The results generally obtained, however, have failed to support the early optimism. Students have been unable to respond automatically; nor have they reacted favorably to overlearning language forms to the point of nonthoughtful responses. Once the novelty of the lab disappears, some students form an intense dislike for the lab sessions. Others are uninspired, uninterested, and
Appendix 4 537
inattentive. One of the major problems in many labs is how to control the vandalism. This vandalism is usually not malicious. Apparently, high school- age students just have too much energy to be able to fold their hands discreetly in their laps and concentrate on listening to drills for the entire lab period.
Many second-language teachers themselves have been less than enthusiastic after the first year or two with the lab. They often feel that the students learn more in the classroom, and they react sympathetically to a group of listless students in the lab by not going to the lab as often as desirable. Too, they feel they do not have time for the additional preparation and planning that an efficient lab session requires. Often, the scheduled lab period does not fit into the teacher's daily plans, so it becomes more convenient not to follow the assigned schedule.
As the initial enthusiasm for language labs has waned, comparisons have been made attempting to evaluate their effects on achievement. The results of these studies have been inconclusive and, in the case of the Keating Report and of the Pennsylvania Project, controversial. The following four studies selected for presentation here reflect the major findings.
The Keating report In 1963, Keating published a report in which the achievement of students who had not practiced in a lab was compared with the achievement of students who had. Three language skills—reading, listening, and speaking—were tested. The results revealed many significant differences, and all favored the no-laboratory group except one. The conclusions drawn were that students with high IQ's were severely disadvantaged by work in the language laboratory. The achievement of students with lower IQ's was relatively unaffected by having studied in a language laboratory.
The Keating study was more a survey of results than a controlled experiment. In this sense, it was more a descriptive study of what was "going on" than what might be true in the ideal situation. The criticism of the Keating Report was loud and severe. 1 Most of the objections centered around the lack of controls in comparing the two groups.
The Lorge study In 1964, Lorge published the results of two successive experiments in New York City. In this study there were five groups: (1) laboratory daily, record-playback equipment; (2) laboratory daily, audio-active equipment; (3) laboratory weekly, record-playback equipment; (4) laboratory weekly, audio-active equipment; and (5) no laboratory. These students were tested in sight reading; oral answers to oral questions; comprehension; and conventional skills. In the overall rating of sight reading, the order of
'For additional details see Modern Language Journal, 48 (April 1964): 189-210.
achievement from highest to lowest was 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. In answering oral questions, the ranking was 5, 1, 2, 4, and 3. In comprehension at fast speed, the groups ranked 1, 2, 3, 5, 4. At slow speeds, the order was 2,5,3,4,1. In the total score for conventional skills, the order based on achievement was 1,5,2, 4, 3, with 1 and 5 being significantly better than 2, 4, and 3. In addition to achievement, the percentages of students continuing from third to fourth year were compared, and it was found that a much higher percentage of laboratory students continued into fourth year (Lorge, 1964).
The Lorge study has not been subjected to the intense criticism received by the Keating report. The focus was smaller: the first-, second-, and third-year French classes in one school in 1961 and the second-year French classes in two schools in 1962. The controls were more adequate than in the Keating study. In the study the following factors were listed as being related to successful use of the language laboratory: (1) amount of time spent in the lab, (2) types of equipment, (3) kinds of taped materials, and (4) the teacher's ability to handle the lab equipment. The overall conclusion was that groups of students assigned to regular periods of laboratory practice as part of their required French course made greater gains than comparison groups in several areas, and that speaking and listening skills were the new objectives of second- language study. The investigations showed that these skills can be effectively practiced in the laboratory (Lorge, 1964, p. 419). Undoubtedly, the author's conclusions are valid. At the same time, it is interesting to note that in the production of oral language to answer oral questions the no-laboratory group achieved the highest scores.
The Pennsylvania project In Pennsylvania, Smith (1970) conducted an extensive experiement involving French and German students in many different high schools. Basically, his objective was to compare students taught audio- lingually with students taught by more traditional methods. However, one of the related problems studied was that of the effect of lab practice on achievement. The results indicated that using the lab twice each week had no discernible effect on the students' achievement scores.
The Pennsylvania study, like the Keating investigation, lacked the tight controls possible in a small-scale study. Attempts were made to maximize uniform procedures and to minimize the disparity that tends to creep into a project of such large scope. But complete control in studies involving large numbers of schools, teachers, and students is possible only to a limited degree. This study has generated much critical comment. 2 Most of the
2 For more detailed discussions of the project's strengths and weaknesses the reader should consult NALLD Newsletter, 3 (March 1969); Modern Language Journal, 53 (October 1969); Foreign Language Annals, 3 (December 1969).
criticism has been directed toward the lack of controls, the manner in which the lab was used, the tests used to evaluate achievement, and the conclusions drawn by the investigators.
Smith's study Another study was that of Smith (1969) of Purdue, who conducted a two-year investigation comparing the effectiveness of electronic classrooms and two types of language laboratories, record-playback and audio-active. In addition, he included a control group that had no classes in the laboratory. Students in French, German, and Spanish were included, and their achievement in listening, reading, and speaking was tested. The overall trend favored the equipment groups over the control group. (It should be noted that this trend on the end-of-term examinations was not consistent. In two instances—listening in French and speaking in Spanish—achievement was significantly higher in the electronic classroom group than in the control. In three cases—speaking in French and reading and speaking in German— significant differences were found between the language lab record-playback group and the control group. In each comparison in which there was a significant difference, the data indicate that the group superior to the control group, whether electronic classroom or language lab, was also significantly better than the other equipment groups as well.) In this study, data concerning attitude and interest were also collected. There was no significant difference in the attitude of the control group and the equipment groups. Student interest in all groups dropped. However, interest dropped less in the control group than in the equipment groups in French. The same results were generally true in German, but they were varied in Spanish.