John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
How Do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Assessing Student Learning and
Motivation in Beginning Latin
John Gruber-Miller
Cindy Benton
Cornell College
ABSTRACT
In this article, we assess the value of VRoma for Latin language learning.
In particular, we discuss three exercises that we developed which combine
Latin language and Roman culture in order to help students reinforce
their Latin skills and gain a more in-depth understanding of ancient Roman society. Daily journals and evaluations of the assignments provided
an assessment of student motivation and gave us information concerning
students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of working in the
VRoma MOO. Transcripts and e-mail responses, both composed in Latin,
allowed us to assess both the quality of students’ interaction in the target
language and their understanding of cultural and linguistic structures. Our
studies have shown that by combining visual arts and cultural data with
the capacity for real time communication in Latin, VRoma provides a
unique opportunity for students to be immersed in language and culture
simultaneously. Such an opportunity is not only useful for developing students’ language skills but also for giving them a more sophisticated understanding of the ways that language and culture are integrated.
KEYWORDS
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), Intercultural Awareness, Interaction, Latin Language
Instruction, Latin MOOs, Task-Based Language Learning, Network-Based
Language Learning (NBLL), Student Motivation, VRoma
© 2001 CALICO Journal
Volume 18 Number 2
305
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
INTRODUCTION
The development of network-based language learning environments (see
Warschauer, 2000) and educational MOOs (see Lee, Groves, Stephens, &
Armitage, 1999) in particular has opened new possibilities for foreign
language teachers. The VRoma project (www.vroma.org) is one such educational MOO, a re-creation of second century Rome that combines a
series of chat rooms with web pages to create a virtual city where students
and teachers can explore ancient Rome and interact with one another.
(For an overview of the VRoma project, see McManus, this issue.) Our
involvement with VRoma inspired us to create three exercises to see if
VRoma is as useful for Latin language learning as it is for studying culture
in Roman civilization courses. The first assignment was a treasure hunt
designed to familiarize students with the layout of second century Rome
while practicing their Latin composition and reading skills. The second
assignment was a version of “Clue” called Indicium. Students tried to find
out who killed a character called Argus by interacting with each other in
order to find clues and solve the mystery. The third assignment was Quaere,
a version of the card game “Go Fish.” Students were put in groups and
assigned to a specific region of VRoma. As students tried to collect a set
of four different objects, they had to communicate in Latin with other
members of their group in order to find and trade objects.
The three activities of our project (Treasure Hunt, Indicium, and Quaere)
were designed with several goals in mind: to help students to integrate
culture and language, to reinforce certain grammatical constructions and
lexical items, and to create effective activities that would motivate students to find Latin interesting. We also wanted to test several hypotheses
about how students learn best in this MOO environment. Did the MOO
environment enhance student learning of the Latin language and Roman
culture? Did students learn best individually, competitively, or
collaboratively? Did they learn grammar and vocabulary better when they
were using the language to actively create meaning of their own rather
than creating textbook exercises? Could a computer-mediated environment enhance students’ ability to integrate language and culture? Did the
MOO affect students in a positive way so that they wanted to learn more
about ancient Rome?
The project involved two second semester Latin classes in 1999 and one
in 2000 at Cornell College. The students in the two sections in 1999 participated in the Treasure Hunt and Indicium exercises while those in the
section in 2000 completed an additional third activity, Quaere. The games
were played twice during each course. Utilizing student evaluations, journals, and transcripts, we collected data from 19 students in 1999 and 14
students in 2000.
306
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
The place of MOOs in Learning Language and Culture
The three activities of our project brought together a number of strands
in contemporary research in second language acquisition and pedagogy.
Studies on the importance of culture, interaction, computer-mediated communication, and student learning styles informed the variety of tasks we
asked our students to perform in the MOO. Each of the exercises that we
created worked to integrate language and culture as students interacted
with each other in virtual Rome.
Cross-Cultural Awareness
Culture—after listening, speaking, reading and writing—has been called
the fifth skill. The Standards (1996) of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) lists culture as the second of the five
standards necessary for learning a language. As Steele (1990) has eloquently written, “Every word, every expression we use has a cultural dimension … . Speakers of a language share not only the vocabulary and
structure of a language; they share the perceptions of reality represented
by that vocabulary and structure.” As experienced language teachers know,
vocabulary items and grammatical structures rarely have a simple one-toone correspondence from one language to another. For language learners
to succeed in communicating, they need to understand the values, attitudes, customs, and rituals of a culture that are expressed in what they
hear and read, speak, and write. Language reading specialists, in particular, stress the importance of both language decoding skills (bottom-up
skills) and the background cultural and rhetorical information (top-down
strategies) to understand written texts. In other words, teaching grammar
and vocabulary is not enough in helping students become fluent in the
target language. They need an understanding of the target culture, too.
Granted the importance of studying culture, one of the great concerns
of foreign language educators is how to integrate culture into the curriculum. Yet, the challenge for language learners is not only to learn about
culture but to understand it from the inside out. Latin textbooks often
offer culture capsules or readings about specific aspects of ancient Rome.
Some reading textbooks even incorporate culture into the story line of the
book, depicting the main character going to school, seeing the army come
through town, participating in a community religious festival, or traveling
to Rome. If we were to describe what topics someone should know about
culture, we might use the outline provided by Pfister and Borzilleri (1977)
1) the family unit and the personal sphere (e.g., family relationships, eating, shopping, and housing),
Volume 18 Number 2
307
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
2) the social sphere (e.g., class structure, work, leisure, attitudes
toward sex, and population),
3) political systems and institutions (e.g., government, education,
law, and justice),
4) the environment (e.g., geography, economy, urban vs. rural,
natural resources, the environment, and weather), and
5) Religion, the arts, and the humanities (e.g., role of religion,
mythology, folklore, history, literature, music, and creative arts).
Many Latin reading textbooks cover many of these topics, and, as a result,
when students begin to read, they are able to grasp basic cultural assumptions that inform what they read in authentic texts. Yet, these topics are
primarily descriptive; they do not show how one topic affects another or
how they are interrelated.
In other words, the study of culture needs to go beyond simply learning
information about the culture. Language learners need to understand the
process of how a culture works, for example, how politics impinges on
religion, how attitudes about class and status effect individual perceptions, how Romans experienced entertainment. They then need to compare these processes and practices with their own culture (Standard 4.2).
Recent work on teaching culture shows that students (and teachers) tend
to compartmentalize language study as distinct from the study of culture,
to exaggerate differences between cultures, and to generalize from these
differences to all people of a culture (see the studies summarized by
Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996). In addition, Hall and Ramirez (1993)
suggest that language learners who are not actively guided to seek similarities between themselves and speakers of the target language come to
objectify both target language speakers and English speakers as different
and distinct from themselves.
Although several models exist for incorporating second culture acquisition into the classroom (e.g., Crawford-Lange & Lange, 1984; Kramsch,
1993, Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996; Seelye, 1984), Hanvey’s (1979)
model for inter-cultural understanding provides a good way of measuring
student perception of culture. According to Hanvey, understanding between cultures will only occur when language learners begin to go beyond
superficial recognition of similarities and differences and begin to see these
differences as intellectually understandable, as motivated within a cultural framework, and, finally, understandable because they approach the
differences from within the target culture. According to Hanvey, there are
four stages for measuring cross-cultural awareness (see Table 1).
