I walked into the Write Place behind my serpentine line of students for their writing center tutorial. Jon, the assistant director, greeted me at the door. He and I have had a couple classes together and talked more as acquaintances than friends – I don’t know him very well, but he seems like a nice guy. “I didn’t know you graduated from Park Center,” he says. Cogs churn. Pistons pump. Gears grind. How the hell did he know that?
Creepy! I try not to look as bewildered as I feel when I ask, “Oh yeah. I did. How did you know?” My resolve keeps my voice from cracking.
“Facebook,” is all his simple answer. I am repulsed. I cannot say why. Jon and I are Facebook friends, after all. But there is a taboo on bringing up Facebook in face-to-face, social conversation. The profile on my Facebook account states very clearly, for all my digital friends to read: graduate of Park Center High School in ’03; but knowing that Jon looked at it and brought it up as a conversational topic doesn’t bode well for some reason. I feel almost violated – I get the sense that he is a stalker, a Facebook stalker.
This is illogical. I’ve often gone and looked at my friend’s profiles: seen what they’re up to, where they’re working or taking classes, etc. But when I see them face-to-face, I never bring it up; in fact, I do more than not bring it up, I act as though, like Sgt. Schultz, “I know nothing!” and ask them questions to which Facebook has already told me the answer. But why?
Facebook stalkers are real, but mostly exaggerated. There are those who lurk and watch for every status update from their obsession; but not Jon. Jon is just a Facebook friend and colleague who wanted to know a bit more about me and thought it would be a good icebreaker to explain our shared background (he attended Park Center too, although years before me). So what impetus drives people to put on this Facebook façade? Others I have talked to shared similar sentiments – I’m not alone in feeling this way. What are your opinions?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Fanderclai and Faigley
Last semester in Teaching College English with Dr. Barton, the class read a number of tech-related articles, two of which are immediately relevant to this course: Tari Lin Fanderclai's "Like Magic, Only Real" and Lester Faigley's "Beyond Imagination: The Internet and Global Digital Literacy.” Incidently, I also created PowerPoints for both of these articles to present in Dr. Barton’s class; unfortunately, however, I could not find a way to upload these straight to blogspot (although that’s not to say there is no way to do this, only that I could not find that way in a couple minute’s worth of tinkering). Before elaborating on how I see their articles relating to our Computers, English, and Pedagogy class, allow me to properly cite the articles for any readers who wish to seek them out and read them:
Faigley, Lester. “Beyond Imagination: The Internet and Global Digital Literacy.” Concepts in Composition. Ed. Irene L. Clark. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 509-520.
Fanderclai, Tari Lin. “Like Magic, Only Real.” Concepts in Composition. Ed. Irene L. Clark. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 521-533.
Faigley had some interesting points. He contends that teachers still have a role in the classroom despite the insistence from some that technology will replace us. He says we need to make our voice heard: technology cannot do everything teacher’s do, it is not a golden ticket. It is a tool and nothing more. The issue of cost that my previous blog deals with is also raised by Faigley. His concern with the cost of technology is understandable, but the models he explicates as business-driven education have already appeared and faded into the background. Faigley does state that misinformation is one of the greatest dangers in using the web in education, but I see misinformation as a great opportunity to teach students analytical skills to determine authority and credibility.
Fanderclai’s article was amusing, especially considering that Dr. Moberly (one of my professors last year) knows her, and her name is all over our course material. It’s no surprise, because she is one of the leaders of the MOO pedagogy movements. Her article outlines the benefits and hindrances and anecdotes of her MOO-in-class experiences. While the major emphasis in her desire to utilize this technology seems to be upsetting traditional classroom hierarchies, she also notes other relevant teaching issues, such as getting students excited about learning, communicating, and interacting in an educational setting.
Faigley, Lester. “Beyond Imagination: The Internet and Global Digital Literacy.” Concepts in Composition. Ed. Irene L. Clark. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 509-520.
