Academic Exchange Quarterly
Winter 2010 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 14,
Issue 4
To
cite, use print source rather than this on-line version which may
not reflect print copy
format requirements or text
lay-out and pagination.
|
This
article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale
without author's explicit permission. Anyone may view, reproduce or store
copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the
"Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright
law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may
impose usage fee.. See also |
Academic
podcasts: The student perspective
Mark
G. Urtel, IUPUI, Indianapolis, IN
Urtel, Ed.D.,
Assistant Professor of Physical Education; chairs the campus program review and
assessment committee
Academic podcasts: The student
perspective
Abstract
Higher Education faculty members
continue to search for ways to connect the technology student’s use in their recreational time to what they will use during their academic time. The
current project (N = 170) surveyed students to determine their perception and
use of academic podcasts as assigned in a course that meets face-to-face. Cross-tabulations were completed to determine
how recreational download history impacts download rates of course-based broadcasts. Preliminary findings suggest students do
listen to academic podcasts; yet, much differently than they do recreational podcasts.
Introduction
With the sudden and vast emergence of podcasting
as a teaching and learning tool in higher education today, there has been a
comparable rise in the scholarly inquiry of this particular learning technology
(Tripp, DuVall, Cowan and Kamauu, 2006).
Subsequently, there are equivocal findings as to student usage rates and
effectiveness to enhance learning (Griffin, Mitchell, & Thompson, 2009;
Hew, 2009).
For instance, some early researchers
speculated that availing academic podcasts to students would stunt or slow
course attendance rates, however, as research is being completed this
hypothesis is not being supported (Bongey, Cizadlo, & Kalnback, 2006; Fernandez,
Simp, & Sallan, 2009; Parson, Reddy, Woody, & Senior, 2009; and
Williams & Bearman, 2008). Moreover,
it is becoming clear that faculty and students are viewing course based technology
broadcasts as an additional resource to face to face course delivery; not as a
substitute to attending class (Lonn & Teasley, 2009). In fact, students actually prefer attending
traditional lectures over listening to academic broadcasts (Griffin et al,
2009; Bongey et al, 2006).
Further evidence that the emerging
technology of course based broadcasts may be more attractive to faculty than
students relates to reported listening rates.
Williams and Bearman (2006) reported a 38% listening rate for assigned academic
podcasts. And, there still remain
important unanswered questions regarding the teaching and learning process and
how these broadcasts enhance or inhibit that interaction (Jham, Duraes,
Strassler, and Sensi, 2008). Subsequently,
some scholars speculate the portability of some (personal) listening devices
make mobile learning an attractive option for the current student (Hulsman,
2009). However, there have not been any definitive studies to address those
speculations. Therefore, given the
preliminary findings from current course-based broadcasting research and the
absence of any baseline information about student use and perception of
recreational podcasts, the research question How do
students use and view academic podcasts was developed.
Methods
Previously, academic podcasting was not
a utilized instructional technology of the course, yet the instructor wanted to
determine the extent to which students perceived and used these technology
course supplements. The academic podcasts
were downloadable from the course website and were linked to a particular
course reading and lecture, however, it is important to note, students could
have downloaded the broadcasts into many various formats and to many individual
listening devices. The podcasts were not
scripted lectures by the instructor; rather, the instructor sought out
national, regional, and local industry experts and interviewed them regarding
topics introduced in the reading and didactic course meetings. Therefore, the typical
lecture supplement broadcasts were between 15-20 minutes; with some exceeding
that duration.
The method of data collection was
through a survey. It is worthy to note that the survey was developed from the previously
administered Brittain, Glowacki, Van Ittersum, and Johnson (2006) survey; yet
also contained additional course-specific prompts for assessment by the course
instructor. The survey was piloted prior
to the current project and subsequently validated by both peer review (3
research experts with familiarity using survey research) and by content
validity (exploratory factor analysis).
Based on the pilot, a few changes were
made to the survey instrument and implementation. First, in relation to the actual survey
instrument, 3 items were eliminated as they presented themselves as outliers
and did not load significantly as compared to the other items. Second, the survey was offered only in a
summative fashion; as after the pilot (which included both formative and
summative surveys on student perception) there was not a significant difference
between responses of the formative and summative surveys and, most notably, students
commented clearly they felt over-surveyed.
This highly iterative pilot process
yielded a format which simply linked an academic podcast, to a course reading
and class lecture; which culminated into a quiz. This protocol was, subsequently, repeated for
the current project. More particularly, the
survey was administered to the students during the academic year (AY) 2009 upon
their completion of the corresponding course quiz; which was preceded by a
related lecture / chapter reading and linked broadcast.
