My aim has been to achieve basic proficiency in the German language through whatever online tools I might find available. Below, in sequence, is my survey of the platforms I used.
Duolingo
Although Rosetta Stone has been around for much longer, Duolingo is probably the most popular language learning software. My first impression of Duolingo is the design is fantastic. I find it really represents the very forefront of design trends, using flat design and a very minimalist space. Combined with their use gamification and spaced repetition, it makes the platform very engaging, and a fun way to quickly acquire basic language skills. The system is also well organized, providing lessons grouped according to of instruction, such a adjectives, adverbs, noun groupings and verb tenses.
However, Duolingo does not provide any instruction to accompany lessons. Particularly with German, one is expected to learn grammatical rules through memorization, not an understanding of their logic or patterns of use. Finally, while the platform steadily introduces additional vocabulary, and a certain degree of complex sentence structure, instead of building on the combined vocabulary, lessons tend to be composed of new words with the same basic vocabulary. It means that there’s basically no way to advance to more complex sentence structures.
Rosetta Stone
For that reason, I decided to try Rosetta Stone. Most of the reviews that I have read claim that Duolingo is good for beginners, but that Rosetta Stone is better suited for advanced learners. I’ve never tried the offline version of Rosetta Stone, but my impression is they are trying to ride the spaced-repetition and gamification bandwagon popularized by Duolingo, but they don’t do so with as much success. Rosetta Stone is based on Flash, which is not only archaic, but every slow to load. The advantage of Duolingo is that their site is very quick to load, making use of their spaced-repetition method worthwhile. Ultimately, Rosetta Stone offered little more advanced instruction than Duolingo.
Deutsche Welle
The best system I found, better than both Duolingo and Rosetta Stone, for basic language instruction was the language learning section of the website of Deutsche Welle, Germany’s public international broadcaster. Lessons are divided into 4 categories following the Common European Reference Framework, including A1, A2, two tiers of B1. Each tier is divided into several groupings with a number of lessons each. Each lesson begins with a short video from a series that follows the entire length of the course. And each grouping deals with a particular topic of the language. And while not as quick to work through as Duolingo, I thought that DW’s gamified lessons had a broader variety of types, which were more instructive. Especially useful were paragraphs of text or audio recording accompanied by questions to test comprehension.
Yabla
However, DW ends at B1, which is merely a minimum level of proficiency in German. Through my reading for this course, I discovered Krashen’s (1989) recommendation for Extensive Reading. I could see from my own experience that I would fluid exposure to the language, at my language level so that I could see repeated uses of the words I was learning. Given my experience with the several platforms, I took the time to think about what would be the best tool. I decided that the optimal system would be one where there would be long paragraphs of text, and where words could be hyperlinked to detailed explanations.
It turns out that system already exists, and it’s better than I envisioned, because it comes with video. Yabla comes with a video library, and an interactive player. Each video is divided up into small segments according to each sentence spoken, with navigation tools that allow one to easily stop the scene, or return to the previous or advance to the next. Each video is accompanied by subtitles and accompanying translation. Every word in the subtitles is hyperlinked, just as I had envisioned it, providing not only their meaning, but their use-cases, such as verb tense, declination, and so on.
Conclusion
I think that language learning is a particularly interesting use-case, because it provides a unique window into the possibilities for self-directed learning in a digital environment. What’s interesting is that the value of each platform is in an inverse relationship to its popularity. My guess is that Google massive financial resources had a lot to do with Duolingo’s popularity, for the purposes of attracting users to support Google research into AI. Deutsche Welle is excellent as well. But clearly Yabla has not benefit from the type of venture capital that has propelled either Duolingo or Rosetta Stone. Though, it brilliantly illustrates how to maximize the affordances of the web to create not only an engaging user-experience, but an effective one as well.
References
Krashen, S. (1989), We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), pp. 440–464,
Hi David –
Enjoying reading your findings in this area. In my earlier days, I was a 2nd language learner for much of my post-secondary education journey. I wish these apps had been around then when we were required to bide our time in a language lab, listening, repeating and recording! Not such good memories.
I tried Yabla out after reading your post, and can see the appeal with the video, reading and gaming design. Other than the design, I guess what I am really starting to wonder if the sense of learner autonomy that is fostered in using these apps plays a more significant role in fostering the learning? Godwin-Jones (2019) speaks to the role of learner autonomy in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and its correlation to developing language since the learner is responsible for creating their own world of learning. In reflecting on my previous language learning experience, I know it wasn’t the language lab that helped me, but the real-world use of the language in my every day life that incentivized my learning and for which I felt autonomous. What are your thoughts?
References
Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal
language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10125/44667
Couldn’t agree more Mel! I also realized that all these tools are equivalents to or improvements to lab time. I took a language course back in college. And class time was for introduction to rules. But lab time was for practice, which is when you get to finally acquire what you learn. I don’t think any course can not be accompanied with lab time, and I think all these tools are great alternatives. In college, it was a real nuisance to have to book the time. Now you can do your lab time on your phone at the bus stop, and the varieties of lab excercises are far more rich.
For me, this discovery of language learning technologies has been an insight into real value of digital learning in general. It’s clear these are all tools. They cannot replace the teacher. They merely improve or expand on traditional methods of education, and I think always will.
