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.