308
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Table 1
Four Stages for Measuring Cross-Cultural Awareness
Level
Information
Mode
Interpretation
Level 1
Awareness of
superficial or very
visible cultural traits;
stereotypes
Tourism,
textbooks
Unbelievable (i.e.,
exotic, bizarre)
Level 2
Awareness of
significant and subtle
cultural traits that
contrast markedly with
one’s own
Culture conflict
situations
Unbelievable (i.e.,
frustrating,
irrational)
Level 3
Awareness of
significant and subtle
cultural traits that
contrast markedly with
one’s own
Intellectual
analysis
Believable
cognitively
Level 4
Awareness of how
another culture feels
from the standpoint of
the insider
Cultural
immersion
Believable
because of
subjective
familiarity
The virtual world of VRoma offers Latin students and teachers a place
for maximizing cultural understanding. The VRoma program provides a
reconstruction of the city of Rome in the mid-second century CE that
gives students a spatial realization of the city of Rome, that organizes
Roman history, values, and culture in a spatial and physical context. Moreover, the program does not segment culture into distinct spheres but shows,
instead, how culture impinges on the social order and how the political
realm affects the religious world of the Romans. When students visit the
Roman Senate Building in the Forum, for example, they see images and
descriptions of Roman clothing and the Latin vocabulary used to describe
it. They understand this vocabulary within a cultural, visual, and spatial
context that gives it more cultural specificity than simply a garment of
clothing called a toga. It is garment that marks status, class, and gender
and helps reinforce the Roman political and social hierarchy. If students
try to “put on” the toga, they are greeted by a senatorial scribe who takes
it back, contemptuously remarking that it is worn only by curule magistrates. As a result, students feel the effect of their own class on their ability to participate in (virtual) Roman culture. In a similar way, visitors to
Rome not only read descriptions of monuments but also come into contact with a flying crow (corvus) that used to greet the emperor each day.
Such a blending of fact and anecdote, culture and history has its roots in
Volume 18 Number 2
309
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Roman imperial travel writers such as Strabo and Pausanias who traveled
throughout the empire to explore the customs, cultures, and monuments
of the various parts of the Roman world. Such a model of situated learning, we hypothesized, would provide students the opportunity to begin to
understand Roman culture from the inside out.
Interaction and Tasks in Network-Based Language Learning
We were also led to use VRoma MOO with our students because of
how network-based language learning helps promote language learning
through interaction and task-based activities. Studies over the last two
decades have pointed out the benefits of interaction between two speakers or between reader and text for promoting language learning. As Ellis
(1984) has said,
Interaction contributes to development because it is the means by
which the learner is able to crack the code. This takes place when
the learner can infer what is said even though the message contains linguistic items that are not yet part of his competence and
when the learner can use the discourse to help him/her modify or
supplement the linguistic knowledge used in production.
In other words, when students interact with each other or another more
native speaker, they are forced to process the incoming data and come up
with a response. At times, the communication will break down, and it is at
these moments of communication breakdown that students will have to
negotiate new meaning and modify their exchange so that communication
can continue. (For an overview of this process, see Pica, 1994.) For this
negotiation to take place, it is up to the student to pay conscious attention
to what part of the exchange was not understood and then modify it. In
modifying their output, “learners test hypotheses about the second language, experiment with new structures and forms, and exploit their
interlanguage resources in creative ways” (Pica, Lewis, & Morgenthaler,
1989). Output also has the effect of increasing accuracy and consolidating learners’ control over forms that have already been internalized
(Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993). Finally, output provides the opportunity for
students “to move from the semantic processing prevalent in comprehension to the syntactic processing needed for production” (Swain & Lapkin,
1995). In short, interaction and negotiation leads to restructuring of students’ grammar and syntax and ultimately to acquisition.
One of the ways that researchers and teachers have developed for bringing about interaction consists of language tasks that require an exchange
of information. Pica, Kanagy, and Faldoduna (1993) argue that three types
310
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
of tasks, jigsaw (in which each participant holds part of the information
necessary for task completion), information gap (in which one person holds
information that another requires for task completion), and problem-solving are especially suitable for creating opportunities for interaction by
everyone since in each type only one task outcome is possible. Yet, each
differs somewhat with respect to the comprehension, feedback, and production required for successful task completion. The jigsaw, because each
participant holds information needed by the rest of the group, provides
the greatest interaction for all members of the group. The information gap
task is slightly less interactive because the information flows one-way, not
two-way, as in the jigsaw. Finally, the problem-solving task is the least
restrictive in how the task might be successfully completed and allows for
the most variability in interaction to solve the task.
Research on Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and NetworkBased Language Learning (NBLL) has revealed that these interactions
appear to enhance language learning environemnts. Research on CMC
has shown that more students participate in on-line conversation than in
face-to-face discussion, that the interaction is more balanced among students, and that students contribute more in the on-line environment than
in a classroom setting. Researchers have also found that on-line discussion is lexically and syntactically more complex than face-to-face discussion. (For overviews of the research, see Beauvois, 1997; Warschauer,
1997.) The advantages of CMC and NBLL for interaction and language
learning arise for at least two reasons: learner control and time to think
and reflect. Since students control the discourse rather than the instructor, they interact more and feel safer to express themselves. In addition,
since students have more time to think and reflect, even in synchronous
communication such as a MOO, they have time to notice grammar and
syntax and to produce more complex sentences than they might in a faceto-face conversation. As Beauvois (1992) aptly puts it, CMC is “conversation in slow motion.” It combines the rapid interchange associated with
conversation with the time for reflection connected with writing in a single
medium. As Warschauer (2000) demonstrates in his introduction to Network-Based Language Teaching, NBLL encourages learners to use the
computer as a tool for interaction with others, for collaborative learning,
and for the construction of knowledge. The dynamic of working with the
computer one-on-one, he points out, is shifting to interacting with others
via the computer.
Student Learning Styles and Motivation
Another concern of foreign language teachers is how to reach students
with different cognitive and learning styles. The integration of text and
Volume 18 Number 2
311
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
image in the VRoma MOO appeals to greater numbers of students than
text only. In addition, the combination of descriptive texts and brief essays
with ancient narratives and anecdotes provides students with a greater
number of different kinds of resources for understanding Latin and Roman culture. Relatively brief introductions on topics were developed with
additional links to more information that help students delve deeper without being overwhelmed by too much information all at once. (On the
design of the Circus and its subterranean bookstore/library, see McManus,
this issue.)
The VRoma MOO versus other Language MOOs
Over the last half dozen years, a plethora of MOOs focusing on language learning has emerged: LeMOO français, MundoHispano,
SchMOOze (English), Morgen Grauen, Little Italy, Mugit (the University of Pennsylvania’s Latin MOO), MOOsaico (Portuguese) (see Sanchez,
1996; Turbee, 1996; Shield, Weininger, & Davies, 1999). While MOOs
offer many benefits to language learners, Latin students face obstacles not
encountered by students of modern languages. Unlike modern languages,
Latin students cannot interact with native speakers in CMC environments.
