Thread: Rosetta Stone (version 3)

I have asked about Rosetta Stone before, and I have gotten very mixed opinions. I bought Levels 1 and 2, and I love it. Granted, I am still very early in the lessons, but I think it's a fantastic way to learn. Especially for somebody like me who does not like grammar lessons. (I don't even know English grammar, and it's my first language). I have also talked here about learning grammar. I know it's a necessary evil, but if I can postpone it, I will.

Anyway, my question is this: Does anybody have any experience with Version 3 of Rosetta Stone. I have Version 2, but since I bought it less than 6 months ago I can exchange it for the new Version 3. They supposedly re-vamped the format and totally changed the order of the vocabulary. But has anybody tried it? Like I said...I really like Rosetta Stone, but I'm trying to decide which version to use. Any comments would be appreciated.

Rosetta Stone used to have an online version. Maybe, since you have purchased from them, they would let you try the Version 3 online for a week, or something, to see the difference.

It's probably worth asking them.

Originally Posted by Winifred

Rosetta Stone used to have an online version. Maybe, since you have purchased from them, they would let you try the Version 3 online for a week, or something, to see the difference.

It's probably worth asking them.

That's a GREAT idea! I don't know why I didn't think of that. I will write them today and see if they'd allow that.

I am currently using Rosetta Stone Version 3. I think it's a great product. Unfortunately I have never used Rosetta Stone version 2, so I cannot compare the two versions. Anyway, if can update your version for free, I certainly advise to do so.
U

Originally Posted by leccoguy

I am currently using Rosetta Stone Version 3. I think it's a great product. Unfortunately I have never used Rosetta Stone version 2, so I cannot compare the two versions. Anyway, if can update your version for free, I certainly advise to do so.
U

I wonder have they updated those awful photos. And the interface in the older versions looks like it was created in 1990. I'd be interested to know the differences but I don't see any "what's new" information on the Rosetta Stone website.

Originally Posted by Gatton

Originally Posted by leccoguy

I am currently using Rosetta Stone Version 3. I think it's a great product. Unfortunately I have never used Rosetta Stone version 2, so I cannot compare the two versions. Anyway, if can update your version for free, I certainly advise to do so.
U

I wonder have they updated those awful photos. And the interface in the older versions looks like it was created in 1990. I'd be interested to know the differences but I don't see any "what's new" information on the Rosetta Stone website.

I'm using version 3 and its a big upgrade from version 2. The interface is better, and the new photos give you a better idea of what is being illustrated. The course has been re-written to place a greater emphasis on grammar. I still need to dip into other reference works to supplement the course though.

Rosetta Stone 2 has more content and Rosetta Stone 3 has a better interface.

Rosetta 2 allowed you to learn way more words, but 3 actually placed you in methodology to learn, but it is so small.

for the record, i hate rosetta stone (and many of the other super expensive products like them), the only one i found excellent was the FSI tapes (dont think there is a full russian version available tho)
in any case, have a look here:
[link removed]
it looks like the full version of v3 is available (free - as its a glorious torrent) make sure you read the commentary before you dl.
good luck

I am almost finished with Rosetta Stone v3 level 1. In many ways, it is a great learning tool. And it leaves a LOT to be desired.

You associate words with photos, and never really know what the words mean.

Couple Rosetta Stone with several other books/audio, and I am learning, although not as fast as I wish. Earworms has a short audio download that is catchy, but does not have a lot of information. Russian in 10 minutes a day is a helpful tool.

But all of these are just entry, none of them touch on grammer. I was so fed up with Rosetta Stone that I was ready to give up. I actually learned about conjugating verbs and grammer from this and one other free web site.

I think that these web sites along with Rosetta Stone might be a good combination. But Rosetta Stone advertises as if it was a stand alone product and it is not even close.

Let's see if my opinion changes when I finish level 2 & 3.

You jest if you think you can learn Russian quickly without a thorough knowledge of grammar. You need to know grammar so that you can make up your own sentences and have the person you are talking to know what and who you are talking about or referring to. Not only that, it is the grammar of language that makes it interesting, otherwise it is simply just the repetitive learning of vocabulary.

Originally Posted by DDT

You jest if you think you can learn Russian quickly without a thorough knowledge of grammar. You need to know grammar so that you can make up your own sentences and have the person you are talking to know what and who you are talking about or referring to. Not only that, it is the grammar of language that makes it interesting, otherwise it is simply just the repetitive learning of vocabulary.

Did you acquire a thorough knowledge of English grammar when you were learning it as a child?

Of course in some sense you did, but you were unaware of it.

If you ever get a chance, read some of the recent literature on language acquisition. I'm not aware that ANYONE in that field pushes a grammar based approach these days. Obviously grammar is a component of language, and it has its place in learning, but there are indirect ways of learning it effectively.

Originally Posted by paulb

Did you acquire a thorough knowledge of English grammar when you were learning it as a child?

No. Native speakers never have any knowledge of their grammar. They speak by feel and habit.

Originally Posted by paulb

If you ever get a chance, read some of the recent literature on language acquisition. I'm not aware that ANYONE in that field pushes a grammar based approach these days. Obviously grammar is a component of language, and it has its place in learning, but there are indirect ways of learning it effectively.

If you want to learn fast then learn grammar DIrect. If you wait till you have learned INdirectly you wait a lot longer. Particularly in Russian where the word endings and beginnings all change. Let's say you know a word in Russian книга. Does that mean that you can use it in all situations? No. You will have to know what ending to put on it and any other words connected to it. Otherwise the only thing the person you are talking to will understand is that you are saying something about a book.

