[CaseyJ747]

OK, I will be reviewing Rosetta Stone's latest version, shortly. Anyone else interested? --in reviewing it? --or just in reading about Rosetta Stone? Are there any particular questions you want me to answer?
Despite their recent upgrade to version 3, I still recommend that if you have already made up your mind to purchase Rosetta Stone software, be sure to try it out and decide if it helps you, BEFORE the money back guarantee expires. I suspect that many copies would be returned, but are not, because the copy is left on the shelf for later study. Please use some healthy skepticism (not cynicism) and do not blindly accept the claims made by some journalists or by Fairfield Language Technologies, in their Rosetta Stone advertising. The claims hint that, after some long period of study with Rosetta Stone, the student will experience accelerated progress, for a net savings of time over other language learning methods. As far as I have been able to determine, no research has been done to demonstrate that the Rosetta Stone method produces faster learning.
As one writer posted, "...in theory, rosetta stone is an excellent idea; in practice, it works for some and doesn't work for others..."
I gotta' ask-- In WHOSE theory? Please see the following pages, which has references to research, showing "...Despite persistent efforts, most learners of a second language will never become fully native-like in it, although with practice considerable fluency can be achieved...":
http://en.wikipedia....Second_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languageeducation#Theaudio-lingual_method
Think about what is required by the alleged natural way of learning a language, which has been advocated by Rosetta Stone, the old ALM method, and others. A child undergoes many years of question and answer interaction with adults who are fluent in the target language. Further, the child is totally focused on simultaneously learning many other things, along with the language. Obviously, the child's brain is operating in a manner that is significantly different than that of an adult.
Setting aside for a moment the issue of language learning past the age of six, consider that the Rosetta Stone software is not an adult human. This software cannot respond to questions in the manner of an intelligent human being. (As the comedian Robin Williams ranted "why must children ask about so much metaphysical nonsense, like 'Daddy, why is the sky blue?' ") The Rosetta Stone software can only offer multiple choice questions, and only responds with a numerical test score, or a needle swinging across a meter face with arbitrary evaluation levels. Current computer technology can offer only limited artificial intelligence (AI). Rosetta Stone software hints at having AI, but does not.
Again, if you feel strongly that their strategy seems plausible, go ahead and try Rosetta Stone software-- but take them up on their money back guarantee. But reach a decision before it is too late for a refund.
And if you can, report back to us on how close you got to the promised fluency.
I would like to hear from you.
The absence of any serious reviews speaks louder than any of the reviews filled with endorsements of Rosetta Stone, expressed in vague generalities.
But if you review Rosetta Stone, please omit the irrelevant chat that fills the current reviews, such as how much fun you experienced, or that you tried other methods and they did not work for you, or that this software seems better than any other software.
For reasons I cannot understand, all software for teaching foreign languages seems to fall short of the capabilities hinted at.
Here are a few examples of the chatty reviewers who are misleading parents and students with feel good prose and vague generalities. Please read these reviews with an appropriate level of skepticism.
http://solution.allt...guage-learning/
http://www.nytimes.c...r=1&oref=slogin
http://usarmy.rosett...estimonials.htm
http://www.rosettast...ews-20071203-rs
http://www.rosettast...nch-release.pdf
http://www.rosettast...s-20070828-rs-1
http://www.language-...etta-stone.html
http://www.macworld....m?reviewid=2452
http://www.rosettastone.com/usassets/documentation/Macworldreview_UK.pdf
http://www.eclectich...2.asp?revid=872
http://macapper.com/...hread.php?t=999
http://www.macworld....ewsrosetta.html
Here are examples of reviewers who get down to facts, at least some of the facts:
http://www-writing.b...sian/index.html
http://www.santafene...om/Religion/NewsoftwaretoaidinkeepingNavajolanguage_alive
As you can see, the feel good reviews outnumber the realists by a considerable margin.
I hope that I have not offended anyone, especially the U.S. Army, or U.S. taxpayers, who have purchased Rosetta Stone, without knowing it.
http://usarmy.rosett...estimonials.htm
I will be reviewing Rosetta Stone's latest version, shortly. Anyone else interested in a serious review?

[ifidddle]

I just ordered the latest version of Rosetta Stone Spanish, and am prepared to promptly kick it back to them if it does not run smoothly on my Mac or offer up what I need in the way of Spanish. I need the language for my work. I am now concerned that it will be geared more for kids who are learning a second language.

Has anyone tried a Mac version of Fluenz Spanish (http://www.fluenz.com)? They offer the same money back promise, and are almost as proud of their software as Rosetta Stone is. It claims to be geared toward adults, rather than kids. I tried the online demo, and liked what I saw. I may order it and compare it side-by-side with Rosetta Stone, and send back whatever (both, perhaps?) doesn't live up to the boastful claims presented online.

