Introduction (toc)
The motivation behind
creating a mediated pedagogical design for instructing video production comes
from my experience as a media production teacher. I have taught novice videographers[1]
who aspire to produce a great range of video productions, from better home
movies, to politically active segments, to feature length documentaries. This
range of aspirations creates difficulties for a pedagogical design including
how an instructional system can be relevant to individuals with diverse
learning requirements. I also see
a need for a system of instruction in video production that can be used in
various independent production environments, such as non-profit communities,
Independent Media Centres, public schools, community based programs, and other
groups whoÕs access to resources are limited by social, economic, or geographic
barriers. My intention for this mediated pedagogical design is that it can be a
system that can provide an alternative to strictly preparing learners to work
in the "winner-take-all" environment (Geuens, 2000) of the contemporary culture
industry.
The problem then is to
design a system of instructional resources for video production that can be
useful across a range of user levels as well as being affordable and accessible
to independent videographers. In an attempt to address this problem I am
suggesting a mediated pedagogical design for video production that is based on
cycles of iterations and delivered via the common media presentation
environment of a web browser. This mediated pedagogical design is intended to
be a resource for teaching video production on as general a level as possible
(i.e. not genre based, not specific to a particular video product) and to be
used across a range of educational and independent production environments.
The outcome of my
attempts to create a mediated pedagogical design to teach video production is
the Cycles of Iteration web site (www.sfu.ca/media-lab/cycle or see
accompanying CD-ROM). This site
includes three iterations of the production process which are each divided into
four quadrants namely: Pre-production, Production, Post-Production and Review.
The three cycles of iteration are designed to take a novice videographer from a
level of virtually no production knowledge to the point of producing a short,
self-contained, and presentable video production. Although there is a desire to
have a totally autonomous, self-directed pedagogical system, the complexities
and subtleties of video production have resulted in this design being a hybrid
that combines synchronous presentation materials with asynchronous review and
reference information. As a result the Cycles of Iteration interface is has
dual functions: As an instructor or facilitator lead teaching resource, and as
a reference site for learners.
Problem Statement
The problem that I have
tried to address in the design of the Cycles of Iteration interface is how to
consolidate and organize the large volume of knowledge that is needed in order
to take a novice videographer to the point of producing a finished video
product.
User Profile
The Cycles of Iteration
interface was designed to accommodate novice videographers and take them from
never touching a video camera to the production of a short video. There is no
specific age group for the user profile, but the need or desire to communicate
through the production of video is assumed (See the scenario building section
for examples of users).
Context
The design of the
Cycles of Iteration interface was created with an intention to apply theories
of critical pedagogy that investigate the relationship between experience,
action, and knowledge within a practical design context. The pedagogical
theories formed a foundation that drew attention to the process through which
knowledge can be created (Lusted, 1986). The process of knowledge creation
became important to the design method because it formed the observable (pilot
study) and imaginable (scenario building) data.
Developing the Cycles
of Iteration interface was also an examination of the way technology mediates our
methods of knowledge transfer in contemporary learning environments. The
browser-based interface represents a form of informational mediation that is
very much part of present-day education culture.
Theoretical Framework (toc)
The term mediated
pedagogical design represents the three theoretical traditions that were drawn
upon during the creation of the Cycles of Iteration interface.
į
Media
Literacy
į
Critical
Pedagogy
į
Design Theory
Media Literacy (toc)
Media Literacy is a
term with many definitions. In the most general sense it refers to the
development of knowledge of or training in the field of mass media (Television,
print, video, Internet, new-media, etc.). A more expanded definition that
raises issues of social responsibility is given by the Center for Media Literacy:
"Media Literacy is a 21st century approach to education. It provides a framework to access, analyze, evaluate and create messages in a variety of forms Ń from print to video to the Internet. Media literacy builds an understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-expression necessary for citizens of a democracy." (CML, 2003)
Within this definition
there is only a brief nod towards the idea of the creation of media as a component
of media literacy which is an indication of what I see as a under developed
aspect of the field. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines the term "literacy" as: "The quality
or state of being literate; especially the ability to read and write."
It is my opinion that Media Literacy as a field of study concentrates mainly
on the critical analysis and evaluation of existing media, or in other words,
the reading of media. The creation
or writing of media exists predominantly within a cultural industry production
model and not as a way of critically understanding a language of media. The
development of the Cycles of Iteration interface was inspired by a perceived
need to develop the "writing" aspect of media literacy.
Media literacy provides
a framework for a model of production that can exist outside of the model
dominated by the cultural production industry. With the exception of relatively
few guides for production of ethnographic (e.g. Barbash, 1997) or activist
video (e.g. Harding,
1997), the dominant model for
teaching video production is to give students the skills required to make
industrial forms of video such as dramatic scenes, title sequences, voice over
narrations, and news stories. This
adherence to the cultural industry model of production presents, in my view, a
restriction to the potential of a more general form of media communication.
Learning video production without the constraints of a cultural industry allows
the freedom of individual expression within the new language of media. To
become literate in this language one must be able to both read and write.
Advancing media
literacy is one of my goals as a teacher of media production. I believe that an
understanding of media production provides individuals with a greater ability
to make conscientious decisions in our increasingly mediated society. Raymond
Williams refers to choices that we as a society have concerning developments in
communication technology that can be a part of social development, social
growth, and social struggle (1974, p136). These choices are better made through
the demystification of media production that can lead to a greater
understanding of how public opinion is formed.
The formation of
personal and social identity is strongly influenced by the consumption of
cultural production such as film, television, Internet, and other media.
Marshall McLuhan theorizes that the dominant media of communication
historically shapes the progression of society and culture (1962, 1964). We
create boundaries that mystify or fetishize the production of mass media giving
its message a heightened value and as a result its impact on our identity as
citizens is increased. In order to
begin to break down these boundaries we must develop a form of literacy that
allows an understanding of cultural production. My experience as an instructor
has taught me that learning the process of media production is a significant
foundation to the advancement of Media Literacy.
Teaching media
production necessarily requires the instruction of a set of skills and
practices that often results in it being termed "vocational training" or
"skilling." At the base of my efforts to create resources for teaching video
production is a desire to educate students not only in practical skills but
also in critical understanding of the role media plays in society. In this regard I agree with Stan Denski
(1991) that an emphasis must be placed on the ethical and moral dimensions
involved in the structures and processes of media production as a practice
(dimensions that are largely ignored by traditional methods of media vocation
or "Industry" training).
Ethical and moral issues are not overtly addressed in the content of the Cycles of Iteration interface, however its design provides access to media production with as little beholding to industrial constraints as possible. The Cycles of Iteration interface was designed to maximize individual creativity and minimize equipment and resource constraints. There is as well a tacit understanding that the interface provides the skills training that frees up class time to critically discuss and analyze how the media production industry maintains and re-produces dominant cultural values. Allowing the possibility of creating alterative media productions.
