In my group, we are still in the process of making and editing our video. Working with a group offers the potential of having group support, collective ideas, and commiseration.
Like all of the technology projects, what at first looks novel and fun, ends up becoming a lot of busy work that forgoes creativity in lieu of quickly producing something.
Very much like work and life outside (of the classroom) in the real world.
I feel like I finally caught onto to how the class schedule works (I'm kind of slow), While we were in the process of making the video, I started taking my notes while keeping in mind there was going to be a need to make connections with the reading material to produce an essay.
So I already started doing my own prewriting for this essay and re-writing it here or pasting in all of my notes just seems unnecessary. I know I will have to go back through everything - all of the material and my notes from all of the reading material to seriously decide on what I’m going to use in my final draft.
I’m sure all of our in-class discussions regarding the reading material was helpful enough that everyone in the classroom will be able to make their own connections for an essay. We only had about 15 minutes to discuss the last articles and video, however since this is supposed to be an individual essay based on separate group video making projects, it doesn't seem like a good idea to discuss individual connections and perspectives - especially since it was all covered in class.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
YouTube/Low-bridge videos: Are they good? Are they bad? Are they writing?
Making a simple video as a group project has been an interesting process. My group is in the collaboration stage. So far we have been trying to come up with ideas – similar to brainstorming for our project, trying some ideas out with the camera and working a little bit with the editing program to get some ideas about how things are supposed to work.
The dynamics of group work vs. working alone changes how a project gets undertaken. Trying to respect everyone’s ideas and vision of what the end product might be in addition to getting something solid on film is challenging. In my group, the members are intelligent and fun so it will be interesting to see what we produce. I don’t know if we are at the halfway point, but once we get our ideas solidified, I’m sure everything will come together.
The one challenge for me is that I can’t visualize what the end product is supposed to be and I don’t know where we are going with our “lol” topic. We decided that because of all of the interesting reading at the beginning of the course about how literacy and orality and communication is changing, we wanted to show the idea of how people use fewer words or maybe its just faster ways to get their ideas across to others.
Fewer words + faster speed + more interactions = today’s communication?
I’ve tried to apply the writing process – brainstorm, research, outline, rough draft, revise idea to the film making process, but it seems that with video making it doesn’t work that way. One of our talented team members is a film major, so we have some insight about the film making process. But because of the length of the project, it doesn’t seem that we are going to use a formal routine like, gather ideas, storyboard, script, and action camera, and edit. Mike told us how the filming order goes, but I can’t remember it. Anyhow – we will see what happens, there’s a lot more to do with filming and editing.
As part of the project, we watched Michael Wesch's "An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube" on the YouTube, and we read Alexandra Juhasz’s "Why Not (To) Teach On YouTube" and Daniel Anderson's "The Low Bridge to High Benefits: Entry-Level Multimedia, Literacies, and Motivation.” These were all helpful in different ways. Wesch’s video was inspiring and explained a lot of things about Web 2.0. He said, “When media change, human relationships change” and I feel that his video backs up his argument. He talked about a lot of social or maybe cultural anthropology theories that helped explain what is going on with current media and why it is being embraced by so many people. Another important thing he talked about was “Participant Observation” where you need to participate and observe in order to learn. This is something that we have been doing in ENG328 with all of our projects and I think it’s a good way to learn because it provides students with different perspectives - different ways to understand a subject – especially utilizing new technology. This video explains so much about society and technology that it’s just a must see sort of experience.
I agreed with different points in both Alexandra Juhasz and Daniel Anderson’s articles.
It would be hard to teach a class as Juhasz was doing under the constraints that she mentions. But I have a hard time relating to her need to create a “safe” space for her rich and privileged students – I’m not rich or privileged and I don’t think this should be a factor when it comes to education and teaching. What I did like about the article was how she and her students went about asking questions, analyzing the experience, and trying something new in the classroom. The best line in the entire article was when Juhasz writes, “Given that the site is owned by Google, a skilled and wealthy corporation, and that all these functionalities are easily accessible on other Web 2.0 applications, we were forced to ask: why do they not want us to do these things on YouTube?” This is what our class asked about Google.docs and this is something I can relate to because even though I’m not rich and elite, I got to experience it in ENG328.
