Gillian	
  Lord	
  
University	
  of	
  Florida	
  
glord@ufl.edu	
  	
  
	
  
	
  Is	
  Rose%a	
  Stone	
  the	
  
future	...
Why	
  this	
  study?	
  
•  Omnipresent	
  and	
  
powerful	
  marke9ng*	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  makes	
  Rose<a	
  Stone	
  ...
A(n	
  important)	
  side	
  note…	
  
•  The	
  study	
  reported	
  here	
  was	
  conducted	
  with	
  
Rose8a	
  Stone...
What	
  do	
  reviews	
  of	
  Rosetta	
  Stone	
  
say?	
  
•  Lafford,	
  Lafford	
  &	
  Sykes	
  (2010)	
  
•  Evaluate	...
What	
  do	
  empirical	
  studies	
  show?	
  
•  Vesselinov	
  (2009)	
  –	
  commissioned	
  by	
  RoseBa	
  Stone;	
  ...
Participants	
  
•  Par7cipants	
  were	
  University	
  of	
  Florida	
  students	
  
enrolled	
  in	
  Beginning	
  Span...
Participants	
  
Control	
  (Classroom)	
  group	
  (C)	
  
•  In-­‐tact	
  sec7on	
  of	
  Beginning	
  Spanish	
  
•  Fo...
Participants	
  
RoseBa	
  Stone	
  group	
  (RS)	
  
•  Self-­‐selected	
  (required	
  by	
  IRB)	
  
•  Not	
  required...
Participants	
  
Classroom	
  +	
  RoseBa	
  Stone	
  group	
  (RS+C)	
  
•  In-­‐tact	
  sec7on	
  of	
  Beginning	
  Spa...
Data	
  collected	
  
• General	
  oral	
  and	
  wri<en	
  proficiency	
  and	
  
skills	
  
•  January,	
  March,	
  May	...
Phase	
  1	
  Results:	
  CLEP	
  test	
  
Average	
  scores	
  (converted	
  to	
  %)	
  
38.65	
   39.17	
  
47.50	
  
0...
Phase	
  1	
  Results:	
  Versant	
  test	
  
Average	
  scores	
  (converted	
  to	
  %)	
  
27.08	
   26.25	
  
20.00	
 ...
PHASE	
  2	
  ANALYSIS	
  
Final	
  interview	
  -­‐	
  Classroom	
  INTERVIEWER:	
  Cuéntame,	
  ¿qué	
  te	
  gusta	
  hacer	
  en	
  tu	
  7empo	
...
Final	
  interview	
  –	
  Rosetta	
  Stone	
  
INTERVIEWER:	
  Mhm,	
  ¿y	
  qué	
  haces	
  en	
  Gainesville?	
  
SH:	
...
Fluency	
  analysis	
  
•  All	
  interviews	
  
•  3	
  groups	
  x	
  4	
  par7cipants	
  =	
  12	
  par7cipants	
  x	
 ...
General	
  observations	
  
GROUP	
  
Total	
  #	
  words	
  
#	
  Spanish	
  words	
  
#	
  English	
  words	
  
#	
  Fil...
Ratio	
  of	
  L1/L2	
  words	
  
0.26	
  
0.83	
  
0.68	
  
0.00	
  
0.10	
  
0.20	
  
0.30	
  
0.40	
  
0.50	
  
0.60	
 ...
Assistance	
  requests	
  
2.06	
  
1.03	
  
0.11	
  
1.75	
  
0.61	
  
3.24	
  
0.00	
  
0.50	
  
1.00	
  
1.50	
  
2.00	...
Assistance	
  requests	
  
2.06	
  
1.03	
  
0.11	
  
1.75	
  
0.61	
  
3.24	
  
0.00	
  
0.50	
  
1.00	
  
1.50	
  
2.00	...
Other	
  considerations	
  (1)	
  
Language	
  learning	
  motivation	
  
•  All	
  learners	
  indicated	
  that	
  their...
Motivation	
  –	
  Classroom	
  Group	
  
Group	
   High	
  school	
  language	
  
background	
  
Why	
  Spanish?	
  
Clas...
Motivation	
  –	
  RS+C	
  Group	
  
Group	
   High	
  school	
  language	
  
background	
  
Why	
  Spanish?	
  
