The creation of podcasts for various subjects was driven by a group of volunteer students who were not enrolled in, or had previously completed, the respective subject (Lee et al. 2006). These student producers were responsible for the entire podcast production process, including: generating and selecting ideas for podcast scripts; script writing and editing; voice acting and/or presentation; digital audio recording and editing; quality assurance; and publishing/distribution of the finished podcasts.
When the student producers’ group was first established, the members were not provided with any formal training, but rather were introduced to the podcast production process by means of examples. They gradually developed competence in various facets of the process through practice runs, with decreasing levels of guidance from the lecturer, as well as through their interactions with one another. Subsequently, newcomers to the group were coached and mentored by more experienced members. There was minimal lecturer intervention in tasks carried out by the group; the student producers exercised a high degree of autonomy and creativity.
The emphasis was on producing short, three-to-five-minute audio segments that the researchers believed students would listen to in their ‘wasted’ time or ‘dead time’ while waiting, travelling or doing household chores – what Metcalf (2002) calls the ‘stolen moments for learning’. The podcasts were structured as talkback radio-style ‘shows’, with student presenters holding discussions on subject-related issues in a relaxed and informal style. The lecturer and other subject experts were occasionally brought in as ‘guests’ to offer insight into more difficult or complex issues and topics. Material contained in the podcasts was supplementary in nature and not directly examinable: it was designed to give students background information, arouse their interest in the subject and expose them to subject-specific terminology, as well as allay their concerns. This novel approach to peer teaching or tutoring appears to be similar to what Gee (1992, 1996) terms socializing into a ‘Discourse’ (with a ‘big D’), and is reminiscent of the ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ of newcomers to a community of practice, portrayed by Lave and Wenger (1991). |