Fanderclai, Tari Lin. “Like Magic, Only Real.” Concepts in Composition. Ed. Irene L. Clark. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. 521-533.
Faigley had some interesting points. He contends that teachers still have a role in the classroom despite the insistence from some that technology will replace us. He says we need to make our voice heard: technology cannot do everything teacher’s do, it is not a golden ticket. It is a tool and nothing more. The issue of cost that my previous blog deals with is also raised by Faigley. His concern with the cost of technology is understandable, but the models he explicates as business-driven education have already appeared and faded into the background. Faigley does state that misinformation is one of the greatest dangers in using the web in education, but I see misinformation as a great opportunity to teach students analytical skills to determine authority and credibility.
Fanderclai’s article was amusing, especially considering that Dr. Moberly (one of my professors last year) knows her, and her name is all over our course material. It’s no surprise, because she is one of the leaders of the MOO pedagogy movements. Her article outlines the benefits and hindrances and anecdotes of her MOO-in-class experiences. While the major emphasis in her desire to utilize this technology seems to be upsetting traditional classroom hierarchies, she also notes other relevant teaching issues, such as getting students excited about learning, communicating, and interacting in an educational setting.
Anecdotal Opportunities
In addition to teaching freshman composition (English 191), I also intern for an Arthurian Literature course where the students just read the Welsh text Culhwch and Olwen (C&O). I decided during the course of the reading that the text lent itself perfectly to being adapted into machinima, in particular using the platform World of Warcraft (WoW) to film. Excepting that most of my readers aren’t familiar with either C&W or WoW, I will do my best to explain the vision for the adaptation and how it would aid students in learning the content of the text.
The story of C&O is one of the earliest appearances of Arthur in surviving literature. It details the winning of Olwen, the daughter of Ysbaddadon Chief Giant, by Culhwch, the cousin of King Arthur. In short: Culhwch gains the assistance of Arthur and his knights to help him win Olwen; Ysbaddadon gives Culhwch ~40 seemingly impossible tasks/quests to accomplish before he will consent to the marriage. The knights complete a large number of quests in the text (and presumably many more completed but excluded from the text) with brutal tactics and cunning trickery.
WoW is a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG) that allows players to control heroic avatars who slay monsters, explore sublime landscapes, and complete epic quests. The game boasts over 11 million subscribers and is one of the most successful computer games to date. Because of its player base, it has become one of the premier game engines used to machinimate. It has wide recognition even among non-gamers (though by no means a household name).
What I hope to do in subsequent blog posts is detail, outline, plan and format the machinimation of a C&O adaptation. I will discuss what my teaching goals for the project are: whether I want the film to replace the text, supplement the text, act as a secondary source for the text, explicate the text, critique the text, or something else. Based on those goals I will decide my approach in the creation: will the film be a comic parody? A close reading? A biting critique? In addition, I will elaborate on my creative process: how I choose which scenes to film and which to eliminate, what setting in game to film in, which character models to use, what props to exercise, and so on.
Being that I have only ever enjoyed machinima as a spectator, I intend to post about my experiences learning the technology necessary to complete the film. There is a lot to learn and a lot to do, but hopefully keeping a blog about the experiences will keep me on track to finish the project by semester’s end. Comments (whether questions or feedback or support) will definitely help keep me on task.
The story of C&O is one of the earliest appearances of Arthur in surviving literature. It details the winning of Olwen, the daughter of Ysbaddadon Chief Giant, by Culhwch, the cousin of King Arthur. In short: Culhwch gains the assistance of Arthur and his knights to help him win Olwen; Ysbaddadon gives Culhwch ~40 seemingly impossible tasks/quests to accomplish before he will consent to the marriage. The knights complete a large number of quests in the text (and presumably many more completed but excluded from the text) with brutal tactics and cunning trickery.
WoW is a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG) that allows players to control heroic avatars who slay monsters, explore sublime landscapes, and complete epic quests. The game boasts over 11 million subscribers and is one of the most successful computer games to date. Because of its player base, it has become one of the premier game engines used to machinimate. It has wide recognition even among non-gamers (though by no means a household name).
