Disembodied Pronunciation done well--by Rosetta Stone

Although there appears to be no readily accessible published research as to the efficacy of the widely promoted language teaching program, Rosetta Stone, if the testimonials on the website are to be believed,  it certainly works for at least some learners.  Having reviewed the Korean and ESL programs, I am struck by how well it does a little--a good business model.

Image: Rosetta stone.com

For the visual-auditory, literate learner (See previous posts on the myth of learning styles, however!)  for whom pronunciation will not be much of an issue, it offers reasonably good, low cost, individualized access to at least functional vocabulary and structure. In fact, that it does not do active pronunciation instruction (other than repetition with some feedback) may almost be a plus, as opposed to presenting it even more "disembodied," as is the case with many current, computer-based systems.

A haptic interface could certainly be developed to use with it. I suggested that when I talked to one of the designers a couple of years ago. Basically, he confidently informed me that according to Krashen and most experts in the field, comprehensible input and aural comprehension were generally sufficient for developing acceptable pronunciation--and selling the product. Well . . . duh. He was at least half right. And besides, recall that the pronunciation of the original Rosetta Stone took over three decades to figure out . . .

Incomprehensible output: Krashen @ 2011 KOTESOL

Clip art:
Clker

To understand the current place of pronunciation instruction in English language teaching you should hear Professor Krashen's recent comments at KOTESOL. His "message" for the last 30 years or so has been that, in essence, quality input is the central driver of acquisition. On that most agree, of course, but his stance toward learner output, especially managed speaking and pronunciation has been equally consistent: it is potentially problematic and should not be a high priority--for any number of reasons. His position, methodologically, is still dominant. It is quite common sense-based and, in some respects, from the standpoint of the classroom instructor . . . less hassle.

Why worry too much about accuracy (or pronunciation in this case?) Theorists argue principally for the more achievable goal of intelligibility; learners (What do THEY know, anyway?) in almost every study "demand" assistance with accuracy of pronunciation and to be more "native speaker-like," especially if their job depends upon it. Obviously, there is an "information gap" here. Hear it straight from "Dr Gap," himself, in this typically engaging and revealing interview at KOTESOL.