The idea of podcasting, video- and screencasting and live streaming is somewhat troubling to me. This explosion of “self-produce, homemade entertainment” is going to make navigating the web an even more difficult task. Strategies can be taught and learned for judging the credibility of websites, but I cannot see that to be true as far as podcasts and videocasts. In my frame of reference, these –casts are akin to radio and talk shows. With those traditional broadcasts, you either like them or you don’t. If you speak to the audience of the Oprah show, you will be told it is a good show because of X and that all others fail by comparison. If you speak to the audience of the Jerry Springer show, you will be told it is a good show because of X and that all others fail by comparison. Does content make a –cast better than another? Does the technical aspect of the production make a good –cast? Because these media seem so subjective, I don’t see a way to hold them to a particular standard. Because they are so subjective, is there a way to evaluate them? Does popularity alone make a good –cast?
I must admit that the technology which make pod- and videocasting a reality is impressive. Just to see the rate of progression in these technologies is impressive. I can see these becoming useful tools in the classroom if used correctly. I do like the idea of connecting language classes from around the world. I truly enjoyed my high school and college German classes mostly because my instructors were from Germany. It made all the difference learning from native speakers rather than somebody who learned German as a second language. They were able to teach not only proper German but a bit of the fun slang as well and explain the meanings of those colloquialisms. It was also just cool to be able to say that I knew somebody from Germany. Frau Crull and Herr Jarosch taught me that what I was learning was relevant. It was useful as well as fun because I knew two people who actually communicated in this manner. (And, yes I do realize that I may have just made a point for the pro-technology camp at this point. I think perhaps I need to refine what my skepticism is all about. I do not argue that using technology in the classroom is a bad thing. I take issue with the type and amount to be used.) Connecting students through technology can bring that excitement about the subject matter to today’s classrooms.
Publishing audio and video to the web, again, raises concerns about privacy. Revealing too much information about students is a scary topic. I admit that I am a mamma-bear; I protect my children’s lives with mine, as I am sure so many others do. However, I think a lot of parents let their guard down in settings they perceive to be safe. Lots of talk swirls about “safe schools.” “My child is safe, she is at school.” Not necessarily the case. Once that Internet connection is made in the classroom, danger can potentially make its way into the classroom. Therefore, I think that any use of audio and video should be restricted to the classroom and school itself. One of the arguments for publishing to the web is to have an authentic audience. Opening up these –casts to a school population as opposed to just a classroom population I believe has the same impact without the same danger.
Podcasting, video- and screencasting and live streaming blurs the lines between public and private. It feels a bit like Big Brother with this idea that everything should be transparent. Everyone should know my every thought – write a blog, publish a podcast or a videocast. Sometimes, my learning is just for me. I am learning to play the guitar, but do I need to subject millions of people to my very bad rendition of Stairway to Heaven? I think not. As with so many things in life, these tools need to be tempered with moderation.
No comments:
Post a Comment