volume 4, number 2 edited by: karen swan alison bland

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET) Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 2008

www.rcetj.org

Volume 4, Number 2 Fall 2008

Edited by:

Karen Swan Alison Bland

Editor Managing Editor

Special Issue:

Guest Editor:

Gordon J. Murray, PhD Kent State University

School of Journalism and Mass Communication


Editor Managing Editor Karen Swan Alison Bland

Advisory Board

Joseph Bowman, Ph.D.

State University at Albany

Cheryl Lemke Metiri Group

Rosemary Du Mont

Kent State University

Robert Muffoletto, Ph.D. Appalachian State University

Ricki Goldman, Ph.D. NYU

Elliot Soloway, Ph.D. University of Michigan

Aliya Holmes St. John's University

Review Board

Kadee Anstadt, Perrysburg City Schools Mary MacKay, Wake County Public School SystemSavilla Banister, Bowling Green State University Theresa Minick, Kent State University William Bauer, Case Western Reserve University Jason Schenker, Kent State University Sebastian Diaz, West Virginia University Chris Simonavice, Murray State University Evelyn Goldsmith, Kent State University Karen Swan, Kent State University Albert Ingram, Kent State University Mark van 't Hooft, Kent State University Jan Kelly, Mogadore Local Schools Maggie Veres, Wright State Universit Annette Kratcoski, Kent State University Yin Zhang, Kent State University

The Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology is published twice a year by RCET (http://www.rcet.org). It provides a multimedia forum for the advancement of scholarly work on the effects of technology on teaching and learning. This online journal (http://www.rcetj.org) seeks to provide unique avenues for the dissemination of knowledge within the field of educational technology consistent with new and emergent pedagogical possibilities. In particular, journal articles are encouraged to include video and sound files as reference or evidence, links to data, illustrative animations, photographs, etc. The journal publishes the original, refereed work of researchers and practitioners twice a year in multimedia electronic format. It is distributed free of charge over the World Wide Web under the Creative Commons License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States) to promote dialogue, research, and grounded practice.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/


Volume 4, Number 2

Fall 2008 An Introduction to the RCETJ Special Issue on Multimedia, Media Convergence, and Digital Storytelling Gordon J. Murray 1 Video-Based Additional Instruction Mark Franciszkowicz 5 Design and Assessment of an Online Prelab Model in General Chemistry: A Case Study Juan-Antonio Llorens-Molina 15 The iPod Project: A Mobile Mini-Lab Nikhil Sathe and Jörg Waltje 32 Media Convergence in a College Newsroom: A Longitudinal Study of Identification and Commitment to a Collaborative Web Site Fred Endres 57 The Educators Coop Experience in Second Life: A Model for Collaboration Leslie Jarmon and Joe Sanchez 66 The Creation and Refinement of a Sustainable Multimedia Process in a Higher Education Environment Megan Bell and Larissa Biggers Schraff 83 Using Virtual Worlds to Launch Ideas, Research and Teaching Anne-Marie Armstrong, Darryl Shreve, and Joshua Neds-Fox 96 Electronic Portfolios: Engaged Students Create Multimedia-Rich Artifacts Gail Ring, Barbara Weaver, and James (Jim) Jones, Jr. 103 Using Online Media to Track Censorship and Prior Review of Student Publications Candace Perkins Bowens and Audrey Wagstaff 115 Digital Storytelling as a Gateway to Computer Science Amy Csizmar Dalal 124

Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET) 32 Vol. 4, No. 2, Fall 2008

