110 likes | 124 Views
Explore the innovative Flash-based solution for recording audio in language learning, supported by the Flash Media Server to facilitate web-based audio recording. This technology revolutionizes language teaching applications and offers curricular implications for hybrid classes and distance learning.
E N D
Online recording solutions for language learning Dennie Hoopingarner Language Learning Center Michigan State University
Why record audio? • Constructivist philosophy of learning encourages creative expression (Jonnasen 1991, 2008) • Language learning theory requires output (Swain 1985, Gass 1997)
Why online? • Classroom research on talking time (Flanders 1970) • Move to hybrid modes of instruction • Distance learning language courses on the horizon
Why a Flash-based solution? • Ubiquity of Flash plugin • Very small footprint of application • Fast loading time (viz. Java) • Ease of development and interface design
Introduction to the Flash Media Server • Not Flash • Server software • Two-way streaming of audio and video • New protocol: RTMP • Communicates via Flash SWF file
Flash plugin captures audio and video • SWF file is the conduit for streaming • Web page with embedded SWF served by web server • SWF file connects to FMS
Two-way streaming • Revolution for web-based audio recording • Much easier for users (The Mom Rule) • No downloads or uploads • Makes web-based recording feasible
Developing applications with the FMS • Authoring options: Flash, Flex, AIR • FMS handles only the media files • Business logic to name files • Two-server model: • FMS • LAMP server
Language teaching applications • Teacher-created audio: Viewpoint • Student-created audio: Audio Dropboxes, Worksheets • Simulated Interaction: Conversations • Podcasting: Broadcasts
Curricular implications • Distance learning • Hybrid classes • Support issues: The 50% Rule • Teaching vs Tool: Clark (1994)
References • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. • Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, Mass.,: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new educational paradigm? Educational Technology, 9(3), 5-14. • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.