iTunes and Language Instruction

New Tools for Aggregating and Delivering Audio Content

Andrew RossBrown University

GLOCALL ConferenceNovember 2-7, 2007

Project Chronology• Summer 2004: Duke’s first consultations

with Apple• Fall 2004: Duke advises on development

of proof of concept• December 2004: Early alpha version• May 2005: Brown, Stanford, Missouri,

Michigan join project.• Summer 2005: Regular weekly

conference calls w/Apple begin at Brown and Duke.

PhilosophicalConsiderations

• Comfort level in working with a corporate entity

• Concerns about proprietary information and delivery modes

• Counter to open source leanings within academic communities

• Intellectual property• Corporate culture(s)• Commodification of educational experience• New models of collaboration

Overview of iTunes U

• Content distribution & exchange application

• Layered over the free iTunes software application

• Developed for use by educational institutions

• Currently free; application required for use

• Content is stored on Apple servers (for now*)

Course menu

Advanced Beginning Chinese

Intermediate German

Editing mode

Content

Usage typologies• Downloadable .m4a music files (outside iTunesU) -

iMix• Instructor-created downloadable content (inside

iTunesU)• Student-created downloadable content (inside

iTunesU)• Student-created uploaded content – dropbox

(inside iTunesU)• Textbook ancillary content w/ permissions (inside

iTunesU)• Podcast content (through iTunesU)• Enhanced podcasts (“album art” images

associated with audio track segments)• VODcasting and downloadable H.264 (MPEG-4

AVC)• Downloadable document distribution (PDF only)

FacultyBenefits• Coolness factor in motivating students• Easy distribution of materials• Perceived ease of use in making multimedia materials

available

Challenges• Comfort level with pilot expectations and process• Convenience vs. pedagogy• Actual creation of multimedia materials & understanding of

production processes & best practices• Helping faculty make better choices about the content

they provide (l’embarras du choix vs. judicious application)

StudentsBenefits• Coolness factor• Increasing ubiquity• Engaging students where they are

Challenges• Student expectations of a polished product &

process• Increased expectations for access to course

multimedia materials• Competition of pedagogical materials with

entertainment content

IT support staff

• Increased demand for support of multimedia applications & equipment on faculty & student desktops

• Communications with distributed IT staff about version upgrades & support paths.

• Cross-unit collaboration required (network services, academic technologies, multimedia development)

• Buy-in from IT administration; plan for implementation over term.

Academic technology & library staff

• Digital object repositories

• Digital rights management

• Commercial content

• Local hosting & local control

• Proliferation of academic technology tools

What next?

Implications for publishing model

• Move away from the “total solution” model to content modules, learning objects?

• Delivery of material in “master” digital format for deployment in multiple formats via multiple tools?

• Establishment of a learning object ecology?