Rethinking the CMS And Audio Lab: The Online Audio Lab

1
Rethinking the CMS (And Audio Lab) The Online
Audio Lab

• Greg Kessler
• Ohio University

2
Audio Lab

• In Conjunction with Computer Labs/Resources
• Shared (Linguistics, Modern languages, IEP)
• ALM - Textbook-based materials
• Testing
• Sony 9000 (1998)
• Limited hours
• Limited resources
• Student discomfort
• Analog equipment
• Largely unused (in shift to communicative
  teaching)
• Digital laptop lab (2005)
• Audacity
• Skype
• iTunes

3
Content/Delivery Developments

• ALEX Digital Video Server (isolated to building)
• Only Audio and Video
• Limited storage
• Never fully integrated (Partly due to analog lab)
• Portable Audio/Video Material
• Online listening materials
• Streaming media server
• Class/activity podcasts
• External podcasts (ESL and Authentic)
• Teacher created materials
• Student created materials
• Commercial materials
• Cultural informants
• Mp3 Players

4
Course Management Systems (CMS)

• Benefits
• Login
• Records and tracking
• Variety of Integrated Functionality (particularly
  in modular Open source alternatives)
• Simple and Dynamic Content and Link Creation
• Problems
• Course Specific /Term by Term
• Faculty Buy-in
• Student / Faculty Expectations
• Low use/high cost
• Faculty use generallyLimited toCourse documents
  (generally syllabi and assignments),Gradebook
  Slight use of CMC (Forums, discussion boards)

5
Traditional Web Sites

• Beneftis
• Universal Access
• Problems
• Static
• Manually Updated Information
• Primarily One-Way Information Flow

6
The Online Audio Lab
7
Interaction in the Audio Lab
Published Materials

• Teacher

8
Interaction in the Online Audio Lab
Published Materials Guest speakers (Near and
far) Web-forum Student-created Materials

• Other
• Students
• Teacher
• Teacher
• Created
• Materials
• RSS Feed
• Podcasts

Glossary
9
Online Audio Lab

• Benefits
• Benefits of CMS without being course specific
• No dedicated space needed
• No university-owned equipment needed
• Students participate more better
• Dynamic resources
• Asynchronous resources (e.g.Tutoring)
• Logs
• Access during session breaks

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Preliminary Feedback

• Students find use easy (and feel they are likely
  to use materials more as a result)
• Students find RSS Feeds Provide extensive
  opportunity for input
• Students demonstrate higher comfort level/lower
  anxiety
• ITA students find flexibility (not having to
  cross campus to visit lab) helpful
• Exchange of digital files easier for both
  students and teachers
• No broken tapes
• No need to meet f2f to exchange files
• Challenges
• Overcoming faculty technophobia/resistence

21
Ongoing Research

• Do students learn equally well using this
  alternative?
• Are students as engaged with the material?
• What are the implications of student-produced
  media?
• Do students use this alternative more than
  traditional lab?
• Is there a qualitative difference in the work
  students do when working on these portable
  devices as opposed to the centralized audio lab?
• What is the attitude of faculty toward such
  alternatives?
• What does it take to bring faculty on board?

22
Thanks

• Ppt available at
• http//gregling.net/calico2007b