However, although they cannot take advantage of this aspect of CMC, the
Web provides an opportunity for immersion in ancient Roman culture in
ways that even a visit to Rome itself cannot offer. By reconstructing a
virtual city of Rome just as it was in the second century CE, students are
able to get a feel for what life was like in the ancient city. They can encounter other Latin speakers (live and robots), explore the city’s art and
architecture, and learn about Roman cultural institutions. Latin provides
the common language for interaction between people from all over the
globe enabling students to interact with a broader community outside their
classrooms (and their institutions). Turbee (1996) argues that chatting
with native speakers, forming relationships, and building personal spaces
is a motivating factor for students to return to the MOO to learn and use
the target language. While the first factor is not possible for Latin students, forming relationships with other students outside the classroom
and building personal spaces could also be motivating forces for VRoma
users. While other users may not be native speakers, the possibility of
encountering other Latin speakers and the chance to practice Latin could
also motivate VRoma users as well. The program provides students with a
re-creation of the city itself which integrates the visual resources of a web
page and the interactive abilities of a chatroom. It also provides links to
Latin texts and more detailed cultural information.
312
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
VROMA EXERCISES
As we designed exercises using the resources of VRoma, we had several
goals in mind. First, we wanted to create a variety of exercises that would
accommodate various learning styles and would take advantage of the
situated learning environment VRoma offers. Specifically, we wanted students to interact with each other in Latin while being immersed as much
as possible in Roman culture. We hoped that this environment would feel
like a more natural place to practice Latin and that the exposure to the
material, social, and political culture of Rome would enable students to
understand the experience of being in the city and comprehend the ways
that public and private spaces were organized and lived in thousands of
years ago.
The sequence of assignments was designed to build upon the technological skills and cultural knowledge acquired in the prior exercises. The
first few VRoma assignments encouraged students to expand their knowledge of Roman culture, while the final exercise required them to use the
knowledge they had gained in previous exercises to complete the task successfully. In addition, as the assignments progressed, each exercise required
more interaction, improvisation, and cooperation among students as well
as more familiarity with MOO commands.
A Trip to the Baths
We started with an orientation session in English and designed our first
assignment to serve as an introduction to VRoma and basic MOO skills.
Timed to coincide with chapter 23 of the Oxford Latin Course (OLC)
(1996), the assignment focused on Trajan’s baths. This location in VRoma
offers a series of rooms designed to recreate the experience of being in the
ancient Roman baths. Visitors move from the entryway into the appropriate apodyterium ‘changing room’ where they are greeted by either an ancilla
‘slave girl’ or servus ‘male slave’ robot who offers assistance for a small
fee. As visitors wander from the apodyterium through the caldarium ‘hot
room,’ frigidarium ‘cold room,’ tepidarium ‘warm room,’ and palaestra
‘wrestling ground,’ they find descriptions of each room accompanied by
an appropriate picture illustrating the unique characteristics of that space.
A variety of objects are scattered throughout the rooms such as the sandals in the apodyterium which help to acquaint visitors with bath culture.
After reading “Marcus Quintum ad balnea ducit” ‘Marcus leads Quintus
to the baths’ in the OLC, students are given instructions explaining how
to log on to the VRoma MOO and where to find Trajan’s baths. Then they
are asked to explore the complex by taking Quintus’ route through the
various rooms and describe what they see. While they are exploring the
Volume 18 Number 2
313
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
site, they are also asked to find a series of objects and to explain their
functions. Afterward, they are asked to compare Trajan’s baths to those
visited by Quintus.
Our goals in designing this assignment included teaching students basic
MOO navigational skills and making them familiar with the variety of
resources available in VRoma. We chose this particular site because it
offers images, objects, and links, and provides students with an opportunity to practice activating and interacting with a robot in English. In addition, it allowed us to expand upon the information about bath culture
provided in the OLC by giving students the opportunity to experience a
virtual recreation of an actual Roman bath.
Treasure Hunt
Once students were comfortable logging on and navigating through a
VRoma web page in English, we gave them an exercise that would build
upon these skills and incorporate Latin. The Treasure Hunt is an asynchronous exercise designed to help students practice reading, writing, and
communication skills in Latin. It requires them to read and understand
both adapted and unadapted original Latin, to interact with a Latin-speaking robot, and to respond in Latin to several questions. All of these activities take place in a situated learning environment that allows students to
integrate the experience of language and culture. For example, the directions for part III of the Treasure Hunt follow. (See directions for all Treasure Hunts in Appendix A.)
i Romam. deinde, procede ad regionem VIII (preme numerum
VIII in mappa XIV regionum). deinde, i ad rostra.
1. quae clara avis prope rostra habitabat? quid avis faciebat? quis
avem occidit? cur?
2. procede ad monumentum avis. ubi est monumentum? quid in
monumento inscriptum est?
3. estne fabula vera an falsa?
4. mitte magistro/magistrae electronica responsa.
‘Go to Rome, then proceed to region 8 (press the number 8 in the
map of the 14th region). Then, go to the rostra.
1. Which famous bird used to live near the rostra? What did the
bird do? Who killed the bird? Why?
2. Proceed to the bird’s monument. Where is the monument?
What was inscribed on the monument?
3. Is this story true or false?
4. Send an electronic response to your instructor.’
314
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
First of all, students need to be able to read and understand the directions. However, any difficulty recalling vocabulary can be alleviated by
the visual prompts encountered in the site. If they have forgotten avis ‘bird,’
for instance, the picture of Corvus (the crow) should jog their memories. In order
to answer question number one above, students must find and read the
Pliny text that accompanies the description of Corvus. Both the Latin text and its
English translation are provided. The availability of both languages provides students with the vocabulary necessary to answer the question in
Latin, while giving them a translation to assist them with difficulties they
might have understanding the Latin.
By activating Corvus, students also have an opportunity to practice communicating in Latin on another level. The corny puns uttered by Corvus also enrich the
assignment with humor. Best of all, students are able to use and develop
their Latin skills in a meaningful context that encourages them to find out
more information about the environment in which they find themselves
and communicate that information to others. The need to describe their
experience serves as a motivating force for acquiring new vocabulary and
grammatical structures.
As students navigate through the various parts of the city and visit buildings such as the Via Appia, the theater of Marcellus, and the curia ‘Senate Building,’ they begin to learn about Roman political systems, class structure,
the use of urban space, religion, and the arts. For example, Part II—also
set in the rostra ‘speaker’s platform’—integrates language learning with further
understanding of architecture and history as well as the impact of politics
on speech and the use of public space. In this exercise, students learn
about the function and history of the rostra. They are also asked to find a set of
scrolls containing Cicero’s orations against Anthony and read about Cicero’s
death. As students stand at the rostra and read both the speeches of Cicero and
the accounts of his death, they can begin to imagine the chilling impact
that the sight of Cicero’s severed head and hands nailed to the rostra would have
had on the speeches given in that space (Richlin, 1999). Such an exercise
both increases their awareness of Roman history and enriches their understanding of Quintus’ encounter with Cicero in the OLC.
