A brief documentation of progress on my personal project.
The Five Resources of Critical Digital Literacy: A framework for curriculum integration, Hinrichsen & Coombs (2013)
Follow the link to see what I’m attempting to do with one of my module frameworks: #EngCS in 2017. (I might restrict access to members of this year’s PGCE class later on.)
You guessed it, first some notes (PNI) to structure my thinking:
P – Opportunity to practice and learn together is of immense value!
N – Presentations via Skype do not work well. Perhaps consider creating a video of your presentation, and opening up a video-conferencing platform for discussion after the video has been watched? (NB to consider network-platform compatibility, e.g. Google server hosted on TENET.)
I –Personal equipment seem to trump professional equipment for our purposes. Perhaps focus more on pre/post-production skills?
Looking back at the videos we produced yesterday, and engaging in constructive feedback discussions.
Video 1: Malaria 101
P – Great integration of blog-link into video!
N – A bit stoic.
I – Panel setting felt very academic.
Video 2: TDS Eradicating Malaria Mobile
P – Lovely use of different settings!
N – Ambient noise, especially in the red chair. Think about managing the environment?
I – More natural setting felt like it would be more accessible to the public.
Video 1: TDS MariaAnoukLily
P – Interesting angle: introducing women in academia as real people!
N – Sound is a bit sharp at times? Try to plan your framing from the perspective of the video frame, when possible.
I – Interesting to see that the “fun” video, shot with professional equipment, came across as less professional.
Video 2: Anouk lily maria#1
P – Intimate setting draws the viewer in, making the panel presentation very enjoyable!
N – Loved it!
I – The more serious smartphone video seemed warmer, more intimate, and at the same time more informing.
Video 1: Reggie interviews Kavena
P – Visuals and sound are crisp and clear. Good interaction with each other!
N – Very aware of scripts (visually).
I – Setting informs and supports the context of the interview. Feels more “open”, adding to the feeling of transparency in what we do.
Video 2: Kavena interviews Reggie
P – Intimacy adds to the feeling the you are sharing “insider info”
N – Kavena disappears in the background. Perhaps switch positions?
I – Group feels that the smartphone video was easier to make.
Video 1: TDS WillieAnthonyMalissa
P – Content was a call to action – appealed to the needs of the target population.
N – TOO LOUD!
I – Tension is palpable from trying to be “professional”.
Video 2: Mrs Mercy Amwoga
P – Gorgeous colours!
N – “Eyes on the prize” – eye movement is very noticeable. Video was shot too close.
I – Smartphone captures sound well in close quarters.
Michelle Wilmers (UCT) ROER4D
Topic: The “Open” – OER, Creative Commons, Open Archives, Open Journals, MOOCs
Opennes is a central mechanism for discoverability and participation in global 21st century scholarship.
Presentation [PPT]
Note to self: When presenting a talk virtually – especially when bandwidth is shaky – record the “presentation” as a video and then go to video-conferencing for discussion. (Also find out about network hosted services, e.g. Google on TENET, when considering conferencing tools.)
Wim Van Petegem (KU Leuven): Technology for Learning in Higher Education
NMC Horizon report (Delphi study)
Open Pedagogy report (Desktop study)
You guessed it, first some notes (PNI) to structure my thinking:
P – Exploring how video can work for Research, Education and Science Communication – intersections! Also, making our own videos was great fun 😀
N – Issues of access and quality. Barriers in terms of cost of entry/participation.
I – Opportunities such as AVLM2017, and trying out post-production on YouTube (after hours).
Content Reflection: Day 3 saw us thinking about – and creating our own videos! Today’s guest speaker gave us great tips on presentation design for different audiences, with some solid advice for working in MS Powerpoint.
Process Reflection: The “World Café” method of brainstorming and teasing out discussion topics helped participants to develop their thoughts and understanding of the potential, drawbacks and intersectionality of videos for Research, Education, and Science Communication. Hands-on practice of making videos with both professional equipment and smartphones highlighted the pro’s and con’s of the equipment. The experience of planning and executing our own productions added emphasis to the importance of the pre-production phase!
Critical Reflection: Engaging in the process of considering, planning and executing video productions allowed me to think realistically about creating multimedia content for my teaching practice. Reframing my perceptions in terms of creating video for research was also necessary in terms of my research and scholarly work. Especially significant was the realisation that solid planning reduced the Cost of Time involved in producing my own content.
Find a bad educational video.
Group: Reginald, Anthony, and Willie.
Comment: Camera work is unstable, sound is inconsistent, content is cringe-worthy. Message/purpose is lost (on the audience)?
Goal:
Exercise to compare what can be achieved on a smart device vs. professional equipment and assistance.
Format:
Interview (1-2 min each) – delivered to YouTube (course created account).
Planning:
I want a Myo!!!
Video in the spotlight
Snapshots of group discussions:
 |
|
Video in Research
|
 |
| Video in Education |
Lucille Müller (Center for Learning Technologies (SU) Multimedia Expert)
on Presentation Design
>>link to presentation here<<
7 Design Tips:
New presentation options: http://slidedog.com/
[Get PDF] Research: how do you get it out there? by Lisa de Haardt & Hans van de Water
As before, some preliminary notes (PNI) to structure my thinking:
P – Curation of a professional profile (in the context of multiple digital identities). ADA WiFi is Mac-friendly now 🙂 ADDIE design in terms of our personal projects helped clarify considerations and practicalities of what we plan to do and how.
N – Networking do’s and dont’s – especially when it comes to open digital scholarship – needs deeper exploration. How does what we share influence the ownership/novelty/value of our scholarly work? (Dissertations/articles in terms of University requirements and journals?)
I – Creating digital content and the services available to us at our institutions.
Content Reflection: Day 2 class work focused on design based thinking in terms of our projects. Working on our planning using the ADDIE framework helped make my personal project (#EngCS in 2017) seem more achievable. Guest speakers reminded us of the importance of clear, focussed and deliberate work in different aspects of our output.
Process Reflection: Caring about my group members’ projects, as well as my own, allowed for constructive contribution to each other’s planning. I would not have thought of everything on my own, and I believe my project only gained from the exercise.
Critical Reflection: The way in which we present ourselves, and react to each other (even subconsciously) sends out strong messages to the people around us. Try to apply the same development and curating principles for our “digital personas” to our “real-world” [inter]actions.
How important do you think your digital footprint is?
Hoe belangrik dink jy is jou digitale voetspoor?
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/208433017″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
Introduction to design processes (reminds me of Design Based Research).
About the ADDIE model: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/addie.html
|
|
|
|
|
Content Reflection: Day 1 introduced us to the practice of Participlanning (participatory planning), which I am eager to experiment with in my teaching. This might be an interesting way to co-design an open syllabus with one of my classes. (Note to self: check for scaling.) Starting up a(nother) blog is exciting!
Process Reflection: Actively participating in the class really does add a lot of value to my experience thereof. Staying on task is a lot easier when the motivation to do so is both intrinsic (my own identity work) and extrinsic (course outcomes as well as dissertation and module requirements).
Critical Reflection: Consciously looking for angles and intersections that could improve my own work, projects and scholarship helps keep me critically engaged. Bringing my preparation work (for the teaching year ahead) into the #sudigitalscholar course seems to be a “good risk” to take.