Ken Carroll

Recently, Lisa Neal, editor in chief at E Learning magazine blogged a rather odd piece called Ten Reasons Why Podcasts are Inferior to Text. I think the post is misleading to anyone wanting to know about podcasting. I’m surprised the editor in chief at E Learning Magazine could have written it.

Her argument is somewhat muddled. The sub-heading doesn’t follow meaningfully from the title. It reads

Ten reasons podcasts don’t work for education…

So first, podcasts are inferior to text, and then they just don’t work for education. If the second statement did follow from the first, would it then mean that, apart from text, no other medium had any value in education? (You could probably argue that every medium is inferior to text, in that sense.) Should e-learning then stick to text only at that rate? Hmmm.

Given these types of logical implications, it seems an odd direction for her to take. But a comparison between text and podcast is moot anyway, because no-one has ever suggested that podcasts were superior to text, that they should be isolated from it, or that they should replace it, etc. As one ChinesePod learner, Dave, commented

I don’t like the idea of placing text in the ring versus podcasts because both offer different benefits. It seems analogous to comparing the virtues of vitamin D with vitamin C–they’re both good for you so creating a scenario where they ought to battle it out is absurd.

The real issue

The real question, to my mind concerns whether podcasting can enhance text, or go beyond it. My answer is yes it can, and for most subjects. With language learning this is obvious - podcasts provide up-to-date audio samples of the target language, often upon user request or in response to a problem. (Imagine learning languages from, ahem, text only.)

Secondly, when properly designed, audio can very effectively intergrate other elements. At SpanishPod, we use the podcasts, not just for samples of the language, but also for commentary: hosts talk about the content (grammar, vocabulary, culture) in a spontaneous, two-way, exchange that adds the human element that textbooks cannot. Lessons become events that bond practitioners with learners, personalize the experience, and aid memory. Human conversation brings an emotional dimension to the content and triggers cognitive faculties that text alone cannot. (More engagement, more learning.) It allows practitioners demonstrate and offer insights into managing context as well as cultural insights, socio-cultural competence, discourse competence, language awareness, register, pragmatics, and a number of things that textbooks traditionally do not.

And all of this is actually hyper-efficient: natural human conversation is way, way more efficient than formal, written exposition for many purposes. Podcasts also allow for sound effects, stories, guesswork, cognitive depth, humor, and more.

It is true that you cannot search a podcast as you would a text. But there are endless ways to deal with that problem: We separate the core dialog from the rest, for example, so that listeners can simply click on the part they wish. Meanwhile breaking down the podcast on a structured basis also helps. With SpanishPod, for example, you have the

• Intro
• Dialog
• Translation
• Commentary
• Dialog repetition
• Cultural Observations
• Ending

A standardized approach to the audio design means that users know the times where they find each of these elements after 2 or 3 listens. I’ve never actually heard a user complain of getting lost in the audio because lesson are short and there are clues all over the place.

I actually believe that audio and visuals are the great new frontier that, when integrated with text, will open all sorts of new learning possibilities. I won’t be abandoning these inferior media, but continuing to spend thousands of hours delving deeper into them. Clearly, however, we are all at an early stage of understanding the new media.

I’ve tried to contact Lisa. I may ask to see if she’ll give me a space on E Learning Magazine to explain why I love podcasting. It’s time to let the world know about this!

Ken Carroll

 There are lots of blogs on the subject of learning 2.0. They tend to focus on what is theoretically or pedagogically desirable in the New Learning, as well as the new understandings that emerge from our experience of learning on the network. This discussion remains theoretical because mainstream business and education  have been slow to embrace the New Learning. Examples of these theories in an integrated format, in practice  are not common.

Except, I would argue, with a couple of exceptions. I believe  ChinesePod and SpanishPod are actually rather good case studies of putting these concepts to work.

 An integrated learning 2.0 scenario

There is a general agreement about the need for learning environments, learnscapes, or learning eco-systems, that enable participation, collaboration, and user-input, etc. The central organizing principle should, of course, be the network, with all the attendant network qualities and the right social software. The key thing about a network is that everything is connected to everything else. Connecting the people and all the bits enables the sharing, the discussion, the dissemination of good learning practices, as well as the self-expression, the debate, and all the other things that make human learning possible. 

In this scenario, the learners are necessarily in control because networks  break down hierarchies. The role of the instructor (or practitioner) is that of modelling and demonstrating, rather than as arbiters or controllers.  