RCETJ 4 (2), 32-56

The iPod Project: A Mobile Mini-Lab

Nikhil Sathe Ohio University

Jörg Waltje University of Michigan

A Brief Message from the Authors

Abstract

As a model project for innovative and engaging language instruction, the Language Resource Center (LRC) at Ohio University acquired a set of iPods (24 for a full class) equipped with iTalk Recorder Plugins. We loaned these iPods out to language instructors and their students who then used them as completely mobile Mini-Labs for a variety of projects. The students were able to record themselves and other people (e.g. international students, native speakers), practice their speaking and listening skills, keep an oral diary, read into the iPod, or create podcasts while on study abroad – all this in their target language(s). Then, after syncing the iPod with one of the computers in the lab, students were supposed to post their recordings either to the LRC server, to their Blackboard class sites, or to email them directly to their instructor for evaluation or for the whole class to share. With the iPods our students gained additional opportunities to become more actively engaged and independent in their language learning process. This article will report in detail on our project, its transferability to other learning environments, and the feedback we have received from surveying more than 120 students and their instructors about their language-learning habits.

Introduction

Godwin-Jones (2005) points out that “new technologies, or new uses of existing technologies, … provide unique opportunities for language learning.” Yet, even when technology holds great potential for improving second language learning, for a variety of reasons this potential does not automatically lead to learning gains (Chappelle 2001; Waltje, 2004; Zhao, 2005). In the field of language instruction new digital technologies are still primarily being used within curricular models that differ little from the days when analog technologies were all that was available: students primarily listen to digitized audio and video and record their responses, replicating the limitations of the “classic” lab situation. When digital technologies are being used in innovative ways, it is still within the traditional classroom structure: students meeting in class 3 to 5 hours per week with a single instructor and assignments, both written and oral, to be done at home and in the lab.

We found that with the availability of a recording function Apple's iPods (Portable Digital Audio Players) could be transformed from personal entertainment gadgets into devices that had great potential as vehicles for interactive language learning. iPods had gained the capability of fostering autonomy by freeing our students from their usual language lab assignment routine. With some guidance students would be able to download podcasts and other audio-materials prepared for their classes and then listen to these files wherever they wanted to. Most importantly, though, they would be able to do their own recordings anywhere and at anytime, which meant that access to the technology could greatly enhance and extend learning outside of the classroom.

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_intro.mov


When the College of Arts and Sciences at Ohio University issued a call to departments and programs to provide first- and second-year students with high quality academic experiences, we were the first in line to respond. The goal of this initiative was to support activities that encouraged student engagement and fostered higher academic expectations among the student body by improving higher-level thinking and communication skills. Projects were meant to help students synthesize and apply knowledge within and across disciplines.

For our “Student Engagement Project” the Language Resource Center in collaboration with the departments of Modern Languages, Linguistics, and the Ohio Program for Intensive English (OPIE) requested $ 7654.80 to buy 24 iPods and iTalk microphones for a project (The Mobile-Mini-Lab) which in the long run would involve not only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year language students but also ESL students and Graduate students in Linguistics.

Figures 1 and 2: iPod and iTalk

Methods

Once we had acquired the necessary funding and equipment the question was not only how to set up an effective study but also how to entice other instructors to work with us. We talked up the project among our colleagues and distributed flyers (see iPod-ideas.pdf) that provided potential collaborators with interesting ideas for their classes. Thus we were able to spread the idea and attract people to work with us. A significant factor in the initial response was the novelty of the iPods in late 2005. They were still considered “sexy,” and getting your hands on one of these rather expensive devices, let alone for a longer period of time, held a certain amount of fascination that cannot be underestimated. Students were eager to participate and often could not believe their luck when informed that they were to become part of a study. To whet instructors’ appetites we touted the advantages and the iPod’s mobility and ease-of-use: “Students can listen to the audio materials that came with their book. Anytime, Anywhere! Load up files your students otherwise would not have access to: a short story, poetry, news items, authentic popular songs and folk tunes…”

At the same time we provided them with ideas for potential projects:

• Record yourself reading/reciting a piece of literature • Interview a native speaker • Perform a dialogue with a classmate • Keep an oral diary for a week • Answer to open-ended questions (distributed upfront by the instructor) • etc.

