First of all, do note that my main instance of the inverted classroom model is for teaching MATLAB programming, not linear algebra. (I have used this technique in linear algebra on a targeted basis (so to speak), but the MATLAB course is the only one I do entirely inverted.) So that brings this discussion a little closer to that of learning/acquiring a language, and hence my example is at least somewhat relevant. Arguments could be made that the learning of mathematical concepts has a strongly linguistic flavor as well.

It's been a long time since my cognitive psychology class, and I haven't read the paper you linked in a later comment, but it's my understanding that the science behind “language acquisition devices” as you mention here is not settled. The LAD is Chomsky's theory but there are competing explanations. However, I could be behind the times on that.

As to your last two paragraphs, note that I made no statements about how hard or easy I think any of this is. And I also said nothing about the issues that students bring up during the course — just that there is usually an initial culture shock when students are still learning that class time is spent in a fundamentally different way than they might be used to. What I did indicate in the article is that student feedback shifts from shock to a realization that this way of learning helps them in a number of important ways that go beyond just the course material. That's the feedback I get from students — what are the “legitimate issues” to which you are referring?

You might be referring to cognitive load. I have this to say about cognitive load, especially whether the inverted model brings on too much of it. In any course, no matter how it's taught, students are going to have to learn certain things that require more than just listening. For example, in the MATLAB course they will need to know how to write a program with a branching structure like an IF-THEN statement. In the transmission phase — the lecture — students can watch as the lecturer constructs and executes such a program. But then, in the assimilation phase, they have to build one themselves and debug it until it works. Student tasks and learning outcomes are the same whether the class is traditional or inverted. Which mode of instruction provides the greater amount of cognitive load on students? I would argue that, in this case, the traditional model does, because the most cognitively complex tasks — e.g. writing a function with a properly-executed IF-THEN statement in it — are left up to the student to figure out on his or her own, physically apart from the instructor. In the inverted model, the least cognitively involved task is put into that space — e.g. watching the lecture and playing along at home with simple guided practice. This is exactly what the student would be doing — listening more or less passively to a lecture — in class; it is not a more difficult task because it's done online. And we use the classroom time and space to focus, with the instructor and in groups, on the assimilation tasks, and presumably with all that support readily available the cognitive load is reduced. In other words, because the inverted model puts instructor and classmate availability in direct, rather than inverse, proportion to the cognitive level of the task being performed, the overall cognitive load is reduced. It's the same stuff taking place, just aligned better in terms of matching hardness of task with availability of resources.

There is no intent (direct or indirect) to offend those with special needs. We are very laid back on this site. We are not some filtered official site for the Kings. Our readers sometimes curse in comments and make what some may consider offensive remarks. Jacob does and so do I. We sometimes use colorful language in articles and posts. The word “retard” is thrown around hundreds of thousands of times per day in casual conversation when referring to various idle acts that have nothing to do with special needs. It is said in jest and humor, sometimes I admit rash humor, but humor nevertheless. If I was directing the term toward a person with special needs, then of course that would be out of line and disrespectful. When I am using the term to refer to the play of our hockey team, I am fairly certain most if not nearly everyone sees it for what it is and what it is not. I am sorry you were offended. It wasn't our intent. While I do not have anyone in my family with special needs, I have a dear friend who does.

Pros:
Rosetta stone’s process is a lot better than traditional “current language word = foreign language word” learning processes, which rely on memorization and lead to internal translation from the foreign language to one’s native language while speaking. Rosetta stone converts foreign words straight to pictures and ideas, eliminating internal translation to one’s native language. There is plenty of repetition of previous words, but at no point does the process seem like rote recitation.

The software is divided into “lessons” which introduce new words, and have several exercises including matching, pronouncing each part of the word, verbally filling in blanks with your new words, etc. There is plenty to keep you interested and ensure that you learn new words and phrases.

The voice recognition was decent, a simple training has the program hearing you correctly ~90% of the time, and an adjustable slider can reduce the pickiness the software has if you’re having issues, although that also controls how strictly you want to be held to pronunciation.

Cons of Rosetta Stone:
-It’s expensive
-The approach in rosetta stone does not use conjugations or grammar rules, you just learn words and phrases. Some maybe bothered by this.
-Many other reviews note technical problems, I had no issues on my PC running windows XP.

That being said, I would never order it again. First, the price is just too high. My $10 “Instant Immersion” CD box set is definitely not as good as Rosetta Stone… but is it work $400 more?? I definitely don’t think so.

The Instant Immersion is good enough, especially when paired with other resources, such as a pocket dictionary, &/or the Pimsleur system (which is also inexpensive, and very efficient). Many people tell me that Fluenz is very good as well. So for me, Rosetta Stone loses one star for price.

Second (the much bigger issue), the licensing issues are a deal breaker for me. I will never again order any Rosetta Stone product.

You can only load the program twice … the intent (I believe) is to have a copy at home and at work. But if the first install is bad, or if your computer crashes, that’s it! You have to buy another copy. I replace my computers (or hard drives) every 2 years on average. This severely limits my use of this product. This is pure greed on the part of Rosetta Stone, and unforgivable in my opinion. If I have a serial number, I should be able to have unrestricted personal use of the product.

Also, you can never, ever transfer ownership or sell it. Again, an unforgivable offense in my opinion. If you fork out $400-500 for this software, and end up not liking the full immersion style, then your stuck with it. (And hey, let’s face it – all of our brains aren’t wired the same.) This really, REALLY bothers me to think that this company doesn’t mind ripping people off just because you learn differently. I love this learning style…but again, some people learn differently.

Finally, you have to have the original CD in place to use it – which means, you CAN’T use it at work & home unless you carry the darn disc around. For travel I use a portable netbook, which doesn’t have a CD drive, so I absolutely can’t travel with it. So the product loses another star for stupid licensing & other user restrictions.

So simply based on the merits of the product, I give it 5 stars. But based on licensing issues, greed, and limited user rights, I give is 0 stars. So if the price (& risks associated with product) don’t bother you, by all means, get it & enjoy it. But if any of the problems I’ve mentioned give you pause, try one or more of the alternatives I mentioned.

!Bonne chance à vous!