Rose<a	
 ...
Motivation	
  –	
  RS	
  Group	
  
Group	
   High	
  school	
  
language	
  
background	
   Why	
  Spanish?	
  
Why	
  vol...
Other	
  considerations	
  (2)	
  
Time	
  on	
  task	
  
GROUP	
  
Comple9on	
  
Rate	
  
Average	
  	
  
Score	
  	
  
T...
Other	
  considerations	
  (3)	
  
Attitude	
  survey	
  
•  Few	
  changes	
  (pre-­‐post)	
  in	
  any	
  group	
  
•  S...
Conclusions	
  
•  Across	
  environments…	
  
•  Comparable	
  outcomes	
  on	
  some	
  measures	
  
•  Different	
  deve...
Thank	
  you.	
  
glord@u[l.edu	
  	
  
• Special	
  thanks	
  to:	
  
•  UF	
  College	
  of	
  Liberal	
  Arts	
  and	
 ...
Works	
  Cited	
  
Bley-­‐Vroman,	
  R.	
  (1988).	
  “The	
  fundamental	
  character	
  of	
  foreign	
  language	
  lea...
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(vocabulary)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(grammar)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(pronunciation)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(World	
  –	
  “play”)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(World	
  –	
  “talk”)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(World	
  –	
  “explore”)	
  
Rosetta	
  Stone	
  interface	
  
(Studio)	
  
Is Rosetta Stone the future of language learning?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Is Rosetta Stone the future of language learning?

1,064 views

Published on

The present study is among the first to empirically examine the learning outcomes associated with the Rosetta Stone program as a textbook in a class or instead of altogether. Although initial results of basic proficiency and fluency revealed no significant difference between groups, continued linguistic analysis of individual oral and written data has revealed differences in terms of basic lexical and morphosyntactic knowledge as well as proficiency. This session presents the analysis of individual and group data in order to make the case for why programs such as Rosetta Stone cannot replace language classes.

Published in: Education, Technology

Is Rosetta Stone the future of language learning?