When we had requests from instructors for more information we would sit down with them one-on-one, explain our rationale, and develop a hand-tailored plan of action in order to provide assignments and activities that were directly beneficial to the skill level and curriculum of the particular class. We would

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_ideas.pdf


then arrange for a timeframe in which the experiment was meant to take place and prepare the iPods by placing the required audiofiles on them. On an appointed day we visited the class in order to introduce the concept, hand out the iPods and iTalk microphones, explain their use and do a test run so that students got to try them out on the spot and felt comfortable adopting them.

The Setup

As might have become clear from these preliminary procedures, the whole process was rather time-consuming. The iPods needed to be prepared, the audiofiles had to be transferred onto the iPods by LRC staff, but also the students’ recordings needed to be retrieved by us due to the fact that an iPod immediately attempts to upload new voice memos to any computer it gets connected to and then marks them as non-transferable. Students had to be told that they could listen to and record onto the iPod, but they were not allowed to connect it to another computer to add their own files. To keep the risk of loss and damage low, we outfitted students with the bare minimum in equipment: the iPod, a headset, and the iTalk microphone. They also received a handout explaining the listening and recording procedures (see iPod-instructions.pdf). After careful consideration we decided not to hand out the chargers and FireWire connectors. If the iPods ran out of power students were instructed to drop them off at the LRC on their way to class and pick them up recharged afterwards. Lastly, students had to sign a contract (see iPod-loan.pdf) in which they agreed to treat the equipment with the utmost care and were informed that they were liable in case of loss or destruction.

The iPods were kept in a self-designed box padded with styrofoam that had slits cut into it so that they could easily be lined up for recharging.

Figure 3: The iPod Resting Place

This box also made it easy to take the iPods to class and distribute them. Students were handed a smaller box that originally only contained the iTalk microphone, but was spacious enough to accommodate the iPod and the headset as well, thus offering an excellent way to protect the equipment.

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_instructions.pdf

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_loan.pdf

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_loan.pdf


Figure 4: Smaller boxes, wipes, and handouts

Distribution and Retrieval

After a short explanation of the project, students would come to the front of the class with their iPod contracts filled out and in return, receive the equipment. We also provided antibacterial wipes so that students could clean the in-ear headsets before using them. After receiving the equipment students would have a guided opportunity to familiarize themselves with the functions of the iPod. They also received the handout for future reference (see iPod-instructions.pdf). Finally, the instructor would take over and explain the content of the particular assignment, its requirements and timeframe.

Figure 5: In-class distribution

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_instructions.pdf


Figure 6: First encounters

Figure 7: Happy iPodders

At the end of a particular class project we would return, collect the iPods, and distribute a survey form to the students in order to gather data on how they felt about the project, the technology used, and its benefits for their learning. In order to give students time to think about the project, we did not immediately collect the survey forms. Instead, students were told to return the forms in the next class meeting to their instructors who would then forward them to us.

As for the recordings, a student assistant would connect the iPods one by one to a designated computer station in our faculty workroom. We would burn all files to a CD for the instructor who could decide whether he or she wanted them also placed on our server, linked to the individual instructor’s website, or made available to the whole class via Blackboard pages.


Figure 8: Uploading and retrieving/saving the audiofiles

For this project we were not interested in the quality or content of the recordings per se. That type of enquiry would be better suited for a longitudinal study, which might ask and measure whether prolonged use of the iPods would help improve listening, speaking, and pronunciation skills. Our aim was simply to gauge students’ interest in this kind of technology and to get an idea whether the use of devices like the iPod would result in more engaged students with increased motivation to spend more time on task.

Hypotheses

For the “iPod and Voice Recorder Survey” we had formed a number of hypotheses from which we derived a set of multiple choice and yes/no questions. We also provided a field for general and open-ended comments in hopes that participants would supply us with qualitative insights and observations that a mere “checkbox approach” could not yield.