Critical Pedagogy (toc)
A critical pedagogy of
media production is, in practice, a new concept. The bridging of media literacy with critical pedagogy
provides enormous potential for learning about how and why media has such an
impact on society. One of the
challenges of this bridging is the breadth of skills required to learn media
production can obfuscate less tangible inquiries of a moral or ethical
nature. This is a challenge of
practice that I have tried to address with the Cycles of Iteration interface by
allowing it to present and review the more objective and practical aspects of
production, something that a mediated interface is particularly good at doing.
Where as critical understanding of the roll of media production in the
construction of contemporary culture is a topic best taught in a non-mediated
dialogue.
Two specific
pedagogical theories were involved in the design of the Cycles of Iteration
interface that relate to video production as a social practice. Video production is inherently social
because its communicational properties require an audience; furthermore the
production of video often requires social interaction with co-producers (crew,
talent, etc.). The skills and procedures required to produce video make it an
experienced practice. These two
aspects, social interaction and experiential practice, are addressed in the
pedagogical theories of communities of practice by Etienne Wenger and the roll
of experience in education by John Dewey respectively.
Etienne Wenger proposes
a social theory of learning that is based on participation within a community of
practice. I have observed as a
media production instructor that one of the great motivators production
students have is the desire to be associated as part of the production industry
community. Even as critical
knowledge of the production industry is developed the desire to be accepted and
rewarded by the community of professional production is undeniable. This motivation can be viewed as a
challenge for media literacy and critical analysis but it can also serve as the
inspiration that facilitates learning and the construction of meaning. The
resulting situation is somewhat of a double-edged sword for a critical pedagogy
of media production requiring a balance between the motivational desires of
aspiring videographers and the development of critically conscientious media
producers and consumers.
The inter-subjective
nature of video production exists on a number of levels. One of the most noticeable
levels is the public presentation of finished works, or screenings.
Public screenings of student-produced videos are an accepted and important
part of learning the production process (see the Review sections in the Cycles
of Iteration interface). However, few other endeavours in most students
experience require the same level of public exposure, scrutiny, and critique. The fear of public review can be a powerful
motivator for any producer.
Another level of
inter-subjectivity in video production is related to its collaborative nature.
Although it is possible to produce video as an individual, a majority of production
requires some form of social interaction, such as instructing crewmembers,
directing talent, or securing permission to shoot a location. All such social
interactions become part of a community of practice that leads to the creation
of knowledge.
As presented in the
book "Communities of Practice" (Wenger, 1998) learning is a result of social
participation comprised of these components:
į
Meaning: a way of individually and collectively
experiencing our life and the world as meaningful. Meaning is ultimately what
learning is to produce.
į
Practice: shared historical and social frameworks
that can sustain mutual engagement in action.
į
Community: social configurations in which our
enterprises are defined as worthy and participation is recognizable as competence.
į
Identity: learning changes who we are and creates
personal histories of becoming in the context of our communities.
These components exist
in the community of practice that is formed by a group of video production
students and should be considered during the implementation of a media
production instructional environment.
Although John Dewey
(1859 - 1952) wrote in an era with less emphasis on the concerns we have today
about incorporating technology and media into learning environments, his
comments on "traditional" and "progressive" education are still valid. Traditional education relies on
institutionalized, historically defined subjects and methods, where as
progressive education requires a dynamic adaptation to a changing society. Dewey presents an argument that
requires education to be progressive (while not completely dismantling
traditional practices) not just because it improves the educational system but
because education in itself is a method of study by which we cumulatively
examine knowledge, meaning, and values of the world.
Michael Eldridge (1998)
describes the central aspect of Dewey's philosophy as "cultural
instrumentalism," a positioning that understands thinking to be a tool for
dealing with problems in the world. Dewey believed that the primary role of his
work was to develop this tool (thinking) to better society and its members, and
the key to doing this was through education. Education based on the "philosophy
of the social factors that operate in the constitution of the individual
experience" (Dewey, 1938). The factors, which he refers to as permanent frames
of reference, are the organic connection between education and personal
experience.
Dewey acknowledges that
experience is present in a learning environment regardless of design so what
really matters is the quality of experience. Two
aspects of the quality of experience should be considered. First the immediate
aspect of agreeable versus disagreeable experience, and secondly the influence
an experience has on subsequent experiences. An ideal learning experience is immediately enjoyable and
promotes having desirable future experiences. Therefore education is a development within by and for
experience. There is a continuity
or a "experiential continuum" in that every experience both takes up something
from those that have gone before and contributes to the quality of those to
come (Dewey, 1938).
Experience is essential
to learning the process of video production. The concept of "learning by doing"
is at the foundation of this entire mediated pedagogical design. Each cycle of
iteration is coupled with a practical module that is produced and reflected
upon (see the scenario building section for examples of practical
modules). The experience and
self-reflection that is gained from each iteration not only give practice to
concepts presented but also challenges areas of conceptual uncertainty by
forcing a concrete outcome (the finished production).
Design Theory (toc)
The term "Design" is used in
many different fields of study. Architects, graphic artists, landscapers,
fashion creators, system scientists, mathematicians, pedagogues, all claim
to be designers and to have a theory of design specific to their field. However,
the common idea that all theories of design address is the improvement of
future outcomes. To this end there is an emerging field of pure design studies
which attempts to integrate disciplines of understanding, communication, and
action with the intention of improving society's development by the humanization
of technological progress (Buchanan, 1996).
Design studies have
been emerging as form of integrating knowledge that combines theory and practice
to help negotiate the complexities of our current technological culture for
the better part of the 20th century. Walter Gropius inaugurated the Bauhaus
school for realizing a modern "architectonic" art in 1919, with
the guiding principal that design was "an integral part of the stuff
of life, necessary for everyone in a civilized society" and that it would
avert society's "enslavement by the machine" (Gropius, 1943). Design
still eludes a specific definition or even a set of accepted practices and
continues to grow in scope to what is now recognized as a "new liberal
art of technological culture." (Buchanan, 1996)
Attempts to systematize
a science of design have been made, such as Herbert A. Simon's book "The
Science of the Artificial" (1996). Simon presents methods and procedures
based on logic and analysis to suggest a system by which design problems can
be evaluated and ultimately solved. This approach, however, turns out to be
less effective in practice because of the multitude of indeterminable factors
that arise during the design process. A science of the artificial assumes
an almost perfect condition of human intentionality, a condition that as of
yet does not exist. As a result design remains an idiosyncratic domain that
lends itself to iterative structures, intuition, improvisation, and creativity
more so then to the scientific method.
An area of design
theory that was called upon during the development of the Cycles of Iteration
interface comes out of the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Recent
trends in interactive systems research have indicated foundations for a new
design and analysis approach that draw upon developments, throughout the
twentieth century, in phenomenology and ethnomethodology. This foundational
framework is encapsulated in the concept of embodied interaction, developed in
particular by Paul Dourish (2001).
Embodied interaction is
a perspective that includes aspects of tangible and social computing by
accepting the act of interacting with technology as a part of a broader system
of meaning that is constructed from the specific settings (physical, social,
organizational, cultural, etc.) in which the action takes place. Embodied interaction is concerned with
how meaning is created, established and communicated through the incorporation
of technologies into practice. It exists as an organizing principal that has
been developed to inform the design and analysis of the interaction between
individuals and technology within a social context.