  1. 1. Gillian  Lord   University  of  Florida   glord@ufl.edu        Is  Rose%a  Stone  the   future  of  language   learning?  
  2. 2. Why  this  study?   •  Omnipresent  and   powerful  marke9ng*          makes  Rose<a  Stone  …   •  En7cing  to  the  average   language  learner   •  Temp7ng  to     administrators   •  Appealing  to  educators?     •  The  best  known  language   program  on  the  market   *“RoseBa  Stone  …  spent  $98.5  million  on  adver7sing  in  2011,  up   from  $70.5  million  in  2010,  according  to  Kantar  Media”    www.ny7mes.com/2012/06/20/business/media/roseBa-­‐stone-­‐ads-­‐emphasize-­‐fun-­‐not-­‐efficiency.html  
  3. 3. A(n  important)  side  note…   •  The  study  reported  here  was  conducted  with   Rose8a  Stone’s  knowledge  and  technical   support.   •  They  were  not  involved  in  the  design,  data   collec>on  or  analysis.   •  The  Rose8a  Stone  licenses  were  purchased  at   regular  price.  
  4. 4. What  do  reviews  of  Rosetta  Stone   say?   •  Lafford,  Lafford  &  Sykes  (2010)   •  Evaluate  if  programs  provide  the  tools  necessary  for  effec7ve   language  learning,  based  on  features  that  research  has  shown  to  be   important  (interac7on,  relevant  contextualiza7on  of  language,  etc.)     •  “…  these  products  do  not  incorporate  a  number  of  the  [necessary]   research-­‐based  insights  (e.g.,  the  need  for  culturally  authen7c,  task-­‐ based  ac7vi7es)  that  informed  SLA  scholars  might  have  given  them.”   •  Santos  (2011)   •  Lack  of  context     •  General  inability  to  respond  to  spontaneous  student  speech     •  What  Rose8a  Stone  calls  interac7on  is  “a  rather  poor  and  limited   version  of  what  one  would  encounter  in  a  real-­‐life  conversa7on”     •  DeWaard  (2013)   •  “Not  a  viable  replacement  of  current  instruc7on  at  the   postsecondary  level”     •  Based  on  personal  experience,  professional  reac7ons   What  do  academic  reviews  of   Rosetta  Stone  say?  
  5. 5. What  do  empirical  studies  show?   •  Vesselinov  (2009)  –  commissioned  by  RoseBa  Stone;  RS   users  who  knew  nothing  prior  to  using  the  program   demonstrated  increased  knowledge  of  the  language   afer  a  period  of  use.   •  Nielson  (2011)  –  self-­‐study  programs  in  workplace;  some   success  but  remarkable  aBri7on;  lack  of  community   (e.g.,  Rovai,  2002)   •  Stevenson  &  Liu  (2010)  –  lack  of  ability  to  engage   learners  in  true  interac7on;  users  do  not  take  advantage   of  Web  2.0  tools  to  network.     •  This  study  –  Phase  1  of  analysis  indicated  that  first-­‐ semester  gains  in  some  areas  are  comparable  between   RS  users  and  a  classroom  control…    
  6. 6. Participants   •  Par7cipants  were  University  of  Florida  students   enrolled  in  Beginning  Spanish  1  (avg.  age  =  20)   •  L1  English   •  No  other  L2  proficiency  (beyond  h.s.  requirement)   •  No  prior  Spanish  instruc>on     •  Par7cipants  belonged  to  one  of  3  environments:   •  Classroom  (C):  N=4   •  Rose8a  Stone  (RS):  N=4   •  Classroom+Rose8a  Stone  (RS+C):  N=4   Original  popula7on  had  20-­‐25  par7cipants  in   each  of  the  three  groups.  
  7. 7. Participants   Control  (Classroom)  group  (C)   •  In-­‐tact  sec7on  of  Beginning  Spanish   •  Followed  regular  syllabus  with  standard   materials   •  Carried  out  standard  classroom  assessment   materials   •  Met  with  researcher  3x  during  semester  
  8. 8. Participants   RoseBa  Stone  group  (RS)   •  Self-­‐selected  (required  by  IRB)   •  Not  required  to  aBend  any  regular  class   •  Used  Rose8a  Stone  package  (“Conversa7onal  Spanish”):   •  16-­‐week  course  designed  to  cover  material  comparable   to  a  face-­‐to-­‐face  beginning  class   •  6  units  of  Rose8a  Stone®  Version  4  TOTALe®  Spanish,   each  has  4  lessons  [Level  1,  half  of  Level  2]   •  Minimum  of  6  RoseBa  StudioTM  sessions   •  Minimum  of  8  hours  in  RoseBa  WorldTM   •  Monitoring  of  program  access  and  7me  on  task     •  Followed  predetermined  deadlines  in  progressing   through  the  material   •  Met  with  researcher  3x  during  semester  
