Are podcasts inferior to text?

I think she makes some very good points regarding the defficiencies of podcasts. However, she doesn't quite balance her point of view with the potential learning benefits. Since podcasting is a relatively new phenomenon, as the quality of podcasts improve over time we will eventually see if they take the place of (or join) more traditional forms of learning. Personally, I don't like the idea of placing text in the ring versus podcasts because both offer different benefits. It seems analogous to comparing the virtues of vitamin D with vitamin C--they're both good for you so creating a scenario where they ought to battle it out is absurd.

The more I skim this article, the more I am disgusted.

I am amazed that s.o. would make such blunt statements without any context whatsoever, 'Ten Reasons Why Podcasts are Inferior to Text' - full stop/period. It's all there, and she could equally have given 'Ten Reasons Why Text are Inferior to Lectures'. But for what? Oh, 'Ten reasons podcasts don’t work for education'. We could also find 'Ten reasons classrooms don’t work for education', or students even. Sure, none of them work for education, only teachers do :-) But seriously, I agree, in general, none of them *alone* will work, but there are many areas in which they are tremendously helpful, and language education certainly is one area they're at their best.

I agree, it misses the point entirely, and i think her 10 reasons are rather poor (she could have written her point in maybe 5 reasons easily, 10 just sounds better ;-)). With point 10. she mades her own point 1. useless..if learning takes time..Why should it be better then, that reading a text is faster than listening to its postcast version (where someone gives helpful and interseting backgroundinformation to understand new patterns and words!) 2. 3. and 6. are, in my opinion, referring to a wrong kind of usage of podcast lessons ... i dont know for other users, but i take my lessons to work or everywhere and listen them over and over again, maybe one is so smart to remember every new word and pattern by listening one time very concentrated..i am not. so no matter if i dont get 5 minutes of a podcast when someone made any noise..i'll get it another time... same for very challenging lessons...sometimes after listening 3rd time i realize that i understand quite a lot of the chinese conversation between the teachers ...when i first thought i wouldn‘t understand at all...(and this is so motivating!). I wont go through every point because I also agree with wildyaks, its yust so different...! And its nothing to compare...you can't learn without reading texts and you have to listen to the language you like to learn... And, at least in chinesePod, there IS a text to every lesson, even on your iPod you can look at the lesson text quickly if you like to see the words. (i think there are very rare lessons in chinesepod where Ken, Jenny or John are NOT asking you to consolidate what you listened to by looking it up in the net ;-)) I go to chinese lessons and read texts with my teacher...and she is so very happy about the progress i made during the last month learning with chinesepod in addition to the learning i did before!! And one thing about the fun part (7.): I found myself beeing BEST in new vocabularys of lessons where i had MOST FUN listening!! If you have fun doing something, you will spent more time doing it - you will study more! Why not be entertained! Thats why i am a Ken-Fan!! 格桑

Lots of excellent points here. I find Dave's vitamins analogy particularly effective.

I found this list pretty amusing when I read it. Amusing that it came from the editor in chief of a learning magazine, and an internet-based one at that. It's like she was racking her brain to come up with any reason that podcasts are inferior. And some of them just plain don't make sense, like: "Most people, when driving, working out, etc., do not have the concentration to stay focused on an educational podcast." I certainly hope she's not suggesting that people read text while driving, working out, etc.!! I agree with Gesang...one of the beauties of CPod (and podcasts in general) is that the combination of a podcast and text is far superior than using just one teaching medium. The more senses you can involve, the better.

I think that podcasts are inferior to vidcasts ;-) I am currently very much enjoying vidcast on diverse topics from a number of universities. You have math lectures with professors writing formulas on a blackboard which I wouldn't see let alone understand just listening to him talking. With Chinesepod I don't need to see Ken, Jenny, John and the people doing the actual lesson piece whilst they are talking away. I might help seeing some sweeping a grave when talking about it, but it also distracts from figuring out the meaning to remember the words, the pronuncation etc. With visuals understanding what is going on sometimes gets too easy. I am grateful, though, for the lyrics providing the lesson text.