There are several different issues Juhasz discusses in regards to teaching on YouTube. I don’t know if I agree with her conclusion (I’m still thinking about it), she says that “A rigorous, controlled, contained, rational argument is key to learning: not the flow, but the building of knowledge” (140). It sounds like something Professor Gradgrind from Hard Times would say.
I'm a believer in the "flow" theory - I can't spell the Czy name, but I believe in his theory.
I can understand the information that Daniel Anderson writes about in his article. I don’t understand his use of the word “motivation.” I need to read this article again and more carefully. Anderson addresses some important ideas about the need for a model of computer literacy and discusses issues about education and technology (and multi-literacy) for educators (and students) that need to be explored.
I think Anderson’s article makes many relevant observations about what is happening and should be happening with technology in the real classroom today. However at the end of his article he makes a strange conclusion, he writes, “When it comes to really transforming education with new media, even many compositionists must still find their voice.”
Oh - and I do agree that low-bridge technologies are essential in the classroom and for learning purposes. I even think that high-bridge technologies are important too - especially not just for the wealthy and elite.
The dynamics of group work vs. working alone changes how a project gets undertaken. Trying to respect everyone’s ideas and vision of what the end product might be in addition to getting something solid on film is challenging. In my group, the members are intelligent and fun so it will be interesting to see what we produce. I don’t know if we are at the halfway point, but once we get our ideas solidified, I’m sure everything will come together.
The one challenge for me is that I can’t visualize what the end product is supposed to be and I don’t know where we are going with our “lol” topic. We decided that because of all of the interesting reading at the beginning of the course about how literacy and orality and communication is changing, we wanted to show the idea of how people use fewer words or maybe its just faster ways to get their ideas across to others.
Fewer words + faster speed + more interactions = today’s communication?
I’ve tried to apply the writing process – brainstorm, research, outline, rough draft, revise idea to the film making process, but it seems that with video making it doesn’t work that way. One of our talented team members is a film major, so we have some insight about the film making process. But because of the length of the project, it doesn’t seem that we are going to use a formal routine like, gather ideas, storyboard, script, and action camera, and edit. Mike told us how the filming order goes, but I can’t remember it. Anyhow – we will see what happens, there’s a lot more to do with filming and editing.
As part of the project, we watched Michael Wesch's "An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube" on the YouTube, and we read Alexandra Juhasz’s "Why Not (To) Teach On YouTube" and Daniel Anderson's "The Low Bridge to High Benefits: Entry-Level Multimedia, Literacies, and Motivation.” These were all helpful in different ways. Wesch’s video was inspiring and explained a lot of things about Web 2.0. He said, “When media change, human relationships change” and I feel that his video backs up his argument. He talked about a lot of social or maybe cultural anthropology theories that helped explain what is going on with current media and why it is being embraced by so many people. Another important thing he talked about was “Participant Observation” where you need to participate and observe in order to learn. This is something that we have been doing in ENG328 with all of our projects and I think it’s a good way to learn because it provides students with different perspectives - different ways to understand a subject – especially utilizing new technology. This video explains so much about society and technology that it’s just a must see sort of experience.
I agreed with different points in both Alexandra Juhasz and Daniel Anderson’s articles.
It would be hard to teach a class as Juhasz was doing under the constraints that she mentions. But I have a hard time relating to her need to create a “safe” space for her rich and privileged students – I’m not rich or privileged and I don’t think this should be a factor when it comes to education and teaching. What I did like about the article was how she and her students went about asking questions, analyzing the experience, and trying something new in the classroom. The best line in the entire article was when Juhasz writes, “Given that the site is owned by Google, a skilled and wealthy corporation, and that all these functionalities are easily accessible on other Web 2.0 applications, we were forced to ask: why do they not want us to do these things on YouTube?” This is what our class asked about Google.docs and this is something I can relate to because even though I’m not rich and elite, I got to experience it in ENG328.
