingual method.

Advantages of classroom instruction
Learning in a classroom under the guidance of an instructor provides many advantages. First, students have the benefit of direct interaction and communication with the instructor. They are free to ask any type of question and receive a prompt response. If the students still do not understand, further explanation is provided. Students are constantly receiving input as the teacher speaks, and they can practice imitating him/her (Littlewood, 1984, p. 49). When students err, the instructor engages them in recasting; he/she repeats the student’s utterance correctly, highlighting the error the student made. They provide confirmation checks, answer clarification requests, and conduct comprehension checks (Gass, as cited in Foster-Cohen, 2009, p.124-125). They highlight important features and patterns of the language and spend extra time on the concepts students struggle with. They also have the opportunity to explain unfamiliar idiomatic expressions and vocabulary in context (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 161). Constant feedback is provided, as teachers are constantly assessing their student’s progress in class through testing. This close tracking reveals weaknesses to the instructor and allows him/her to make adjustments to the syllabus (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p.11). These advantages highlight a major benefit of classroom instruction, flexibility.
Learning in a classroom has other basic advantages; for example, through interaction with classmates, students earn extra practice. Also, for those who are anxious about making errors, chorus responses, which involve the whole class, allow them to gain confidence (Dodson, 1967, p. 76). On a basic physical level, being enrolled in a language class forces one to practice. It’s a binding engagement; thus it provides motivation to attend and learn. The instructor has the ability to create the best possible learning environment: he/she controls classroom conditions by opening windows, being positive and smiling, and using encouraging body language (Dodson, 1967, p.81). Perhaps most important is the inclusion of cultural education in classroom language courses. Learners are exposed to cultural texts, audio, film, and history of the target language. This fosters interest in the FL culture, increases motivation, and breaks down cultural prejudices. For example, some instructors set up pen-pal programs that allow students to directly interact with native speakers (Walsh, as cited in Michel, 1967, p.341-342). The numerous positive aspects of classroom instruction have made it the preferred method for decades.

Disadvantages of classroom instruction
Although classroom learning is successful in many aspects, it is far from flawless. The setting can create anxiety and inhibit learning; constant testing places great importance on accuracy (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 201). In this setting, individual students don’t receive much speaking time, as everyone has to have a chance to participate (Otto as cited in Gougher, 1972, p. 11). A major issue in classroom learning is the clash of learning/teaching styles. Obviously, it would be impossible for the teacher to accommodate all learning styles in the classroom, but “learning style mismatches are at the root of many learning difficulties” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 150). By instinct, most instructors teach their personal style because it seems the most appropriate from their perspective; however, it is not always compatible with the students and can actually make learning more difficult. Also, in classroom learning, so much of the success of the students learning depends on the ability and dedication of the teacher. He/she can overemphasize certain subjects while neglecting others or even create a negative environment through aggression (Littlewood, 1984, p. 32). Last, the form-oriented, highly structured nature of classroom instruction restricts natural processes and can hinder learning, leaving students to solve “linguistic puzzles” created by grammar rules (Dodson, 1967, p.39). These inherent flaws in classroom instruction result from the imperfect nature of instructors and uncontrollable variances in style.

Rosetta Stone
As an alternative to classroom instruction, many language learners have turned to computer software, and of the numerous available programs, Rosetta Stone has the best track record for producing results. CNN described it as “the gold standard of computer-based language learning” (“Rosetta Stone,” 2010). An independent study conducted by visiting professor, Roumen Vesselinov, Ph.D., at Queens College City University in NY showed that after 55 hours of use of the program, 56-72% of students increased oral proficiency by at least one level (measured by ACTFL OPIc test). This was equivalent to 84 hours or one semester of college class time (2009, p. 6).
The unique structure of the program focuses on teaching the FL in the same way the MT was learned, through images and oral learning. Their copyrighted method is called “Direct Immersion” which the company claims, “activates your own natural language-learning ability” (“FAQ,” 2010). This method is unique in that it teaches learners to map new FL words directly to an image, eliminating the need for translation from the MT to the FL and thus teaching the learner to think in the FL. Rosetta Stone argues that the translation method taught in many classrooms slows learning and makes speaking a new language, “intimidating and laborious” (“FAQ,” 2010). The program includes 19 units, and each unit has 10-11 lessons followed by a review lesson upon completion of each unit. Visually, the program presents images on digital note cards. Depending on the user’s choice of settings, the student will either produce the word orally, match what they hear to an image/word by clicking, or type in the word matching an image (Tanner, 1995, p. 328). For example, in French mode, a native speaker’s voice would say, “chien” and the user would click on the one of the four photos on the screen that corresponds to the meaning (“dog”).