Because this exercise is asynchronous, it allows students who need a
little more time to become comfortable in the MOO to work at a more
leisurely pace. They can continue to improve their computer skills while
completing the assignment without the pressure of keeping up with students who are more confident or experienced with the technology. Completing the assignment successfully, however, does require them to continue to develop the necessary skills that enable them to participate confidently in the synchronous exercises. Alternatively, students who are more
comfortable in the MOO environment can complete the assignment and
investigate the resources available to them without waiting for others who
Volume 18 Number 2
315
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
may still be struggling with the technology.
Asynchronous assignments like this one also allow students to continue
to improve their technological and language skills, as well as their knowledge of Roman culture, outside of class time. We found that the treasure
hunts were indeed popular extra credit assignments, and students often
asked for additional treasure hunts to complete on their own. Thus, the
exercise was also successful in engaging students and generating interest
in language, culture and technology. As students continued to explore the
various parts of Rome, interact with various characters and areas of the
city, and report their findings in the target language, they were able to
expand their knowledge of Roman culture, geography, and the Latin language in an integrated environment.
Although the treasure hunt is an asynchronous exercise, it does fit into
the information gap category of interactive tasks enumerated by Pica et al.
(1993). In this case, it is the VRoma MOO itself that holds all the information necessary to answer the questions. Yet because the holder of the
information is often static text, the interaction is not always conversational and is limited to interactions between reader and text. Nonetheless,
interactivity is possible through encounters with Latin-speaking robots
and e-mail exchanges between student and teacher. True conversation and
real time interaction is provided by the exercises that follow in the sequence.
Indicium
Both Indicium and Quaere require more immersion in Roman culture
and VRoma. In these exercises, students are not simply tourists or visitors
to Rome, but inhabitants. Students are assigned a persona (matrona ‘married woman,’ botularius ‘sausage seller,’ conviva ‘dinner guest,’ uxor
ianitoris ‘janitor’s wife,’ and miles ‘soldier’) and asked to develop a description, in Latin, of their character. They must then interact with each
other in character. By adopting ancient Roman personae and engaging in
group role play, students are encouraged to take their understanding of
Roman society to another level, one that not only encourages identification with a person from a foreign culture but possibly a person of another
gender or class depending on the luck of the draw.
As a synchronous exercise, Indicium provides students with an opportunity to converse with one another in Latin within appropriate regions of
the MOO. Adapted from Hasbro’s Clue game, students are grouped and
assigned to specific places in VRoma such as the Domus Paulli et Corneliae,
Balneae, Forum, or Campus Martius. Each person is then assigned a character along with several clues (e.g., instrumenta mortis ‘murder weapon,’
dramatis personae ‘character,’ and loca facti ‘crime scene’). Students must
then solve the mystery of Argus’ death by taking turns guessing who killed
316
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
him, where it was accomplished, and with which implement. The assignment is designed to get students used to the technicalities of synchronous
communication in the MOO at the same time that they practice the targeted syntactical and lexical material: passive voice, plural imperatives,
the accusative and ablative cases, and, later, purpose clauses and deponent verbs. Students quickly learn that they need to be in the same room
to converse with each other and thus have a need to use the targeted
grammar and vocabulary, for example, me sequimini ad apodyterium ‘Follow me to the changing room.’ Once students make an accusation (e.g.,
“credo: Argus a caupone in apodyterio occisus est fune” ‘I believe Argus
was killed by the innkeeper in the changing room with the rope.’ or “credo:
caupo ad apodyterium festinavit ut Argum fune occideret” ‘I believe the
innkeeper hurried to the changing room in order to kill Argus with the
rope.’ (depending on the targeted construction), they indicate whether or
not they have one of the clues (e.g., “funem habeo” ‘I have the rope.’ or
“indicium non habeo” ‘I don’t have a clue.’), which allows the process of
deduction to begin. When students believe they have the mystery solved,
the person makes an accuso ‘accusation.’ In order to win the game, students must not only identify the killer, place, and implement of death but
must make a grammatically correct accusation.
While the Treasure Hunt exercises accommodate independent learners,
Indicium is tailored to students who work better in a more interactive
environment. To facilitate smoother interaction, students are asked to prepare their characters as part of a homework assignment and are given
worksheets to complete the exercise before going into the laboratory. The
worksheets contain the rules of the game, sample sentences, and the necessary vocabulary with blank spaces to decline the nouns ahead of time.
The worksheets are completed in class, and some time is devoted to practicing the syntax orally, with written reinforcement on the board before
heading to the lab. (See sample directions for Indicium in Appendix B.)
The Indicium game emphasizes the jigsaw mode of information exchange
discussed by Pica et al. (1993). Each participant holds a number of clues
needed by the rest of the group, yet all must contribute in order to solve
the mystery of the murder. The game thus requires the participation of all
students since each student has information the rest of the group needs.
The game is also the most structured of the assignments. It necessitates
taking turns, following specific rules, and adhering to syntactical formulas as they interrogate and respond to each other. The formulaic nature of
the exercise can provide some comfort to students who are less comfortable with either the grammar or the technology by structuring their interactions with others as they try synchronous communication and navigation for the first time. Additionally, because students respond and interrogate in a strict order, they have time between turns to formulate their
questions and responses more slowly and accurately.
Volume 18 Number 2
317
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Quaere
The Quaere is also a synchronous exercise; however, instead of competing against each other as in Indicium, students must work together to
complete the task successfully. Students are assigned to a specific complex in VRoma such as the Theater of Marcellus, Trajan’s Baths, or the
House of Paullus and Cornelia. They then work together as a team to
deduce which people and which objects belong in which rooms of the
complex. Again, for this assignment, students are assigned characters and
asked to write brief descriptions of themselves.
Before the game starts, they are given dossiers that indicate who their
character is and where they will begin the game as well as a list of objects
and rooms in which to play the game. The objects themselves are scattered randomly throughout the complex. When students log on and meet
in the designated room, they must introduce themselves to each other and
then determine (by conversing in Latin) which room is appropriate for
their character, which objects are appropriate for the room, and which are
appropriate for the common room. For example, the group assigned to
Trajan’s Baths should determine that the ancilla ‘slave girl’ would collect
the vestimenta ‘clothing’ and place them in the apodyterium ‘changing
room.’ (See directions for Quaere in Appendix C.) The rules of the game
are constructed so that students must converse with each other and trade
objects instead of merely collecting the objects individually. Students successfully complete the task when all the characters are in their respective
rooms with their appropriate objects.
This task is not only more collaborative but is also the most spontaneous and least restrictive of the assignments. The interaction not only requires communication, but negotiation. Students move freely throughout
the complex asking teammates if they are carrying or have seen the desired objects. In addition, it requires students to develop further MOO
skills such as picking up, dropping, and exchanging objects. The more
natural, less scripted dialogue encourages students to think on their feet
in Latin and gives them the opportunity to develop more syntactical and
lexical variety.
