Are podcasts inferior to text?

Podcasts maybe inferior to to text, such as note taking, or skimming, but I have found that if I am having problems with a lesson, then just listening to the podcast even in the background can make the lesson less daunting, e.g. chatting online, after several listens (i wasn't really listening) I went back to the text and it was a easier lesson to study. I think it depends on what you are listening to, as there are a variety of podcasts available, some are music, discussion, Chinesepod.... I think she had a good idea but not a good blog.

Yeh.. I was meaning more like a podcasts but as video instead. ie. VIDEOcast and then incorporating some sort of online text-based counterpart like here at ChinesePOD.

light487, actually video with textbooks is being used. I know for a fact that the New Practical Chinese Reader (my textbook) series has video of its lesson dialogs, and I'm fairly certain other do as well.

Of course being tied a written text and having to go through the extra cost of a video production means that the material is necessarily more static than the podcast medium. Also, again being tied to a textbook, subjects are not as edgy (e.g. Korean transvestites) as Cpod. Still, as Jenny said above, each medium has its advantages and, if used properly, one complements the other.

Text will never, by itself, be able to speak for itself.

It doesn't matter how much explanation on the pronunciation of a given word is given via text, hearing it spoken by a person in its true form will always be more beneficial in understanding how it is pronounced.

A PODcast can not only pronounce itself but can also read from a classical textbook if required. The best of both worlds would of course be videocast with textbooks to back it up.

PODCast provides the spoken portion of a standard classroom. Text provides the theory or a standard classroom. It is the combination of the two that is important and they should not be judged separately unless the sole purpose of them is to be used separately. The PODcasts frequently point to ChinesePOD.com to access the text associated with the lesson(s) as a partnership to the PODcast itself.

AuntySue, that hilarious!

Podcasts are relatively "new" as an educational tool so I think there is yet to be some serious studies about it. However, I did a quick literature search and found that there was a recent article written about a small study conducted on about 200 university first level students. The article concludes on a fairly positive note indicating the receptiveness of students as well as the potential to leverage off the flexibility of how, when and where the content is delivered.

The name of the article is: Evans, C. (2007). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education, Computers & Education, In Press, Corrected Proof, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.016.

The author is Chris Evans, a senior lecturer and research at Brunel University. His webpage is: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/bbs/bbsstaff/bm_staff/ChrisEvans

Swap out "podcast" and replace with "lecture"

http://www.WeLearn.com.au/parody.html

I wonder how many of the same educators would weigh in behind this one. :-)

You could just about do the same trick with "classroom lessons."

The whole argument is flawed and many responses not well considered.

I agree with all the points that podcasts and other forms of teaching should be viewed as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. This is especially true if one considers this in the context of language learning.

I am not an education expert but I have heard many of my colleagues mention that different people prefer to process information in different ways such as auditory and visual. So, the option of podcast can possibly help cater to those who may prefer the auditory flow of information.

With respect to the comment about "novelty / entertainment" factor when "slickly" produced, I am uncertain what Professor Neal is implying here. Is she concerned that "slick" production might devalue or otherwise denigrate the formal university teaching environment? (I'm not sure whether this is what she implies, just guessing here). In any event, the entertainment factor might well encourage a higher frequency of learning by making the process more enjoyable and I don't see what the problem is with that.

There is a sidenote to all this. In the university environment, there has suddenly been an influx of new methods of teaching and learning. Depending on the class, there may be the pressure to suddenly provide students with all sorts of media. This can range from requests to record lectures, provide Powerpoint slide lectures with animations, have a course website with discussion forums, respond to student email questions, and yes, to have podcasts of the lecture and more. Unless it is a large course with many instructors, such an undertaking would often be too much for just one professor. As such, the professor may have to be more efficient and settle on only certain media for teaching. In some case, the professor might want to explain why he/she has settled on certain types of media. In those cases, one might well expect the professor to also explain why he/she thinks certain methods are better than others (since the complementary approach may not be practically feasible).