I would love to hear from anyone who has tried Fluenz Spanish.....

[ifidddle]

After looking at the demos, Fluenz seems more practical for anyone with actual thought process, though Rosetta Stone seems good for toddlers. I like how Fluenz offers an overview of how/why certain words an phrases are used.
Here is a link to a test drive of Fluenz http://www.fluenz.co...hsamplesession/
and one for the demo of Rosetta Stone:
http://www.rosettast.../personal/demo/

[Alix90]

CaseyJ747, on 20 July 2008 - 09:09 PM, said:

Thanks, everyone, for your interesting comments about Rosetta Stone. Many people have asked me about Rosetta Stone, as the company advertises extensively. I am only an amateur student of languages, and have tried many methods. I find Rosetta Stone useless. My reasons follow.
Is there any better software available? In my experience, Pimsleur seems to be a more productive approach. However, Pimsleur has not kept up with the times, either. Better technology is available that makes audio CD-ROMs seem clumsy. I am trying to gather insights, in order to possibly get some people together to develop better software, for foreign language learning. Any suggestions?
To get back to Rosetta Stone: My copy of Rosetta Stone 2 seems to have some serious omissions, for learning French. Can anyone comment? Is Rosetta Stone updating or correcting anything? Rosetta Stone seems to be set in stone, with no updates nor enhancements. They just pour more money into advertising, hinting that their students make significant progress.
Overall, the omissions in Rosetta Stone seem to be associated with Rosetta Stone using the same series of pictures and questions for ALL of the different languages that Rosetta Stone teaches. The last time that I looked, only Latin, an ancient language, gets some special treatment, for a few lessons. For example, directions to the coliseum and military camp are substituted for the directions to the airport or gas station. For each of the modern languages, Rosetta Stone seems to have "poured" a different set of sound bites and short, written statements, into the same series of visual multimedia files. That is, a series of four pane pictures and multiple choice questions. By "same", I mean exactly the same. Yes, there seem to be two slightly different series of photos and pictures, that appear in the various packages for different languages. However, the pictures play with the same set of quiz questions, with the minor exceptions for the ancient Latin version.
Rosetta Stone's use of the same set of pictures may not seem to be a barrier to learning. It may seem to be a insignificant point. Unfortunately, this approach makes learning very difficult, for several reasons.
To give one concrete example of why this approach is unsatisfactory, my copy of Rosetta Stone French does not even mention the numbers 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91. For English, this is not a significant omission, as numbers follow a very predictable pattern in their construction, and are not modified, based on case and gender. But for the French language, this is a serious oversight. With Rosetta Stone, how does anyone learn the unique treatment that the French language gives these numbers? (In French, these particular numbers are modified, depending on the grammatical gender of the noun.) Can anyone share, has this been corrected, in later editions of Rosetta Stone?
Further, Rosetta Stone offers NO explanations or help in the student's native language. This is a significant barrier to learning, in my opinion. Following are some examples, as to why I hold this opinion.
Nothing is mentioned in Rosetta Stone to explain differences between French formal and familiar pronouns. The student is expected to figure that out, from a series of still photos, French sound bites, and multiple-choice questions. This is quite overwhelming, as French idioms employ many more pronouns than English idioms. Rosetta Stone does not explain grammatical genders and cases, at all. For a student who is fluent only in American English, this makes learning French a rather challenging task, as English no longer uses the pronouns thee and thou, has no grammatical genders, and does not modify numbers, based on grammatical case and gender. In American English, the pronoun "it" serves to describe animals and inanimate objects. In French, people are occasionally called "it" while inanimate objects must be called "he" or "she" based on grammatical gender. More complicated, the French have many different words for "it". If not impossible, the Rosetta Stone method is very time consuming and frustrating. Is it really intended to be used by itself, as their advertising claims? Are other students making productive use of Rosetta Stone by combining it with help from a tutor? Or other textbooks?
Further, in learning any language, as an adult, idioms are a significant barrier. To give a simple example, in American English, we ask "How is the weather?" In German the question is asked in almost the same way, word for word. But the French idiom translates literally "What time is it making?" (This example is, as far as I can tell, not included in Rosetta Stone. But more complicated idioms are included, without explanation in the student's native or starting language.)
Strangely, a number of lessons in Rosetta Stone consist solely of old cartoons, which were published in English. These cartoons are one-pane drawings with a humorous comment. Anyone who has studied foreign languages for any length of time will understand that humor is very idiomatic, and does not translate very well. In many cases, it does not translate at all. The joke is often lost in translation. It would be much more productive for the student to study cartoons originally published in the target foreign language, to try to get some comprehension of the idioms. However, that approach usually requires some additional background explanation in the student's native language.