There are several different issues Juhasz discusses in regards to teaching on YouTube. I don’t know if I agree with her conclusion (I’m still thinking about it), she says that “A rigorous, controlled, contained, rational argument is key to learning: not the flow, but the building of knowledge” (140). It sounds like something Professor Gradgrind from Hard Times would say.
I'm a believer in the "flow" theory - I can't spell the Czy name, but I believe in his theory.
I can understand the information that Daniel Anderson writes about in his article. I don’t understand his use of the word “motivation.” I need to read this article again and more carefully. Anderson addresses some important ideas about the need for a model of computer literacy and discusses issues about education and technology (and multi-literacy) for educators (and students) that need to be explored.
I think Anderson’s article makes many relevant observations about what is happening and should be happening with technology in the real classroom today. However at the end of his article he makes a strange conclusion, he writes, “When it comes to really transforming education with new media, even many compositionists must still find their voice.”
Oh - and I do agree that low-bridge technologies are essential in the classroom and for learning purposes. I even think that high-bridge technologies are important too - especially not just for the wealthy and elite.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Blog 13: Peer Review Recap, Part 3
Gosh – this exercise was almost painful. All that sniveling and whining! Thank goodness it’s supposed to help us reflect upon the peer review experience and help us make some sense of the whole writing process. After reading blogs about what other students are saying it all seems to come down to a few issues.
Most students write about the same shortcoming with wetpaint.com. Basically, the lack of flexibility using the editing and formatting features. However, they praise the thread feature that allows better quality commenting without messing up the essay for others to be able to read (notice the human need for an opportunity to commnent on something).
Many students seemed to like the interaction of the assigned small groups when we used Google.docs. A few students mentioned they like the access of seeing how other students were approaching their essays on wetpaint.com. It seems like some students get concerned if they aren’t assigned to peer reviewers, like they might be passed by or something (notice the human need for personal interaction).
Sometimes it isn’t what people are saying, but what they are not saying and I think a lot of the students are afraid to really comment in the peer reviews because the assignments have been so strange and vague. How can a student give advice to others when they aren’t even sure if what they are doing with their own essay is correct?
I can see what my own problems are by looking at all the complaining that I do in my blogs. I keep referring to problems with time. If you look back on our schedule it has been chaotic. Apparently, from my writing, I seem to think there needs to be more time allotted to writing essays, peer reviews, and giving closure on the assignments.
We start learning about a project/essay by reading articles and/or books, then we discuss it in class, write blogs, make something, write an essay, have peer reviews, then we start on the next project.
While we are still trying to finish the first essay, we have already started on the second project, we read books/articles, have classroom discussions, write blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the third project.
While we are still trying to get the second essay done, we have already started the third project, we are reading books/articles, classroom discussions, blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the fourth project.
Ooooh – and there’s still all those revisions that more than likely, will need to be done.
Students should have more than the weekend to come up with an essay. Not having sufficient time to develop and write an essay means that the essay won’t be as good as it could – meaning the writer will probably have to go back and revise their work if they want a decent grade. Not having sufficient time also means that the paper will not be in a position for the writer to get the most out of what peer reviews are suppose to do.
Most students want to get feedback from peer reviews, but when a paper is not ready because it had to be slapped together or it is still in the outline format, then it is wasting everyone’s time to do a peer review. And not allowing for sufficient time to actually do a decent peer review means that students are wasting time by just going through the motions of doing the peer review for the sake of participation. Students should not, nor should they be expected to have do peer reviews in a day and a half.
One person mentioned that they liked being able to go home to do the peer reviews. However, if students were allowed to do the peer reviews during class time, they could probably eliminate some of the technical and miscommunication problems that students are complaining about, as well as having the writer of the paper nearby to discuss some of the issues. Many students want interpersonal interaction and to talk about their ideas and their papers. Having to take time, after already sitting through a class talking about the next big project, while the current project is still unfinished on the table is frustrating. Most students are trying to do a blog, reading for the upcoming class, working on their current essay, and then trying to find extra time to do the peer reviews and this is all for one class.