The hypotheses that provided the starting point for our questionnaire and the subsequent analysis of all incoming data were as follows:

a. Students who enjoy the class will also enjoy using the iPod.

b. Students who enjoy working with technology and multimedia will have no trouble handling the iPod.

c. Students will prefer mobility (iPod) over visiting the language lab.

d. Accessibility and ease-of-use will result in more time spent on task.

e. Students already make use of other technological study aids (CD Roms or publisher’s interactive websites)

The Survey (see iPod-survey.pdf)

As the instructions on the survey form point out, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to gauge the effect this personalized use of the iPod-mp3 player and a digital voice recorder had on individual learning

http://www.rcetj.org/RCETJ_media/v04n2_2008/Waltje/Waltje_iPod_Survey.pdf


behavior. Students were asked to answer 13 questions, eleven of those on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 meant "strongly disagree" and 5 meant "strongly agree." We also wanted to find out whether students in general felt comfortable using technology, whether they enjoyed the class they were taking, what their average language grade was, and whether they took language as a requirement or as an elective. Our questions also aimed at trying to find out whether there were any correlations between reluctant language learners and their reponses to the survey, or whether students would approach the project relatively unbiased, no matter what their feelings about learning languages or possible aversions to individual instructors were.

Figure 9: Data Entry and Evaluation

The Sample

Our formal study involved 9 classes and had a total return of 121 survey forms (100% return rate). Table and pie chart above break down these numbers into the respective language groups.


Figure 10: Participants

Results and Discussion

The data we were able to collect were entered into SPSS and prepared for evaluation. All proposed correlations were non-significant (p<0.05). We were not able to find any significant relationships involving aversions to language or technology, nor were we able to distill insights that would reveal students of one language as more engaged or technologically adept than those of another. Also, grade average does not seem to play a role for the likes or dislikes of technology; better students are not more likely to fancy technology than weaker ones, nor vice versa. Notwithstanding some debunked hypotheses, the number of participants and the overall setup of the study provided us with insights that clearly amount to more than anecdotal evidence and that will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.


Figure 11: Survey Item 1

Item 1, “I enjoy working with modern technology and multimedia resources,” showed that 85% of our participants either strongly or moderately agreed, only for 5.8% of the students being surveyed technologies such as the iPod were not an enjoyable addition to their learning repertoire.



Item 2, “Access to this kind of technology helps me learn the language,” was perceived less enthusiastically. 61% of the participants agreed with this statement, 31% responded neutral. That leaves us with 8% of students who do not feel that technology has had a positive influence on their language acquisition.



Item 3, “I found using the iPod helped me learn the target language better,” may sound fairly similar to Item 2, but aimed at stressing that particularly the iPod, when compared to other technologies as for example tapes, videos, etc., offered a clear advantage regarding ease-of-use, accessibility, and mobility. Only 56.7% of participants agreed, which (in combination with answers to other items) we interpret as a possible indicator that the intention of the question might not have been clear enough.



Answers to Item 4, “Using an iPod is more convenient than going to the Lab,” indicate that students appreciated having a mini-lab in their pocket. Almost 74% strongly agreed that having an iPod is more convenient than going to the lab to do their assignments, another 15.2% moderately agreed, bringing the number of participants consenting on this point to almost 90%. However, when looking at these percentages we should keep in mind that the iPod assignments provided students with a very structured experience that also had the lure of novelty and excitement. Would these numbers keep up when the iPod became an everyday tool and the magic wore off?



77.3% of our participants strongly or moderately agreed with Item 5, “I enjoyed doing my listening exercises with the iPod.” This remains a very good result, since we suspect that there are always students who do not enjoy doing listening exercises at all, no matter how they are presented to them.



Item 6, “I enjoyed doing recordings with the iPod,” presented us with a similar result as Item 5 above. 75% of respondents enjoyed doing their recordings freed from the constraints of the computer lab or other recording devices.



67% of all students responded affirmatively to Item 7, “Having the iPod motivated me to spend more time on my listening/speaking activities.” The emphasis here was on spending more time. 67.7% is a fairly positive response, but considering “economies of scale,” namely setup time and price tag for the technology, we would have liked to see a much bigger percentage in order to justify the increased expense of time and funds.



