Trial Use of the Allp French Program at the University of Akron, 1963-64

REPORT RESUMES ED 010 487 04 TRIAL USE OF THE ALLP FRENCH PROGRAM AT THEUNIVERSITY OF AKRON, 2963-64. BY- MUELLER, THEODORE H. UNIVERSITY OF AKRON', OHIO REPORT NUMBER NDEA -VI -89 PUB DATE 64 CONTRACT OEC-4-14-013 EDRS PRICEMF-$0.18 HC-$4.60 115P. DESCRIPTORS- *FRENCH, *LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION, LANGUAGE TESTS, *PILOT PROJECTS, PROGRAMED MATERIALS, *PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION, ORAL EXPRESSION, *SPEECH SKILLS, AKRON, OHIO, ALLP PROGRAMED BEGINNING FRENCH COURSE A 1-YEAR PROGRAMED COURSE IN BEGINNING'FRENCH TESTED THE FEASIBILITY OF PROGRAMED LEARNING AND ISOLATED THOSE PROBLEMS PECULIAR TO TEACHING ON THE COLLEGE AND ADULT LEVEL. "THE ALLP PROGRAMED BEGINNING FRENCH COURSE," WHICH SPECIFIEDTHE ORAL SKILLS ONLY, WAS THE MAIN PEDAGOGICAL DEVICE USED. THE RESULTS OF THE PILOT PROGRAM SUPPORTED THE BELIEF THAT PROGRAMED LEARNING IS FEASIBLE ON THE COLLEGE LEVEL. THE RESULTS OBTAINED, ESPECIALLY IN THE ACQUISITION OF SPEECH HABITS, SUGGEST THAT THE PROGRAM MIGHT BE APPLIED IN HIGH SCHOOL WITH THE SUPERVISION OF A KNOWt.EDGEABLE FRENCH TEACHER. YET THE FIRST TRIAL USE POINTED OUT AREAS IN WHICH THE PROGRAM NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS, REVISIONS,' AND ADDITIONS. RELATED INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND IN ED 010 488.(GD) air U. S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATIONAND WELFARE Office ofEdon.11,r.,n Thisdo:ument has per: on or en.;rtly ::sreceived from the stated do 11J1 it.r :fi of vtewor opinions 0:;.. position 0;i.);;.; .y. of Education Etoo007 Trial Use of the ALLP FrenchProgram at the University of Akron 1963 -64. Theodore H. Mueller Principal Investigator Title VI National Defense Education Act of 1958 Contract No. OZ 4-14-013 The research reported hereinwas supported by a grant from the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction SectionI: The Problem SectionII: The Materials SectionIII: Student Population SectionIV: Facilities SectionV: Procedures SectionVI: Observations SectionVII: Results SectionVIII: Conclusions Appendix: A: Quizzasadministered during the academicyear B: Final examination at end of first semester C: Professor Eddy's Report D: Tables: Correlation between student aptitudes and performance E: Pensacola Z Scale F: Summer session: time schedule G: Summer session: Part I, list of frames (pronunciation) H: Correlation between the acme and the Structure of French Bibliography INTRODUCTION This report is written witha view towardfuture users of the ALLP Program. It contains, therefore, many subjective observations about thestudents, their learning and the materials selec- ted. This report describes trialuse of the program with 1. a college class, during the regular academicyear (Sept.-June); 2. indivi- ual adults who undertookthe program at various dates and worked through it or portions of it, accordingto different time sched- ules; 3. a group of college students during.an accelerated summer session (eight weeks); 4. two seventh grade students during the summer (eight weeks). This report does not intendto stress or compare the results between the experimental and the controlsections. Not enough information is availableas yet about the latter to make such a comparison significant. Furthermore, the administration of the program suffered from the project director's lack of experience primarily because he wasa new staff member at the institution. On the other hand, the reportstresses the various features of the program itself and its administration. The first trial use did yield much information whichwill be valuable in revising the materials andimproving the adminstra- tion of such a program. This first trial use represents only the first faltering initialsteps of a learning technique which may eventually improve the results in foreignlanguage teaching and make more effectiveuse of staff time. I. The Problem Programmed learningcan be applied in many language learning situations, suchas college and high school students in their regular curriculum, foreign languageteachers who need to improve a their pronunciation and controlof structure, and adults who find it difficult to attend regularlyscheduled classes. The main features of programmed learning, i.e.learning by minimal steps, immediate reinforcementof each response, and progression at the learning rate of each individualstudent, promise more effective learning than studyingat home and in the traditional classroom with its lockstep progression. More effective learning means better results,more specifically, near-native control 2 of the pronunciation and intonation features,mastery of thegram- maticalstructures ata level which the in his native average ten year old acquires tongue. It also means thatless time is required to