Advantages of Computer Software Learning: Case Study, Rosetta Stone
Many of the advantages of using Rosetta Stone involve convenience. With the software, learners determine how much time and when they want to work. Also, it’s portable: software can be installed on laptops, online subscriptions allow access from any computer, and voice lessons can be downloaded onto mp3 players (“FAQ,” 2010). Students learn at their own pace in a private environment. The intimate environment eliminates the anxiety of judgment and distractions while also providing one-on-one interaction (Hutchinson, cited in Michel, 1967, p. 356-357). Learners can repeat lessons they find difficult or skip ahead to harder tasks. They can select a certain language skill to practice and adjust difficulty by changing delays and timers (Erickson, 2004, 1028). The interface is user-friendly with lots of visuals, and the program is interactive (“Rosetta Stone Spanish Review”). For oral exercises, a microphone is needed; the program uses voice recognition software to record the learner’s response and judge the correctness of the accent (Erickson, 2004, 1027). In aural exercises, learners hear and learn from authentic native speaker’s accents (Tanner, 1995, 329). Throughout the program, the learner can track their progress through scores provided for each exercise completed (“Rosetta Stone Spanish Review”). Aside from vocabulary and structure, the program also incorporates some practical and problematic elements such as idiomatic expressions (Delgado, 1995, 331).

Disadvantages of Rosetta Stone Instruction
Although learning through Rosetta Stone is convenient and relatively simple, the program fails to address several important elements of FL learning. To effectively learn a language through Rosetta Stone, students have to be deeply motivated and invested in learning a language since the amount of time they use the program is dictated by personal choice. Also, the program is expensive; for example, Level 1 for French starts at $229 (“Learn French”). It requires true desire to learn for one to be willing to spend the money and use the program regularly. Also, technical difficulties are frustrating; trying to type responses with the software can be problematic. It is case-sensitive and accent marks must be added manually by clicking buttons on the screen. Writing quickly becomes tedious. For certain languages such as Russian, a different keyboard is required (Tanner, 1995, 329).

During the exercises, which teach vocabulary through image matching, one can guess the correct answer through process of elimination, and if the wrong answer is chosen, the program allows one to continue guessing until the write answer is found. As described by a reviewer of the program, the exercises are often “repetitive or tedious.” He said, “It was easy to lose focus, get lazy, and just guess,” (“Review of Rosetta Stone”). Minimal reinforcement and unrestrictive scoring decrease participant motivation (Delgado, 1995, 331). Furthermore, the learner shapes his/her own curriculum by setting difficulty levels and selecting exercises of interest. It is hard for a learner to know what would be most beneficial to them. Having the liberty to shape their own curriculum, they may not be getting a well-rounded education (Tanner, 1995, p. 329).
Most importantly, Rosetta Stone neglects important aspects of language learning. Learners are exposed to phrases without grammatical explanations. First and second person verb forms are not taught, for example (Erickson, 2004, 1027). A user wrote, “There is no reference made to tense or sentence structure,” (Scanlon). Another major drawback is the lack of cultural material presented. Neutral photographs of people of varied ethnicities in different international settings do not provide any cultural context (Erickson, 2004, 1028). Learners are not exposed to famous literature, films, music, and history of their target culture, thus missing an important aspect of language learning. No additional instructional materials are provided with the CD-R except for a user’s guide (“Rosetta Stone”). These disadvantages highlight the fact that Rosetta Stone may be the next-best method of learning a language, but not one able to replace classroom instruction.

Results of learning through different methods
Depending on how the FL is learned, varying levels of fluency are produced. Comparatively speaking, classroom language instruction is more effective at producing well-rounded, fluent students. Through classroom instruction, students gain cultural knowledge, comprehension, confidence, enhanced vocabulary, enhanced writing skills, sentence structure knowledge, and increased FL literacy (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 24). The cultural knowledge attained through the incorporation of outside sources and interactions with native speakers helps foster greater understanding of and interest in the FL culture (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 12). Learning in a structured classroom where textual sources are often used, students improve reading comprehension and literacy (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 22-23). Working through exercises in class, students gain confidence when they receive approval and encouragement from the instructor through physical and verbal cues (Littlewood, 1984, p.66). They also gain enhanced vocabulary skills and sentence structure knowledge (Hurley and Tinajero, 2001, p. 11). Writing assignments and exercises on examinations force students to improve their writing skills (Dodson, 1967, p.37). Overall, we see that this type of language learning is a sufficient method of FL instruction.
Conversely, the Rosetta Stone method emphasizes spoken learning. It improves oral and aural skills, accents, and retention. Claiming to teach FL the way the MT is taught to children, the program focuses on oral learning (but neglects grammatical structure instruction). It improves students’ accents; it provides voice recordings of native speakers and assesses the learners’ responses with voice recognition technology (Erickson, 2004, p. 1027). Last, through the fun, simple, image-based exercises, retention rates are high. The program recycles former vocabulary and phrases from previous units, so the learner does not forget what was already taught (Gonzales). However, as stated by language learning analyst, Joseph Hutchinson, Rosetta stone is a “basic function of helping develop and maintain the listening and speaking skills” (as cited in Michel, 1967, p. 358). Although Rosetta Stone is a strong program and successfully improves language knowledge, it is no match for classroom instruction.