Learners are then free to select content on a self-service basis, and at the times that they, themselves choose, preferably from an input-rich environment, with a variety of ways to consume it. (Learning is multi-dimensional.) It also needs to be self-directed and happen through direct experience and personal decisions, rather than through instruction and vicarious decisions.

Within this adaptive, de-centralized, recursive, and exploratory learning environment, content needs to be cognitive, and engaging. An inductive approach that allows learners to participate, to discover meaning, to reflect, and identify patterns, takes precedence over lectures because learning is individualistic, and subjective. All the while, members of the community can communicate on various issues, and threads to pursue their own goals with practitioners and other learners.

 Sounds familiar

In fact, the scenario I’ve just described is pretty much how ChinesePod and SpanishPod actually work. Almost every feature I mentioned exists there. The approach we took has certainly been organic. Lesson topics and other resources (and therefore the curriculum) are generally informed by learner request and not complete without their comments. The environment is dynamic, evolving in collaboration with the needs and behaviors of the learners. Ultimately it functions as an online community of practice.

 Other features include the use of modular learning objects (check) that can be tagged (check) and delivered as an RSS flow (check) when needed (check). This means that the learning is just in time (check) rather than just in case. Meanwhile, the future apparently will be learner-centered (check) immersive (check) mobile (check) democratic (check)  designed for the medium (check) and the environment in which it will be consumed (check). All these elements exist on ChinesePod.

I guess I’ve made my point.

 Was all of this planned in advance? No, it was not. It emerged as we went along  - which is consistent with what network learning theories, such as connectivism, might suggest. 

 ChinesePod and social networks

I believe ChinesePod points to a distinctive type of social network, and one that will become more prevalent once it becomes more widely recognized for what it is. I would distinguish (for the sake of argument) three types of social network. First, you have Facebook, Linked In, etc, where the social object is to connect with people and serve some social purpose (finding a job, making new friends, etc).  

The second type of social network is what we might call the content communities. The social object here involves sharing information, photos, music, or something else - examples, Delicious, Flckr,  Youtube, etc. As with the first type of social network, you register, get your own page, and get on with it.

I believe we may define a third category -  the social network as an online Community of Practice that exploits the learning-friendly qualities of the network. (This can extend beyond the internet itself, for example, into the mobile context.)  The social object is learning a language, a process that requires very high levels of participation.  

The Big Bang of 2005  yielded Facebook, Youtube, Flickr, and so on. In terms of learning, the results were more patchy.  The ’small pieces loosely joined’ approach has led to new ideas about personal learning environments in the manner that Stephen Downes has described. That has more to do with managing for the individual. I would argue, however, that we are the clearest example of an integrated approach to what the participative web has to offer in learning in specific subject area. I beleive the community of practice is a powerful way to do that.

Our goal now is to set the standards for the online language learning industry. This is just the beginning, but I hope we’ve taken the first steps.  

 Ken Carroll

 The subject of online language learning has been in the news, particularly since Live Mocha received funding some weeks ago. Yesterday, my company, Praxis Language  appeared alongside them, in the New York Times (the same story appeared in the International Herald Tribune today). 

There is a deeper undercurrent to this story. It concerns how the future of online language learning is being played out.  After a career in the industry I know change when I see it: After a somewhat slow start, Moore’s Law and the internet are starting to rattle its foundations. This will result in change - change in how, where, and with whom we learn languages - and it will reach all corners of the industry, including those who may now feel immune to it, Berlitz, Rosetta Stone, the language schools, and universities.  

I have no idea who will dominate the new landscape, but some things strike me as inevitable. Web 2.0 has yielded  new learning insights and practices that will almost certainly be widely adopted going forward. The whole nature v nurture (technology v pedagogy) debate has been opened up again and it is proving fertile ground for innovation. I cannot imagine, for example, any online learning system that failed to use RSS going forward. On ChinesePod and SpanishPod, that technology has created a whole new conception of  what a lesson is. RSS turns the daily lessons into learning events, something you don’t want to miss, rather than a chore you have to do, and a place where your community of learners hang out an work to the same beat.  (This is also described as pull v push by Charlie Gillette in this excellent article.) This type of learning as an event was impossible just a few years ago, but I believe it will prove itself indispensable for any future developers.

And while we’re on the subject of community, it’s clear that social software, though still in its infancy,  has a huge role to play in learning.  Learning alone from a black box will no longer cut it,  because now there is an alternative: the community of practice, with a clear social object, a purposethat everyone in the learning ecosystem shares. 

Things are going to look different, three years from now. Mark my words!

I also refer you to this excellent overview of some interesting trends/developments by my friend, the excellent  Dr Curt Bonk. 

Ken Carroll