Using an embodied
perspective to view the pedagogical ideas of communities of practice and
experience allows the bringing together of two domains of knowledge and
practice, namely embodied interaction and critical pedagogy. The result is a movement towards a
theory that can inform the design of interactive pedagogical media.
Design studies have
produced a number of methods and procedures that can improve future outcomes.
The two specific methods used in the development of the Cycles of Iteration
interface were Scenario Building and Modelling.
Design Process (toc)
The first design
decision, after a problem statement and user profile had been decided, was the
medium for the interface. Initially the idea was to create an interactive DVD
that was menu driven and contained video and audio examples of concepts. The
reason for not perusing the DVD option was because the production requirements
were not justified for the level of instruction needed. The Cycles of Iteration interface is
designed for the novice student and most of the examples were as effective as
stills and text as they were with full resolution video and audio. However,
there are elements that could have benefited from video examples (i.e.
transitions in section 3c), therefore, the interactive DVD is still being
considered for future developments in pedagogical design. A "browser" based or
HTML based interface was decided on because of its ubiquitous nature and the
ease of development.
Initial design
prototypes included some larger video, image, and audio files with the
intention of the interface being served on local computers or from CD-ROM. The
added pedagogical value of the larger files was not significant enough to out
weigh the advantage of creating a centrally served web-based interface. The problem with the larger file on the
locally server version was that any updates would require re-loading the
interface on multiple computers. A centrally served web-based interface can be
updated from a single point and accessed from a web browser on any computer
with an Internet connection.
Whereas with a locally served interface the number of access points for
students is dramatically reduced.
Once the decision to create
a centrally served web-based interface was made the problem arose of reducing
file sizes so that access from slower network connections would still be
effective. A balance between effective communication and image compression
quality or image size was determined based on numerous test sites that were
examined using various network connections. The interface did not seem to be
effective unless there was almost instantaneous response to user interaction.
For a perceptibly instantaneous response the interface files had to be as small
as possible. This was achieved by maximizing image compression and the
extensive use of white space (which is more easily compressed) throughout the
site. The initial web-based interface that was used in the pilot study consisted
of approximately 450 files and is a total of 3.9 Megabytes.
Jakob Nielsen suggests
that size limits for web pages, in order to achieve a desired response time
(see latency times below), is between 8k and 100k (based on average ADSL home
internet connection bandwidth).
These limits provide the user with a sense that they are moving through
an "information space" freely (Nielsen, 1997). Almost all of the pages in the
Cycles of Iteration interface are between 8k and 24k, depending on the number
of images used, which provides adequate latency times to maintain user focus.
Nielsen states in his writings about usability engineering that his basic
advice regarding computer interface response times is: The faster the better
(Nielsen, 1994). A brief summary of how latency times affect the usability of a
web site are given here:
* 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.
* 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.
į
10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the
dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while
waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating
when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially
important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users
will then not know what to expect. (Nielsen, 1994)
Donald A. Norman writes
extensively on the humanization of technology and design (see jnd.org). He
advises, in concurrence with Jakob Nielsen, that content and the speed with
which it arrives are the most important properties of a website. To this end
careful consideration should be given to graphics in that they should never be
gratuitous or in any way unrelated to the content of the website. Norman also
recommends that a website design should use HTML code that is as simple as
possible and to eliminate any graphical elements that do not directly add to
the informational content of the website (Norman, 2002). These admonitions were
used in the design of the Cycles of Iteration interface by reducing image size,
using graphics only to inform content, and keeping the HTML code to its
simplest reduction.
A significant challenge
to the creation of the Cycles of Iteration interface was the complexity and
volume of the content material. Careful attention was paid to the reduction and
simplification of content material to maintain the focus of the learning
objectives and not to confuse the user with too many specific or technical
details. Edward TufteÕs writings on designs for the display of information
provided many examples (both good and bad) that helped with the design of this
project (Tufte, 1983; Tufte, 1990; Tufte, 1997). Tufte emphasizes that design is choice, and that choices
should be made with grace, elegance and personal vision. TufteÕs epilogue in
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information:
What is to be sought in designs for the display of information is the clear portrayal of complexity. Not the complication of the simple; rather the task of the designer is to give visual access to the subtle and the difficult Š that is, thel revelation of the complex (Tufte, 1983, p.191).
The structural model
for the Cycles of Iteration interface is the foundation that the entire design
is built on. The model is an expanding spiral that starts in the centre and
continues clockwise, expanding to a new level after each cycle. The concept behind the spiral structure
is to re-enforce the iterative nature of video production, and to represent the
idea that knowledge and skills are built upon knowledge and skills developed in
previous cycles.
To define what content
should be included in each cycle and in what order the information should be
presented, the method of scenario building was employed. Three scenarios were developed that
included a brief characterization of a potential user as well as the context in
which the interface might be used. In addition, three practical modules were
developed for each scenario that correspond to each of the three cycles in the
interface.
The development and
implementation of user scenarios was crucial to the interface design. The
scenarios, especially the practical modules, informed the content of the design
by providing sequential requirements of knowledge that would be needed to
complete each goal. The definition of the user modules was therefore the most
important component of the scenario building exercise.
File structure was an
important consideration in the design process from the onset. Ramifications of
organizational decisions concerning file structure that were made at the
beginning of the process would magnify as the number of files were added to the
design. The file structure had to
be able to maintain the organization of an unknown number of image and text
files, as a result the design of the first iteration had a couple of false
starts due to unwieldy file management.
The number of files could be expected to increase with consecutive
iterations (due to an increase in complexity of content with higher level
iterations) so if the file management system was hard to control in the first
iteration it was better to redesign the system before continuing. The resulting
file system combines a hierarchic structure and a nomenclature system that
reflects the overall structural design of the interface. Each iteration (1,2,3)
is divided into four quadrants (a,b,c,d) each of which have two sections
(concepts and slide show).
Development of a structural model (toc)
Hermeneutic cycle
The hermeneutic circle
refers to the circle of interpretation that is involved in the understanding of
knowledge. The concept is a way of
stating that understanding and knowledge is a cycle of exposure to information
(texts), interpretation, then re-exposure to texts. Subsequent exposure to a text is influenced by the
interpretation of the previous text. This concept forms the foundation for the
structural model in the Cycles of Iteration design.
Figure 1 Hermeneutic Cycle
Hans-Georg Gadamer refers to a circular process of
hermeneutic interpretation where meaning is always negotiated between one's own
preconceptions and those within the horizon of the other (Gadamer, 1979). The
cycle exists between subjective knowledge and objective experience of a text.
Kitaro
Nishida uses a concept of "basho" to represent a place between subjective
and objective experiences. Knowledge is created in the space where subject
and object unite (Nishita, 1990). The union of the subject and the object
occur when a concept is internalized to the point of realization or practice.
It is the balance between explicit and tacit knowledge.
The structural model
for the Cycles of Iteration is an expanding spiral. Each iteration builds on
knowledge from the previous cycle.
