Oddly enough, the two major educational events of my week had to do with creating video.
The first was a class session on participatory video that was taught by some of the other members of my globalization and lifelong learning course. In that three-hour session, they showed some videos created when people from Uganda and India were trained to use video cameras and then create stories about local problems, which they could then share with the rest of the world. Then we talked a bit about participatory video (called that because the people creating the video are also the people who are the subjects of the film) and discussed its place in relation to research and amplifying the voice of marginalized people. In the second half of the class, they showed us how to use some video cameras and then put us into groups and asked us to create a short video. So we created an 8-minute video about the culture shock that people (especially international students) can experience when moving to University Park. Here is an example:
The second was a Digital Storytelling workshop that took place at today's Digital Commons Tailgate at the Schuylkill campus. They threw us right into the mix, explaining that we would be getting into groups, coming up with an idea for a story, finding pictures in Flickr, shooting a video, and then editing it together in Final Cut Pro. I got together with three other people (Robin, Bim, and Hannah) and we decided to talk about why we run, why we choose to run on an eliptical, trails, roads, and tracks, and then we talked about our running goals. We talked about those topics in front of a green screen and then put ourselves in front of Flickr images that we selected through a Creative Commons search.
Both experiences were engaging. Both were hands-on. Both were more fun than I thought they would be. The advantage of the first method is that the presenters talked a lot about the potential for participatory video to have a real impact on a global problem. We understood why it should be used and saw some great examples. The advantage of the second method is that we got to dig into a much more complete process of planning and putting together a more finished product. I'm a technical guy, but this took me outside my comfort zone and gave me more confidence in using a professional video editing tool and multiple elements (still shots, soundtracks, green screen, titles, etc...)
I can't say that either method was superior to the other. I'm just glad that I had both this week. I also think that they would both benefit from overlapping a little. My recommendations:
The first was a class session on participatory video that was taught by some of the other members of my globalization and lifelong learning course. In that three-hour session, they showed some videos created when people from Uganda and India were trained to use video cameras and then create stories about local problems, which they could then share with the rest of the world. Then we talked a bit about participatory video (called that because the people creating the video are also the people who are the subjects of the film) and discussed its place in relation to research and amplifying the voice of marginalized people. In the second half of the class, they showed us how to use some video cameras and then put us into groups and asked us to create a short video. So we created an 8-minute video about the culture shock that people (especially international students) can experience when moving to University Park. Here is an example:
The second was a Digital Storytelling workshop that took place at today's Digital Commons Tailgate at the Schuylkill campus. They threw us right into the mix, explaining that we would be getting into groups, coming up with an idea for a story, finding pictures in Flickr, shooting a video, and then editing it together in Final Cut Pro. I got together with three other people (Robin, Bim, and Hannah) and we decided to talk about why we run, why we choose to run on an eliptical, trails, roads, and tracks, and then we talked about our running goals. We talked about those topics in front of a green screen and then put ourselves in front of Flickr images that we selected through a Creative Commons search.
Both experiences were engaging. Both were hands-on. Both were more fun than I thought they would be. The advantage of the first method is that the presenters talked a lot about the potential for participatory video to have a real impact on a global problem. We understood why it should be used and saw some great examples. The advantage of the second method is that we got to dig into a much more complete process of planning and putting together a more finished product. I'm a technical guy, but this took me outside my comfort zone and gave me more confidence in using a professional video editing tool and multiple elements (still shots, soundtracks, green screen, titles, etc...)
I can't say that either method was superior to the other. I'm just glad that I had both this week. I also think that they would both benefit from overlapping a little. My recommendations:
- The students running the participatory video session could include the contact information for the Digital Commons facilities, so people can get technical help.
- The Digital Commons staff could provide a sample of digital storytelling up front and describe how it has the ability to ground an issue, illustrate a point, capture a perspective, or provide clarity in other ways.