What I hope to do in subsequent blog posts is detail, outline, plan and format the machinimation of a C&O adaptation. I will discuss what my teaching goals for the project are: whether I want the film to replace the text, supplement the text, act as a secondary source for the text, explicate the text, critique the text, or something else. Based on those goals I will decide my approach in the creation: will the film be a comic parody? A close reading? A biting critique? In addition, I will elaborate on my creative process: how I choose which scenes to film and which to eliminate, what setting in game to film in, which character models to use, what props to exercise, and so on.
Being that I have only ever enjoyed machinima as a spectator, I intend to post about my experiences learning the technology necessary to complete the film. There is a lot to learn and a lot to do, but hopefully keeping a blog about the experiences will keep me on track to finish the project by semester’s end. Comments (whether questions or feedback or support) will definitely help keep me on task.
The Trouble with Technology: Common Complaints 2 of 2
Part 2 of the “Common Complaints” deals with the facts about technology in the classroom: legitimate complaints or fears that teachers about when integrating technology with pedagogy. The list will attempt to explain how I view these items as troublesome, but more importantly provide ideas for overcoming them as obstacles:
1) Time – between grading papers, writing tests, preparing lesson plans, actual teaching, and all the other time-hungry commitments teachers have, where is the time to learn about and play with and plan for technology in class? With the pace of technology, teachers are just getting comfortable with the idiosyncracies of one when they are encouraged to use something new because the other is now “out-dated.” Frustrating? Only if when the instructor feels the need to be in complete control (see “Common Complaints 1 of 2” on how problematic control-freaks can be when teaching). The issue is a matter of pedagogical principle. If an instructor is able to turn tech problems or other issues that are often alleviated by spending vast amounts of time prepping into learning situations, then the pressure of time goes down. Easier said than done for many teachers, but technology maybe just isn’t a good fit for all pedagogical philosophies.
2) Money – technology costs money. Lots and lots of money. And to stay current, budgets have begun to allocate more and more money into technology; this raises a lot of questions, eyebrows, and complaints (do we want another tenured professor, or new computers? Etc.). Even with increasing tech budgets, many schools are still struggling to find the funds to facilitate tech-enabled classrooms. There is no simple solution for this issue; if there were, I’d write a book on it and retire. Rather than confronting it as a lack of funds, many teachers approach it as an opportunity to be creative: they utilize technologies currently at hand, even out of date, because of a “something is better than nothing” mentality; they encourage public library trips (in or out of class) to make use of technologies provided there; they attempt to employ other class activities that mimic the benefits of technology without the cost, and probably have better success than instructors who ignore the issue (of technology) because of the problem (of money).
3) Rap Factor, or “Creepy Treehouse” – this may be more of a pet peeve of mine than something I’ve read or discussed with others, but it needs to be listed. When I was going through secondary education, even as early as elementary school, teachers were trying to be contemporary and cool. In order to be with the times, they tried to latch on to things they believed the students found appealing and twisted it. The result was “rapping” in a way that belittled popular culture. It was as if, at some conference every teacher at my school attended, somebody proposed incorporating “rap” exercises as a way to encourage student participation. There was nothing more alienating or embarrassing than having a wizened instructor assemble a soulless rhyme couplet to try and “rap” with her students. I felt sorry for her, even at the tender age of ten. It was painful and ineffective. Contemporary parallels can be found in teachers “friending” students or setting up mandatory course groups on the social networking site Facebook. The phrase for this is “creepy treehouse” and more information on it can be found here:
http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree-house/
So how can instructors know if they’re building a creepy treehouse? As GI Joe would say, “knowing is half the battle,” but also questioning the motives of technology integration. Does the technology serve a pedagogical purpose? Or is it just there to make the teacher “cool”?