Figure 2 Cycles of Iteration Structural Model
The design is intended
to imply expanding cycles that increase in complexity and are built upon
knowledge created in previous cycles. Each iteration is coupled with practical
modules (see the scenario building section) that allow the user to realize
concepts. The combinations of
presentation, review, and practice are inherent to the design as a method of
knowledge creation.
The cyclic form of the
structural design is divided into four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a stage in the production
process. Most established
textbooks state the first three stages in the production process, namely
Pre-Production, Production, and Post-Production (for example: Anderson, 1999;
Barbash, 1997; Hempe, 1997; Long, 2000; Rabiger, 1998; Zettl, 1995). However
the fourth stage, Review, is usually regarded as outside of the production
process. The reason I have
included a Review section as one of four elements in the production process is
because it serves a critical pedagogical purpose.
The Cycles of Iteration
structural design implies the continuation from ending one iteration to the
beginning of the next. The Review section allows a moment of reflection before
beginning the process again. This
reflection has the potential of teaching the producer about strengths and
weaknesses in their endeavours, ideas that seemed understood might not have
been communicated or intuitive actions during production may be explicitly
recognized. It has been my experience that public critique and evaluation
sessions of student productions have consistently been identified as one of the
most significant learning moments
(and sometimes the most difficult) in the production process.
The immediate experience that affects the design of the interface includes aspects such as speed of access, aesthetics (uniform, achromatic), ease of use, conceptual and navigational layout, etc. The allegorical nature of the structural design is meant to remind or make reference to previous experiences of the user. For example when a user is about to start the third iteration all four sections of the first two iterations are visible as reminders of lessons and practical skills that were learnt in past experiences. The intention is that these experiences will inform and inspire the participation in current and future experiences as they are presented in the model
Scenario Building (toc)
Scenario building is a
method of developing usability requirements or goals for a particular
design. Scenarios can be used to
identify and address implications of design options and interface issues that
arise during the initial design process (Carrol, 1995). Scenario building can help to inform
the design process about the way people may react to a design within a specific
situation.
During the initial
design process scenarios can provide a rich source of ideas by allowing
usability requirements and targets to be generated through the identification
of user characterizations. Scenarios offer concrete representations of design
requirements by defining intended end usersÕ identities, goals, tasks, and
their general working context (Clark, 1991).
The process of creating
design requirements using scenarios requires functionally deconstructing user
goals into the operations needed to achieve them. This is done by the creation
of "mental maps" that allow an insight into uncertainty by the development of
characters and stories (Schwartz, 1991).
The following are
scenarios were developed with the intention of providing a user insight into
the design of the pedagogical model. The scenarios are used to envision the
completion of three example modules that correspond to the cycle iteration in
the model.
Scenario 01 (toc)
Ted, 23, third year
Anthropology major at university. Moved to Vancouver four years ago from
Singapore. He is interested in learning video production to document an
archaeological dig he will be attending in Singapore next year. Ted has no
previous video production experience but is interested in computers and digital
photography. This scenario is based on conversations with undergraduate
students at Simon Fraser University.
Practical Modules:
Cycle 1: Scavenger
Hunt
A list of single shot
descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of someone
reading, MS of a financial transaction, WS of people waiting in a queue, PAN
across a crowd, etc.)
į
Time limit
for shooting (30-45 min)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 2 to 3 hours
Cycle 2: Road
Trip
A sequence of scenes
depicting the journey from home to school are planned out in pre-production and
shot continuously and in sequence during production.
į
In-camera
edits
į
Limit of raw
footage (2.5 minutes)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 1 day to 1 week
Cycle 3: Profile
Video portrait of
someone (class mate, relative, friend). Portrait can include interviews, visual
evidence and contextualization, audio layers such as music and narration.
į
One-minute
time limit of final video
į
Post-production
includes editing
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 1 to 3 weeks
Scenario 02 (toc)
Helen, 45, is an
assistant head day nurse at local general hospital. She has been a nurse at the
same hospital for 15 years. She
wants to learn some video production skills to be able to participate in a new
program that is archiving procedural video documentaries to help staff learn
how to use specific equipment. She
thinks the new program has a lot of merit but she is quite anxious about using
video and computer technology. This scenario is based on events that took place
during a workplace learning initiative that employed self-produced videos as
educational tools in a hospital intensive care unit. (Bjorgvinsson and
Hillgren, 2002).
Practical Modules:
Cycle 1: Equipment
shot list
A list of single shot
descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of power
switch, MS of the entire apparatus, WS of equipment in its location of use, PAN
from equipment to person operating it, etc.)
į
Time limit
for shooting (30-45 min)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 2 to 3 hours
Cycle 2: Equipment
use preparation
A sequence of scenes
depicting the movement of equipment from storage to a location of use are
planned out in pre-production and shot continuously and in sequence during
production.
į
In-camera
edits
į
Limit of raw
footage (2.5 minutes)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 1 day to 1 week
Cycle 3: Instructional
Video
Instructional video of
a piece of medical equipment in use, including operator and patient. Portrait
can include interviews, visual evidence and contextualization, audio layers
such as operator or patient commentary, equipment sounds and narration.
į
One-minute
time limit of final video
į
Post-production
includes editing
į Total time of cycle (approximately): 1 to 3 weeks
Scenario 03 (toc)
Steve, 17, is enrolled
in an inner-city program set up to assist youth. Video production is used by the program as a means of
empowering members and instructing them on issues like social justice,
responsibility and project management.
Steve likes video production because it makes him feel in control and he
likes it when people are impressed with his work. The administrators would like a set of videos that can be
used to orientate newcomers to the rules and policies of the program. Steve wants the task of producing this
set of videos but he lacks the skills. This scenario is based on conversations
with an instructor of video production for a similar program.
Practical Modules:
Cycle 1: Shot
list of scenes
A list of single shot
descriptions that include framing and movement indications (e.g. CU of a young
personÕs face, MS person sitting at a desk, WS of a class of youth all at
desks, PAN from class room to the exit, etc.)
į
Time limit
for shooting (30-45 min)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 2 to 3 hours
Cycle 2: Accessing
the Facility
Sequence of scenes
depicting the journey from home to the facility are planned out in
pre-production and shot continuously and in sequence during production.
į
In-camera
edits
į
Limit of raw
footage (2.5 minutes)
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 1 day to 1 week
Cycle 3: Rule
#1
Short video that
informs newcomers to the facility about one of its rules (e.g. the rule that
only one person talks at a time that is designed to encourage listening and
facilitate communication). Video can include interviews, visual evidence and
contextualization, audio layers such as music and narration.
į
One-minute
time limit of final video
į
Post-production
includes editing
į
Total time of
cycle (approximately): 1 to 3 weeks
Outcomes and Evaluation (toc)
Evaluation Criteria
In 2000 a study was
conducted that identified a ranked list of evaluation criteria that could
assess the potential quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of
instructional multi-media courseware. (Gibbs, 2000) The study used the Delphi
Process[2]
with a panel of instructional technology "experts" to rate a list of evaluation
criteria that was compiled from a literature review. For the study an expert
was someone who currently publishes, teaches, or is employed in the field of
computer-based courseware design, development or evaluation. The study
determined a list of 16 criteria, with an associated category (see Table 1),
that create a useful starting point for a pedagogical design and evaluation.
