There are three topics in Campbell's article that got my attention.
- the world he paints at the beginning of the article, in which a student listens to podcasts before going to class;
- the concept of “the explaining voice;” and
- archiving issues.
1. The world in which students listen to podcasts before attending class.
First, I believe that the beautiful world in which the student has access and listens to several podcasts is still a dream world, at least in most universities and perhaps in most adult education classes.
One of the reasons, probably the main reason, is that professors need to produce these materials. Even when textbook companies produce podcasts, the professor still has to decide if those materials will be included in class, how the students will have access to them, how the use of podcasts will be graded, etc. Now, professors are kind of like octopi: they need to handle a lot, just like Campell mentioned in his article. They need to be up to day with what they teach and how to teach it, they need to create their own materials, write and publish, give lectures and attend conferences, etc. I will not mention names of people or institutions, but three years ago I happened to be present when a professor was asking a secretary, “can you type this for me, please?” Per the conversation, I learned that this professor and one of his/her colleagues never typed anything related to school. I still don't understand how they can live without typing their own exams, for example
But when professors get together and are willing to collaborate, students benefit a lot. Collaboration, which is still a dream in several departments, would also empower students. Because if students see that their professors are convinced that something something works for teachers, the latter would feel more comfortable teaching with new tools, like podcasting.
2. The explaining voice
Campbell says,
“There’s also considerable value in what I call “the explaining voice,” the voice that performs understanding. The explaining voice doesn’t just convey information; it shapes, out of a shared atmosphere,an intimate drama of cognitiveaction in time. The explaining voice conveys microcues of hesitation, pacing, and inflection that demonstrate both cognition and metacognition. When we hear someone read with understanding, we participate in that understanding, almost as if the voice is enacting our own comprehension. In other words, the explaining voice trains the ear to listen not just for meaning but for evidence of the thought that generates meaning.”
I'm a sound/audio person. I believe that my ear is very good. I can hear a lot of what my students say in class, and sometimes I hear a sound that most people will not notice. “The explaining voice” is, in my opinion, one of the best points in this article, because if an individual doesn't have a convincing, pleasant voice, he or she will have a few listeners. Our best voice is produced when we don't think about our voice, and sometimes we don't like to hear anybody reading monotonously for us, but rather having a conversation with us. Reading and talking/conversing are different. Talking/conversing/explain will definitely get my attention faster than reading.
3. Archiving issues
I tried to listen to the supplementary audio files, but I was not able to find them. One of the problems with online only publications is that systems, servers, and code change and sometimes something is lost. The life of new, online materials sometimes is shorter than the life of old, offline documents and references. In this case, the author was responsible for keeping the archive, since the link goes to his site. A lot has changed since 2005, when the article was published. In Internet years, that's perhaps the equivalent of a decade or more. I do not get mad anymore, because materials got lost, or because the file formats are not rendered by my Mac. I have learned to accept the fact that archiving is one of the downsides of the Internet.



Lulu - great commentary on many points - got me thinking about my own learning. First, I've found myself often talking to others about things I've learned, which are mostly Youtube videos - there is so much great content out there. Often, I go to the site, though, because it is part of assigned reading or recommended by a classmate. Yet, there is much to be said about listening in to other 'authorities' out there.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your point about voice is critical - and probably more so with recorded PowerPoints. I am not a fan of having PPT slides read to me in person, and definitely don't appreciate watching a video of the same - monotone and boring.
Finally, your comment about how information becomes obsolete so quickly. It is increasingly more difficult to find current, reliable sources - sources where the author has kept everything current. And the point about all forms of personal technology not being capable of synching with everything out there - how can we keep up?
Thanks for the great post!
Dear Lulu,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your insightful work on my article. You raise essential points, and you do so with tact, determination, and intelligence. Any author would be proud to have you work on her or his article! I know I am.
I can only respond very briefly just now, but I did want to at least speak to your excellent points:
1. Yes, I agree completely. I imagine a world in which professors are not only digitally fluent but in which they have the digital imagination necessary to think up these projects, podcasts, and materials and then post them appropriately. I imagine a world outside Learning Management Systems, and a world in which we are all able to produce meaningful content with lightweight tools and without a small army of support personnel supplied by central IT. A dream world indeed, but there are signs here and there that we could move in that direction if we choose to. That's the biggest question for me right now: how will institutions invest their resources? I don't want to think that schools or professors choose not to become digitally fluent or digitally imaginative, but sometimes I wonder if the disruption such fluency brings with it--the loss of control institutions would have to confront--makes institutions and professors shy away from embracing these fluencies. Better to keep everyone "on the farm," so to speak. (Or as one CIO once put it, offensively to me, "on the reservation.)
I have written more along the lines of professorial digital fluency in my article "My Computer Romance," which might be of interest. I should re-upload that podcast too--and will. (See below.)
2. The idea of the explaining voice is probably my favorite part of the article, so I'm delighted it resonated with you. I'm an old radio guy, and I love to be read to, and I find that asking students to read aloud is a great way to check for deep comprehension (and to help connect them with the joy of reading, if they can learn to read aloud better). I also think that one of the reasons for Sal Khan's great success with the Khan Academy has to do with the quality of his own "explaining voice" along the lines of what I'm suggesting here.
3. I am embarrassed that my archive failed you! Yes, the link had rotted, but not entirely through my own fault. I can't go into details here. Suffice it to say that I should have been more vigilant, and that I deeply regret you weren't able to get to the podcast itself. I've reuploaded the file and the link should now work. If you're interested, give it another try.
I must say that there are some marvelous self-healing aspects here as well, though. I learned of your post above through a Google Alert on my name (a so-called "vanity search"). An email to my gmail account alerted me to your post. I followed that link and read your excellent analysis. When I learned what I should have remembered, that I had not gone in and restored that audio file after the unfortunate episode, I was able to retrieve the file from my local computer, where I had subscribed to my own podcast feed via iTunes, and then reupload the file to my blog site. My point here is that if one is sufficiently digitally fluent, it's possible to build a kind of safety net that can help to identify archive problems and lead to a resolution of them. I think there's more to be done in this area--perhaps material for another excellent post!
Again, my thanks for your work here, and my deep gratitude for alerting and inspiring me to put the audio back online. Best of luck with all your future work!
Gardner
I'm very glad to read a comment by the author of the article I commented on. Thank you, Dr. Campbell for taking the time to response to my post.
ReplyDeleteArchiving online materials problem is perhaps the greatest challenge librarians have now. I have discovered that some of the materials I created three years ago may not play that well anymore. I need to open and rename and save some Flash files, for example. As I mentioned before, I no longer get mad at the 404 error. It is the equivalent of a missing volume of an encyclopedia, or the fading of a photo.
The "explaining voice" concept has kept me thinking for a week now. I'm thinking about creating a sound piece in which several individuals explain the meaning of a well known poem, while somebody else reads/recites the poem. My idea is to be able to hear the two types of tones or voices at the same time. A few months ago, I created two pieces with people explaining what is music to their ears. Here is the link: http://www.vimeo.com/album/192724.
Thanks again for your comment.
jmhuebner,
ReplyDeleteThere is so much online that we can learn that it scares me! Google books, Make magazine, Instructubles, Youtube, and other sites have so much to offer. Even if the videos are bad, we can still use them to study or do research.
I don't like the narrated PPTs either! But sometimes this is the only way students keep a record of a presentation.
Thank you for your comment.