achieve similarresults than in traditional learning. Programmed learning alsopromisesan appreciable reduction dents dropping in the rate ofstu- out of the firstyear course, because results can be acceptable achievedomong allstudents regardless uage aptitude. of their lang- Programmed learning is primarilyself-instructional andassumes most "teaching"tasks. It is thereforehoped thata greater number of studentscan be "taught" by an individual staffmember, thus increasing staffproductivity. Trial, use ofa one-year programmedcourse in beginning proposed to test French was the feasibilityof programmedlearning and to iron out theproblems encountered on the college and adultlevel. It intendedto investigate specifically thefollowing questions: 1. Feasability ofprogrammed learning with a college-class,includ- ing investigationof problems andresults: a. The complex problems of administeringthe programare presented, a learning condition from whichthe traditional classroom conditionsare removed, suchas the lockstep progression of thetraditional classwith its daily ments, its regularly assign- scheduledgroup meetings, its tition compe- among students andperiodic testing. An individual learning situationis substitutedinstead in which student each progresses at hisown rate of learning withno home assignments. b. The results obtained aftera two semester periodare com- pared with those obtained in theother sections atthe same institution. Particular attentionis given to the in the various results skills since theprogram itself mentions only the oral skills as its statedobjective. in reading and Achievement writing or (lackof its is thereforeof spe- cial interest, since theseare major skills neededin a second yearcourse. 2. Feasability of self-instructionon the adult levelincludes the results obtained,difficulties inlearning and conditions under which student interest ismaintained. 3. Questions related to the particularprogram used in the trial use include: a. The weaknesses of theprogram. The results obtainedat 3 the conclusion ofthe program revealthe deficiencies of the materials: weaknesses in pronunciation,reading, and writing skills. b. Discrimination trainingas done in the ALLPprogram, its role, limitations,and relation with thevarious aptitudes, provides usefulinformation which mightlead to a shorter program forthe more giftedstudents. c. The effects of withholdinglexical meaning in the first part of theprogram both upon the acquisitionof new speech habits andupon student motivation. 4. Questions relatedto learningprocess include: a. equipment best suitedfor learning in the languagelabora- tory and at home; b. relation of student aptitude,needed time, and the results; c. influence of motivation andattitude; d. learning conditions; e. most economical timeschedule; f. effects of previous trainingin a foreign language parti- cularly in high school; g. effects upon speech whenthe reading skill is introduced; h. role of the instructorand laboratory assistant,or native informant; i. attention span of thelearner who must spend anywherefrom one to eight hours per day in thelaboratory. II. The Materials The trial use at TheUniversity of Akron used theALLP Programmed Beginning French Courseprepared under contract with theU. S. Office of Education,( contract number OE 3-14012)and The Univer- sity of Michigan underthe directorship of ProfessorF. Rand Morton. The objectives of the ALLPFrench Program, the so-called terminal behavior, specify the oralskills of the language only. It aims 4 at impartingto the student near - native pronunciationand intonation habitsand the basic structures used inspeech as listed Gouggenheim's Le in Francais Fondamental(ler Degree),with a minimal vocabulary ofabout 800 items. It intends to trainthe student "to generatethe French sounds and intonationsto a degree of correctness which approaches the speechof a native and the student will with which be acceptedby the nativeas a welcome outsider". The ALLP FrenchProgram does not teach readingor writing. The orthographicscript is notintroduced. The ALLP French program consists offour parts: 1. Part I: Phonology Part I consiftsof500 frames, totalling 30 hoursof recordedmater- ials, andsubdivided into25 problems. around a sound Each problem centering or a group of sounds.is subdivided ation frames, into discrimin- vocalization frames,phonemic symbol syntax frames. frames.and In the discriminationportion the student to differentiate learns automatically betwenthe French phonetic and those of features the Englishcounterpart. This ability to is taught in discriminate individual syllablesand insequences of up to five syllables. The student istaught the discrimination able him to skill toen- monitor hisown speech forpurposes of self-correction. The vocalization frames intend totrain the vocalapparatus to generate correctFrench sounds andsequences of sounds.

Load more