The questions that came
out of the "Identifying Important Criteria for Multimedia Instructional
Courseware Evaluation" study by William Gibbs (2000) were used as both criteria
to be adhered to while designing the interface and as a source of inquiry for
the students who were involved in the pilot study using the Cycles of Iteration
interface. Some of the questions are not applicable such as ones referring to
testing and feedback because the Cycles of Iteration interface does not include
these elements.
#
|
Category
|
Criteria |
|
1 |
Information Content |
Does the courseware provide accurate information? |
|
2 |
Information Reliability |
Are the answers provided to questions correct? |
|
3 |
Instructional Adequacy |
Are practice activities provided in the courseware to actively involve the learner? |
|
4 |
Feedback and Interactivity |
If a test is used, are test questions relevant to the courseware objectives? |
|
5 |
Clear, concise, unbiased language |
Are sentences written clearly? |
|
6 |
Evidence of Effectiveness |
Did learners learn from the courseware? |
|
7 |
Instruction Planning |
Is a definition of the target audience and prerequisite skills given in the courseware? |
|
8 |
Feedback and Interactivity |
Is feedback appropriate? |
|
9 |
Instructional Adequacy |
Are instructional objectives clearly? |
|
10 |
Support Issues |
Are the computer hardware and software requirements for the courseware specified? |
|
11 |
Information Content |
Are examples, practice exercises and feedback meaningful and relevant? |
|
12 |
Interface Design |
Is the courseware screen layout easy to understand? |
|
13 |
Instructional Adequacy |
Is the purpose of the courseware and what is needed to complete the lesson made explicit? |
|
14 |
Information Content |
Is the information current? |
|
15 |
Interface Design |
Do learners understand directions for using the courseware? |
|
16 |
Instructional Adequacy |
Does the courseware provide adequate support to help learners accomplish the lesson objectives? |
Table 1 Evaluation Criteria for Multimedia
Instructional Courseware (Gibbs, 2000)
Students in the pilot
study responded positively to questions about clarity of writing by making
statements like the interface instruction was "easy to understand" or "simply
laid out." The students checked the accuracy of the information to the extent
that they pointed out typing errors or other such mistakes, however
verification of content accuracy was better made by review by experienced video
instructors. The criteria that received mix reviews were based on clarity of
instructional objectives. Students
stated that the design of the interface was "too general" and that they would
like more examples that were specific to their assignments. To address this is
a matter of balance between creating a general interface that can be used in a
broad range of situations with one that addresses specific practical
modules. Comments about whether
the interface provided adequate support to accomplish objectives were helpful
in identifying areas that could be expanded on in the future. These comments
included specifics about confusing skills (such as importing and exporting from
and to video tape) as well as more general statements about formal design and
narrative structure (see cycle observations in the next section).
Pilot Study (toc)
Development of the
Cycles of Iteration interface was assisted using the process of a situated
design inquiry, or what might be called "design through use." Situated inquiry can be described as a:
"new framework for understanding
innovation and change. This framework has several key ingredients: It
emphasizes contrastive analysis and seeks to explore differences in use. It
assumes that the object of study is neither the innovation alone nor its
effects, but rather, the realization of the innovation--the innovation-in-use.
Finally, it produces hypotheses supported by detailed analyses of actual
practices. These hypotheses make possible informed plans for use and change of
innovations." (Bruce & Rubin, 1993, p. 215)
Users (in this case
students) participate in the design development by their contributions of
content suggestions and evaluations of the design's usefulness. The methods employed include a pilot study
of an implementation of the interface in which interviews and participant
observations were done to asses the level at which the design meets the specific
needs of the students. This study used situated evaluation as a way to examine
the interaction between a newly developed mediated pedagogical design and
the specific, contextual and experiential circumstances of a group of users.
The Cycles of Iteration
interface was pilot tested using a group of 24 undergraduate students enrolled
in a Communication course entitled "Introduction to Digital Video." The course was offered at a second year
level with no production experience required. An initial survey of the students
indicated that only two of them had any video production experience. The intention
of the pilot study was to gather feedback and observations of end users while
the interface was still being developed in order to inform its design rather
than to make an evaluation of a final product. Although, an evaluation of
the design could be extracted from the information gathered.
Students enrolled in
the class were asked to participate in a research project to help design the
pedagogical resources that would be part of the course. All students agreed to
participate and were given an informed consent form (see Appendix A) indicating
what participating would involve and contact information for registering any
complaints or questions in accordance to Simon Fraser University Research
Ethics policy.
The design of the
Cycles of Iteration interface allows for more complex issues to be presented
with subsequent iterations. This results in more time required to complete
higher-level cycles. The following table gives the time requirements needed to
present each cycle and complete the related module during the pilot study.
|
Cycle |
Presentation of Material |
Completion of
Module |
Dates |
|
Cycle 1 |
Pre Š 10 min Pro Š 20min Post Š 5min Review Š 5min Total Š 40min |
Production Š 60min Screening Š 60min |
January 6, 2003 Total time Š one day |
|
Cycle 2 |
Pre Š 60min + discussion (20min) Pro Š 15min |
Pre-Production With some Production Š 1Week |
January 13, 2003 |
|
Pro Š 40min Post Š 30min |
Production and Post-Production Š 1Week |
January 20, 2003 |
|
|
Review Š 20min Total Š 3hours |
Screening Š 2hours |
January 27, 2003 Total time Š 2Weeks |
|
|
Cycle 3 |
Pre Š 20min part 1 |
Pre-Production Š 1Week |
January 27, 2003 |
|
Pre Š 2hours part 2 Pro Š 40min |
Production Š 1Week |
February 3, 2003 |
|
|
Post Š 2hours + 30min for questions |
Post-Production Š 1Week |
February 10, 2003 |
|
|
Review Š 20min Total Š 5.8hours |
Screening with critique Š 4hours |
February 17, 2003 Total time Š 3Weeks |
Table 2 Dates and Times for completion of each practical module
Observations of how students
reacted to the presentation or slide show portion of the Cycles of Iteration
interface were recorded in the form of field notes that were made at the end of
each week. In addition to
observations, informal questions were asked of the students about what they
remembered most from last weeks presentation and about what additional content
could have been included to assist the completion of each practical module.
The following is a summary of my observations and student comments that could be incorporated into the interface design.
Cycle One (toc)
Pre-production
į
Orientation
of videotape when inserting it into the camera was not clear for some.
Post-production
į
People who
have any trepidation about connecting video equipment were shy to try in front
of the class and would leave the task to people more familiar with it. VCR
connections should be part of the practical module.
Review
į
Allow plenty
of time for review.
į
The practical
module was not fully understood by all students, so a more precise description
is needed.
Cycle Two (toc)
Pre-production
į
Narrative
structure is difficult to understand, more examples and diagrams would be
helpful
į
Some acoustic
examples for the equipment section would help demonstrate the microphone.
