Running with Scissors

I’ve been noticing lately that a lot of educators say they are “podcasting.”

I’ve also noticed that the way the word is being used is not accurate in many cases. Many times the “podcasts” educators say they are posting are simply single audio files that can be downloaded – that is not technically a podcast. Why?

In my view, I think there are at least two essentital items that must be present to use the term podcast. The audio or video files must:

• Have the ability to be subscribed to – this means some sort of RSS feed that automatically sends me the new files once I subscribe. I should not have to go to a web page to first see if something new is there and manually download the files to my computer.
• Must have content released on some sort of regular basis. One audio file with no intention to produce more or to continue the conversation is simply an audio resource, not a podcast.

Any other ideas on what is essential to call something a “podcast?” Am I just being too picky here?

Over in Pedablogy, Steve Greenlaw has started and interesting discussion on the value of podcasting lectures and posting them on the web. Several questions about podcasting lectures come up in Steve’s post and from the excellent comments of readers, including:

- Will students still come to class if they can listen to a podcast?

- What if the lecture goes badly – will I podcast that?

- What if other faculty don’t agree with the content of my lectures, how might that hurt my academic reputation?

While the idea of “what if the lecture goes badly” was addressed in by Steve in comments to his original post, and the one about how to deal with faculty differences of opinion in an academic area is a bit beyond my ability to comment since I am not faculty, I do have some ideas on how to address the first question based on what others do to address the attendance issue.

I’ve been listening to a series of physics lectures taught by Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley. He has every lecture video taped and makes them available for the world to see as a video or podcast. I must say, it is an interesting class to listen to, not just for the content, but to listen how he manages a class of 400 students. (My favorite is when he stops class and tells students to stop talking or leave.) He posts the lectures soon after they occur, so students are able to use them as resources for their review and study. How does he get the students to come to class? Well, he simply requires attendance. Plus, he has pop quizzes – you only get credit if you are there.

So Dr. Muller’s lectures become a resource for not just his students, but for anyone to use. They serve as great primary sources for students doing research. Further, it provides students from any institution the opportunity to better understand a topic that might be covered in a full course that they might not have the opportunity or or desire to take as a full course at their institution.

But I think the discussion of these questions also needs to include a different context – what is a faculty member and their institution’s obligation to the world outside? After all, if a faculty member has had the privilege and opportunity to become an “expert” in a field of study, is there not some obligation to society to share that knowledge with those that may not have had the same opportunity?

Yes, this is the starry-eyed part, but why not?

Of course, this is a debatable point on several levels, but I think it is less debatable from the side of the higher education institution – I believe they do have some responsibility to educate the community beyond simply the students that pay the tuition. Often this is done with lecture series held on campus that are open to the community and access to facilities like libraries, but this idea of podcasting a lecture could be one of the most powerful. If an institution values such sharing of the knowledge of their faculty, there will be some number of faculty eager to take this opportunity to give back to a larger community, and we will all be richer for it.

I remember a commercial from about 6 or 7 years ago where a person is having their morning coffee while a customized version of the morning newspaper was coming out of their printer. The point of this was that you could get the information you wanted, where and when you wanted it. You got to choose what would be included in your paper by making some choices about the topics that interest you. I liked this idea – me as editor. I can see what I want to see. (But what about the implications of this as far as missing stories that might be important to me but don’t reach me because of the filter choices I make? That is a different blog post…)

This morning I was thinking about this as I was driving to work, listening to the radio. NPR’s Morning Edition was on, and there was a National Geographic Radio Expedition story about an insect in the Amazon called the treehopper. (They communicate via sound waves by vibrating their bodies – too cool!) At the end of the story, they mentioned that these stories were available via podcast.

That’s when I got to thinking – we need a new kind of radio for the car: a podcast receiving radio. Since I have wireless access at my house – in theory this is no problem. My car could download my podcasts while it sits in the driveway every night, then have them ready for me to listen to each morning. This is the audio version of the newspaper from that commercial I mentioned earlier – I’m the editor. I get the audio where I want it, and can listen when I drive – one of the best times for me to listen to podcasts. Plus I eliminate the need for that iPod with its cables, batteries, FM modulator, synchronization, etc. Get in and listen – this could change everything.

