Heuristics:

• Interact with user interface easily.
  • results : The students did not have trouble navigating the site.  As time was short, they did not have an opportunity to really experiment with searching for background information on the source.  Also, it did not take them long to take to the Kaltura interface.
• Be interested and engaged in project.
• Show understanding of what is asked.
  • Students needed prompting to develop their ideas.  More experience in a wider variety of classrooms would answer the question of if this is normal or not.  Answers to questions came easier to them as they began to understand what they were doing.

Changes Made from Past Experience:

• Had students read aloud the article this time as it was a difficult task to manage the first time.

Things Forgotten:

• Directions must be clear, concise, and in a language they understand.  My focus before testing had been much more on development of the back end and strayed away from how to explain and integrate into the curriculum.  These steps should be made OBVIOUS.

Assumptions:

• That students would understand the article upon reading it.
• That they would be familiar with big ideas like “fuel-efficiency”.
• Timing Timing Timing : even in the analog we were not able to get through all that we needed to in the right amount of time, and I guess I should have realized that this would be the case with the digital, as well.
• Resources:  I was told that there would be computers for nearly all of the students, but really the groups were 5 students to a computer.  This is not the way it should be and it really affected how some of the students responded.  Collaboration is important, and there should be an understanding that unfortunately some kids are going to participate more than others.
• Time Enough to Produce Results:  Due to timing and other restraints it was difficult to feel as if there was a solid product produced by any of the groups.  It would seem that more time and practice is needed.
  • BAD NEWS:  it is difficult to feel the project as a success when there aren’t solid artifacts produced.
  • GOOD NEWS:  there is a great need for teaching the students how to do this.  There is a great lack of skill in their abilities where this sort of critical analysis and reconstruction of ideas is concerned.  Big opportunity

Observations & Results:

• Need to break it down — too much information was delivered at the same time.  My own mind was in the code and functionality rather than in the flow of the program’s introduction into the classroom environment.  This needs to be remedied.
• Students need a great amount of help developing their analysis and ideas.
• Students LOVE to be let loose with the media, but there needs to be DISCUSSION about what is appropriate for the school environment.  This is a really major issue that requires practice, and perhaps some

Next Steps:

• Introduce students to HOW to do this more methodically and in a more organized way.  List important QUESTIONS that they should ask themselves.
• Develop a resource about how to STORYBOARD.
• Use Kaltura itself to INTRODUCE students in a clear and concise fashion the way that DeepFried Media works.
• CONSTRAINTS are integral to success.  Students are given access to the media of the world through
• Students should have the article assigned as homework — it simply takes up too much time to read, absorb, analyze, & remix all in a one hour class period.

Session II | April 6, 2009

Changes made this time:

• “How to Storyboard” was introduced to the students at the beginning of the class.
• Added CONSTRAINTS to the remix.
  • Use 1 piece of video
  • Use 1 song
  • Use as many images as you like
  • Aim for a 30 second remix

Questions:

• In an effort to communicate better the questions that the students should ask themselves.  I wrote questions on the board:
  • What is the STORY?
    • Helpful Hint — make lists
  • What do YOU think?
  • What are the BIG IDEAS?
  • How would you TEACH this to another student?
  • Why should I (the audience) CARE?
  • Remember:  Longer is not always better.  Ask Questions — Questions are Good.
  • Simplicity is key.  Don’t over-complicate things.

Assumptions:

• That upon explaining how to storyboard, the students would be able to take this non-digital exercise and run with it.  I just forget that the students have more questions than I could ever dream up!  I need to refine the “How to Storyboard” handout as there is TOO MUCH TEXT.  Perhaps it could be helpful to make a presentation and film a screenshot with my voiceover.
• THAT TECHNOLOGY WOULD WORK.  Yes, this is always cause for concern.  It’s not as if Kaltura didn’t work, but sometimes it was a little testy.  I am going to look into if there are widgets that are more stable.  Or perhaps it would be more stable if some of the options were removed.

Observations & Results:

• This day was far more successful than the first testing.  The incorporation of an analog planning time is very important.
• Although intuitive, there is a learning curve for using this sort of thing (Kaltura).
• AGAIN, time got the better of us and students were unable to finish their projects.

Next Steps:

• Video Wrap-up:  Create a video with debriefing questions that can spur on discussion.  Bring the critical analysis back to their work.
• Further development of functionality
  • Play more with customizing the kaltura api to enhance experience
  • create rating and discussion boards for profile pictures
• Develop more scenarios for how it can be used
  • Be honest about how many days it takes to teach how to fully use it and what the challenge actually is.
• I really wish that there were more time to work in the “who is the source” element of the project.  Some of these tasks are much more simple and are a part of the step-by-step analysis.  For instance, since we were unable to do this part, we never came up with the list of “big ideas” from the article.  This left the students still asking questions about the article itself.  In addition, perhaps there should be some challenges or prompts about “devices” used in the article.  This might be too advanced for this age group, however.  This question requires further thought.
• “How to Storyboard” resource should be more fully developed with video?  Or at least more imagery.
• SCRIPTS: I need to work on “Resource” scripts for how to use the various elements and also “how to storyboard” “how to integrate this into your curriculum”, etc.
• Perhaps play up the “Roleplaying” element.  Should they be referred to as the Editors?  There should be some new language to help them understand what they’re doing.

Scholastic’s “What are storyboards?”

This is an interesting project that prepares students for a world of new technology. Although not entirely focused on media literacy, the project uses this new media in the classroom to enhance learning.

Here’s a blurb from the “About” page:
“The Globaloria Program was established by the World Wide Workshop Foundation in the spring of 2006. A network of educational, programmable websites and related wikis and blogs, the Globaloria Program prepares young people (13 and older) to use technology, specifically to become makers of interactive games and simulations, for their own personal and professional development and for the social and economic benefit of their communities.

As a result of participation in the Globaloria Program, secondary school and university students from underserved communities develop the expertise and self-confidence needed to become active global cybercitizens in today’s increasingly connected and digital world.

The Globaloria Program is comprised of multiple platforms, each of which has its own network, themes, and active communities. In 2006, with the support of Cisco Systems, the Foundation launched the first of these platforms, My Global Life, a game developers’ ‘starter-kit’, and plans to have at least four platforms under development during 2007 - 2008.”

Also, related to the Ratings System are some other questions:  What do the star ratings mean?  What is the language behind them?  Should there be negative feedback?  Or simply so-so?

I am beginning to see what I want out of each.  Below are examples of how each could play out.  I am still looking for the language to describe the “Discussion Thread” form of commentary.  I am starting to lean to “Class to Class” since that reinforces the fact that these discussions are between like entities.  We’ll see what feedback I get in user testing.

In addition, I am starting to think that each can be represented with a different type of word bubble.  The discussion threads fit better inside rectangular ones (although the edges can be rounded once worked into DFM aesthetic) and the “Why this rating?” one could be much more like a word bubble.  Perhaps this would help to distinguish as they are both requiring clarity of use and purpose.

How does one rate media? What is a Favorite?

What is a comment? Is it a discussion thread?

Profiles is now “MediaMakers”
Media Connect is now “Connections”
Activities is now “MediaKitchen”
What I say… is now “Stories”
Who I am… is now “Stats”
What I’m interested in… is now “Interests”

There was certainly an effort put forth to keep the language conversational and young, however I feel that it’s important to still use proper language. Slang is useful, however I have had numerous conversations with teachers about how a new classroom discussion has to do with text and email “speak”.

As for the name changes above, user testing will be the judge of it all.