Online recording solutions for language learning

1. Online  recording solutions for language learning Dennie Hoopingarner Language Learning Center Michigan State University

2. “Language is different” (?)

3. Why record audio? • Language learning requires output (Swain 1985, Gass 1997) • Constructivist philosophy of learning encourages creative expression (Jonnasen 1991, 2008)

4. Why online? • Classroom research on talking time (Flanders 1970) • Move to mixed mode of instruction • Distance learning language courses on the horizon

5. Why not online? • Technological hurdles • Email: clogged inboxes • FTP uploads: lack of savvy • Time constraints: Phone

6. 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

7. 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

8. Flash plugin does the work • SWF file is the conduit for streaming • Web page with embedded SWF served by web server • SWF file connects to FMS

9. Two-way streaming • Revolution for web-based audio recording • Small files: compression happens on the client side • No downloads or uploads • Makes web-based recording feasible • Much easier for users (The Mom Rule)

10. 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

11. RTMP call function doConnect(){ myNC = new NetConnection(); myNC.onStatus = function(info){ output_txt.text = info.code + "\n" + output_txt.text; if(info.code == "NetConnection.Connect.Success"){ status_txt.text = "Connected"; } if(info.code == "NetConnection.Connect.Closed"){ status_txt.text = "Disconnected"; } } myNC.connect("rtmp://red5.llc.msu.edu/ria/demo"); }

12. AJAX call function retrieveURL() { if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // Non-IE browsers req = new XMLHttpRequest(); req.onreadystatechange = processStateChange; try { req.open("GET", url, true); } catch (e) { alert(e); } req.send(null); } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // IE req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); if (req) { req.onreadystatechange = processStateChange; req.open("GET", “http://llc.msu.edu/test.ajax.php?param=123”, true); req.send(); } } }

13. Language teaching applications • Teacher-created audio: Viewpoint • Student-created audio: Audio Dropboxes, Worksheets • Simulated Interaction: Conversations • Podcasting: Broadcasts

14. Curricular implications • Mixed mode classes • Distance learning • Support issues: The 50% Rule • Teaching vs Tool: Clark (1994)

15. 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.

16. questions/comments/hate statements THANKS!