Rosetta Stone Version 3 Falls Short of Manufacturer's Claims
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF LANGUAGE Rosetta Stone Version 3 Falls Short of Manufacturer’s Claims Katharine Nielson, MA Suzanne Freynik, MA PURPOSE—To determine whether CASL’s review of Rosetta Stone® Version 2 is still accurate and whether Version 3 may have affected the outcomes of our previous empirical study. CONCLUSIONS—Some features of Rosetta Stone V3 have changed; however, Executive Summary these changes would not have affected the outcomes of our empirical study. RELEVANCE—As a stand-alone package, Rosetta Stone is unlikely to be the PURPOSE solution to the U.S. Government’s language learning needs. CASL review and research in 2007 TTO 2101 E.4.1 | CDRL A017 | DID DI-MISC 80508B | Contract No. H98230-07-D-0175 revealed shortcomings with Rosetta Stone® Version 2 (V2) software. Ro- setta Stone recently released Version attempts to mimic conversational Learners in our study might have 3 (V3), claiming significant improve- practice through multiple-choice had more familiarity with conver- ments over V2 of its product. To de- drills. However, these drills fall short sational vocabulary, but they would termine whether our V2 review is still of the “real-life simulations” that the not have had more conversational accurate and whether V3 may have website claims have been included practice. Further, those who disliked affected the outcomes of our previous in V3. the lack of explicit writing instruc- empirical study, we compared the two 4. Although the V3 lessons are or- tion or the tedium of the drills versions. ganized in more or less the same would not have had a substantively way as the V2 lessons, V3 includes different experience with V3. CONCLUSIONS grammatical concepts that V2 did not include. The new concepts RELEVANCE 1. As in V2, the images in V3 are not include features of Arabic or Spanish culturally relevant. In fact, 90 per- that would be especially difficult for Rosetta Stone’s claims about the cent of the photos in the Spanish and second-language learners. innovativeness of the product, as well Arabic programs are identical. as the language learning outcomes 5. Although some features of the V3 possible after its use, are generally 2. As in V2, information about how software provide more dynamic overstated. The software does not a language’s writing system works elements, the program is not truly provide the dynamic environment is not provided in V3. Learners are interactive. For example,V3 tells required to practice using the shown examples of the language’s learners when they should try an language in context. Rosetta Stone script and are expected to figure out exercise again but does not give might be a useful tool to supplement how the writing system works on them a chance to participate in vocabulary acquisition in a more their own. conversations. well-rounded language course, but 3. Unlike V2, V3 includes exercises 6. While some features of Rosetta as a stand-alone package Rosetta that might help learners with basic Stone V3 have changed, these Stone is unlikely to be the solution greetings and other real-life conver- changes would not have affected the to the U.S. Government’s language sations. The new Milestone feature outcomes of our empirical study. learning needs. © 2008 University of Maryland. All rights reserved. 1 ROSETTA STONE VERSION 3 FALLS SHORT Claim by Rosetta Stone about V3: CONCLUSIONS Executive Report Version 3 uses Contextual Forma- Our review of Rosetta Stone V3 tion™ to ask the learner to write PURPOSE reveals that while some features have new language in response to been updated and improved, many conversational prompts.”8 In ad- To help meet its language learning have remained the same. In this sec- dition, “Version 3 immerses you goals, the U.S. Government has in- tion, we revisit a number of problems immediately in the new language, vested millions of dollars in the online encountered with Rosetta Stone V2, providing just the right context to foreign-language training program Ro- present the claim made by Rosetta prompt you to speak, pronounce, setta Stone®. In 2007 the University of Stone addressing each problem (if read and write in the very first les- Maryland Center for Advanced Study available), and review the content of son! Intuitive, sequential learning of Language (CASL) empirically exam- the new course with respect to the builds progressively and makes ined the effectiveness of Rosetta Stone problem identified. every lesson count. Version 2 (V2) in Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish. Results of that study and a As in V2, the images in V3 are not Review: The prompts for the writing previous CASL evaluation describing 1 culturally relevant. drills in the newest version of Rosetta 1 Stone are more conversational than the the program’s potential effectiveness Problem with V25: The images used prompts