Additionally, students must demonstrate their knowledge of material
culture and the use of public and private space. Understanding the politics of space also gives them an appreciation for the ways in which class
affected social and political life. For instance, in order to successfully complete the Quaere assignment that takes place in the Theater of Marcellus,
students must be able to demonstrate their knowledge of the way in which
social hierarchy is embedded in the configuration of architectural space.
They need not only to recognize the divisions between spectator and performer but also to demonstrate how spectators themselves were seated by
class (Rawson, 1987; Zanker, 1988).
318
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Because Quaere requires students to develop MOO skills such as picking up, dropping, and exchanging objects, they become competent in all
the skills required to converse and interact with others in the MOO. More
important, they have had the experience of communicating in Latin with
other inhabitants of Rome as they further their understanding of the material and social culture of the ancient city in the target language.
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Students were asked to keep a daily journal and complete an evaluation
at the end of the course to assess their experience using the VRoma MOO.
(See the end of course evaluation in Appendix D.) They were also asked
to assess their confidence using technology before and after the course.
Transcripts of MOO sessions and of student e-mail exchanges with the
instructor provided us with another form of feedback concerning the
project. It must be pointed out that the journal and evaluations record
students’ self-perception of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward
the various aspects of the project.
Analysis of students’ evaluations, journals, and transcripts confirmed
many of our goals for the project. First, we asked students to assess their
level of technical skill using e-mail, a web browser, and MOOs or MUDs.
The vast majority of students asserted that they had a lot of experience
(85%: 4 or 5 on a five-point scale) or a fair amount of experience (6%: 23 on the five-point scale) using e-mail and a web browser to perform tasks
such as opening the browser and navigating the World Wide Web (4 or 5
on a scale of 0-5). Only a few (9%) reported that they had little experience (0 or 1 on the five-point scale) with e-mail and the Web before the
course began. Even though most of the class considered themselves experienced computer users, few had had experience with a MUD or MOO.
Most students (61%) reported that they had had little or no experience
with MOOs and MUDs, a sizeable minority (24%) had some experience,
while only 15% reported that they had a lot of experience (see Table 2).
Table 2
Students’ Responses to Questions on Experience Using Technology
Before
After
Experience
Little
Moderate
Very
Little
Moderate
Very
Computer
3
2
28
0
2
31
MOO
20
8
5
0
7
26
Volume 18 Number 2
319
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
By the end of the course, the vast majority of the students reported
confidence using e-mail, the Web, and the MOO. The vast majority (94%)
asserted that they were very comfortable using e-mail and the Web (4 or 5
on the five-point scale). Only two students (6%) stated that they were not
fully confident in using e-mail and the Web, yet even they reported a moderate degree of confidence using the technology (2 or 3 on a 0-5 scale).
Students’ MOO skills developed even more rapidly. Once again, 79% of
the students expressed great confidence in their ability to function in the
VRoma MOO environment, while the other 21% were moderately confident in using the MOO. In other words, students quickly learned the skills
necessary for functioning well in an environment rich in technology and
did not find in general that the technology impeded their completion of
the three different types of activities in the VRoma MOO.
Indeed, most students found using the VRoma MOO satisfying. Combining responses from questions 1-6 in the Content section of the evaluation, 76% of the students found the activities utilizing the VRoma MOO
very useful or moderately useful. What they found most useful, overwhelmingly, was the cultural component of the MOO. In rating which aspect of
language learning VRoma activities help most, culture received the highest rating, 3.51, a full point above the next highest categories, vocabulary
and composition (see Table 3).
Table 3
Means of Students’ Improvement in Language Learning by Category
Culture
Vocabulary
Composition
Reading
Grammar
Interaction
1999
4.37
2.84
2.58
2.53
2.21
N. A.
2000
2.36
2.05
2.17
2.06
1.86
2.33
Mean
3.51
2.51
2.40
2.27
2.06
2.33
This result is confirmed by the open-ended comment section at the end
of the evaluation. In response to the question “what was the biggest benefit of using the MOO?” students reported 19 times that the cultural and
historical information embedded in the text and images of the MOO enhanced their understanding of ancient Rome (see Table 4).
320
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Table 4
Number of Student Comments on the Benefits of the VRoma MOO
Comment
Number
Culture/History
19
Break from classroom/book
8
Visual/virtual world
7
Fun
6
Grammar/composition
6
Interaction/collaboration
5
Anonymity
1
Learning new technology
1
In addition, the activity that students favored most was the Treasure
Hunt, the activity that in their eyes most explicitly presented information
about culture (see Table 5).
Table 5
Means of Students’ Views of Specific MOO Activities
Culture
Vocabulary
Composition
Reading
Grammar
Interaction
Treasure
Hunt
3.07
2.36
2.50
2.83
2.07
1.86
2.45
Quaere
2.07
1.86
2.14
1.79
1.79
2.57
2.04
Indicium
1.93
1.93
1.86
1.57
1.71
2.57
1.93
Total
Note: The means are based on 2000 data.
At the same time, the evaluations and journals pointed to other benefits
of the VRoma MOO. Students recognized that the activities in the MOO
helped them with language learning. When students were asked which
specific aspects of VRoma helped them learn best, they asserted that conversing (mentioned 105 times), textual descriptions (91 times), and viewing objects (88 times) were the most beneficial, pointing to the value of
interaction, whether student-to-student, student-to-robot, or student-andtext (see Table 6).
Volume 18 Number 2
321
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Table 6
Number of Times Students Mentioned Categories in Evaluations
Culture
Vocabulary
Composition
Reading
Grammar
interaction*
Total
Conversing
11
15
24
21
18
16
105
Textual
description
34
16
8
17
13
3
91
Viewing
objects
27
20
8
17
13
3
88
Robots
20
6
10
12
4
4
56
Images
31
7
3
5
5
3
54
Virtual
world
19
7
4
7
4
5
46
Creating
characters
9
2
8
1
1
2
23
Note: The number of comments in the Interaction column is based on
2000 data.
Even though much of the textual description in the MOO was in English, students recognized the value of the MOO for developing vocabulary (2.51), composition (2.40), and reading (2.27) (see Table 3 above).
In response to the open-ended question “What was the biggest benefit of
using the MOO?” six students mentioned the value of the MOO for learning grammar and syntax, and five commented on its importance for interaction with others in the target language (see Table 4 above). Interestingly, student comments in journals stressed the importance of the MOO
for learning grammar (14 comments) followed by fun (seven comments),
culture and history (five comments), and interaction and collaboration
(four comments) (see Table 7).
322
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Table 7
Number of Student Comments on the Value of the MOO
Comment
Number
Grammar/composition
14
Fun
7
Cultural/history
5
Interaction/collaboration
4
Break from classroom
3
Visual/virtual world
1
Note: The number of comments is based on 2000 data
Students recognized a third benefit of using the MOO. Even though we
had not allowed space for questions of motivation and learning styles in
the rest of the evaluation, many students stressed in their write-in comments that the MOO provided a different and motivating resource for
learning language and culture. Eight students commented that the MOO
provided a break from classroom routine or from the textbook, seven noted
that the visual and spatial aspects helped them understand Roman life
with a new perspective, and six simply stated that it was fun (see Table 4
above). In short, students found the MOO to be a place to learn culture
and language in a space that is motivating and adapted to different learning styles.