This last peer review we did, is different than the first two. The people in my group know what they want with peer review, we know because we actually had a chance to talk for a few minutes about it. We also had a chance to discuss our schedules and where we were with our papers. In the first peer review, all the students could do was quickly exchange emails and it was so hurried and rushed, that some of us got the wrong email addresses. The second peer review was with a bunch of people we didn’t know. That impersonal quality makes you feel like you’re trying to work with someone who doesn’t really care about you or your paper, they are just doing it for the participation points for their grade.
Oh look at this ... I'm still whining about it!
Most students write about the same shortcoming with wetpaint.com. Basically, the lack of flexibility using the editing and formatting features. However, they praise the thread feature that allows better quality commenting without messing up the essay for others to be able to read (notice the human need for an opportunity to commnent on something).
Many students seemed to like the interaction of the assigned small groups when we used Google.docs. A few students mentioned they like the access of seeing how other students were approaching their essays on wetpaint.com. It seems like some students get concerned if they aren’t assigned to peer reviewers, like they might be passed by or something (notice the human need for personal interaction).
Sometimes it isn’t what people are saying, but what they are not saying and I think a lot of the students are afraid to really comment in the peer reviews because the assignments have been so strange and vague. How can a student give advice to others when they aren’t even sure if what they are doing with their own essay is correct?
I can see what my own problems are by looking at all the complaining that I do in my blogs. I keep referring to problems with time. If you look back on our schedule it has been chaotic. Apparently, from my writing, I seem to think there needs to be more time allotted to writing essays, peer reviews, and giving closure on the assignments.
We start learning about a project/essay by reading articles and/or books, then we discuss it in class, write blogs, make something, write an essay, have peer reviews, then we start on the next project.
While we are still trying to finish the first essay, we have already started on the second project, we read books/articles, have classroom discussions, write blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the third project.
While we are still trying to get the second essay done, we have already started the third project, we are reading books/articles, classroom discussions, blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the fourth project.
Ooooh – and there’s still all those revisions that more than likely, will need to be done.
Students should have more than the weekend to come up with an essay. Not having sufficient time to develop and write an essay means that the essay won’t be as good as it could – meaning the writer will probably have to go back and revise their work if they want a decent grade. Not having sufficient time also means that the paper will not be in a position for the writer to get the most out of what peer reviews are suppose to do.
Most students want to get feedback from peer reviews, but when a paper is not ready because it had to be slapped together or it is still in the outline format, then it is wasting everyone’s time to do a peer review. And not allowing for sufficient time to actually do a decent peer review means that students are wasting time by just going through the motions of doing the peer review for the sake of participation. Students should not, nor should they be expected to have do peer reviews in a day and a half.
One person mentioned that they liked being able to go home to do the peer reviews. However, if students were allowed to do the peer reviews during class time, they could probably eliminate some of the technical and miscommunication problems that students are complaining about, as well as having the writer of the paper nearby to discuss some of the issues. Many students want interpersonal interaction and to talk about their ideas and their papers. Having to take time, after already sitting through a class talking about the next big project, while the current project is still unfinished on the table is frustrating. Most students are trying to do a blog, reading for the upcoming class, working on their current essay, and then trying to find extra time to do the peer reviews and this is all for one class.
This last peer review we did, is different than the first two. The people in my group know what they want with peer review, we know because we actually had a chance to talk for a few minutes about it. We also had a chance to discuss our schedules and where we were with our papers. In the first peer review, all the students could do was quickly exchange emails and it was so hurried and rushed, that some of us got the wrong email addresses. The second peer review was with a bunch of people we didn’t know. That impersonal quality makes you feel like you’re trying to work with someone who doesn’t really care about you or your paper, they are just doing it for the participation points for their grade.
Oh look at this ... I'm still whining about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)