used in V2. That is, learners revealed shortcomings with the soft- throughout the course are the same re- are sometimes asked to respond in ware, both with respect to the delivery gardless of the language being taught, writing to conversational exchanges. of claims made by the company and in so they are not culturally relevant. the usefulness of Rosetta Stone for self- However, V3 continues to take an study by beginning language learners. Claim by Rosetta Stone about V36: inductive approach to teaching the written language. It does not explicitly For example, the software did not pro- Our new global tapestry of explain how the writing system for a vide resources for learners to practice people images reflects the diver- language works, and it assumes that using the language in a communicative sity of people and cultures from learners will be able to map the writ- context, and the courses lacked any which our language products ten language onto the sounds they are consideration of culture. derive. We hope you’ll find these hearing (while they are simultaneously After CASL published its review fascinating. of V2 and while the empirical study learning to map those sounds to the was underway, Rosetta Stone released Review: While the images have been meaning pictured). Version 3 (V3) in several different updated for V3, 90 percent of the pho- For example, the very first writing languages,2 including Spanish and tos are the same for both Spanish and lesson in Lesson 1 shows four different Arabic. The company has claimed that Arabic.7 The photos are not language- images with the noun describing each “version 3 significantly improves our specific and are not culturally relevant. image written in the target language. product,” and should compensate for In other words, they do not immerse Students are asked to match the writing many of the problems identified by the language learners in the target culture to the image. The next screen shows a CASL review and empirical study. because they depict images of people letter or syllable from one of the previ- in all cultures. ously displayed words written out, and What this study investigated students are expected to match it to As in V2, information about how a the appropriate sound. The software Because V3 was released after our language’s writing system works 2 provides no explanation with reading review and during our empirical study is not provided in V3. of V2, our current evaluation3 aimed or writing activities, and learners are to determine (1) whether our expert Problem with V2: Rosetta Stone V2 expected to learn these skills through review of the software is still accurate does not explain how the writing sys- trial and error. and (2) whether V3 has any potential tem works. Learners are expected to Unlike V2, V3 includes exercises implications for the results of our em- figure out the writing system of each that might help learners with pirical study.4 language on their own. The learner- 3 basic greetings and other real-life In this report we first revisit the issues log comments from the CASL 2007 conversation. with V2 raised by CASL researchers, empirical study indicated that the par- identify the new V3 claims made by the ticipants were particularly frustrated Problem with V2: At the end of the software manufacturers, and review V3 with the non-Roman scripts, which entire course, learners have not ac- in both Spanish and Arabic. We then caused users to either seek outside quired fundamental material, such as consider whether using V3 during our resources in order to learn the writ- basic greetings or how to introduce empirical study might have changed the ing system or abandon the program themselves. In addition, there is no results. altogether. dialogue or interaction, but instead © 2008 University of Maryland. All rights reserved. 2 ROSETTA STONE VERSION 3 FALLS SHORT short, unrelated sentences that have no ion does expose learners to the words, milestones is estimated to take 10 real-life counterpart. Finally, the single it does not show them how they are minutes. Therefore, of the 200 or so participant in our empirical study who used in an actual conversation. Rather, hours necessary for this course, a total completed the 200-hour V2 course had the words simply mark the beginning of 40 minutes is designed for practice the following comment: “While Roset- and the end of the lesson. in communication. These drills are ta Stone does teach a lot of words, they Some of the picture-concept map- not the “real-life simulations” that the are not always the words you need to ping exercises present images that website says have been included in have an actual conversation.” are related to one another in the form V3. of a conversational exchange (e.g., Claim by Rosetta Stone about V3: Although the V3 lessons are “My house is big.” “My house is organized in more or less the New Contextual Formation™ bigger than your house.”).