Challenges/Further Refinements
Although a large majority of the students found the VRoma exercises
helpful for learning Latin and Roman culture, they faced some challenges.
Despite feeling comfortable using the MOO, navigation posed a problem
for several reasons (see Table 8).
Volume 18 Number 2
323
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Table 8
Number of Student Comments on Challenges Using the MOO
Comment
Number
Technology/navigation
18
Collaboration
4
Slow connection
3
Grammar
2
Relevance
2
Computer availability
1
Understanding
1
First, some students tried moving from room to room with the @go
command and were transported to unofficial sections of the MOO where
students from other schools had created rooms with similar names. During the Treasure Hunt exercise, students were occasionally unable to find
all the requested items because they did not explore the site deeply enough
to take advantage of all the available on-line resources. On other occasions, communication broke down and students failed to say where they
were going so that others could interact with them. Students also mentioned that collaboration was a problem four times. At times, during Quaere
for example, students failed to greet each other as they entered rooms or
say farewell as they exited. This situation left students who wanted to
exchange objects frustrated. At other times, during Indicium, some students were confused about when to take a turn which left the other members of the group waiting for either a suggestion or a confirmation that
they had a clue. Finally, a few students were too competitive and tried to
circumvent the rules so that they could win the game.
When students were asked to comment on how to improve the MOO
experience, the most prevalent comment was the need for clearer instructions and documentation for the activities (see Table 9).
324
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Table 9
Number of Student Comments on Ways to Improve the MOO
Comment
Number
Clearer documentation/instructions
9
Longer/more sessions
6
Optional/homework/outside class
4
Use only for culture
4
Comprehensive maps
3
Restrict interactions to Latin
3
More feedback
2
Better AI of robots
1
Get rid of it
1
Latin penpals from other schools
1
Less formula exercise
1
More Latin composition and reading preparation
1
In addition, they also thought that sessions should be longer and more
frequent so that they could become more familiar with the rules and nuances of the games. They also suggested restricting the interactions to
Latin. Although the use of Latin was our intent, a review of the transcripts
indicated that sometimes students reverted to English. In many cases,
switching to English was understandable because students’ language levels varied, and, once one student started using English, the others joined
in. This problem could have been exacerbated by the bilingual nature of
typing in VRoma. Because VRoma is designed to appeal to a larger audience, much of the textual description and all of the MOO commands are
in English. Additionally, students were not able to use case endings as
they were picking up and dropping objects because all the objects needed
to be labeled in the nominative.
All three of these difficulties could be solved by more careful sequencing of classroom and VRoma activities. Devitt (1997) and Skehan (1996)
recommend balancing form-focused instruction with task-based activities.
Students need the opportunity to analyze form and rehearse lexical items
before they are ready to engage in interactive activities such as Indicium
Volume 18 Number 2
325
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
and Quaere. For example, although we had students complete a practice
sheet that involved declining nouns, it might have also been useful to ask
students to anticipate their encounters with others in the MOO and to
generate sample questions and dialogue ahead of time. In addition, some
class time devoted to developing characters and rehearsing roles in pairs
would have facilitated smoother interaction in the MOO. Moreover, follow-up exercises such as revising transcripts would have helped them to
consolidate their knowledge of Latin vocabulary and syntax.
CONCLUSIONS
The VRoma MOO is indeed useful for learning language. Students found
that the process of immersion in a cultural context emulating the experience of being in ancient Rome facilitated their acquisition of Latin. Students not only learned about culture but they also participated in it, interacting with other “inhabitants” of Rome. They not only read texts and
created compositions, they also interacted in real time using Latin as the
means of communication. This multimodal approach appealed to students
because they could use the images, descriptions, and primary texts as
prompts for language learning as they walked through the ancient city and
interacted with each other. In short, the MOO provided students with a
valuable resource that motivated them to integrate language and culture.
While we lacked the technology to send students back to ancient Rome,
we were able to use the Web to create multisensory environments where
they could improve their understanding of ancient Romans and their language.
326
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Appendix A
Directions to Treasure Hunt
VRoma Treasure Hunt, Latin 102
Part I
i Romam. deinde, procede ad regionem VIII (preme numerum VIII in
mappa XIV regionum). deinde, ambula in Via Sacra et in Argileto.
tandem, intra porticum senatus.
1. quaere vestimentum. quid est nomen vestimenti? quale est? quis id
gerit?
2. i ad gradus curiae, deinde ad curiam. quid vides? quid est nomen
apparatus? quis in hoc sedet?
3. mitte magistro electronica responsa.
Part II
i Romam. deinde, procede ad regionem VIII (preme numerum VIII in
mappa XIV regionum). deinde, i ad rostra.
1. cur monumentum ‘rostra’ appellat? quis orationes hic habebat?
2. inveni scripta de rebus publicis. quid Cicero de Antonio dixit? quis
Ciceronem occidit? quomodo Cicero perit?
Vocabulary: cadere ‘fall’; detruncare ‘cut, sever’; venenum bibere ‘drink
poison’; sibi mortem consciscere ‘commit suicide’
3. mitte magistro electronica responsa.
Part III
i Romam. deinde, procede ad regionem VIII (preme numerum VIII in
mappa XIV regionum). deinde, i ad rostra.
1. quae clara avis prope rostra habitabat? quid avis faciebat? quis avem
occidit? cur?
2. procede ad monumentum avis. ubi est monumentum? quid in
monumento inscriptum est?
3. estne fabula vera an falsa?
4. mitte magistro electronica responsa.
Part IV
i Romam. deinde, procede ad regionem IX (preme numerum IX in mappa
XIV regionum). i ad theatrum Marcelli. (Marcellus nepos Augusti erat).
1. procede ad porticum vomitoriumque. quis supra sedet in cavea? quis
infra sedet? quis sedet in orchestra?
2. quot ianuae sunt in scaenae fronte?
3. quid est magnificior? Theatrum Marcelli aut Circus Maximus aut Thermae Trajani? quod aedificium poterat plurimos homines continere?
4. mitte magistro electronica responsa.
Volume 18 Number 2
327
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Appendix B
Indicium (Clue)
Oxford Latin Course, Ch 35
Argus occisus est! Quis? Ubi? Quomodo?
Leges ludi
Before class:
·
You will receive a dossier that indicates who your character will be,
gives you several clues, and explains where you will begin the game.
·
Complete the chart in the Tabula Indiciorum by writing the accusative and ablative form of each word. This will help you make suggestions more quickly.
·
Write a brief description of your character in Latin.
Before the game begins:
·
Your character name is the Latin word followed by Roman numeral
of your group, e.g., ancillaI or uxor_ianitorisIV. There can be no spaces
in a character name on the MOO. Do not use your real name as part
of your character name.
·
Customize yourself (@rename me as/@describe me as) using the description you have already prepared. Be sure to end the description by
giving your real name.
·
Meet the other characters in the location specified in your dossier.
·
Introduce your character to the rest of the group, e.g., “salvete. ancilla
sum, puella ingeniosa.”
