Review of Auralog
( www.auralog.com )
by Lori Diepenbroek & Tracey Derwing
University of Alberta
Recently there has been interest in the online language learning resource called Auralog (available in Alberta libraries). As with many commercial computer materials, attention has gone into the appearance of the software, rather than the content. We cannot recommend this software for independent use. There is little explicit instruction, and the instruction that exists is often unclear, or inadequate. There is little feedback, and what does exist is often misleading or inaccurate. Most of the activities are decontextualized, which seriously limits their usefulness. Even dialogues intended to provide context-specific language, e.g., business dialogues, are unhelpful. Students listen to an utterance and choose from three responses that vary in politeness. No feedback is provided regarding the chosen response; the implication is that the sentences are equivalent. There is little cultural content, but what exists is American. The system is relatively easy to navigate for experienced computer users, but would pose problems for ESL students who have limited education and/or limited experience with computers.
We examined lessons at the beginner and intermediate lessons from the standpoint of a language learner, using Dutch and French. The first author is a beginner in Dutch and an intermediate speaker of French. (According to a review in a scholarly journal, the versions in different languages are straight translations – there are no cultural adjustments, so her experience would parallel those of beginner and intermediate learners of English.) Finally, we conducted a comprehensive examination of the English version of Auralog, at beginning, intermediate and advanced levels, as experienced ESL instructors who are cognizant of the second language acquisition and teaching literature.
The Dutch program offers students a choice of selecting a proficiency level or completing a lengthy test, which will then assign a level. Lori took the test and was designated a beginner. There is nothing for pre-beginners or literacy students. The first unit was about family, but it also covered introductions, greetings, and small talk. It was very content-heavy for a single unit. All units begin with a dialogue and an accompanying picture. There are then questions to which students respond. In this case, the narrator/voice asks the woman pictured ‘Are you a beautiful woman?’ and one of her responses was “I think so.” There was also a question “Are you a man?” These are obviously pragmatically inappropriate questions. Following the dialogue, there was a vocabulary list. The Dutch version allows for translation into English, but the English version has no translation option; however, there is a sample sentence in which the word is used. A student would have to look up unknown words in a dictionary. A major limitation is the lack of explanations prior to the language points introduced. Students often need explicit instruction; not only are some language learners reliant on a teacher because of learning styles, but research has shown that some aspects of language will never be ‘picked up’ without direct teaching because students fail to notice these features. Another issue with the beginner level, both in Dutch and in English, was the use of extremely difficult language in the directions. Consider the following excerpts from the earliest part of the beginner English as a second language program: “The exercises will enable you to understand and assimilate concepts that will enable you to communicate appropriately.” “Consult and assimilate the key terms for the topics addressed in the study session.” This level of language is beyond the capabilities of a beginner and would pose problems for intermediate students. On the other hand, some activities have no instructions at all.
At the intermediate level, Lori started with the French dialogue - she was required to respond verbally by reading one of three possible answers on the screen. If a student’s pronunciation is not what the program expects, it will respond, “I don’t understand you.” If the student hesitates, the program will say, “speak faster.” However, there is no indication of the source of the problem in the first case, and in the second, some learners are simply not fluent -- this response will discourage them from continuing. The next step involved a waveform display accompanying words to be imitated, but it was difficult to distinguish differences in pitch at the word level – sentences or phrases would have been better. Lori could not distinguish some sounds and neither could she determine what her problems were. Again, there was no useful feedback. She was told she was wrong, but she was not told what she needed to do differently.
The problems we have outlined for Dutch and French are also problems with the English version. There is too much information in every unit. In the third beginner session, for instance, there were 5 language functions, 6 lexical groups, and 8 grammar functions. Feedback was either missing or unhelpful. In the pronunciation section Lori deliberately mis-assigned stress to words and yet achieved a perfect score. She also read some sentences in monotone and again received a perfect score, yet L2 research has shown that stress (or lack of it) is an important determinant of intelligibility, in many instances more important than the production of individual sounds.
The grammar exercises are decontextualized – conjugating verbs, filling in blanks, and so on. If one makes a mistake unrelated to the grammatical function, the sentence will still be marked wrong, but it is unclear what the problem is. For example, students are told to rewrite an original sentence such as “Jeff asked for Mary’s opinion” as shown in an example (but no explanation for why). Instead of writing the expected response “Jeff asked for her opinion.” Lori wrote “Jeff asked her opinion” which is also correct in English. When she asked for a correction she received the following: “Jeff asked her opinion” – a response which didn’t explain why the program would not accept her answer.
We could give many more examples of problems with Auralog, but suffice it to say that unless there is a teacher who can provide both pre-instruction and selection of activities, many students will be frustrated. Even if students were able to navigate all the modules, they would not be exposed to meaningful interaction, thus they may develop declarative but not procedural knowledge. In other words, they will not improve in the very areas that they need the most: fluency, pragmatics and pronunciation.