Oh, those typos/ errors: "enjoying vidcasts"; "listening to them"; "It might help"; "someone sweeping a grave"

Thanks Ken. Let us know when you respond to her post. I'd like to hear your take on it.

I think she does not have language learning in mind when she says "podcasts for education". I agree that her arguments are not valid for language learning and certain other topics, but if you consider an educational podcast for, say, traditional and boring high school subjects like, history, physics, maths, geography, etc , her points actually make a lot of sense. So I really wonder what kind of topics she hand in mind when she wrote that article. But overall I also think that her article is very weak and one-sided/biased.

There just so different learning tools. As Dave says both have their value. She is right that podcast do not require the same kind of concentration. They also don't train the same skills as texts. I moved from texts to podcasts, because I want to work on my listening comprehension. Living in China I got so used to tune myself out, to not listen anymore and just let language wash over me. It's become a bad habit and podcast help me to focus on active listening again. Texts could not do that. Texts help me in the acquisition of characters, though.

The only real question I have in regard to her statement is, "Learning what?" If you want to learn how to read or parse the grammar, text beats podcasts. If you want to learn how to listen to conversation, podcasts beat text. If you have a premium subscription, you have both. Beat that. In regards to videocasts (is that a word), mentioned by Joachim above, I like them because they give visual clues to the conversation, thereby helping you pick up conversation via visual context. However, the true test is whether or not you can understand the conversation without the visual clues.

As with most things, of course it depends. Recorded lectures or podcasts can indeed be as effective reading a book for some subjects. As interesting as it is, I certainly could not learn Hamiltonian Mechanics from a podcast. Nor could I learn another language without the audio component. I don't know of any good teacher who only has one tool for delivering content.

sebastian, I don't agree with your point about "traditional and boring high school subjects like, history, physics, maths, geography, etc;" For many years before podcasts we had radio programs, still do in Europe, on a variety of topics, some in quite some depth (not just news or lectures). And while they don't have to be the single source of learning, I find they can be of tremendous value for education, if well made and properly introduced, contextualized etc.

Goulniky, i agree with your point. But I was thinking more about podcasts where people read textbook contents aloud.

... because the author of that article seems to assume that this is what educational podcasts are.

Well, as usual I think I will end up repeating many of the good points already made. Like many of you, I found the article to be a little amusing. I laughed out loud at point 7, to which my only reply would be, "So what!" I love to read good history books because I find them entertaining - it doesn't mean I'm not learning! In a word, that criticism is ridiculous. Part of point 4 is a bit silly as well, copying and pasting text does nothing for learning. Goulniky and Gesang both made good points by noting that the article is a bit slick in its presentation as well as redundant in its content. I immediately noticed several points were identical: text is faster - as if speed equates to absorption (if only). In my experience, burning through/skimming material leads to poor comprehension. Maybe I'm just a slow learner. I also found it's basic premise disturbing. Like Dave, I don't understand the need to single out the superiority of one learning tool over another. In fact, I found it depressing to hear this from an expert. Have educators learned nothing?! Different people learn best in different ways, and I strongly suspect everyone learns best when the material is presented in a variety of forms that compliment each other. Ken, before she brushes aside your criticism as coming from a "podcasting" site, make sure she understands the integrated approach Cpod uses. I just got done doing reading, listening, and character recognition exercises.

Oops - I meant I found its basic premise disturbing (not it's). Perhaps if I didn't study grammar and typing via podcast, I wouldn't make such mistakes.

I must admit that when looking at a lesson, I often just go to the dialogue section and read the text. If there is a part that I don't understand, I look at the vocabulary section and the PDF. But the article is rather amusing. Text cannot teach you how to speak and listen. It should be combined with a helpful podcast. I agree with scottyb - it is depressing.

As is the general opinion I think her argument is completely unfounded, especially with regards to language. However I believe that if she is refering to school (below 16 education) she may well have some points. I believe that due to the nature of most children podcasts would be too 'novelty' and distracting and deter from the effectiveness of purely concrete studying.