Production
į
A visual
image of a Videographer, showing mic, camera, headphones, etc., would help
define the term.
į
Correlations
between shot composition and the resulting meaning is needed, for example high
angle shot means a diminutive shot.
į
The
production quadrant should be given in the first week but the pre-production
quadrant seemed too long.
Post-production
į
Explanation
on how to use the interface simultaneously while using editing software on a
computer was not understood by all the students
į
Comments
students made while editing (problems they had trouble solving)
į
Focus lesson
needed earlier
į
Drag-and-drop
audio file icon
į
Waveform
display in sequence preferences
į
Rubberband
on/off
į
Visual Audio
editing
į
AV
preferences for FireWire vs. Desktop display
į
Recording
output to camera (VTR, record)
Review
į
All 12
assignments were done on time and on tape ready to present (it has never
happened before that all first assignments are done on time without
intervention).
į
Overview of
Review process including evaluation and critique criteria and framework took
about 20 min.
į
Screening of
all 12 pieces took about 2 hours
į
Lively
discussion followed the screening of each piece. Students are very happy to talk about their own work and
work of other peers. Critique session is a great chance to interact and debate
issues of perception, audience reaction, levels of communication, salience of
concepts, etc.
Cycle Three (toc)
Pre-production
į
Long time to
explain (2 hrs. for pre-), lack of slides makes this section a little dry.
į
Using
descriptions of characters as a way to demonstrate on-screen persona, important
for interviews.
Production
į
Actual
demonstration of interview setup reviled how important pre-production concepts
are.
į
A lot of
confusion and indecision made for some less than satisfactory compromises on
the shots.
į
Too much time
spent trying to fix problems.
į
Lacked the
Affect due to no pre-production planning
į
Make the
pre-production part of the exercise
į
Have the
proposal, research, and treatment done before the interview in the exercise.
Post-production
į
Questions and
comments from users. (Issues that were difficult to understand)
o
How to use
the Iris controls
(Production)
o
Explain rendering
o
What is a cross-dissolve
(video example?)
o
Explain file management
į
Only works
when in conjunction with the live demo.
Interaction would be improved by having both interfaces at once.
į
This level of
lesson requires presenting, demonstrating, trying, reviewing, re-trying, doing.
į
Mention about
monitoring your production, making VHS dub to watch on your regular Television
to give a "calibrated" reference.
Review
į
This project
is very personal and caution must be taken against insulting or upsetting
producers.
į
Variations on
self contained movie files and title frames (main mistake was 22 KHz audio, and
format inconsistencies with still image).
į
Wide range of
productions, the best seemed to adhere to a narrative structure or aesthetic
design.
į
Future cycles
in pre-production should include aesthetic design
į
Presentation
can include web based delivery
į
Include web
stats on site hits as a "ratings" measure.
į
Students are
very interested in seeing their own work on a web site.
į
Almost 4
hours to screen and critique all 24 projects.
Expert Panel (toc)
In addition to the
pilot study the Cycles of Iteration interface was sent to a number of "experts"
who are or have been employed professionally in the field of instructing video
production. The responses from
this expert panel were intended not only to provide constructive criticism on
the interface but also to elicit new ideas for content and design based on
their experience in this area. Each expert was given the URL for the Cycles of
Iteration interface along with a brief description of the project and an
example of practical modules that could be used for each iteration. Feedback from these experts was
gathered from interviews (in-person or by telephone) or from emailed comments.
The comments from the
expert panel agreed that the content of the Cycles of Iteration interface was
accurate and clearly presented.
There were some suggestions that the attempt to create a general
interface that could be used by a broad range of users was both a strength and
a weakness in the design. It was
suggested that the model (expanding spiral) was a good general design but as
each iteration increased in complexity more specific information is required,
which works against the idea of a general interface. Other suggestions related to this were that general
information and specific information be separated so that the interface is
based only on the general but spaces are made to "plug in" specific
modules. The nature of video
production necessarily requires very specific instruction based on equipment,
software, and the uniqueness of the production itself. This necessity was
balanced with a criteria set out in the problem statement for this design that
was to make a general interface for advancing novice Videographer. Strategies
to address this balance between generality and specificity would be one of the
first areas to address in future re-designs of this interface.
A suggestion that came
out of the expert panel was to create a separate page that contained links to
other related web sites. This would provide users interested in related topics
a starting point for further research, as well as give students the impression
that the area of video production can be quite vast and open-ended. Another recommendation was to break
down the script writing section to include sections on "the idea" and "the
outline" as a way to build up to an actual script.
Web Statistics (toc)
Weekly statistics of hits
to the web host site were accumulated over the time of the pilot study. These
statistics can show some of the general patterns of use on the Cycles of
Iteration web site. The site was
not activated until the week ending with January 24th. At this time
the pilot study group was into their cycle 2 project, the Road Trip. Prior to
this time the site was used as a presentation or on a single computer for
reference. The completion time for the first cycle (one day) does not allow for
much review. The consistent number of hits on the first and second cycles right
through to end of the pilot study (April 4th) could indicate the
review process happening as intended by the design.
Figure 3 Hits on the Cycle of Iteration web site
for duration of Pilot Study (Dates represent the end of that week)
The dramatic increase
in hits that occur in the week ending March 7th is due to a mid-term
exam that was given that week.
This peak of activity does not reflect how the site was intended to be
used but it does show the undeniable importance university students place on
exams.
It should be noted that
the designed use of the Cycles of Iteration interface intergrates modes of
presentation and review. The data for site hits represents only the review
mode within the context of the undergraduate university student. Also, many
students preferred to print a hard copy of the concept pages for each cycle
and refer to that rather than going back to the web site.
Figure 4 Hits, Unique Hosts, Unique URL's for duration of Pilot Study (dates represent the end of that week)
With the exception of
the mid-term exam peak there seems to be a contrapuntal relationship between
the total /cycle hits and the Unique URLÕs. This represents more activity
on fewer pages. The number of unique hosts accessing the /cycle site showed
a slight increase during the pilot study.
Figure 5 Hits for the top pages for each quadrant.
The pages that
contributed most to this increase of activity are:
1.
Cycle 1a.
Pre-production, first iteration, introduction to basic camera use and shooting.
2.
Cycle 2c.
Post-production, second iteration, digitizing footage, still frames, adding
audio.
3.
Cycle 3c.
Post-production, third iteration, assemble editing, insert editing,
transitions, titles.
Discussion and Conclusion (toc)
The process of
developing the Cycles of Iteration interface has been an exploration into both
the practical challenges of mediated pedagogical design and the theoretical
reasoning for attempting to advance media literacy. One of the main ideas behind this interface is that a
critical understanding of mediaÕs roll in society is enhanced by a personal,
practical knowledge of its production. The intention of the Cycles of Iteration
interface has never been to just supply an educational resource for video
production; rather it has been to create a system that can enhance an
instructor lead study into how media can construct and influence our
culture. This intention can only
be realized by the conscious practice on the part of the instructor to
emphasize a critical analysis of media and its influences on society. The Cycles of Iteration interface can
free up an instructors time and effort to make that emphasis possible. Its
modular and generalized structure makes it possible for it to be incorporated
as a component to a variety or more "theoretical" curricula. Furthermore, the
iterative nature of the interface design allows for theories to be introduced
and then revisited at each subsequent iteration.