As to your point of motivation, that’s what I first considered when we started this course. I think academia is still dominated by determinism and behaviourism, that looks at a human being as programmable. In fact, the whole history of cybernetics is based on the premise that the mind is just an organic computer. These approachs, I believe, all forget the most fundamental reality of any human being, our free will. Motivation is not something that can be programmed. Instead, as a lot of studies have shown, success in learning in dependent on “instrinsic motivation.”
All these tools are not going to teach us. They are going to help us teach ourselves. There’s no escaping that. But there’s nothing wrong with not being motivated. It means our interest is likely not intrinsic. There could be many factors for that. Perhaps it is best in that case we focus on something else, or there are considerations which one hadn’t factored which we could be imparted with to help us better see the value of pursuing a particular field of self-instruction. Either way, the choice has to be fully rational. But when one is motivated, that’s when we make the best use of the tools. But I agree, in the case of language, nothing replaces immersion in the language, and in that case, all these tools are just there to reinforce or support that process.
Hi David –
So true about these apps being tools and serving as an extension from the concept of the brick n mortar language labs. I was thinking the same when I going through some of the activities on Duolingo and Yabla. The difference was that I didn’t have a workbook in front of me that I was filling out. The tech features are more user friendly than rewinding cassettes or using CDs, and my perception is that the gaming design is more engaging. But underpinning all of that is your point about motivation in which you said,
“Motivation is not something that can be programmed. Instead, as a lot of studies shown, success in learning is dependent on “intrinsic motivation.” All these tools are not going to teach us. They are going to help us teach ourselves.”
Your words remind me the value of learner agency and self-directed learning. Truthfully, I am starting to realize how the behaviorist and instructivist style of learning that played a significant role in my earlier educational career has influenced my own thinking about learning! A whole other story. Thanks always for the stimulating virtual discussions.
Hi Mel and David, such an interesting conversation. I am an additional language speaker with English being my additional language. I could not agree more with Mel’s statement that it is the real world experience and the immersion in the language and culture that brings about real language learning. Just for the fun of it, I played around in Yabla. My German is fluent and I found myself wondering how an additional language speaker would fare learning German in this APP. I found the games quite advanced for someone just learning the language and I was missing the context. Not sure I would be able to retain information after having played the language games. In my own experience, when I look back on how I learned English, it was the interaction with other people and the learning of words in context. I am thinking about experiential learning theory when I think about language learning. Kolb & Kolb describe experiential learning as a process in which the learner creates knowledge through social interaction rather than through the transmission of preconceived ideas. Yabla seemed to follow the transmission model. What are your thoughts?
References
Kolb, A., Y., & Kolb, D., A. (2011). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267974468_Experiential_Learning_Theory_A_Dynam
Thank you Anita. I think there’s little doubt that full immersion, as both you and Mel point out, is the best way to learn a language. No tool can replace that. But these tools should not be expected to replace that kind of learning. Rather, they should reinforce or support it. Or, they can be the next best alternative. In my case, I don’t have the opportunity to immerse myself. So a tool like Yabla is a great temporary alternative. And it’s not for the beginner either. Duolingo and Rosetta Stone are better tools for that. The challenge is to find a strong strategy for the intermediate to advanced learner. For that, I subscribe to Krashen’s promotion of the value of Extensive Reading. I use that to build vocabulary. But I have to hear their use in context, and for that, Yabla provides me that opportunity where it wouldn’t otherwise be available to me. But all in all, I think any approach needs to employ a variety of tools and strategies. For a completely self-directed approach, I think the best would be a combination of a decent book on grammar, combined with Extensive Reading, and supported finally with the use of a program like Yabla to provide an auditory experience.
What an interesting journey David; thanks for sharing! I’m anxious to try some of these apps for myself. I was all set to ask about your thoughts between these various apps, and learning through a traditional face-to-face classroom, however, it seems like this discussion has been covered quite fruitfully above. I like your response to Mel above where you suggest that these tools, would be an excellent complement to a class in creating a hybrid learning environment where the lab was completed through these apps. I wonder, however, if you think a flipped classroom approach would also work (TeachThought Staff, 2016)? What if the grammar and lessons could be taught through apps and the lab component, where students would have the opportunity to practice what they learned through discussions was done in person? I think the gamified approach to learning could make the lectures more enjoyable, but the immersive experience could still be achieved through the in-person lab.
References
TeachThought Staff. (2016, March 4). Definition of the flipped classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/learning/the-definition-of-the-flipped-classroom/
Yeah, I think there’s still lots of room for improvement. There are good elements to all the platforms. I think what you are suggesting is best accomplished by Deutsche Welle. It’s a great experience. There’s a gamification component to it, but it’s not nearly as good as Duolingo, who have really mastered that part of it. I think if Duolingo’s basic approach could be leveraged, by adding grammar lessons, and then having course progression evolve into Extensive Reading, it would be fantastic.
This is a fascinating discussion, particularly due to looking outside one app and comparing them, and then widening the circle to look at pedagogical approaches and technologies outside of the apps themselves. These are good examples some of the angles that can and need to be pursued in the exploration and analysis of educational technologies.