My reaction to the reviews that I read was that I do not think I would want to use Rosetta Stone. Here are seven reasons.
1. I do not like answering multiple-choice questions at the computer. It is not communicating. I might do it once or twice but would not continue. I would not do it daily. I need to connect with a language I am learning daily, in order to learn. I also do not like to get things right or wrong. I do not need accuracy or precision. I need input.
2. Most of my learning activity takes place during dead time. I mostly listen while running, driving, doing the dishes, waiting in line etc... I also read while waiting or as a relaxing activity. If I had to sit at the computer in order to learn I would not do a lot of studying. I just do not have the dedicated time.
3. I do not believe that I can permanently learn words, whether using pictures or other techniques. I know I am going to forget them. In a way I am not interested in learning the word for 'red' or 'house'. I know that I have to be exposed to so much language content, in audio and text, that gradual y it all starts to have meaning. I am not conscious of learning and forgetting specific words, but I know I am doing it. I know I have learned words because I can understand more and more. I know I am forgetting because I am constantly unable to remember the most elementary words.
4. I find it difficult to learn words and phrases that are divorced from a larger story or context. Isolated words and phrases do not connect with my brain. I remember words and expressions as part of larger stories that I remember. I often remember when and where I was listening to many of these stories.
5. When I start learning a language, the gratification that I experience comes from the fact that I start to be able to tel when words begin and end, and then soon after start to make sense of short episodes that used to be just noise for me. That is all the feedback that I need. I do not find the uncertainty a problem. It is the feeling of the 'fog lifting', the uncertainty turning into more and more clarity, that is so satisfying in the study of another language.
6. I learn languages with the goal of being able to communicate, to understand what is said, and to be able to express myself. That is a long road. I have the impression that Rosettta Stone only takes you a very short way. I do not see it as a useful or necessary step.
7. I feel that a lot of listening to interesting content is a better start than doing multiple-choice questions. I am in a hurry to engage with the language, real language situations, and to let my brain get used to it.
Live Mocha has done a good job at attracting media attention, something that LingQ will also be doing, in its own way.
I sniffed around the outside of Live Mocha without leaving my email address. Some of you may want to try it out in more detail and give me your views. I did notice that the courses 101, 102, 201, 202, seemed to cover the same parts of speech or grammatical issues in every language, which strikes me as strange. While I am not in favour of a grammar-based approach, I do know that the grammatical issues (like continuous form of the verb, tenses, prepositions etc.) are quite different in say, Chinese and Spanish. I noticed that the phrase translator that is provided in the Writing section brings up an error in Japanese and had trouble giving a useful answer in other languages.
The system all ows members to leave sample recordings and writing samples for other members to correct. At LingQ we are doing this with a little more structure. The idea is a good one; the question is how to make it work in the long term.
To me, Live Mocha has many good ideas, and I am glad to see more people thinking of how to use the web for language training. At the risk of looking like I am knocking the competition I believe they embody four major misconceptions about language learning.
1. You can learn the language by learning a few handy phrases to use in different situations (the store, the bank etc.)
In my view these handy phrases are very difficult to use, and at best you will get an answer that will leave you lost. I believe in learning the language so that you can react with confidence to most situations that come at you. This takes a lot of work. You need to learn a lot of words.
You need to listen to and read a lot of content. You need to be efficient. You need to enjoy spending a lot of time with the language.
2. You need to fol ow courses which cover different grammatical aspects of the language.
Mocha has their 101, 102, 201, 202 etc. To me you just need the language, graded to your vocabulary level and directed at subjects that are of interest to you. You need exposure to that kind of content. You will gradual y learn through observation, or by asking questions of tutors.
You will learn to speak correctly on your own time, and not on the timetable imposed by a teacher or course.
3. You need a lot of correction.
An important part of Live Mocha is the volunteer correction of speaking and writing. This is a good idea, but it needs to be done properly and should not be overdone. There is much research that shows that correction is not as effective as continuous exposure to meaningful content.
4. You just need to talk.
An attraction of Live Mocha is the chance to link up with native speakers. This is a good thing to do no doubt. But it is not realistic to do a lot of it. I have been listening to Portuguese for the last four days, perhaps one hour a day, while doing other tasks. I have been reading in Portuguese. I am getting more and more familiar with the language. I will speak to our member Mairo soon, but I am in no hurry. And I know that I cannot talk enough with him to rely on that as a major way to improve.
I hope we get more companies in the business of providing language services on the web, so that people will look to the web and to other modern technology, and to their own initiative to learn languages.
I just had a Wikipedia entry on LingQ deleted. It was not even finished. The culture of the anonymous, holier than thou, moderator-censor is alive and well at Wikipedia, just like at the language learners' forum I was on.
I started editing a post on LingQ and went to lunch. When I came back it was gone, deleted. It was not even 'proposed for deletion'. I was not asked to edit or improve my entry. It was 'speed deleted' (one of their deletion categories) as advertizing, which, of course, it is.
But look up Pimsleur, Rosetta Stone (software), Live Mocha, Berlitz language Schools or any other language system on Wikipedia, and you are likely to find it there. When does information become advertizing, and according to whom, and why all ow some and not others?
Trying to figure out how to challenge the deletion on the Wikipedia website is like going through a maze.
I knew that I had to make it look more like the other language system entries at Wikipedia, I had them open on my computer. I just had to go to lunch. I have it saved in google documents but I do not want to continue