1) Time – between grading papers, writing tests, preparing lesson plans, actual teaching, and all the other time-hungry commitments teachers have, where is the time to learn about and play with and plan for technology in class? With the pace of technology, teachers are just getting comfortable with the idiosyncracies of one when they are encouraged to use something new because the other is now “out-dated.” Frustrating? Only if when the instructor feels the need to be in complete control (see “Common Complaints 1 of 2” on how problematic control-freaks can be when teaching). The issue is a matter of pedagogical principle. If an instructor is able to turn tech problems or other issues that are often alleviated by spending vast amounts of time prepping into learning situations, then the pressure of time goes down. Easier said than done for many teachers, but technology maybe just isn’t a good fit for all pedagogical philosophies.
2) Money – technology costs money. Lots and lots of money. And to stay current, budgets have begun to allocate more and more money into technology; this raises a lot of questions, eyebrows, and complaints (do we want another tenured professor, or new computers? Etc.). Even with increasing tech budgets, many schools are still struggling to find the funds to facilitate tech-enabled classrooms. There is no simple solution for this issue; if there were, I’d write a book on it and retire. Rather than confronting it as a lack of funds, many teachers approach it as an opportunity to be creative: they utilize technologies currently at hand, even out of date, because of a “something is better than nothing” mentality; they encourage public library trips (in or out of class) to make use of technologies provided there; they attempt to employ other class activities that mimic the benefits of technology without the cost, and probably have better success than instructors who ignore the issue (of technology) because of the problem (of money).
3) Rap Factor, or “Creepy Treehouse” – this may be more of a pet peeve of mine than something I’ve read or discussed with others, but it needs to be listed. When I was going through secondary education, even as early as elementary school, teachers were trying to be contemporary and cool. In order to be with the times, they tried to latch on to things they believed the students found appealing and twisted it. The result was “rapping” in a way that belittled popular culture. It was as if, at some conference every teacher at my school attended, somebody proposed incorporating “rap” exercises as a way to encourage student participation. There was nothing more alienating or embarrassing than having a wizened instructor assemble a soulless rhyme couplet to try and “rap” with her students. I felt sorry for her, even at the tender age of ten. It was painful and ineffective. Contemporary parallels can be found in teachers “friending” students or setting up mandatory course groups on the social networking site Facebook. The phrase for this is “creepy treehouse” and more information on it can be found here:
http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree-house/
So how can instructors know if they’re building a creepy treehouse? As GI Joe would say, “knowing is half the battle,” but also questioning the motives of technology integration. Does the technology serve a pedagogical purpose? Or is it just there to make the teacher “cool”?
The Trouble with Technology: Common Complaints 1 of 2
After reading about technology in the classroom for a couple semesters, witnessing it over the course of my education, and talking about it with other instructors, I’ve decided there seems to be really only a handful of complaints that most teachers share and am listing them here to analyze. I divided the complaints into two categories, myths and facts. The second, facts, will come in the next blog post. The first, myths, consists of troubles teachers foresee or encounter that shouldn’t occur:
1) Accessibility – teachers seem to believe that if students have access to the entire web for class (whether in a computer lab, or they use a laptop in class, etc.) they will spend the period perusing inappropriate material (be it porn or social networking sites). If computers are required technology for a course—or section of a course—then the instructor needs to take appropriate measures to ensure students stay on task; this does not mean blocking every site that doesn’t end in .edu or .gov or .org; it does mean circulating, with panoptic surveillance or physical presence, to silently remind the students to stay focused. If, however, the course doesn’t require technology, and the student only uses a laptop in class, then there is little recourse but hoping they are on task and including a note in the syllabus about that.
2) Authority – teachers often fear the “Ferris Bueller” archetype: that student who is tech savvy and anti-authoritarian, the one who can change his grades in the school computer database, twist technology to trick teachers, etc. I don’t feel this is a realistic fear. Are there going to be students who know more than a teacher about technology used in class? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Employing technologies in the classroom cannot require the teacher to be an expert – if that were the case, no technologies would ever get used; but instructors need to remember that students can teach the teacher as well as the reverse. Good teachers utilizing technology cannot be afraid to learn from their students – it won’t damage credibility or authority to show ignorance, rather, showing a willingness and humility to learn from a student should only garner respect.