The idea of building a theoretical understanding upon practical knowledge can allow a form of media literacy that reduces the separation between a purely academic critique and the isolated tradition of training for the culture industry. In addition this combination of theory and practice provides an important access point for students because it can use forms of popular culture they are already familiar with and it allows an outlet for their personal expression. As Stanley Aronwitz points out,
"Écritical work without an effort to produce popular art forms remains a peculiarly intellectual take on cultural life which is already distant from the experience of students. What I am saying is this: There can be no cultural pedagogy without a cultural practice that both explores the possibilities of the form and brings out studentsÕ talents." (1989, p.201)
My experience of
teaching video production has brought into question a division between the
practice of production and the analysis of media as critical area of
study. The dependence on
technology and the domination of a professional production model entrench a
division between the practice of production and a critique of the media
product. My difficulty with this inherent division is echoed by what David
Sholle and Stan Denski refer to as "feelings of schizophrenia" (1994, p.7). A
dichotomy is formed when you teach to create what you are teaching to critique.
Sholle and Denski suggest, "building bridges" across this separation by placing
production within an "integrated curriculum" (1994, p.171). This form of
integration of production with theory is part of the intention behind the
design of the Cycles of Iteration interface.
The task of bringing
together the production practice with the critical theory is daunting, but the
potential rewards are great. The
insights gained by a personal, practical awareness of production in combination
with a critical theory that contextualizes media socially, politically and
economically far outweigh the inherent challenges. The goal is to move towards
an applied pedagogy that blends "learning to do" with
"learning to critically understand" (Kline, 2002).
The idea of
using the popular product of the culture industry as a pedagogical device has
long been a vision of educators (see Crandall, 1926). However, professional
modes of media production have demanded resources that were out of reach most
education environments. Only recently with the advent of Digital Video (DV)
technology has it become feasible to integrate production into other forms of
learning. In many cases the computers students are using to type essays and
check email are sufficient to edit video as well. The accessibility of video
production technology is a major factor in the argument for incorporating
production into existing media analysis curricula.
The process
of developing the Cycles of Iteration interface was both challenging and
informative. It is a pursuit that has no final product only a small
contribution to what can be done or improved on in the future. The most important thing I learnt from
this development process is that incorporating technologically based teaching resources
into the learning environment does not diminish the roll of the instructor.
Mediating the learning process with technology can be very helpful with many
practical aspects of production. Technical specifications, checklists,
examples, and the like are well suited to an interface such as the Cycles of
Iteration. However, the real
synergy between theory and practice comes with a combination of practical
skills with critical analysis, discussion, and reflection. This combination can assisted with
mediated pedagogical resources but can only be realized in conjunction with
traditional forms of learning that involve a dialog between teacher and
learner.
The Cycles
of iteration interface was an extremely helpful resource for teaching video
production. It has provided a framework for the future addition of much more
information and examples. However, the real challenge for future development is
how to integrate practical production skills into a curriculum of critical
media analysis. The Cycles of Iteration interface represents only the beginning
of this challenge.
Appendix A: Informed Consent form (Pilot Study) (toc)
Informed
Consent By Subjects to Participate In a Research Project
The University
and those conducting this project subscribe to the ethical conduct of research
and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of
subjects. This research is being conducted under permission of the Simon Fraser
Research Ethics Board. The chief concern of the Board is for the health, safety
and psychological well being of research participants.
Should you wish
to obtain information about your rights as a participant in research, or about
the responsibilities of researchers, or if you have any questions, concerns or
complaints about the manner in which you were treated in this study, please
contact the Director, Office of Research Ethics by email at hweinber@sfu.ca or
phone at 604-268-6593
Your signature on this form will signify that you have received a document which describes the procedures, possible risks, and benefits of this research project, that you have received an adequate opportunity to consider the information in the documents describing the project or experiment, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the project or experiment
Name of
Experiment: Pedagogical
Design: Cycles of Iteration case study
Investigator
Name: David
C. Murphy
Investigator
Department: Communication
Having been asked
to participate in a research project or experiment, I certify that I have read
the procedures specified in this document, describing the project or
experiment. I understand the procedures to be used in this experiment and the
personal risks, and benefits to me in taking part in the project or experiment,
as stated below:
Risks and
Benefits: There is no perceivable increase in risk by participating in this
study. Benefits to participating include experience of a research method in
practice.
I understand that
I may withdraw my participation at any time. I also understand that I may
register any complaint with the Director of the Office of Research Ethics or
the researcher named above or with the Chair, Director or Dean of the
Department, School or Faculty as shown below.
Dean of Applied
Science: Dr.
Brian Lewis
Director of
Research Ethics: Dr.
H. Weinberg
8888 University
Way, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
SIMON FRASER
UNIVERSITY
I may obtain
copies of the results of this study, upon its completion by contacting:
David C. Murphy
(davidcot@sfu.ca)
I have been
informed that the research will be confidential to the full extent permitted by
the law.
I understand that
my supervisor or employer may require me to obtain his or her permission prior
to my participation in a study of this kind.
Participants will
be asked to contribute to a situated inquiry project testing a pedagogical
model. They may be asked questions in interviews and questionnaires and will be
observed during their participation.
ParticipantÕs
Full Name:
ParticipantÕs
contact information:
Date:
___________________________________ ____________________________
ParticipantÕs Signature Witness Signature
APPendix B: : Informed Consent form (Expert Panel) (toc)
INFORMED
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
PEDAGOGICAL MEDIA DESIGN ASSESEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT
The University and those conducting this project
subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at all times
of the interests, comfort, and safety of subjects. This form and the information it contains are given to you
for your own protection and full understanding of the procedures. Your
signature on this form will signify that you understand the procedures,
possible risks, and benefits of this research project, that you have received
an adequate opportunity to consider this information, and that you voluntarily
agree to participate in the project.
Any information that is obtained during this study will
be kept confidential to the full extent permitted by law. Knowledge of your identity is not
required. You will not be required
to write your name or any other identifying information on the research
materials. Materials will be held
in a secure location and will be destroyed after the completion of the
study. However, it is possible
that, as a result of legal action, the researcher may be required to divulge
information obtained in the course of this research to a court or other legal
body.
The procedure for the Pedagogical Media Design
Assessment research project will entail access to a prototype of the
Pedagogical Media Design Interface followed by an in-person interview that will
assess the efficacy of the interface.
Having been asked by David Murphy of the School of Communication of Simon Fraser University to participate in
a research project experiment, I have read the procedures specified in this
document.
I understand that I may withdraw my participation in
this experiment at any time.
I also understand that I may register any complaint I
might have about the experiment with the researcher named above or with Dr.
Brian Lewis, Dean of the
Faculty of Applied Science of Simon Fraser University.
