Archive for November, 2011

Are they good?  Are they bad?  Are they writing?

 This process of simple video making is not  going as expected. It has been a nightmare trying to coordinated schedules with people just as busy as myself.   I guess I place too much emphasis on my grades for people to understand where I’m coming from.  Although it says we are supposed to be in video production mode of this project we are still stuck on trying to come up with an agreeable script.  I have tried to keep us moving in the right direction but nothing has worked.

The connections and misconnections  between “the writing process” as we’ve studied it and what I have experienced are two completely different things, especially when compared to the “video making process.”  It was easy to say what I wanted and convey my point across while speaking into the video camera.   When it came time to write my thoughts down I found myself stumbling over my words.  That has been the main focus of Socrates.  He states that we can easily speak what we want and then freeze as we write.  This is probably why he was against writing.  At the same time this video project proved his point.  I laughed when I thought about this correlation.  Then I thought about Mike Wesch.  The amount of people who retake a first impression on vlogging.  They can’t quite get out what they want to say.  Does this mean that video is a direct correlation to writing?  You want to be clear and concise in both so you write and rewrite to be sure of it.  With video you do retakes to make sure its clear and the way you want it thus proving it can be a direct correlation.

I can see the point of Anderson’s advocacy for the use of “low bridge” technologies like the ones we are using for this project.  Technology is connected no matter how you look at rather you have a computer or not.  It took this class to explain that concept to me.


Read Full Post »

Looking back I can see other activities and readings from previous units of this class that might be potentially useful to this project.  For example Ancient Style conversations and writings.  These  can easily fit  into the YouTube project by showing bits of each side and then commenting on them.  Speaking about my project I could show an example of the commercial and then drop in animation based on the “ancient style” that fits the commercial piece.  By doing this, a viewer can easily see the distinction between the current video and how it relates to reading.   Adding Baron to this project would lead to a stronger argument.  I would title the project style then and now.

Looking forward the discussions about the relationships between technology, writing and You Tube is a direct correlation to what Mike Wesch was referring to about the  face to face community of people becoming smaller and  the You tube Community becoming larger. Strong connections can be pulled from Pencils to Pixels because You Tube would be a stage in the technology literacy.  Directly relating Mike Wesch comments to ancient style will show a strong correclation of the beginning of technology to where it is now.  First we were afraid of writing and the correct way to do so (Socrates, Ong, Crowley and Hawhee).  Then we were afraid of books and there purpose ( Miguel), which leads to the age of modern technology of “pixels” (Baron, Wesch and Anderson).

Although these pieces were read  and discussed separately they can easily be tied together with a clear and concise statement.  From “Writing to vlogging”.  With each writing piece being linked together with footprints to the next.

Read Full Post »

Peer Review, Recap

˜ another reflection

Once again I’m reflecting on another peer review.  I can honestly say I went into this one with no expectations.  Meaning I was not expecting my group to respond quickly.  I was not expecting them all to respond.  Well, I’m glad I set my expectations low because that is what happened.  I am again writing my assignment with only review.  If the reviews are do tonight, are we suppose to stay up and wait by the computer for our group members to decide to do their homework, so we can write our reflections.  Unfortunately I can’t do that.  I have other assignments and classes just like everyone else, the difference is I learned how to prioritize my responsibilities.

The one thing I immediately learned was that I approached the assignment wrong. Instead of taking the rule and applying it, I completely transformed the rule to fit my project and explanations.   I learned that by (promptly) reading my fellow classmates papers.  They all had wonderful ideas and did a great job at transforming Shrunk, White and Williams work.  I hope the comments that I gave them helped them.  I know some was a bit harsh but I didn’t want to sugar coat what needed to be fixed.

I noticed in my drafts I received a lot pf the same comments, unclear thoughts a few misspellings, flow of sentencing not quite right.  I think when you are writing a draft it’s just that a draft.  It is meant for comments to help flush out your thoughts for a better final paper.  I saw some repeats in my patterns. I think the one way to fix that is write a draft but get it to as close to “perfect” as possible to minimize the same comments on the draft.   The one difference is that my idea actually ran through my whole paper this time, not just the first paragraph.  I was very pleased with that.

Overall, as much as I despise letting my peers review my work I was able to get over it throughout this class.  Thanks classmates! I hope my ideas for group collaborating will change through my program

Read Full Post »