Only 52.9% of our respondents agreed with Item 8, “Access to an iPod increased my knowledge of the target language.” 38% responded “neutral.” As alluded to at an earlier point, this question might not have been well-chosen since the projects and assignments for this particular study were very limited in time. A longitudinal study that would follow students for a semester or a whole year might actually produce better results, or prove that once the magic and novelty wears off, the iPod will be as effective or ignored as other instruments for language learning.



Item 9, “Given the chance, I would use the iPod on a regular basis,” is another question were the answer seemed predictable. 77.8% of respondents agreed, 53.8 of those strongly.



Item 10, “I had trouble figuring out how to use the iPod correctly,” dealt with the mechanics of getting the technology to perform. Although we introduced the iPod in class, gave everybody a chance to try it out on the spot, provided a concise 1-page manual for later reference, and instructed students that the lab assistants in the Language Resource Center could help in case of malfunction, 24 students still reported that they had trouble getting the iPod to work properly, which amounted to about 20% of all participants. The iTalk recorder had a tendency to freeze up, but a restart quickly solved the problem (a procedure that was explained in the iPod-instructions). We noticed that some students opted to do their recordings at the very last minute, so we suspect that the troubled ones were also the ones that procrastinated and then started to panic when the recording function would not work for them. More (or sufficient) training is definitely a requirement for the success of any kind of technology in learning.



Item 11, “I am planning on taking additional non-required language classes,” was included in order to see whether the more motivated, continuing students would also be the ones that would enjoy dabbling in technology, or, vice versa, would enjoy trying out the iPods and other kinds of technology because they were interested in languages and everything that would help them increase their knowledge and capabilities. However, we could not discover a direct correlation.


Figures 22 & 23: Benefit and Enjoyment

The last two items were binomial yes/no questions: “Overall, did you benefit from the project work with the iPod?” and “Do you enjoy the class you are currently taking?”

We can see highly affirmative results, but also a certain percentage of naysayers in both cases. These two questions helped shed an interesting light on our participants: 4% did not enjoy the classes they were taking, 9% did not feel they benefited from working with an iPod.


Figure 24: Study Aids

Particularly informative were the answers to our question regarding which materials and study aids students mostly use for studying a language. Students could check all options that applied to them. Surprisingly, 89.9% of our participants mostly used their textbooks for studying, 42% used the internet (although it is not quite clear what they did exactly: interactive exercises, listening to audio, watching video, doing research on cultural topics?). Almost a quarter of our students (22.7%) worked with a human tutor, which meant they would either pay someone on the side or make use of one of the LRC’s “wireless” tutors for help and personalized instruction (Waltje, 2004). In the “Other” section a handful of students also mentioned their use of personal notes and the formation of study groups with classmates. What scored very low were the materials that instructors clamor for and about which textbook publishers complain that they are driving up the prices: publisher’s websites and the CD Roms that come bundled with language textbooks receive very little use (5.9% and 16% respectively).

Conclusions

In our research for this article we found that there is a dearth of studies concerning the use of iPods and other mobile devices as instruments for language learning. There is certainly a lot of buzz at conferences and around water coolers in teacher’s lounges; portable devices are hailed as the next big step toward learner-centered education and are considered empowering, engaging, and motivational. They are perceived to help students take ownership of their language-learning and to produce a higher comfort level. It seems, though, that these are mainly unsubstantiated assumptions and possible aftereffects of Apple’s on-going promotion of its iTunes University program or the efforts by Duke University, Georgia College & State University, and New York City’s Brearley School, which generated headlines after they distributed iPods either for free or on loan to their student bodies (Blaisdell, 2004; Carlson, 2004; McQuillan, 2006; Read, 2006; Young, 2005). Our results show that overall students appreciate quick and unrestricted access to their learning materials. They seem to prefer a “mobile mini-lab” to making the detour to the language lab. But our survey also brought out that students are not necessarily willing to spend much time on learning how the technology works. “I couldn’t get the recorder to work,” or “The thing kept freezing up on me!” may serve as a convenient excuse not to do the assignment. Most importantly, what became very clear in the course of our project is that if a language program would like to implement the use of iPods on a larger scale it would be absolutely necessary to provide students with their own iPods. The biggest obstacle from an administrative point of view is the maintenance of the