I may obtain copies of the results of this study, upon
its completion, by contacting: David Murphy (604-291-3623 or davidcot@sfu.ca)
I have been informed that the research material will be
held confidential by the Principal Investigator.
I understand that my supervisor or employer may require
me to obtain his or her permission prior to my participation in a study such as
this.
I agree to participate by responding to interview
questions asked by the Principal Investigator.
During a time period (within the dates of May 22, 2002
and August 30, 2003) and at the location to be agreed upon with the Principal
Investigator. Interviews can be
done over the telephone. The
interviews will not be
audio recorded.
NAME (please type or print legibly): _____________________________________
ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE:
_______________________ WITNESS: ______________________
DATE:
Appendix C: Starting Instructions (toc)
Starting
instructions for the Cycles of Iteration
The site structure
starts with the Cycle home symbol
Each cycle begins
with the Pre-Production quadrant
located at the top
right. Clicking on a quadrant takes
you into that
module:
Each module is
divided into two modes:
1.
Concepts Š
textual based, vertically orientated
2.
Slides Š image based, horizontally
orientated
Use the arrow
symbols to move up or down through
the concepts, or
forward or back through the slides
The Cycle symbol
will always take you back to the
previous level.
Shading indicates
your current level
(this example is 1a)
The Index pages
show a complete cycle on one page.
References (toc)
Anderson, G. H. (1999). Video Editing and
Post-Production: A Professional Guide. Boston: Focal Press.
Aronowitz, S. (1989). Working-Class Identity and
Celluloid Fantasies in the Electronic Age. In H. A. Giroux & R. Simon
(Eds.), Popular Culture, Schooling and Everyday Life (pp. 197-218). Granby, Mass.: Bergin &
Garvey.
Barbash, I., & Taylor, L. (1997). Cross-Cultural
Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making Documentary and Ethnographic Films and Videos. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bjorgvinsson, E. B., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2002). Readymade
Design at an Intensive Care Unit. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Malmo, Sweden.
Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked Problems in Design
Thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The Idea of Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Carrol, J. M. e. (1995). Scenario-Based Design. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, L. (1991). The Use of Scenarios By User
Interface Designers. Paper
presented at the HCI'91.
CML. (2003). Media Literacy: A Definition...and
More. Retrieved March 5,
2003, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/rr2def.php
Crandall, E. L. (1926). Possibilities of the Cinema in
Education. The Annals, 128,
109-115.
Denski, S. W. (1991). Critical Pedagogy and Media
Poduction: The Theory and Practice of the Video Documentary. Journal of Film
and Video, 43(3).
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The
foundations of Embodied Interaction. Massachusettes: MIT Press.
Eldridge, M. (1998). Transforming experience : John
Dewey's cultural instrumentalism. London: Vanderbilt University Pres.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1979). Truth and Method (W. Glen-Doepel, Trans. 2nd edition ed.).
London: Sheed and Ward.
Geuens, J.-P. (2000). Film Production Theory. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Gibbs, W. J. (2000). Identifying Important Criteria
for Multimedia Instructional Courseware Evaluation. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 12(1),
84-106.
Gropius, W. (1943). Scope of Total Architecture (Vol. 3). New York: Harper and Row.
Hampe, B. (1997). Making Documentary Films and
Reality Videos. New York:
Henry Holt & Co. Inc.
Harding, T. (1997). The Video Activist
Handbook.
London: Pluto Press.
Kline, S. (2002, November). E-mail correspondence.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The
Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Long, B., & Schenk, S. (2000). The Digital Filmmaking
Handbook. Rockland, Mass.:
Charles River Media Inc.
Lusted, D. (1986). Why Pedagogy? Screen, 12, 2-15.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The
Making of Typographical Man.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions
of Man. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Nielsen, J. (1997). The Need For Speed. Retrieved April, 2003, from
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703a.html
Nishida, K. (1990, Trans.; 1921, Original). An
Inquiry Into The Good (M.
Abe & C. Ives, Trans.). Chelsea, Michigan: Yale University Press.
Norman, D. A. (2002). Gratuitous Graphics and
Human-Centered Website Design.
Retrieved April, 2003, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd_website_design.html
Rabiger, M. (1998). Directing the Documentary. Boston: Focal Press.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View. New York: Doubleday.
Sholle, D., & Denski, S. W. (1994). Media
Education and the (Re)Production of Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Tufte, E.R. (1983). The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information.
Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E.R. (1990). Envisioning Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and
Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice:
Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and
Cultural Form. New York:
Schocken Books.
Zettl, H. (1995). Video Basics. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Co.
Selected Bibliography for Instructing Video Production (toc)
Anderson, G. H. (1999). Video Editing and
Post-Production: A Professional Guide. Boston: Focal Press.
Ascher, S., & Pincus, E. (1999). The
Filmmaker's Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for the Digital Age. New York: Penguin Putnam
Inc.
Barbash, I., & Taylor, L. (1997). Cross-Cultural
Filmmaking: A Handbook for Making Documentary and Ethnographic Films and Videos. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Benedetti, R. (2002). From Concept to
Screen: An Overview of Film and Television Production. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Collier, M. D. (2001). Digital Video
Filmmaker's Handbook. Hollywood: Lone Eagle Publishing Co.
Compesi, R. J. (2003). Video Field
Production and Editing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fairweather, R. (1998). Basic Studio
Directing.
Oxford: Focal Press.
Hampe, B. (1997). Making Documentary Films
and Reality Videos. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Inc.
Harding, T. (1997). The Video Activist
Handbook.
London: Pluto Press.
Harris, C. R., & Lester, P. M. (2002). Visual
Journalism: A Guide for New Media Professionals. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hitchcock, P. (1992). Videography. Toronto: Peter Hichcock
Productions.
Jarvis, P. (1998). The Essential TV
Director's Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.
LaLoggia, N. S., & Wurmfeld, E. H. (1999). IFP/West
Independent Filmmaker's Manual. Boston: Focal Press.
Long, B., & Schenk, S. (2000). The
Digital Filmmaking Handbook. Rockland, Mass.: Charles River Media Inc.
Lyver, D., & Swainson, G. (1995). Basics
of Video Lighting. Oxford: Focal Press.
Lyver, D. (1999). Basics of Video Sound. Oxford: Focal Press.
Lyver, D., & Swainson, G. (1999). Basics
of Video Production. Oxford: Focal Press.
Matza, A. (1995). The Video Production
Organizer.
Boston: Focal Press.
Orlebar, J. (2002). Digital Television
Production: A Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rabiger, M. (1997). Directing: Film
Techniques and Aesthetics (2nd ed.). Boston: Focal Press.
Rabiger, M. (1998). Directing the
Documentary.
Boston: Focal Press.
Rowlands, A. (1994). The Continuity Handbook. Oxford: Focal Press.
Shook, F. (2000). Television Field
Production and Reporting. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Thompson, R. (1998). Grammar of the Shot. Oxford: Focal Press.
Ward, P. (2000). Digital Video Camerawork. Oxford: Focal Press.
York, M., & Muratore, S. (2001). The Computer
Videomaker Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Making Video. Boston: Focal Press.
Zettl, H. (1995). Video Basics. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.