I think the readings on low bridge technologies, YouTube, Baron's essay, and my earlier essay on creating a writing technology will help the most with my final, reflective essay and making the movie. "Understanding Comics" is useful too in terms of considering our audience, the purpose of our video and how text and images intertwine. My team and I plan to talk about a Strunk and White rule "Avoid Pompous-sounding Words". We have worked out a script and characters.
I have never been interested in movie-making, but I'm not dreading this project. I am actually pretty interested and look forward to seeing the completed project on YouTube (a site I've never visited). It helps to be working with team. If I had to do this myself it would not get done. I see a lot of myself in the essay on low-bridge technology. Having videocams and software like I-Movie makes things very easy also. I graduated from high-school in 1981. Making a video then would have been pretty hard. The technology was pretty cumbersome and my team and I would have been limited in where we could film. Also editing would be difficult. This ties in with Baron's essay on the progression of technology. Today's technology makes everyone a producer.
Writing an essay on writing, writing technology and movie-making should be interesting because all three are related. Writing and movie-making are recursive-they both should be revised over and over until "perfect". Movie-making is a type of writing technology.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
YouTube and Low Bridge Videos
I watched Michael Wesch's video on YouTube and read D. Anderson's essay on using low-bridge technologies to teach and engage students. I already read Alexandria Juhasz's essay on teaching (or not) YouTube. I enjoyed all of them.
Here are some of my observations:
Controversy and technological advances go hand-in-hand. They always have and always will. I think educators, academics, political leaders and students need to realize this and calm down. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be ongoing discussion about what is useful and what isn't. I have never viewed computers as a threat to mankind. They are an extension of man's mind.
As for teaching YouTube, I found it very interesting but not surprising that the students in Ms. Juhasz's class found they still wanted a "real" teacher and structure. This parallels Michael Wesch's finding that people who use media such as YouTube love technology but long for community and connectivity which is what traditional academia is. I too don't find anything on YouTube for me, but that could be just my personality-I hate silliness. Frankly, I don't want to watch anyone sitting in front of a webcam talking about themselves. As for the dancing and singing videos they were kind of cute, but I can't watch a lot of that. Again, it's just me. I don't care if others love it.
I read an essay about technical writing at a U.S. military facility in New Mexico. It was talked about how new technologies were received and/or used in the production of written work. One thing that came out of the study was that the new technology did not replace older technology, it merely augmented it. That's what education in particular grapples with. Many school administrators and teachers don' t realize that every time a new technology comes out, they don't have to "start all over". Indeed, in the study on the facility in New Mexico, it was also determined that new technology was often misused or not used at all, because it was not needed to produce work. These are issues that have to be resolved by various facets of society concerned with technology.
I think that students' personalities govern how well they receive and use new technologies. That is why there is such division over the use of various technologies in the classroom. A few students will love all of the new technologies, the majority will be willing to try, and a few will hate them or just not be interested. Of course a teacher can't tailor one class to each student's tastes and abilities, especially in grade schools. That is why low-bridge technologies work best to try to engage all students. This allows the students, on their own, to personalize their projects.
Right now in English 328 I am collaborating with 3 classmates to make a video about writing. I don't care for movie making, picture taking or videography (okay I just like to read and watch t.v.) but I have to participate. That it only needs to be 3-5 minutes long makes it bearable.
I found Michael Wesch's anthropological exploration of YouTube to be fascinating and relevant. It's very interesting that YouTube's total video viewing in 5 years exceeds that of networks televisions' 60 years of broadcasting. I found very true Wesch's assertion that "We are all producers".
Here are some of my observations:
Controversy and technological advances go hand-in-hand. They always have and always will. I think educators, academics, political leaders and students need to realize this and calm down. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be ongoing discussion about what is useful and what isn't. I have never viewed computers as a threat to mankind. They are an extension of man's mind.
As for teaching YouTube, I found it very interesting but not surprising that the students in Ms. Juhasz's class found they still wanted a "real" teacher and structure. This parallels Michael Wesch's finding that people who use media such as YouTube love technology but long for community and connectivity which is what traditional academia is. I too don't find anything on YouTube for me, but that could be just my personality-I hate silliness. Frankly, I don't want to watch anyone sitting in front of a webcam talking about themselves. As for the dancing and singing videos they were kind of cute, but I can't watch a lot of that. Again, it's just me. I don't care if others love it.
I read an essay about technical writing at a U.S. military facility in New Mexico. It was talked about how new technologies were received and/or used in the production of written work. One thing that came out of the study was that the new technology did not replace older technology, it merely augmented it. That's what education in particular grapples with. Many school administrators and teachers don' t realize that every time a new technology comes out, they don't have to "start all over". Indeed, in the study on the facility in New Mexico, it was also determined that new technology was often misused or not used at all, because it was not needed to produce work. These are issues that have to be resolved by various facets of society concerned with technology.
I think that students' personalities govern how well they receive and use new technologies. That is why there is such division over the use of various technologies in the classroom. A few students will love all of the new technologies, the majority will be willing to try, and a few will hate them or just not be interested. Of course a teacher can't tailor one class to each student's tastes and abilities, especially in grade schools. That is why low-bridge technologies work best to try to engage all students. This allows the students, on their own, to personalize their projects.
Right now in English 328 I am collaborating with 3 classmates to make a video about writing. I don't care for movie making, picture taking or videography (okay I just like to read and watch t.v.) but I have to participate. That it only needs to be 3-5 minutes long makes it bearable.
I found Michael Wesch's anthropological exploration of YouTube to be fascinating and relevant. It's very interesting that YouTube's total video viewing in 5 years exceeds that of networks televisions' 60 years of broadcasting. I found very true Wesch's assertion that "We are all producers".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)