I'm not sure if that had anything to do with Professor Neal's article but I do know some professors who feel that way.

Having said that, I'm hoping to use podcasts in my own teaching because I've really found Chinesepod to be inspiring.

I study Chinese with a teacher and use books as well. However, Chinesepod makes it fun with the integrated approach and I find myself studying more than I would have. So, I'm all for the "slick" and entertaining approach. Learning is supposed to be fun!

@henning, your last point is where I think podcasts (when listened to while driving) are inferior to text (when read while in bed), as I tend to close my eyes when listening to them :-(

It is all about media richness. Exploiting all those nifty ROM routines for parallel signal processing that we all equipped with. Audio can transfer much more information than text - and it can come with much more emotion to directly hook it right into memory.

Think about it. In one podcast you can learn

- vocab and grammar,

- some math formula,

- cultural background (that you get a much better feeling for if you hear those voices),

- and some clues on the latest developement of an ongoing romantic epic (either between fictional characters, the hosts, or something in between - QW style...)

Besides: How do you a slo-mo for tone practice on paper?

And after a long day reading, reading, reading (mostly at a computer, sometimes with paper) my eyes are tired. With a podcast I can rest those eyes.

another observation as I drove in to work this morning... I could easily list a few reaons why [captivating / stimulating] Podcasts Are Superior to [boring / abstruse] Text

Wow. The Big Brain certainly unpacked this one. Great observations! I'll write a blog post on this later today.

I feel it is a misguided argument. Text books and podcasts are two things that could brilliantly complement each other for the benefit of the learner. They shouldn't be made adversarial. Like Ken says, your medium is your message. Understand the medium and use it to convey what it best conveys.

I suspect that when she says "podcast" she's only thinking in terms of the audio component on an iPod, not the rest of the tools on the internet that can accompany that. That seems pretty short sighted for an 'educator'.

I can't add any more to what was so well laid out in just the first few posts.

I hope, Ken, that in your response to her that you include those responses.

I have a learning disability and I'm VERY slow. :( Having this variety and my own pace - which I wish was MORE than my own pace! - is what has ALLOWED me to try "learning" again. Everything else was just too frustrating.

THANK YOU ALL, Cpod.

You can always glean a few words from a podcast while reading a book or cooking. We don't always have to be studying, do we?

mikeinewshot, I think you are right. Neither she or any of the commenters mentioned language learning. I also got the impression the article was only thrown out to solicit discussion and foster publicity, Kind of like what Ken did here.

@mikeinewshot: OK, but maybe she should have been a bit more clear about what type of podcasts she was talking about.

And I still think she was wrong - with history, you'd learn more from two people having an intelligent discussion than from reading a boring textbook. Saying that, I do think textbooks still play an important role in education.

I have not ploughed through all of the above posts but I wonder whether something has been missed here.

I dont think she is talking about LANGUAGE podcasts but podcasts to learn other stuff (like Physics, History ...). Listening to History lectures does not help your History per se, but listening to Chinespod does help Chinese!

What a load of trash! I can see that what she's saying might be applicable if you were comparing a complicated math textbook and a math podcast, for example, but to generalize and say that podcasts are always inferior to text is very naive.

Take Chinese - no way is it easier to learn by looking at books - you have to hear it out loud and repeat it to yourself to get it fully engrained in your memory.

And Point 7 just makes me think the author of that post is a boring woman who enjoys being stressed and depressed reading books in silence all day long. I've seen several studies suggesting that you learn much better when you're having fun - I know from experience that it works for me. Also, the more fun you have, the more likely you are to want to pursue the subject further.

The main reason I love CPod so much is that I really enjoy listening to Ken, Jenny and John's banter while learning Mandarin in the process. And I think the popularity of CPod shows that the Cpod method works.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

Oh, those typos/ errors:

"enjoying vidcasts"; "listening to them"; "It might help"; "someone sweeping a grave"

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.