As best as I can understand, each student brings with him preconceptions about grammar and idioms, based on his native language. Almost every foreign language has some fairly significant quirks in idioms and grammar, which require additional explanation to help the student along. As a consequence, language teaching needs to be tailored to take into account BOTH the students native language, as well as the target foreign language, that is to be learned. Rosetta Stone ignores this reality, and takes the approach that one series of pictures and quiz questions can teach ANY student, regardless of the native language from which the student is starting. Further, Rosetta Stone offers no explanations or help, at all, in the student's native language. Somehow, the student is expected to learn by looking at photos, matched with short statements, all in the foreign language. (The short statements can be both displayed on the screen and played as audio sound bites.) Of course, this approach simplifies Rosetta Stone's task of writing the software.
It is my hunch that Rosetta Stone's approach of using computer multimedia to display a series of pictures originated with the old "photo book" method, often used to teach very basic English, as a second language, to people who are illiterate, even in their native language. If you have never heard of this method, see SIL.org for an explanation. As the writers at SIL.org explain, the "photo book" method is a good starting method, for the basics. However, it has significant limits, depending of the complexity of the foreign language to be learned, as well as the magnitude of the differences between the foreign language and the students' native language. But more important, the method does not use the pictures without some minimal level of help in the student's native language.
But worst of all, without additional explanation in the students native language, the "photo book" method will be able to explain only the most obvious concepts. That may possibly be why Rosetta Stone focuses on what some have described as silly sentences that have little use in plausibly useful conversations, such as "the boy is under the table", "the boy is on the table" and so on. More complicated expressions in past, present, and future tense, are not possible with static pictures. I do recall one frame in Rosetta Stone that uses a brief video clip to describe a bus arriving, leaving, and at a stop. But that video is the exception. Rosetta Stone is more than 95% static pictures or photos.
But an additional drawback of the "photo book" method is that if an idiom is significantly different from the expression in the student's native language, the new phrase will likely appear to be a string of untranslatable words. That is not to say that the student could necessarily figure an idiom out, if they could understand each word. Because Rosetta Stone uses the same set of pictures and questions, for every language, the method does not always build up a basic vocabulary in step by step manner. Based on the luck of the draw, the student may or may not be able to learn, because of the differences between his native, or starting language, and the foreign language. If his native language has idioms and sentence structure that is significantly different from the foreign language, insurmountable gaps will appear in the Rosetta Stone method.
It is my hypothesis, that for optimal learning by an adult beginner, some explanation about the structure and idioms of the foreign language is needed, in the student's native language. Of course, later drill should be solely in the foreign language, to avoid getting bogged down in memorizing rules of grammar that are little help in achieving fluency. Pimsleur seems to try to move in that direction, but is limited by their outdated audio CD media.
Rosetta Stone seems to hint that the protracted and puzzling study with their software will somehow be rewarded by better retention and better fluency. Has Rosetta Stone actually done the research that they hint at? I have doubts. I gotta' wonder why librarians across the U.S. are spending tax dollars to license the use of Rosetta Stone, online. It's gotta' be some kind of strange bandwagon effect, with no one actually evaluating these products. At WikiPedia.org, there is some appalling history on the fads in foreign language education. It is just one fad after another. If any research is being done, it probably is flawed, somehow, in order to produce conclusions to propel each method to temporary popularity. When I was a young student, we struggled with the old ALM, or Audio Lingual Materials method. Our teachers did not seem to know what to do with it, and we all went to the default method of trying to learn by translating word by word, ignoring idioms and differences in sentence structure. Yes, we learned a little. But it was an appalling waste of our time. Students deserve guidance towards more optimal learning methods, in my humble opinion.
The WikiPedia info can currently be found at:
http://en.wikipedia....guage_education
http://en.wikipedia....guage_education
Additional info about learning languages is at
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com
http://www.sil.org/
Anyone, please share your experiences with me. Many people have asked me about Rosetta Stone, as the company advertises intensively. Somehow, I am missing something. Possibly, are some students making productive use of Rosetta Stone with help from a tutor? Or perhaps, Rosetta Stone is a productive learning method for those students who are already multilingual, in several different languages, and intuitively grasp the complexities embedded in all those photos, short statements, and sound bites.
Please comment on what you believe should be in software, designed to actually help a student learn a foreign language.
Casey