devices. Pre-loading the iPods, delivering them, explaining their use, collecting them at the end of the loan period, and lastly retrieving the recorded files turned out to be very time consuming. Setup costs could be avoided or cut down upon considerably by mandating that students buy their own iPod or get it for at least a quarter/semester on loan, so that they can indeed take full ownership both of their learning and of the equipment. They still would need to receive initial training but then could be made responsible for up- and downloading their files and assignments.

Furthermore, it would require instructors to be well versed not only in how to use the technology but also how to implement it efficiently in their classes. Hoven (2006) points out that since educators move toward offering “an increasing range and variety of online, technology-mediated, and self-access language-learning materials, it is important to remember and consider the needs of learners in actually utilizing these materials.” It cannot be stressed enough that technology in itself is not a panacea as some hard-core proponents and administrators would like us to believe. Integration, adaptation, and preparation are a must. Why embark on convoluted projects if they are neither designed nor perceived as beneficial for the student? Too often educators are putting the cart before the horse; they get enamored with a certain type of technology and the bells and whistles that come with it and then try to create a use for it. We tend to forget the fact that often there are easier ways to achieve some of our goals and objectives. Our students, however, are not easily duped or blinded: uninspired teaching will not be counter-balanced by a half-baked use of technology.

As Peckham (2008) rightfully stresses:

In order to make any of the materials you choose work, they have to directly support, enhance or extend what the teacher is doing in class and what students are expected to show when they are tested. This does not mean that they must contain testing materials, but rather that students have some confidence of their tutorial function.

By now there is a new generation of iPods available which includes video playback, and more and more colleges are getting into the business of providing podcasts and vodcasts of lectures for download immediately after the live event. This, however, conjures up another equine comparison: We can lead the horses to the water, but we cannot make them drink. Our capability of providing a plethora of materials online or via other technological means (down to the point where students do not have to attend class ever again) does not mean that students will, indeed, be using these materials judiciously and take ownership of their own learning. What our survey brought to light is that textbooks are still the most widely used study aids, whereas the technological ancillaries, which students have to pay for dearly, are orphaned at the end of the usage scale. We deceive ourselves if we believe that the next technological gadget will solve all our teaching and learning problems. Without proper faculty training on how to embed or integrate these technologies into our pedagogy to make them a pivotal and indispensable part of our classes we will keep spending time and money on creating activities that lastly are not effective, are loathed by our students, and ultimately may have a detrimental effect on student motivation and learning.

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to their student assistants Cara McCoy and Renée Brenneman for their patience and diligence. We also wish to thank our colleagues Chris Coski, Scott Jarvis, Art Oesterreich, Bärbel Such, and Julian Turner who invited us into their classrooms. And a Dankeschön to Greg Kessler who offered comments and insights over the course of this project as well as to Ariana Bostian-Kentes for her keen editorial eye.


Appendices

I. Sample Assignments

• German: interviewing a native speaker, listening to pop songs, interviewing fellow students (using wo-compounds), interviewing fictional characters, listening to cabaret songs from the 1920s and performing a creative response to them

• ESL classes: listening to lectures, “vocab preparation” and “answer check.” Creating a short spoken journal. Listening to their teacher’s “corrected form” of their monologues

• French: Oral Exam • Spanish: Listening to and talking about Chilenian folklore

Projects including audio samples:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sathe/ML250podcasts/15fragen.htm

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sathe/sbg07/audio.htm

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sathe/presentations/soundideasACTFL07.htm

II. Student Comments

FRENCH

• Using the iPod took away the pressures of face to face oral exams. • The iPods were nice… but in a time when the university is hurting for money, I’m going to need a

more substantial use for a $ 250 gadget. • I think the iPods are really fun and more convenient than going to the lab… • I thought that using the iPod was ridiculous. It took more time to explain how to use it than it

would have taken to complete the exams orally in class.