A recent editorial in Campus Technology written by Katherine Grayson titled “Podblasting” has many good things to say, but seems to miss the point in the end.

The main point of her editorial is to defend the use of podcasting to record lectures and make them available to students. She notes that the main objection to using podcasts in this way is that students will not come to class if the lecture is online. She goes on to say:

“With all of this experience with technology on campus behind us, why does irrational fear of technology still persist? Why do so many still worry that kids will opt to stay in 6-by-8 foot dorm rooms for four years, rather than mingle with peers and experience live interaction in the classroom or lecture hall?”

But I think simply recording lectures in many cases WOULD give students reason to stay home. Why? If all that is happening is the age old method of professor dispensing wisdom in 50 minute bites via the lecture, why does the student NEED to be there? If little interaction is taking place during the live class, what does the student actually miss if the lectures are podcast? Not much I would think. In fact, maybe learning this way would be improved via podcasting since students could have record of what was said and review it as needed.

But here is where I think the editorial really misses the point – maybe a full class lecture is not the best way to spend the class time an instructor has with students. What if those lectures were delivered via podcast and a discussion of the lecture was the center of the class meeting instead? The time that students and instructor spend together could be used for deepening the understanding of material instead of simply delivering it. My guess is that if the class was set up this way, no students would be missing the class meetings – the discussion could be so valuable and rich that they would want to be there – they would be fully engaged.

UPDATE:  Time flies in the computer world – the iRiver iFP-895 is no longer available.

We are working on putting together some podcasting kits that students and faculty here at UMW can use – one kit will be for field work, the other for studio work. Our UMW Podfather, Gardner Campbell, has been most helpful in recommending some equipment for us that is easy to use and still meets the quality demands of his very discriminating ear. (Thanks Gardner!)

I tested out some of the equipment we are planning to use for the field recording kit: an iRiver iFP-895 MP3 player/recorder, Sennheiser pc150 headset/microphone combo, and a Sony ECM-MS907 Electret Condenser microphone.

You can hear a sample of what I recorded here: http://www.jerryslezak.net/podcasts/pod_test.MP3

The iRiver is quite a nice little piece of technology. It is basically a small MP3 player with 512 MB of built-in flash memory. What makes it unique is that it also can record – it can record voice using the built in microphone (which also sounds pretty good, but you get some noise if you are holding the iRiver while recording this way), or it can record from an external microphone that you plug into the line-in jack (the line-in jack can also be set to accept line sources like something coming out of a audio mixer). The iRiver also lets you set the recording levels, the quality of the encoding that you want, and if it records in mono or stereo. At the highest quality settings, there is enough memory for over 8 hours of recording. It takes a little patience to figure out what buttons to push, but for the most part it is fairly easy, but I can see a small instruction sheet will be needed to get first timers up to speed.

The Sennheiser headset and microphone combo works very well with the iRiver – what I like best is that while you record, the iRiver also sends the audio of your recording to the headset so you can hear yourself as you speak – I like this as it gives me some sense of how loud I need to speak or if I’m “popping my p’s.” This combination also gives you great freedom – you can easily move around while recording since you can simply slide the iRiver in your pocket or wear it around your neck.

The Sony microphone adds a different dimension – this allows you to be the “reporter on the street.” This is condenser microphone, which means it has a fuller, richer sound than the microphone built into the Sennheiser headset. It is also a stereo microphone which allows for a more immersive spatial experience if you want to capture that. It comes with a small stand that you can use to hold the mic or set it on a table top.

The iRiver software is fairly intuitive for managing and moving files from the iRiver to your computer, however you do need to convert the files recorded using the external microphone to MP3 using the conversion wizard built into the software.

All in all I’m very happy with this equipment – it should meet the needs of making field recording easy, but also allowing a level of quality that can be very high.