Well actually i also found a great software that stands for another way of learning. Which is much better in my opinion.
Im actually getting ready to learn their Spanish course. They basically use English as leverage for learning.What do you
think about it?
Here:http://www.fluenz.com/languages/mandarin/what-you-learn/index.html

This post has been edited by Alix90: 08 September 2009 - 01:43 PM

[kelly001]

Alix90, on 08 September 2009 - 01:23 PM, said:

CaseyJ747, on 20 July 2008 - 09:09 PM, said:

Thanks, everyone, for your interesting comments about Rosetta Stone. Many people have asked me about Rosetta Stone, as the company advertises extensively. I am only an amateur student of languages, and have tried many methods. I find Rosetta Stone useless. My reasons follow.
Is there any better software available? In my experience, Pimsleur seems to be a more productive approach. However, Pimsleur has not kept up with the times, either. Better technology is available that makes audio CD-ROMs seem clumsy. I am trying to gather insights, in order to possibly get some people together to develop better software, for foreign language learning. Any suggestions?
To get back to Rosetta Stone: My copy of Rosetta Stone 2 seems to have some serious omissions, for learning French. Can anyone comment? Is Rosetta Stone updating or correcting anything? Rosetta Stone seems to be set in stone, with no updates nor enhancements. They just pour more money into advertising, hinting that their students make significant progress.
Overall, the omissions in Rosetta Stone seem to be associated with Rosetta Stone using the same series of pictures and questions for ALL of the different languages that Rosetta Stone teaches. The last time that I looked, only Latin, an ancient language, gets some special treatment, for a few lessons. For example, directions to the coliseum and military camp are substituted for the directions to the airport or gas station. For each of the modern languages, Rosetta Stone seems to have "poured" a different set of sound bites and short, written statements, into the same series of visual multimedia files. That is, a series of four pane pictures and multiple choice questions. By "same", I mean exactly the same. Yes, there seem to be two slightly different series of photos and pictures, that appear in the various packages for different languages. However, the pictures play with the same set of quiz questions, with the minor exceptions for the ancient Latin version.
Rosetta Stone's use of the same set of pictures may not seem to be a barrier to learning. It may seem to be a insignificant point. Unfortunately, this approach makes learning very difficult, for several reasons.
To give one concrete example of why this approach is unsatisfactory, my copy of Rosetta Stone French does not even mention the numbers 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91. For English, this is not a significant omission, as numbers follow a very predictable pattern in their construction, and are not modified, based on case and gender. But for the French language, this is a serious oversight. With Rosetta Stone, how does anyone learn the unique treatment that the French language gives these numbers? (In French, these particular numbers are modified, depending on the grammatical gender of the noun.) Can anyone share, has this been corrected, in later editions of Rosetta Stone?
Further, Rosetta Stone offers NO explanations or help in the student's native language. This is a significant barrier to learning, in my opinion. Following are some examples, as to why I hold this opinion.
Nothing is mentioned in Rosetta Stone to explain differences between French formal and familiar pronouns. The student is expected to figure that out, from a series of still photos, French sound bites, and multiple-choice questions. This is quite overwhelming, as French idioms employ many more pronouns than English idioms. Rosetta Stone does not explain grammatical genders and cases, at all. For a student who is fluent only in American English, this makes learning French a rather challenging task, as English no longer uses the pronouns thee and thou, has no grammatical genders, and does not modify numbers, based on grammatical case and gender. In American English, the pronoun "it" serves to describe animals and inanimate objects. In French, people are occasionally called "it" while inanimate objects must be called "he" or "she" based on grammatical gender. More complicated, the French have many different words for "it". If not impossible, the Rosetta Stone method is very time consuming and frustrating. Is it really intended to be used by itself, as their advertising claims? Are other students making productive use of Rosetta Stone by combining it with help from a tutor? Or other textbooks?
Further, in learning any language, as an adult, idioms are a significant barrier. To give a simple example, in American English, we ask "How is the weather?" In German the question is asked in almost the same way, word for word. But the French idiom translates literally "What time is it making?" (This example is, as far as I can tell, not included in Rosetta Stone. But more complicated idioms are included, without explanation in the student's native or starting language.)
Strangely, a number of lessons in Rosetta Stone consist solely of old cartoons, which were published in English. These cartoons are one-pane drawings with a humorous comment. Anyone who has studied foreign languages for any length of time will understand that humor is very idiomatic, and does not translate very well. In many cases, it does not translate at all. The joke is often lost in translation. It would be much more productive for the student to study cartoons originally published in the target foreign language, to try to get some comprehension of the idioms. However, that approach usually requires some additional background explanation in the student's native language.