3) Anonymity – this topic seems to be a hybrid of the former two and rises when pedagogues explore social interactivity via technology for class purposes. Whether asynchronous posts on a blog/forum/board/etc. or synchronous MOO/chat space, teachers often fear student anonymity because they equate it with a lack of control. The myth can be understood by the simple erroneous equation (borrowed, in effect, from John Gabriel): students+anonymity+classroom=internet trolldom. And like the accessibility issue, many instructors overcompensate for their fear. They employ the utmost restrictions, tech panoptic surveillance, and lock down options with an iron fist. This countermines some of the greatest benefits of technology (and indeed anonymity) in the classroom. Rather than declare martial law in cyberspace, instructors should make an effort to learn the basic, non-intrusive commands/protocols/etc. to keep order in case anonymity is abused, not in preparation.
1) Accessibility – teachers seem to believe that if students have access to the entire web for class (whether in a computer lab, or they use a laptop in class, etc.) they will spend the period perusing inappropriate material (be it porn or social networking sites). If computers are required technology for a course—or section of a course—then the instructor needs to take appropriate measures to ensure students stay on task; this does not mean blocking every site that doesn’t end in .edu or .gov or .org; it does mean circulating, with panoptic surveillance or physical presence, to silently remind the students to stay focused. If, however, the course doesn’t require technology, and the student only uses a laptop in class, then there is little recourse but hoping they are on task and including a note in the syllabus about that.
2) Authority – teachers often fear the “Ferris Bueller” archetype: that student who is tech savvy and anti-authoritarian, the one who can change his grades in the school computer database, twist technology to trick teachers, etc. I don’t feel this is a realistic fear. Are there going to be students who know more than a teacher about technology used in class? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Employing technologies in the classroom cannot require the teacher to be an expert – if that were the case, no technologies would ever get used; but instructors need to remember that students can teach the teacher as well as the reverse. Good teachers utilizing technology cannot be afraid to learn from their students – it won’t damage credibility or authority to show ignorance, rather, showing a willingness and humility to learn from a student should only garner respect.
3) Anonymity – this topic seems to be a hybrid of the former two and rises when pedagogues explore social interactivity via technology for class purposes. Whether asynchronous posts on a blog/forum/board/etc. or synchronous MOO/chat space, teachers often fear student anonymity because they equate it with a lack of control. The myth can be understood by the simple erroneous equation (borrowed, in effect, from John Gabriel): students+anonymity+classroom=internet trolldom. And like the accessibility issue, many instructors overcompensate for their fear. They employ the utmost restrictions, tech panoptic surveillance, and lock down options with an iron fist. This countermines some of the greatest benefits of technology (and indeed anonymity) in the classroom. Rather than declare martial law in cyberspace, instructors should make an effort to learn the basic, non-intrusive commands/protocols/etc. to keep order in case anonymity is abused, not in preparation.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Machinima In Action
Machinima's versatility as a delivery method in the classroom means that any instructor who wants to use it, can use it. Any content course, any lecture, any area for creativity is a space for a machinimated film to be used in the classroom. Students learn more when entertained. If you make information memorable because it is delivered in an innovative way, is comical, or because students can relate to the medium it was delivered in, they will learn it faster and retain it longer. To aid my readers, I will give the URL of a couple different machinima videos -- different in their aim, different in their filming platform, and different in the amount of time spent in their creation.
http://www.machinima.com/film/what_is_machinima
"Machinima!" is an informational video is filmed in the first-person shooter (FPS) game Counter-Strike: Source. It was created solely for educational purposes, yet is entertaining. The production time for this five minute film is unknown, but more than likely created in under a month.
http://www.warcraftmovies.com/stream.php?id=97157&stream=1&h=bc1f3a6c2290d32038cbfda7ae468a94
"The Craft of War: BLIND" uses the popular MMORPG World of Warcraft to film. However, unlike the previous example, the machinimator of "BLIND" imported and exported the models into a 3D application to make them behave as they could not inside the game. This action film was created solely for entertainment value and the production time was several months.
