Language teachers have been using film and video in class as long as these media have been available. Lately, YouTube, videojug, Google Video, blip.tv and other Web 2.0 inspired, user-created content sites have appeared in the repertoire of language teachers with access to computers and the Internet in class.
Let's assume that most trained language teachers see the pedagogical merit, or potential, in such content, including variety, currency, and appeal to students as a familiar resource. At least four practical concerns quickly emerge when using online video:
Access
In planning on the use of online video in class (streamed at time of use, not previously saved as a local file), we make certain assumptions that we would not likely have made just a few years ago:
1. Continuous broadband (high-speed) Internet access (as opposed to occasional dial-up modem access).
2. Ubiquitous Internet access available at all learning locations via wired or wireless (WiFi) connections.
3. Computer hardware capable of playing compressed video (fast processor, sufficient RAM).
4. Appropriate media player software installed and configured to play Web video (e.g., Flash, QuickTime).
Quality
In order to host a tremendous number of videos, video sharing sites must further compress video files uploaded by users, sometimes appreciably degrading quality. Someone has said that the blurry quality of these videos makes them appear as if they are being viewed through Vaseline rubbed in your eyes. So image quality is an issue.
For language learners, this may blur the lip/sound correspondence that aids in comprehension.
The image on the left below is from the original, uncompressed video file (.dv). The image on the right is from YouTube, which shows only a little image degradation. This might be because I uploaded a large, high-quality version of the video to begin with (.mp4).
Permanence
When you link to online content, you always run the risk of losing access to that content without warning if the owner moves or removes it. The ephemeral nature of popular user-generated video increases this risk. Contributors can remove their videos at any time.
To avoid this risk, you can capture some streaming media to locally saved files, access to which you control, but this raises ethical if not legal issues. Applications like iRecordMusic (Mac) or Freecorder, WM Recorder, or Super MP3 Professional Recorder, (PC) allow you to capture streaming audio and TubeSock (PC and Mac) captures streaming video. The free online tool KeepVid allows you to easily capture any streaming video in any browser.
Audio or video podcast versions of content, where available, are readily downloadable files that play locally from your computer and skirt the permanence and copyright issues.
Context
At many sites offering video content, a selected video is displayed in a busy and, to some, a confusing context of other content, links, and ads. Especially on sites of user-generated content, such as YouTube or videojug.com, some of this context may be offensive, inappropriate, or, at the least, distracting.
On many video sites the "Embed" information solves this problem by allowing you to display only the video of interest to you in your own context. By pasting that embed code into your own web page, blog, or wiki, you essentially strip this content from its originating context, allowing your students to focus on the video, as in the example below.
I lobbied for several years to get a large-screen TV in our lobby, believing that it would contribute to the linger phenomenon in that space, which in turn would contribute to the sense of community that students find here. We could, I argued, use such a TV for laptop-fed announcements and for cable TV content. Anything that keeps our students hanging out in our lobby, preferably speaking English, could contribute to the sense of value that they derive from their CELOP experience overall.