·
Remember, you can only talk to people in the same room.
·
Do not begin the game until everyone has introduced her/himself.
Definitions:
·
A suggestion is a statement that indicates the killer, place, and implement of death. It begins with the word “credo.”
·
An accusation is a statement that indicates the killer, place, and implement of death. It begins with the word “accuso.” One must summon
the magister/ra ludi for the accusation to be verified.
·
If an accusation is incorrect, the character who made the accusation
may continue to take a turn as a verifier of a suggestion, but cannot
make further suggestions or accusations.
·
If an accusation is completely correct, the character who made the
correct accusation is the winner and the game is over.
·
For an accusation to be completely correct, it must not only identify
the killer, place, and implement of death, but it must also be grammatically correct.
328
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
To play the game:
·
The ancilla makes the first suggestion upon entering the room she
believes was the scene of the crime, e.g., “credo: Argus in apodyterio
a caupone occisus est fune.” (I believe: Argus was killed by the innkeeper in the apodyterium with a rope.)
·
Characters make suggestions in alphabetical order.
·
Characters may only make a suggestion in the room they think is the
location of the deed.
·
If it is your turn to make a suggestion and you decide to change rooms,
inform the rest of the group where you are going, e.g., me sequimini
ad aedem Iovis Optimi Maximi. While the rest of the group follows,
you can begin to type your suggestion. Others can follow you by typing @join charactername.
·
Once a suggestion has been made, characters indicate if they have a
clue in alphabetical order beginning with the character who comes
next after the one who made the suggestion. Therefore, the botularius
indicates first whether he has one of the clues, e.g., “funem habeo.” (I
have the rope) or “indicium non habeo.” (I don’t have a clue.) If you
have more than one of the suggested clues, you need only reveal one.
·
Once one character has indicated that s/he has a clue, then it is time
for the next character to make a suggestion, i.e., the botularius.
TABULA INDICIORUM
BATHS OF TRAJAN
Accusative
Ablative
Dramatis Personae
ancilla -ae, F., maid
botularius -ii, M., sausage-seller
caupo -onis, M., innkeeper
matrona -ae, F., married woman
miles militis, M., soldier
uxor ianitoris, F., wife of the doorkeeper
Instrumenta mortis
funis -is, M., rope
gladius -ii, M., sword
pugio -onis, M., dagger
retia -ium, N. Pl., nets, traps
saxa -orum, N. Pl., rocks
tegula -ae, F., roof tile
venenum -i, N., poison
Loca facti: Balneae (Reg. III):
apodyterium
calidarium
Volume 18 Number 2
329
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
frigidarium
natatio
nymphaeum
palaestra quadrata
palaestra rotunda
tepidarium
Indicium, adapted for VRoma by John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton,
Cornell College
Appendix C
Quaere!
Oxford Latin Course, Ch 26
Leges Ludi
Before class:
You will receive a dossier that indicates who your character will be and
explains where you will begin the game (your homeroom). You will also
be given a list of your team members and a list of five sets of objects and
five rooms in which to play the game.
Write a brief description of your character in Latin.
Before the game begins:
·
Your character name is the Latin word followed by Roman numeral
of your group, e.g., ancillaI or uxor_ianitorisIV. There can be no spaces
in a character name on the MOO. Do not use your real name as part
of your character name.
·
Customize yourself (@rename me as/@describe me as) using the description you have already prepared. Be sure to end the description by
giving your real name.
·
Meet the other characters in the location specified in your dossier.
·
Introduce your character to the rest of the group, e.g., “salvete. ancilla
sum, puella ingeniosa.”
·
Remember, you can only talk to people in the same room.
·
Do not begin the game until everyone has introduced her/himself.
The Object of the Game:
·
The object of the game is to work together with your team to get each
set of objects in the appropriate room. The game combines interaction in Latin with Roman culture. You need to determine (by conversing in Latin) which set of objects are culturally appropriate for the
330
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
room you are assigned (your homeroom) and which are appropriate
for the common room. In other words, if you are assigned the rostra
as your homeroom, you might choose to collect the set of orators
since rostra is the speaker’s platform. Each person will begin the game
by picking up two objects (take [object]). Other objects are scattered
throughout your site.
To Play the Game:
·
You may carry only two objects at a time. You can either trade with a
person (give [obj] to [player]) or leave an object you are carrying
(drop [object]) and pick up a new one (take [object]).
·
You should always have at least one object in your possession. If you
put one down, you need to pick up another or trade for another until
all the objects are picked up and put into the appropriate rooms. After you have collected the set of objects appropriate for your homeroom
and dropped them there, then proceed to the common room with the
remaining object. The game is over when everyone meets there, each
carrying an object from the remaining set.
·
When you encounter a teammate, greet them, e.g. “salve, ancilla” and
ask each other which objects each person is carrying, e.g., “botulum
quaero. quid fers?” or “quid habes?” The ancilla may respond:
“botulum et pilam habeo.” If one of you has an object the other one
needs, you can offer to trade: “frigidam aquam pro botulo tradam.” If
neither has a needed object, you can ask if they saw it “botulum
vidisti?” The response could be either that you saw it in a certain
room “botulum in apodyterio vidi” or you saw someone carrying it
“ancillam botulum portantem vidi.”
·
Only you can put culturally appropriate objects into your homeroom.
For example, if you are the ancilla and you have been assigned the
apodyterium, only you can put vestimenta there. Any item, however,
can be dropped in any room temporarily when exchanging it for another that no one is carrying.
·
Only two people can be in a room at the same time. If you enter a
room where two people are already present, either you or someone
else must leave before a transaction can occur.
·
Once the group thinks that all the objects are in their appropriate
rooms and has met in the common room, call the magister/ra to find
out if you are correct.
QUAERE!
BATHS OF TRAJAN (REG. III)
Accusative
Ablative
Dramatis Personae
Ancilla -ae, F., maid
Volume 18 Number 2
331
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Botularius -ii, M., Sausage-seller
Athleta -ae, M., athlete
Puer -i, M., child
Res
aqua frigida -ae, F., cold water
plumbum -I, N., lead weight
botulus -I, M., sausage
pila -ae, F., ball
vestimenta -orum, N. Pl., clothes
Loca
apodyterium (A) -ii, N., changing room
atrium -ii, N., entrance
frigidarium -ii, N., cold room
natatio -onis, F., swimming pool
palaestra -ae, F., wrestling ground
APPENDIX D
Evaluation, Latin 102, February 2000
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE. Assess your abilities using technology at
the end of the course, using a 0-5 scale where 0 means no knowledge and
5 means excellent. Feel free to make comments wherever relevant.
