And the other made a PSA about the Written Communications major:
Okay, after the break, links to everyone’s showcase share:
Lisa’s podcast/audio assignment:
Danielle’s “how to” video assignment:
Jennifer’s intro/50 ways assignment:
Molly’s intro/50 ways assignment:
Adam’s intro/50 ways assignment:
Jonathan’s intro/50 ways assignment (times 2!):
Tracey’s “how to” video assignment:
And Seth’s on the computer he’s working on– a good chance to see Wevideo, too!]]>
It’s also a project that for me exemplifies some things I keep learning about how to do these kinds of projects/how to teach this class, along with some of the dilemmas that I don’t think are going to change anytime soon. For example, I wish we had spent some time up front standardizing things like video size (like saying everyone shoot for video that’s at 720p, for example) and maybe even some around sound things. And the dilemma remains around Wevideo. On the one hand, I think we can all agree it kind of sucks– I’ll be ending my subscription to it at the end of this semester. On the other hand, we need to have some kind of common platform for working with video to make this work. I can’t very well require all students to have a newish Apple laptop with iMovie installed– though that would be ideal.
Anyway, even with these limitations and shortfalls, this is great work. Check it out below:
It looks like the limitation with Wevideo is that you can share a project with up to 5 people for the basic accounts that we have, a number which works fine with the small groups we worked in but not so much if we want to share with a slightly larger group. So here’s what I’m suggesting:
On the class site on emuonline, I’ve sent up a unit called ‘Video Sharing Library” and under each one of those units, I’ve set up four class items for each group. Login to the site and find your names/group, and then in the discussion area called “Post it here,” upload your video as an attachment to the discussion.
My experience with emuonline is there is no limit on the size of these attachments– or maybe a better way of putting it is I haven’t run into any size limits, and the last time I taught this class a few years ago, folks were able to upload/attach files that were well over 100MB. Anyway, give that a try, and if it doesn’t work exactly right, we’ll make it work during classtime on Wednesday. Seem like a plan?]]>
When Halbritter says on page 200 (and really, throughout the chapter) “As long as our learning goals are met, our assignments are working. Consequently, the products of our students’ efforts do not need to be scrutinized under the rubric of audience expectations for professional or publishable moviemaking,” I think he’s putting his finger on the difference for me between this class as a “learning experience” versus one that is “professionalizing.” It’s never one or the other, of course, especially at the advanced level: that is, while we’re trying to make projects that are as “real” and as actually useful as possible, our main goal is to learn and practice the process of making these videos. Still, it seems to me that there is some issue of “product” here too. In a more advanced class (though maybe this is true in less advanced classes as well), our “learning goals” aren’t met if we don’t make “decent” products.
Anyway, I appreciate and understand the goal of a chapter like this since we’re not really Halbritter’s ideal audience of folks looking at multimedia/new media from the point of view of teaching it. And what he’s saying here makes sense. I guess that’s been the case overall with Halbritter’s book: it doesn’t exactly fit our purposes and (for me at least) it doesn’t always “work” for a class for students focused not on teaching but on the professional practice of writing, but it’s as close of a book out there as far as I know. Personally, I’ve learned a lot about the “production issues” from what he’s discussing here, so that has definitely been a plus for me.
Any other last and overall thoughts?]]>
In the nutshell, what DeVoss and Cushman and Grabill are talking about here is the story of folks in English departments working with technology, and from my own experiences, I’d describe it as a “sliding scale” based on whatever the “next” technology is. When I started teaching writing way WAY back when, in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I used to require students to use some kind of word processing software for at least one of their essays. This freaked people out. When I first had students doing web pages in the mid 1990s, getting server space to host those projects on the web was not all that easy to do. And here we are now with audio/video projects. Who knows what will come next.
I think the description of “infrastructure” on page 20 and 21 is particularly useful– it might be useful to take this into the professional writing space to explain to employers and would-be clients what’s really involved in “throwing together a help video” or some such thing– and I also think the discussion on the bottom of page 22 about “when” something is a tool makes a lot of sense. After all, most of us are using our phones as the camera and microphone for our recordings, and that seems to shift the definition of infrastructure.]]>
I’d strongly recommend watching the video first and then finishing the conclusion of the article– it’ll probably help it make a little more sense.]]>