As best as I can understand, each student brings with him preconceptions about grammar and idioms, based on his native language. Almost every foreign language has some fairly significant quirks in idioms and grammar, which require additional explanation to help the student along. As a consequence, language teaching needs to be tailored to take into account BOTH the students native language, as well as the target foreign language, that is to be learned. Rosetta Stone ignores this reality, and takes the approach that one series of pictures and quiz questions can teach ANY student, regardless of the native language from which the student is starting. Further, Rosetta Stone offers no explanations or help, at all, in the student's native language. Somehow, the student is expected to learn by looking at photos, matched with short statements, all in the foreign language. (The short statements can be both displayed on the screen and played as audio sound bites.) Of course, this approach simplifies Rosetta Stone's task of writing the software.
It is my hunch that Rosetta Stone's approach of using computer multimedia to display a series of pictures originated with the old "photo book" method, often used to teach very basic English, as a second language, to people who are illiterate, even in their native language. If you have never heard of this method, see SIL.org for an explanation. As the writers at SIL.org explain, the "photo book" method is a good starting method, for the basics. However, it has significant limits, depending of the complexity of the foreign language to be learned, as well as the magnitude of the differences between the foreign language and the students' native language. But more important, the method does not use the pictures without some minimal level of help in the student's native language.
But worst of all, without additional explanation in the students native language, the "photo book" method will be able to explain only the most obvious concepts. That may possibly be why Rosetta Stone focuses on what some have described as silly sentences that have little use in plausibly useful conversations, such as "the boy is under the table", "the boy is on the table" and so on. More complicated expressions in past, present, and future tense, are not possible with static pictures. I do recall one frame in Rosetta Stone that uses a brief video clip to describe a bus arriving, leaving, and at a stop. But that video is the exception. Rosetta Stone is more than 95% static pictures or photos.
But an additional drawback of the "photo book" method is that if an idiom is significantly different from the expression in the student's native language, the new phrase will likely appear to be a string of untranslatable words. That is not to say that the student could necessarily figure an idiom out, if they could understand each word. Because Rosetta Stone uses the same set of pictures and questions, for every language, the method does not always build up a basic vocabulary in step by step manner. Based on the luck of the draw, the student may or may not be able to learn, because of the differences between his native, or starting language, and the foreign language. If his native language has idioms and sentence structure that is significantly different from the foreign language, insurmountable gaps will appear in the Rosetta Stone method.
It is my hypothesis, that for optimal learning by an adult beginner, some explanation about the structure and idioms of the foreign language is needed, in the student's native language. Of course, later drill should be solely in the foreign language, to avoid getting bogged down in memorizing rules of grammar that are little help in achieving fluency. Pimsleur seems to try to move in that direction, but is limited by their outdated audio CD media.
Rosetta Stone seems to hint that the protracted and puzzling study with their software will somehow be rewarded by better retention and better fluency. Has Rosetta Stone actually done the research that they hint at? I have doubts. I gotta' wonder why librarians across the U.S. are spending tax dollars to license the use of Rosetta Stone, online. It's gotta' be some kind of strange bandwagon effect, with no one actually evaluating these products. At WikiPedia.org, there is some appalling history on the fads in foreign language education. It is just one fad after another. If any research is being done, it probably is flawed, somehow, in order to produce conclusions to propel each method to temporary popularity. When I was a young student, we struggled with the old ALM, or Audio Lingual Materials method. Our teachers did not seem to know what to do with it, and we all went to the default method of trying to learn by translating word by word, ignoring idioms and differences in sentence structure. Yes, we learned a little. But it was an appalling waste of our time. Students deserve guidance towards more optimal learning methods, in my humble opinion.
The WikiPedia info can currently be found at:
http://en.wikipedia....guage_education
http://en.wikipedia....guage_education
Additional info about learning languages is at
http://how-to-learn-any-language.com
http://www.sil.org/
Anyone, please share your experiences with me. Many people have asked me about Rosetta Stone, as the company advertises intensively. Somehow, I am missing something. Possibly, are some students making productive use of Rosetta Stone with help from a tutor? Or perhaps, Rosetta Stone is a productive learning method for those students who are already multilingual, in several different languages, and intuitively grasp the complexities embedded in all those photos, short statements, and sound bites.
Please comment on what you believe should be in software, designed to actually help a student learn a foreign language.
Casey

Well actually i also found a great software that stands for another way of learning. Which is much better in my opinion.
Im actually getting ready to learn their Spanish course. They basically use English as leverage for learning.What do you
think about it?
Here:http://www.fluenz.com/languages/mandarin/what-you-learn/index.html