After the Course (0-5)
1. Using E-mail (read, send, reply)
2. Using Cornell’s E-mail, Outlook Express (read, send, reply)
3. Opening Netscape
4. Reaching a site by typing an address
5. Reaching a site by clicking on a link
6. Logging onto a MOO/MUD
332
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
7. Viewing rooms and objects in a MOO
8. Moving from room to room or place to place in a MOO
9. Activating characters in a MOO
9. Speaking to others in a MOO
10. Customizing yourself/character in a MOO
11. Picking up and dropping objects
12. Exchanging objects
BACKGROUND. How many times did you participate in each activity:
1. MOO orientation session (visiting the Baths of Trajan and Circus Maximus) 0 1 2
2. Vroma Treasure Hunt
0
1
2
3. Clue
0
1
2
4. Quaere!
0
1
2
CONTENT. Assess the impact of technology, especially VRoma, on improving your understanding of the Latin language and Roman culture,
using a 0-5 scale where 0 means not at all and 5 means very much. Then
list the type of information that most helped in each area (see below), as
many as are relevant.
End of Course 0-5 Type of info (a-g)
1a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities helped me understand Latin grammar
1b. Vroma Clue activities helped me understand Latin grammar
Volume 18 Number 2
333
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
1c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me understand Latin grammar
2a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities helped me improve Latin vocabulary
2b. Vroma Clue activities helped me improve Latin vocabulary
2c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me improve Latin vocabulary
3a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities helped me understand Roman culture
3b. Vroma Clue activities helped me understand Roman culture
3c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me understand Roman culture
4a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities helped me read Latin
4b. Vroma Clue activities helped me read Latin
4c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me read Latin
5a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities helped me write Latin
5b. Vroma Clue activities helped me write Latin
5c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me write Latin
6a. Vroma Treasure Hunt activities interact in Latin
6b. Vroma Clue activities helped me interact in Latin
6c. Vroma Quaere activities helped me interact in Latin
7. In short, Vroma activities helped me understand Latin better
334
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Types of information in the MOO
a. Textual description
b. Images
c. Viewing objects, such as the sella curulis or toga praetexta
d. Becoming another character/customizing yourself
e. Meeting talking Arobots,@ such as Antoninus Pius or Cornelia
f. Conversing with other students on the MOO
g. Entering a virtual world where you could make use of many media/
ways to learn
FUTURE. Please share your comments and suggestions. Please use back.
1. What was the biggest benefit of using the MOO?
2. What was the biggest challenge in using the MOO?
3. In what way could the VRoma experience be improved?
Volume 18 Number 2
335
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
REFERENCES
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1996). Standards for
foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Yonkers, NY:
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. On-line document available: www.actfl.org
Balme, M., & Morwood, J. (1996). Oxford Latin Course (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the classroom:
Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455-64.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology
for improving speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.),
Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood,
IL: National Textbook.
Crawford-Lange, L. M., & Lange, D. L. (1984). Doing the unthinkable in the second-language classroom: A process for the integration of language and
culture. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing
principle (pp. 139-177). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Devitt, S. (1997). Interacting with authentic texts: Multilayered processes. Modern
Language Journal, 81, 457-469.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom
interaction and language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gascoyne, R., et al. (1997). Standards for classical language learning. Oxford OH:
American Classical League.
Hall, J. K., & Ramirez, A. (1993). How a group of high school learners of Spanish
perceives the cultural identities of Spanish speakers, English speakers,
and themselves. Hispania, 76, 613-620.
Hanvey, R. G. (1979). Cross-cultural awareness. In E. C. Smith & L. F. Luce (Eds.),
Toward internationalism: Readings in cross-cultural communication. (pp.
46-56). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lee, S., Groves, P., Stephens, C., & Armitage, S. (1999). Guide to online teaching:
Existing tools and projects: MUDs, MOOs, WOOs and IRC (JTAP Reports) [On-line]. Available: www.jtap.ac.uk/reports/htm/jtap-028-5.html
Le MOO français. (2000, August). Available: www.umsl.edu/~moosproj/
moofrancais.html
Little Italy. (2000, August). Available: kame.usr.dsi.unimi.it:4444
MOOsaico. (2000, August). Available: moo.di.uminho.pt:7777/
Mugit. (2000, August). Available: www.ipa.net/~magreyn/mugit.htm
MundoHispano. (2000, August). Available: www.umsl.edu/~moosproj/mundo.html
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-10.
336
CALICO Journal
John Gruber-Miller and Cindy Benton
Pfister, G. G., & Borzilleri, P. (1977). Surface culture concepts: A design for the
evaluation of cultural materials in textbooks. Unterrichtspraxis, 10, 102108.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative
tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon,
ENG: Multilingual Matters.
Rawson, E. (1987). Discrimina ordinum: The lex Julia theatralis. Papers of the
British School at Rome, 55, 83-114.
Richlin, A. (1999). Cicero’s head. In J. I. Porter (Ed.), Constructions of the classical body (pp. 190-211). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Robinson-Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 80, 431449.
Sanchez, B. (1996). MOOving to a new frontier in language learning. In M.
Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schwienhorst, K. (1998a). Co-constructing learning environments and learner identities—language learning in virtual reality [On-line]. Available:
www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/kschwien/Publications/coconstruct.htm
Schwienhorst, K. (1998b). The ‘third place’—virtual reality applications for second language learning [On-line]. Available: www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/
kschwien/Publications/eurocall97.htm
SchMOOze. (2000, August). Available: schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888/
Seelye, H. N. (1984). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Shield, L., Weininger, M. J., & Davies, L. B. (1999). MOOs and language learning
[On-line]. A vailable: www.enabling.org/grassroots/languagelearning.html
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Steele, R. (1990). Culture in the foreign language classroom. ERIC/CLL News
Bulletin, 14, 4-5.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes
they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-91.
Volume 18 Number 2
337
How do You Say “MOO” in Latin?
Turbee, L. (1996). MOOing in a foreign language: How, why, and who? [On-line].
Available: home.twcny.rr.com/lonnieturbee/itechtm.html
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and
practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-81.
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice. Cambridge, ENG: Cambridge University Press.
Zanker, P. (1988). The power of images in the age of Augustus (A. Shapiro, Trans.).
Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
John Gruber-Miller is Professor of Classics at Cornell College, Mt. Vernon,
Iowa. In addition to being a core faculty member of the VRoma Project,
he is the author of Scriba, Software to accompany the Oxford Latin Course,
Part 1 and the site maintainer for the Riley Collection of Roman Portrait
Sculptures (www.vroma.org/~riley/). Finally, he is editing When Dead
Tongues Speak: Teaching Beginning Greek and Latin (forthcoming), a
volume that explores ways of teaching Latin and Greek using collaborative and communicative approaches.
Cindy Benton is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics at Cornell College, Mt. Vernon, Iowa. She is a member of the VRoma Project and author of “Split Vision: The Politics of the Gaze in Seneca’s Troades” in The
Roman gaze: Vision, power and the body in Roman society (forthcoming).
AUTHORS’ ADDRESS
John Gruber-Miller
Classical and Modern Languages
Cornell College
600 First Street West
Mt. Vernon, IA 52314
Phone: 319/895-4326
Fax:
319/895-4492
E-mail: jgruber-miller@cornell-iowa.edu
Cindy Benton
Classical and Modern Languages
Cornell College
600 First Street West
Mt. Vernon, IA 52314
Phone: 319/895-4126
Fax:
319/895-4492
E-mail: cbenton@cornell-iowa.edu
338
CALICO Journal