The Institutional Review Board-approved,
post-pilot, survey contained both quantitative prompts and qualitative prompts
that included elements that reflect (a) how students downloaded the academic
podcast (b) where they listened to the course-based broadcast (if at all) (c)
when they listened as it related to course readings and (d) how they felt this
technology enhanced their learning from course assessments. For
the qualitative prompts, each statement was followed by a 5 point Likert-type
interval scale where 5 reflected strongly agree and 1 reflected strongly
disagree. The qualitative prompts were
followed by empty space for the respondent to write as much or as little as
they would like. Additionally, the
survey was able to elicit demographic information of the students as well as
experience with recreational downloads of podcasts, and how they would
recommend to faculty to create future broadcasts of interest to them.
Results
There were 170 subjects who responded to
the in-class survey. For data analysis,
respondents were stratified by recreational download
history. In that two
categories emerged, first (a) No / Low – which equated to students who
downloaded recreationally at a rate of once a month or less and (b) Yes / High
– which equated to students who downloaded recreationally at a rate of once a week
or more. Summing up, the No / Low group
equaled an N= 79, where the average participant completed about seven
recreational downloads in the last year (M=7.28, SD=2.13). Moreover, the Yes / High equaled an N= 91
where the average participant completed a little over seventeen downloads in
the past year (M=888; SD=1694). It is
important to note the range of downloads for the Yes/High group was 75-10,000
downloads during the last calendar year and should alleviate the concern of a
standard deviation exceeding an aggregated group mean.
Upon analyzing the data from the cohort
of surveyed students (again, N = 170) it was found that the surveyed cohort was
comprised of 12.4% freshmen, 45.3% sophomores, 34.1% juniors, and 8.2%
seniors. Additionally, in aggregate, the
download rate was 76.5% (so, 130 class members did download the course-based
broadcasts with 40 students not downloading these course supplements). Of the 23.5% that did not download/listen,
60% were from the Yes/High group and 40% from the No/Low group; again as it
related to their experience downloading recreational content.
Cross-tabulations were then completed to
determine interactions between class standing and
recreational download history and listening classification. It
was found that when class standing intersected
with recreational download history that sophomores of each recreational download group (Yes / High
& No / Low) were the most apt to not
download the podcast (41% and 50%, respectively) and freshmen
were the least apt to not download the podcast
(3.3% and 2.5%, respectively).When class standing intersected
with listening classification, 23.8% of
freshmen, 23.4% of sophomores, 22.4% of juniors, and 28.6% of seniors did not
listen to the course-based broadcast.
In regard to the 76.5% of the cohort
that listened to the academic podcasts, 63% did so before they
completed the chapter reading.
Cross-tabulations indicated, when stratifying recreational
download history by listening classification
that 75% of the No/Low group listened to the broadcast before completing
the reading and 64% of the Yes/High group listened to the podcast before completing the reading. Furthermore, sophomores overall, irrespective
of recreational download history, were the
least apt to listen before they read
the chapter (only 51% did) where 75% of juniors listened before
they completed the reading. When
layering recreational download history on this
particular cross-tabulation, then within both Yes/High and No/Low groups, sophomores
were the least apt to listen before they
read. However, for the Yes/High group
juniors were still the most apt to listen before they
read, but for the No/Low group seniors were the most apt to listen before they read (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively).
As it pertains to the location to which the students listened to the academic podcasts,
overall, 82% listened to the course supplement at home, 13% listened on campus,
and 5% listened while in transport (walking/public transportation/driving to
class).When factoring class standing and
recreational download history it was
found that there was no difference between location and recreational download history; as both groups listened to
the course-based broadcasts at home at high rates. Yet, sophomores in both the Yes/High and
No/Low groupings had the highest percentage of students listening while in transport; 8.4% and 6.7% in that particular order.
Moreover, as it pertains to how the students listened to the academic podcasts, 88%
listened using a desktop or laptop and 12% listened to the academic podcast on
a personal listening device (Zen, iPod, etc).
When factoring in recreation download
history those in the No/Low group used a desktop / laptop as opposed
to a personal listening device at a rate of 93.9% versus 6.1%. For the Yes/High group, 83.1% used a
desktop/laptop and 16.9% used a personal listening device. There were no major differences of device
used by class standing; in aggregate or by recreational download history.
Table 1 indicates that no statistically
significant differences exist between the two groups as it related to the
eight-item, pre-validated, survey regarding the use and effectiveness of
academic podcasts. [Table ONE]
The survey concluded with a prompt for open
ended comments about this particular learning technology of the course. The focus was to speak about topics not
evident in the survey. Analysis from the
student-generated comments revealed two unmistakable themes. First, students indicated (a) I sign up for an in-person class for a reason and (b) I get easily distracted while listening to a podcast for class.
Conclusion
In particular, it was found that the
usage rate of academic podcasts for the current project was about 76.5%; and
this appears to exceed previously reported listening rates that were well below
50%. Moreover, it appears there are two
distinct types of learners in higher education today, those with a history of
downloading recreational material and those that appear somewhat impervious to
that type of technology.
Notably, however, there does not appear
to be a relationship between recreational download history and academic
download listening rate as the largest group of non-listeners toward the broadcasts
had the largest recreational download history.