SPANISH

• The iPod was awesome, it gave me a chance to really focus on the listening assignments and figure out what he was saying.

• I don’t like iPods, so this assignment was tedious for me. • I found the Griffin talk thing was useful in learning vocabulary.

GERMAN

• I thought it was great when we could listen to German songs as we walked around. • I really liked the iPod exercise. I wish I had one of my own. • Loved the pop songs, got me thinking in German and motivated me to study more. • The iPod was a handy, compact way to learn. I have had problems with my CDs in the past and it

was very frustrating. This was much easier. • They were fun to use, but the amount of time it took to figure out how the programs worked would

be better over a longer period of time…

LINGUISTICS

• Excellent possibilities for collecting raw data in the field.


• I thought the iPod would be scary, but it was really easy to use. It would be a really good tool to use in all language learning, but only if people are comfortable with it.

• I really disliked how you couldn’t rewind and rerecord like on a tape recorder or video camera.

III. Faculty Feedback

• ESL: The ability to create voice recordings was very appealing to the students … They became much more aware of pronunciation and worked towards improvements … The quality of their pronunciation improved dramatically through the ability to individualize assignments both for speaking and listening.

• LINGUISTICS: limited usefulness for my Pedagogical Phonology course. I think that in the future, instead of iPods to record language samples with, I would use them just for listening: (a) language listening practice, (b) language listening tests, and (c) SPEAK test raters listening to and rating examinees.

• GERMAN: it forced students to think about the topic in new, creative ways and to incorporate ideas in a new context. Even the weaker students put a lot of effort into this and had fun with it… Use of the ipods in the conv/comp class (211) was productive, but the results were less consistent. It was too easy for a lot of students to slack off on it. It did however, work to get students more aware of and interested in German language pop [music], which certainly boosted motivation.

References

Apple Education: Profiles in Success (n.d.). iPod Personalizes Language Learning. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/brearley/

Blaisdell, M. (2004). iPods at the Gate. Campus Technology (November 2004), 38-43. Also at http://campustechnology.com/articles/40011/

Carlson, S. (2004). Duke U. Will Give iPod Music Players to All Freshmen. Chronicle of Higher Education 50 (47), A21. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i47/47a02101.htm

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Godwin-Jones, B. (2005). Emerging Technologies: Skype and Podcasting: Disruptive Technologies. Language Learning and Technology, 9 (3), 9-12. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/emerging/default.html

Hoven, D. (2006). Communicating and Interacting: An Exploration of the Changing Roles of Media in CALL/CMC. CALICO Journal, 23 (2). 233-256.

McQuillan, J. (2006). iPod in Education: The Potential for Language Acquisition. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://e2t2.binghamton.edu/pdfs/iPod_Lang_Acquisition_whitepaper.pdf

Peckham, R. D. (2008, May 28). Rosetta Stone / Pimsleur [#8854.4]. Message posted to http://listserv.dartmouth.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0805D&L=LLTI&T=0&F=&S=&P=5047

Read, B. (2006). Duke stops giving students free iPods but will continue using them in classes. Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (36), A39 . Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i36/36a03901.htm


Waltje, J. (2004). Wireless Tutoring Forums: A New Concept for Student-engaged Learning. In: Lomicka, Lara et al. Teaching with Technology (Heinle Professional Series). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. 71-78.

Young, J. R. (2005). Stanford U Makes Podcasts of Lectures Available Through Apple’s iTunes. Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (11), A44 . Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i11/11a04402.htm

Zhao,Y. (2005). Technology and second language learning: Promises and problems. Oakland, CA: University of California Office of the President (UCOP). Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.ucop.edu/elltech/zhaopaper011505.pdf

volume 4, number 2 edited by: karen swan alison bland

Documents