  9. 9. Participants   Classroom  +  RoseBa  Stone  group  (RS+C)   •  In-­‐tact  sec7on  of  Beginning  Spanish  class     •  Same  instructor  as  control  group   •  Used  Rose8a  Stone  materials  as  their  textbook   (including  all  features  described  for  RS  group)   •  Met  with  researcher  3x  during  semester  
  10. 10. Data  collected   • General  oral  and  wri<en  proficiency  and   skills   •  January,  March,  May   • Par9al  CLEP  test  (30  items)   •  May   • Versant  Automated  proficiency  test   •  May   • Assessment  of  aYtudes   •  January,  May   • Discussion  of  experiences   •  January,  March,  May    
  11. 11. Phase  1  Results:  CLEP  test   Average  scores  (converted  to  %)   38.65   39.17   47.50   0.00   10.00   20.00   30.00   40.00   50.00   60.00   70.00   80.00   90.00   100.00   Classroom   RoseBa  Stone   RS+class   p  =  0.165  
  12. 12. Phase  1  Results:  Versant  test   Average  scores  (converted  to  %)   27.08   26.25   20.00   0.00   10.00   20.00   30.00   40.00   50.00   60.00   70.00   80.00   90.00   100.00   Classroom   RoseBa  Stone   RS  +  Class   p  =  0.615  
  13. 13. PHASE  2  ANALYSIS  
  14. 14. Final  interview  -­‐  Classroom  INTERVIEWER:  Cuéntame,  ¿qué  te  gusta  hacer  en  tu  7empo  libre,  o  los  fines  de  semana?   SL:  Repitas,  please.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Qué  te  gusta  hacer?   SL:  Qué  te  gusta  hacer…   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Te  gusta  ir  a  películas?    ¿Te  gusta  escuchar  música?   SL:  Uh,  ¿fin  de  semana?   INTERVIEWER:  Sí.   SL:  Uh,  sí.    En  fin  de  semana,  yo…  yo  estudio,  uh,  mucho.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Sí?   SL:  Uh,  para  mis  exámenes.    Sí.    Yo  tengo  muchos  examines  en  química  orgánica,  biología,  y  laboratorio.    Uh,   sí.    Mucho,  uh…  no,  muy  ocupado.    So,  no  películas,  no,  uh,  deportes.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Cuál  fue  la  úl7ma  película  que  viste?   SL:  Cuál  te…   INTERVIEWER:  La  úl7ma  vez,  the  last  7me,  que  viste  una  película.   SL:  Phew…  Hmm.    Let’s  see…  dos  menses.   INTERVIEWER:  Meses,  mhm.   SL:  Meses.    Ago.    ¿Cómo  se  dice  “ago”?   INTERVIEWER:  Hace.    Hace  dos  meses.   SL:  Hace,  sí.   INTERVIEWER:  Wow.   SL:  Yo  no…  yo  no  veo  muchas  películas  en  Gainesville.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Qué  película  fue  esa,  hace  dos  meses?    ¿Cómo  se  llamaba?   SL:  Uh,  el  pelí—la  película…  ¿cómo  se  dice  “was”?   INTERVIEWER:  Era,  o  fue.   SL:  Era.    La  película  era…   INTERVIEWER:  ¿No  te  acuerdas?   SL:  Yo  no…  sí.  
  15. 15. Final  interview  –  Rosetta  Stone   INTERVIEWER:  Mhm,  ¿y  qué  haces  en  Gainesville?   SH:  Um…  you’re  going  to  have  to  forgive  me,  my  mind’s  like  blown…  Um,  yo  estoy  estudiar.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Tú  estudias?    ¿Y  qué  más?   SH:  Yo  trabajo  en  un  restaurante  de  Dragonfly.   INTERVIEWER:  Y,  ¿con  mucha  frecuencia,  vas  de  compras?   SH:  Yo  no  entendí,  repe7rlo,  por  favor.   INTERVIEWER:  ¿Con  mucha  frecuencia,  vas  de  compras?    “Ir  de  compras”  significa  go  shopping.   SH:  All  right,  say  that  one  more  7me,  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,  ¿qué  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,  ¿qué  más  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  don’t  know,  I’m  going  on  a  missions  trip,  I  don’t  know  how  to  express  that  in  Spanish,   but…   INTERVIEWER:  Pues,  buena  suerte,  muchas  gracias.    
  16. 16. Fluency  analysis   •  All  interviews   •  3  groups  x  4  par7cipants  =  12  par7cipants  x  3  interviews  =  36   •  Transcribed  and  analyzed  for  fluency  measures     •  “Fluency”   •  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  