Conclusion
As observed, classroom instruction is superior; however, individuals should decide which method best serves their interests depending on their language needs, motivations, and availability. Learners eager to learn a language in order to orally communicate with FL speakers in a short period of time should opt for Rosetta Stone, but those who have the time to invest and wish to be truly proficient should use classroom instruction. Rosetta Stone would serve as an excellent complement to classroom instruction. Professor Benwell of Coventry Polytechnic (1986) says that computer language programs “provide excellent methods of carrying out remedial and reinforcing work in language learning” (p. 15). Critic José Delgado says that it “could not replace teachers as facilitators of learning or as the best models to emulate, but it can enhance their instruction with a variety of resources…” (1995, p.332).

In determining the effectiveness of language instruction methods, there are many aspects of language learning that must be considered. Learners use cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective methods to adopt a FL. Strategies such as note taking in the FL and imitation are examples of these methods. Individual differences such as motivation, ability, and learning style influence what strategies and methods individuals find most effective. In the classroom setting, instructors use variations of the bilingual method while the Rosetta Stone program uses the Direct Immersion method. Each method improves FL fluency in different ways. Classroom instruction produces reading, writing, oral, and cultural knowledge of the FL while Rosetta Stone produces mostly oral and aural fluency. Overall, classroom instruction produces more well rounded learners who have a grasp of the written and spoken aspects of the language as well as cultural knowledge about the FL culture, making interactions with native speakers meaningful and successful.

References
Aratani, Lori. (2006, August). With a changing world comes an urgency to learn Chinese. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article /2006/08/25/AR2006082501418.html

Benwell, G. A. (1986). Integrating the computer into a language course. In K.C. Cameron, W.S. Dodd, & S.P.Q Rahtz (Eds.), Computers and Modern Language Studies (pp. 15-17). Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.

Delgado, J. F. (1995, January). Review of: The Rosetta Stone Language Library: Español Level Ia. Hispania, 78(2), 331-332.

Dodson, C.J. (1967). Language teaching and the bilingual method. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erickson, L. O. (2004, January). Reviews: course materials and methodology-Rosetta Stone, Personal Edition: Level I and II. The French Review, 77(5), 1027-1028.

FAQ. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/personal/how-it- works/faq#qa3

Gass, S. (2009). Cracking the language code: processing strategies in first language acquisition. In S. H. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 40-61). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gonzalez, Ursula. (2010). Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/ personal/what-people-say/reviews

Hurley, S. R., & Villamil, T. J. (2001). Literacy assessment of second language learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hutchinson, J. (1967). In J. Michel (Ed.), Foreign language teaching: an anthology (pp. 355-370). New York: Macmillan Co.

Learn French. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-french

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Acquisition Research and its Implications for the Classroom. London: Cambridge University Press.

Otto, F. (1972). The foreign-language teacher and the process of change: a case for individualized instruction. In R. Gougher (Ed.), Individualization of instruction in foreign languages: a practical guide (pp. 9-24). Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.

Review of Rosetta Stone. Retrieved from http://www.language-learning-advisor.com/ contact.html

Rosetta Stone. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.rosettastone.com/

Rosetta Stone Spanish Review. (2010). Retrieved from http://learn-spanish-software- review.toptenreviews.com/rosetta-stone-review.html

Scanlon, A. (2007, June). Foreign tongue acquisition software: Rosetta Stone language learning. Retrieved from http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001717.php.

Tanner, J. (1995, January). The Rosetta Stone. Computers and the Humanities, 28 (5), 328-330.

Vesselinov, R. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of Rosetta Stone. Retrieved from http://resources.rosettastone.com/CDN/us/pdfs/Measuring_the_Effectiveness_RS- 5.pdf

Walsh, D., W. Starr, & M. Thompson. (1967). Articulation in the teaching of foreign languages. In J. Michel (Ed.), Foreign language teaching: an anthology (pp. 333 344). New York: Macmillan Co.