Perhaps students with high recreational download rates are either too
busy to academically download or simply find course-based broadcasts not as
attractive as what they can recreationally download. Conversely, for non-recreational downloaders,
academic podcasting could be novel enough to stimulate involvement.
Additionally when looking at class standing, while sophomores represented the largest
enrolled demographic they also ended up representing (by percentages) the group
that had the highest non-listening
rate; with freshmen and seniors having the highest listening
rates. Yet, overall, each class
standing, irrespective of recreational download history, had non-listener rates
in the twenty-percentages (22.4%-28.6%)
Somewhat
surprising were the findings that indicated where listening
took place and how listening occurred. Earlier cited scholars speculate students
will listen to course-based materials while in transport and,
moreover, on their own personal device. And for recreational use that does appear
quite reasonable, yet, as it relates to academic podcasts, it was clear
students did not listen to them while travelling to school on their own
personal listening device. In fact, it
appears students listen to course-based broadcasts at home or in the campus
library; with the locations representing being in transport
very rare (~5%).
Moreover,
the use of a personal listening device proved to be a minor tool to use for the
academic podcast. For listeners with a
low recreational download history, having the podcast be easily downloadable to
a personal device was not a high priority, at all (6.1%). For listeners with a higher recreational
download history, personal listening devices were slightly more popular as an
option (16.9%).
It
appears that keeping academic podcasts accessible to multiple forms of play
back, including desktop / laptop and personal listening device is smart. And to expect students to listen to an
academic podcast while in transport may
be a bit overzealous.
Finally,
as evidenced in table 1, there were no significant differences between the two
groups (again, as defined by recreational download history) as it related to
their general thoughts on academic podcasting.
More specifically, each group held similarly strong beliefs that this
technology is a helpful supplement to a class.
Also, the two groups shared a tempered view of taking a future course
that used this particular technology as the prime mode of delivery. Moreover, there was a shared notion that it
is not necessary to assign weekly course-based technology supplements to each
reading assignment. It also appears
there is shared belief that upcoming academic podcasts will be listened to on a
desktop or laptop and not necessarily on a personal listening device. Finally, each group shared a strong feeling
and had the highest positive response to limiting podcasts to 10-15 minutes in
duration.
Summing
up, in light of the limitations of this study, there are a few remarkable
findings regarding student perception toward academic podcasts. First, the location of listening tended to be
at home or on-campus; neither suggests listening to course-based broadcasts will
occur in transport to class or work; as a mobile learning technology. Second, personal (mobile) listening devices
are still relatively unpopular as the medium to which to listen to an academic
podcast. Clearly, for highly experienced
recreational downloaders this is to be expected because they already have the
device. But for novel and less
accomplished learners, it appears using a laptop or desktop is the more
practical alternative. Knowing these
potential realities can help to inform faculty and end-users alike of the best
way to utilize and approach technology so it enhances student engagement and facilitates
the teaching and learning process.
References
Bongey,
S.B., Cizadlo, G., and Kalnbach,
L. (2006). Explorations in course-casting: podcasts in higher education. Campus-wide Information
Systems, 23(5), 350 (12 electronic pages).
Brittain,
S., Glowacki, P., Van Ittersum,
J., and Johnson, L. (2006).Podcasting Lectures. Educause Quarterly, 29(3), 24-31.
Fernandez, V., Simp,
P., and Sallan, J.M. (2009). Podcasting: A new
technological tool to
facilitate
good practice in higher education. Computers and Education, 53(2),
385-392.
Griffin, D.K., Mitchell, D., and
Thompson, S.J. (2009). Podcasting by synchronizing powerpoint and voice: what are
the pedagogical benefits? Computers and Education, 53(2), 532-539.
Hulsmann,
T. (2009).Book Review [Review of the book Podcasting for learning in
universities],
Distance Education, 30(3), 451-458.
Hew, K.F. (2009). Use of audio podcast
in K-12 and higher education: a review of research topics and methodologies. Education
Technology Research Development, 57, 333-357.
Jham,
B.C., Duraes, G.V., Strassler,
H.E., and Sensi, L.G. (2008).Joining the
podcast
revolution. Journal
of Dental Education, 72 (3), 278-281.
Lonn,
S. and Teasley, S.D. (2009). Podcasting in higher
education: What are the implications for teaching
and learning? Internet and Higher Education, 12(2),
88-92.
Parson, V., Reddy, P., Wood, J., and
Senior, C. (2009) Educating an iPod generation:
undergraduate attitudes, experiences, and understanding of vodcast and podcast use. Learning,
Media, and Technology, 34(3), 251-218.
Tripp, J.S., DuVall,
S.L., Cowen, D.L., Kamauu, W.C., and Eccles, S.S.
(2006) Academic
podcasting: Quality media
delivery. A paper
presented at the 2006 AMIA Symposium,
Washington, DC.
Williams, B. and Bearman,
M. (2008). Podcasting Lectures: the next
silver bullet? Journal of Emergency
Primary Health Care, 6(3), obtained electronically at www.jephc.com
on 7/14/09.