  17. 17. General  observations   GROUP   Total  #  words   #  Spanish  words   #  English  words   #  Fillers   #  Clarifica9on   requests  in  Spanish   #  Clarifica9on   requests  in  English   Repe99ons/false   starts   #Unique  words   Classroom  Average   147.78   109.97   21.67   16.14   2.06   1.03   2.81   50.22   RS+C  Average   90.61   47.53   34.75   8.33   0.11   1.75   2.14   27.22   RS  Average   131.21   88.53   39.91   8.72   0.61   3.24   5.54   45.32  
  18. 18. Ratio  of  L1/L2  words   0.26   0.83   0.68   0.00   0.10   0.20   0.30   0.40   0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00   Ra9o  of  English-­‐to-­‐Spanish  words  used,  by  group   Control  Average   RS  +  class  Average   RoseBa  Stone  Average   Classroom  Average   0  =  no  English  words  produced   1  =  1  English  word  produced  for  every  Spanish  word  
  19. 19. Assistance  requests   2.06   1.03   0.11   1.75   0.61   3.24   0.00   0.50   1.00   1.50   2.00   2.50   3.00   3.50   #  Clarifica7on  requests  in  Spanish   #  Clarifica7on  requests  in  English   Average  #  of  clarifica9on  /  assistance  requests  by  group   Control  Average   RS  +  class  Average   RoseBa  Stone  Average  
  20. 20. Assistance  requests   2.06   1.03   0.11   1.75   0.61   3.24   0.00   0.50   1.00   1.50   2.00   2.50   3.00   3.50   #  Clarifica7on  requests  in  Spanish   #  Clarifica7on  requests  in  English   Average  #  of  clarifica9on  /  assistance  requests  by  group   Control  Average   RS  +  class  Average   RoseBa  Stone  Average  
  21. 21. Other  considerations  (1)   Language  learning  motivation   •  All  learners  indicated  that  their  primary   mo7va7on  was  to  fulfill  their  language   requirement     •  One  third  (4/12)  reported  that  they  chose   Spanish,  specifically,  as  a  language  that  would  be   useful  in  their  par7cular  careers     •  RS  volunteers  par7cipated  out  of  curiosity  or   convenience,  but  shared  same  degree  of   language  learning  mo7va7on.  
  22. 22. Motivation  –  Classroom  Group   Group   High  school  language   background   Why  Spanish?   Classroom   No  Spanish   French  3   I  am  required  to  take  a   language  for  my  major.   Classroom   No  Spanish     La7n  3   Language  requirement   and  for  myself  since  I  feel   Spanish  is  a  good  asset  as   a  physician.   Classroom   No  Spanish   Fulfill  [college   requirement].   Classroom   No  Spanish     La7n  AP   I  am  going  to  Panama  on   a  service  trip.  I  believe   formal  classes  would  help   me  gain  a  beBer  grasp  of   the  language  than  picking   it  up  on  my  own.  
  23. 23. Motivation  –  RS+C  Group   Group   High  school  language   background   Why  Spanish?   Rose<a  Stone  +  Class   No  Spanish   I  am  taking  Spanish   because  I  feel  like  it  will   be  beneficial  later  on  in   life.   Rose<a  Stone  +  Class   No  Spanish   As  a  requirement  and  to   benefit  my  future   jobwise.   Rose<a  Stone  +  Class   No  Spanish     French  2   I  need  two  semesters  of   a  foreign  language  to   graduate.   Rose<a  Stone  +  Class   No  Spanish     French  4   College  requirement.  
  24. 24. Motivation  –  RS  Group   Group   High  school   language   background   Why  Spanish?   Why  volunteer  for   RS?     Rose<a  Stone     No  Spanish   Foreign  language   requirement.   Heard  a  lot  of   good  things  about   RoseBa  Stone  so   decided  to  try  it.   Rose<a  Stone     No  Spanish     La7n  3   CLAS  requirement   Can  beBer  manage   my  7me  and   schedule  and   move  more  at  my   own  pace  without   dealing  with  class.   Rose<a  Stone     No  Spanish     French  2   Required  for   major.   Sounded   beneficial.   Rose<a  Stone     No  Spanish     ASL  3   Spanish  is  useful  in   my  state/needed   FL  requirement.   I  was  going  to  use   my  own  to   supplement   educa7on  anyway.  
  25. 25. Other  considerations  (2)   Time  on  task   GROUP   Comple9on   Rate   Average     Score     Total  Course   Usage  (hours)   Total  Class     Time  (hours)   Classroom   96.99%   90.77%   70.00   39.00   RS+C   93.67%   98.63%   32.81   37.25   RS   97.67%   95.88%   30.69   NA  
