Research needed on podcasting impacts

Published by in podcasting on November 12th, 2005

My AERA 2006 proposal on “podcasting as disruptive transmediation” was not accepted by the review committee. The main reasons it was not accepted were:

  • My proposal did not include a developed theoretical framework.
  • No empirical evidence or study results were included.

I am new to “publishing in academe” and so this feedback is both insightful and helpful. I did think the following reviewer comment was interesting:

The use of podcasting as a learning technology is a potentially interesting topic for exploration, and attention to alternative (“disruptive”) technologies is something that needs to be encouraged. That said, it is always a good idea to exercise some caution when a new technology begins to emerge; the phonograph, the radio, and television were all championed as “transformative technologies” for education upon their introduction, and they failed to achieve that standard. Podcasting could run the same risk of being “oversold and underused.”

This reviewer is correct, in that past technological developments have been loudly heralded by proponents but in the end, haven’t done much to change education. Podcasting by itself really no different, from the standpoint that if educators do not embrace it, nothing about our traditional content and teacher centered model of education will change much.

However, I think podcasting is qualitatively different from other classroom-based educational technologies because it offers students the potential ability to time and place shift. Because of the high levels of home Internet access in many areas also, I think podcasting offers a unique technology to help bridge the gap that often exists between home and school.

So, I’ll have to get my theoretical framework “eggs” more together in my proposal basket for next time, as well as come up with an empirical research study on podcasting whose results I can share with the academic community. This is not my top priority, but is something I would like to pursue.

It is very nice that AERA provides detailed reviewer results, instead of just the result “rejected.” The detailed feedback provides good help on improving a proposal for next time.

On this day..

4 Comments »
  • http://ihome.ust.hk/~ctnick/ Nick Noakes

    Will, online education also differs from classroom-based educational technologies in that it allows time and place shift. So I’m wondering what is qualitatively different about podcasting, as we can already time and place shift? The Open University in the UK, Athabasca in Canada and other such institutions around the world have been doing time and place shifting via the computer since the 80′s (I think Plato was the asynchronous conferencing system used by the UK OU back then). Are there other elements that make podcasting potentially disruptive? e.g. a shift in control from teacher to students? millenials being more predisposed (hardwired perhaps from brain-based learning research) to visual/aural modes of learning?

  • Peter Locatelli

    I am in my first semester of doctoral studies in Curriculum & Instruction at UNLV. My area of emphasis is instructional technology and I am currently working a short paper that deals with how Web 2.0 technologies will shape the future of public education. I have been using several of your podcasts for information and inspiration. When I read the “reviewer comment”, I heard an echo of the words of a UNLV professor that I had spoken with on 11/10/05. Let me share my response:
    True enough that the phonograph, radio, and television did not meet the expectations as “transformative” technologies for education. The technologies themselves did succeed and thrive. Many may say these technologies interfere with education. No one can say that they were just a passing fad. The Internet is not a passing fad and neither are the technologies of Web 2.0.
    There is howerver a major difference between the “establishment” technologies (phono, radio, television) and the open technologies of blogs, podcasts, wikis, etc.. The “establishment” technologies are expensive, controlled and censored. The open technologies are inexpensive, accessible and uncensored.
    The open technologies will thrive, but if public education does not embrace these technologies, it may not have the opportunity to embrace anything in the future. Education will continue to happen, but not the one that the “establishment” desires.

  • http://www.wesfryer.com Wesley Fryer

    Nick: I think the “time and place shifting” with iPods is qualitatively different than what has been possible through online education for many years, since you can be unbound to electricity or an internet connection. I shouldn’t give the impression that I think podcasting is a panacea for education, it isn’t. I think like other technologies it is a tool that can be used well or poorly. But I think it does have a more “disruptive” flavor than other types of technologies which are now pretty well known, like web-posting materials and using email.

    Peter, I think you are correct in observing that many in education may be unknowingly choosing irrelevance if they do not adapt and change to an extent with the times. I agree there are huge differences between old media and new media (like web 2.0 communication technologies) and that these trends appear to be here to stay. If you’re willing to share, I’d love to read the paper you wrote.

  • http://nicknoakes.blogspot.com Nick Noakes

    I’m not sure how mainstream all this ‘distruptiveness” is yet. The Pew Internet Life studies would indicate it is going that way BUT this is US only. I work in Hong Kong and blogs and podcasting are still pretty much an unknown to the majority of students and teachers, as are a lot of the other read/write web technologies.

    I’d love to see some statistical breakdown by country and occupations of numbers who actually blog and podcast and the chronoligical trends. I suspect right now it is is limited both occupationally (IT related professions, EdTech people, consultants and a few major companies) and geographically (predominanently North America and Western Europe).

© Creative Commons License