These two examples are drastically different, and yet exemplify how machinima can fill a niche in the classroom. Whereas educational films can put students to sleep or contain irrelevant/outdated material, machinima can be made by the instructor. She can choose how to portray the information and what information to portray.
In an English classroom, for example, students can watch machinima to strengthen their analytical skills (observe the various connections between the game and the movie, etc.), view a lecture on style (how the creation of the machinima is like the craft of writing: it's all about choices) and so on. The boundaries aren't limitless. Time is the elephant in the room. Production quality should be high for students to best learn, and that means time spent learning the artform and medium, and even more time spent creating.
http://www.machinima.com/film/what_is_machinima
"Machinima!" is an informational video is filmed in the first-person shooter (FPS) game Counter-Strike: Source. It was created solely for educational purposes, yet is entertaining. The production time for this five minute film is unknown, but more than likely created in under a month.
http://www.warcraftmovies.com/stream.php?id=97157&stream=1&h=bc1f3a6c2290d32038cbfda7ae468a94
"The Craft of War: BLIND" uses the popular MMORPG World of Warcraft to film. However, unlike the previous example, the machinimator of "BLIND" imported and exported the models into a 3D application to make them behave as they could not inside the game. This action film was created solely for entertainment value and the production time was several months.
These two examples are drastically different, and yet exemplify how machinima can fill a niche in the classroom. Whereas educational films can put students to sleep or contain irrelevant/outdated material, machinima can be made by the instructor. She can choose how to portray the information and what information to portray.
In an English classroom, for example, students can watch machinima to strengthen their analytical skills (observe the various connections between the game and the movie, etc.), view a lecture on style (how the creation of the machinima is like the craft of writing: it's all about choices) and so on. The boundaries aren't limitless. Time is the elephant in the room. Production quality should be high for students to best learn, and that means time spent learning the artform and medium, and even more time spent creating.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Machinima
Last semester I wrote a paper titled "One Fish, Two Fish, Red versus Blue Fish" for a new media class. The paper aimed at contextualizing the burgeoning new art form machinima within game studies and new media scholarship. Machinima, as defined in the paper, is: "film-making within the real time 3-D virtual environment of a video game. It's the use of video game graphics technology to create animated films. Machinima combines aspects of film making, animation and game design to transform an interactive medium (a video game) into a production studio complete with sets, props, special effects and virtual actors; and all you need is a video game and desktop computer."
So why write about it here? I contend that machinima can be used as an effective pedagogical tool. More entertaining than a PowerPoint (PPT), more effective than a lecture, an educational machinima video would harness students' passion for pop culture and technology. And, like PPT, machinima is reusable. Once you've created it for a certain lesson, section, or educational enterprise, you don't need to do anything with it unless information changes or you decide a new video game platform may be more fun to deliver the information through. A lot of effort and time goes into creating good machinima -- and thats the key, the video needs to be good -- but the process of production involves playing video games, not hunting google for pictures that fit your PPT theme; besides, a good PPT takes a lot of effort too.
This blog will focus on new media pedagogy, with a focus on machinima as a supplementary and auxilary teaching tool.
So why write about it here? I contend that machinima can be used as an effective pedagogical tool. More entertaining than a PowerPoint (PPT), more effective than a lecture, an educational machinima video would harness students' passion for pop culture and technology. And, like PPT, machinima is reusable. Once you've created it for a certain lesson, section, or educational enterprise, you don't need to do anything with it unless information changes or you decide a new video game platform may be more fun to deliver the information through. A lot of effort and time goes into creating good machinima -- and thats the key, the video needs to be good -- but the process of production involves playing video games, not hunting google for pictures that fit your PPT theme; besides, a good PPT takes a lot of effort too.
This blog will focus on new media pedagogy, with a focus on machinima as a supplementary and auxilary teaching tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