Now, there are two ways that you can do this.
1 You can practice talking and listening to Russian until you develop a feel for it or
2 You can look it up in a book

Now, since number 2 is so much faster, you may as well just keep the book open and memorize the endings for all the cases...in other words, the grammar.

The point about first language acquisition is that it is done fairly quickly without (normally) relying on teaching grammar. By the time a child turns four he has mastered the majority of the grammar he will ever learn. I have a four year old son who speaks nearly flawless English within his vocabulary limits. Since he didn't really talk for the first year, that amounts to just three years of active language learning.

I have to disagree with the notion that learning grammar from a reference book is faster than other methods. One can look up grammar points in a reference, but that isn't the same as learning. By contrast, there are some phrases and sentences I memorized early on in Russian which I can always recall easily which illustrate various grammatical constructions.

If you are interested in learning more about these things, get some of the work done by James Asher or Stephen Krashen or Rod Ellis. Each of them are experts on language acquisition, and each takes a different approach, but NONE of them promotes the old grammar-translation method. I've found Asher's work in particular to be particularly helpful when I'm teaching.

TPR may be a good idea as a teaching method and for learning in a class or with a tutor but as for self study I don't see how it is possible. The principle of learning as a child is fine, but as adults we have that as an advantage, we can use books aswell. What would take a child 6 years to find out, we can do in a matter of minutes.

Originally Posted by paulb

The point about first language acquisition is that it is done fairly quickly without (normally) relying on teaching grammar. By the time a child turns four he has mastered the majority of the grammar he will ever learn. I have a four year old son who speaks nearly flawless English within his vocabulary limits. Since he didn't really talk for the first year, that amounts to just three years of active language learning.

Toddlers learn grammar ( not just separate words ) of their native language long before they begin to speak. Google for "head turn preference". And when they become older, they lose the ability to learn that fast ( e.g. distinguish sounds that are allophonic in their first language )
Just a link.
http://www.pediatricservices.com/parents/pc-34.htm

Originally Posted by vox05

Originally Posted by paulb

The point about first language acquisition is that it is done fairly quickly without (normally) relying on teaching grammar. By the time a child turns four he has mastered the majority of the grammar he will ever learn. I have a four year old son who speaks nearly flawless English within his vocabulary limits. Since he didn't really talk for the first year, that amounts to just three years of active language learning.

Toddlers learn grammar ( not just separate words ) of their native language long before they begin to speak. Google for "head turn preference". And when they become older, they lose the ability to learn that fast ( e.g. distinguish sounds that are allophonic in their first language )
Just a link.
http://www.pediatricservices.com/parents/pc-34.htm

I have no disagreement with that, except that from what I've read the ability to attain native pronunciation remains until around age 13 or so. It's been presented to me (in my ESL teaching program) that the biggest advantage children have in acquiring a second language is not some innate ability of children (as opposed to adults) to learn language, but rather the fact that children don't have other responsibilities taking up their time and mental energy. If you could spend all day playing with your friends who speak the language you want to learn, you could probably learn it very quickly also.

these programs are like the language equivalent of those sh@tty ridiculous exercise machines you see on the shopping channels. you are not gonna get shredded abs by doing 3 minutes on your abdominizer per day and you sure as hell will not learn russian 'the easy way' on rosetta stone. period.

adults and teens cannot acquire language like a child. period.
get over it. that part of the brain is closed for ever and there's nothing you can do about it (and it has nothing to do with them having 'more time'). during the key years of language acquisition the brain is an extremely busy place.

kids, apart form have the "magic" part of their brain being active, are also completely immersed and bombard with nothing but the target language - all day, every day.

maybe for some languages you will be able to get away without studying grammar and maybe you'll be able to do it quickly, but not for russian.
if you really want to master russian, you will need years and i do mean years.
be consistent, listen to radio, watch movies learn words and study grammar. grammar is not some super boring scary monster, just get on with it

потом уже по-русски побазарим!

good luck

Originally Posted by Lt. Columbo

adults and teens cannot acquire language like a child. period.
get over it. that part of the brain is closed for ever and there's nothing you can do about it (and it has nothing to do with them having 'more time'). during the key years of language acquisition the brain is an extremely busy place.

I'm curious how you know this. Did you do some sort of secretive research on this?

I'm not at all defending Rosetta Stone. I've never seen it demonstrated and it sounds like it is overpriced for whatever it is. I'm just someone interested in the subject of second language acquisition.

i saw a really interesting show on language acquisition a while back and read some stuff on it, but no formal research. without going into details that i cant remember, they said the natural language acquisition window closes at around age 7.
also, if an adult went and lived in another country and was completely isolated form their native language, they'd (im sure) still pick up stuff and be able to meet some communication needs, but would make hundreds of mistakes and have an accent (there was another thing in the brain that deals with that, also interesting).
this listen and learn method is especially bad for russian because of the case system - it's easier just to learn the case rules than to simply not understand why one time you say на диване and another time рядом с диваном. maybe ok for simple stuff, but when you want to express complex ideas and thoughts, you'll need to know how to do it.
language acquisition is something really interesting, ill search about for some more stuff on it and maybe post it here, might be useful and save someone some cash on RS (although you can dl it for free at least )

If your research consists in having watched a tv show, I would offer that you might not be qualified to lecture me on the topic. Diane Larsen-Freeman has some books on language teaching methodology you might consider. Particularly I would recommend James Asher's book Learning Another Language Through Actions. Asher is a cognitive research psychologist and made some startling findings about one way to acquire language.

A good overview of the critical period hypothesis can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis

Also, you might be interested in this abstract from Stephen Krashen (Krashen is one of the most respected voices in language acquisition research and theory): http://tinyurl.com/8ro4xh