  26. 26. Other  considerations  (3)   Attitude  survey   •  Few  changes  (pre-­‐post)  in  any  group   •  Significant  changes  (RS+C,  C)  on  item  #3:   •  “I  am  enjoying  my  Spanish-­‐learning  experience  this   semester.”   •  Significant  changes  (RS)  on  item  #11:   •  “Interac>ng  via  chat  or  telephone  is  comparable  to   interac>ng  face-­‐to-­‐face.”     •   Changes  (RS,  RS+C)  on  item  #19:   •  “I  would  prefer  to  learn  a  language  on  my  own  >me   and  at  my  own  pace  than  in  a  group  or  classroom   seGng.  “  
  27. 27. Conclusions   •  Across  environments…   •  Comparable  outcomes  on  some  measures   •  Different  development  of  conversa7onal  skills,   discourse  strategies   •  Skep7cism  towards  program  is  jus7fied   •  More  research  (always!)  needed   •  Larger,  more  varied  sample  size   •  Different  proficiency  levels   •  Broader  student  group   •  More  sensi7ve/appropriate  tes7ng  measures   •  Asess  cultural  awareness  and  competence  
  28. 28. Thank  you.   glord@u[l.edu     • Special  thanks  to:   •  UF  College  of  Liberal  Arts  and  Sciences   •  UF  Humani7es  Scholarship   Enhancement  fund   •  Carlos  Enrique  Ibarra  (sta7s7cs)   •  Caroline  Reist,  Keegan  Storrs,  Diana   Wade  (RA)   •  Laura  Bradley  (RoseBa  Stone)     QR  code  here  
  29. 29. Works  Cited   Bley-­‐Vroman,  R.  (1988).  “The  fundamental  character  of  foreign  language  learning.”  In  W.  Rutherford  &  M.   Sharwood  Smith  (Eds.),  Grammar  and  second  language  teaching  (pp.  19-­‐30).  Rowley,  MA:    Newbury  House.   Bley-­‐Vroman,  R.  (2009).  “The  evolving  context  of  the  Fundamental  Difference  Hypothesis.”  Studies  in  Second   Language  Acquisi>on  31(2),  175-­‐198.   DeWaard,  L.  (2013).  “Is  RoseBa  Stone  a  viable  op7on  for  L2  learning?”  Forthcoming  in  ADFL  Bulle>n.   Godwin-­‐Jones,  R.  (2007).  “Emerging  technologies;  Tools  and  trends  in  self-­‐paced  language  instruc7on.   Language  Learning  and  Technology,”  11(2),  10-­‐17.  Retrieved  26  September  2012  from   hBp://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/emerging/     Godwin-­‐Jones,  R.  (2009).  “Emerging  technologies:  Speech  tools  and  technologies.  Language  Learning  and   Technology,”  13(3),  4-­‐11.  Retrieved  26  September  2012  from  hBp://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/emerging.pdf   Krashen,  S.  D.  &  Terrell,  T.  D.  (1983).  The  Natural  Approach:  Language  acquisi>on  in  the  classroom.  Hayward,   CA:  Alemany  Press.     Lafford,  B.,  Lafford,  P.  &  Sykes,  J.  (2007).  “Entre  dicho  y  hecho  …:  An  assessment  of  the  applica7on  of   research  from  second  language  acquisi7on  and  related  fields  to  the  crea7on  of  Spanish  CALL  materials  for   lexical  acquisi7on.”  CALICO  Journal,  24(3),  427-­‐529.   Nielson,  K.  B.  (2011).  “Self-­‐study  with  language  learning  sofware  in  the  workplace.”  Language  Learning  and   Technology,  15(3),  110-­‐129.  Retrieved  26  September  2012  from   hBp://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/nielson.pdf     Rovai,  A.  P.  (2002).  “Development  of  an  instrument  to  measure  classroom  community.”  The  Internet  and   Higher  Educa>on,  5,  197-­‐211.   Santos,  V.  (2011).  “Review  of  Rose8a  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  social  networking   features  of  foreign  language  learning  websites.”  CALICO  Journal,  27(2),  233-­‐259   Vesselinov,  Roumen.  Measuring  the  Effec>veness  of  RoseBa  Stone.   hBp://resources.roseBastone.com/CDN/us/pdfs/Measuring_the_Effec7veness_RS-­‐5.pdf.  
  30. 30. Rosetta  Stone  interface  
  31. 31. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (vocabulary)  
  32. 32. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (grammar)  
  33. 33. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (pronunciation)  
  34. 34. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (World  –  “play”)  
  35. 35. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (World  –  “talk”)  
  36. 36. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (World  –  “explore”)  
  37. 37. Rosetta  Stone  interface   (Studio)  

×