This is a following of the previous post.
- Production of amateurs
It is crucial to note that education is not aimed at professionals but amateur groups (Burn and Durran, 2006). If the focus is on media literacy as an essential skill for everyday life rather than vocational training, it is not necessary to put much effort towards teaching technology. However, nowadays, it is easy to encounter groups of students making and posting their own video clips on YouTube, even though they have not received formal education on video techniques. Over the past decade, it has become comparably easier to acquire cameras suitable for moving images, not to mention high-end cameras on mobile phones. Personal computers, on which editing application can easily be equipped, are present in almost every household. Such easy access to filming and editing tools has led to its widespread use, even in the field of education. Due to the low barriers to the technology of moving image production, we now have a chance to provide moving image education to all students. Burn and Durran (2006) argued that the level of education should be somewhere within the beginners’ level, so that the course would encourage students to follow their interest, rather than extending simply to a small group of passionate students.
In addition, media literacy, i.e. the way people listen, think, draw, talk, design, produce, present and write, should be the focus of media education rather than media techniques. This is because technology is not stagnant; it has changed constantly and will continue to change in the future. Current education places more emphasis on production than analysis (Burn and Parker, 2003). Burn and Durran (2006) maintain that the movie making process in schools can assist media literacy and improve children’s media interpretation skills. They argue that “this experience gives them a more explicit understanding of media technologies, the grammars they use, and the contexts in which they are deployed” (Burn and Durran, 2006). Indeed, production, which is creative and authentic, helps students to comprehend and undertake analysis, which may by comparison seem dry and less exciting. By composing a short film, students can briefly deconstruct existing works and get an enhanced understanding of the components that lie behind moving images.
- Collective knowledge – ZPD
From planning to finalisation, this whole film making process requires teamwork.. Gauntlett (2011) stated that “making is connecting with other people”, because the performance engages with social aspects and enables people to learn and share with each other. The film making process inevitably involves no less than two people: at least one cameraman/camerawoman and one actor/actress (Burn and Durran, 2006). As stated by Burn and Durran (2006), Vygotsky considered that social interaction, which in a class translates to various group work, promotes impromptu ideas. Brabazon (2013) also states that “Vygotsky believed that the hub of ‘development’, in the many meaning of that word, requires consideration of the relationship between humans and their environment.” In addition, the notion of “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger, 1991) suggests that people learn by engaging in situated learning. Whether through a small or big role, participation involves situated learning in a community of collective knowledge.
Indeed, as this was a team project, not everyone in our team had to be an expert in cinematography. As I had prior experience I took the role of cinematographer, while others were in charge of acting, scriptwriting, and hunting background music respectively; we shared skills as well as ideas during the process. As such, when students work on a project together, the outcome will not be that of one individual because the students would have shared their ideas and skills they have mastered. (Jenkins, 2008) indicates that in a participatory culture, in which the entire community assumes responsibility for helping beginners find their ways, people can collectively develop their own skills. Thus, group work, as a learning environment, is an optimal method through which children can enhance media literacy.
- Conclusion
While experiencing the moving image production process during the day, our team analysed and applied film language as well as film techniques that we had prior knowledge of, such as conventional film language gleaned from films, advertisement and TV. Creating a short film requires thorough consideration and determination of the film language which the filmmaker would have already achieved, whether intentionally or not. Even though the creators had not been taught the specific cinematic expression, they would have spontaneously attained knowledge, though not necessarily by intention. As Burn and Parker (2003) indicated, no matter how formal or informal it may be, the process offers chances to re-compose elements from other previous processes. As we did in this practice, students would carefully consider and analyse their experience with and impressions from other moving images because the work had a precise goal – a short and coherent film – and had to be done in limited time.
Movie making in schools should be an activity for casual participants. Compare to decades ago, media devices and opportunities to make video clips have become more common. This shift suggests that media is no longer only for the few students who are dedicated or professionally interested. In addition, another essential part of this exercise is teamwork. Practicing in a community is an opportunity to learn through a process of situated learning. The common endeavour to make a coherent and convincible movie will lead to the team sharing their prior knowledge and knowledge gained through their respective roles.
- References
Bordwell, D., Thompson, K., 2010a. The relation of shot to shot: Editing, in: Film Art: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. 294–346.
Bordwell, D., Thompson, K., 2010b. Sound in the cinema, in: Film Art: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Brabazon, T., 2013. Digital dieting: from information obesity to Intellectual fitness. Ashgate, Farnham.
British Film Institute, 1985. Film Narrative and the Structuralist Controversy, in: Cook, P. (Ed.), The Cinema Book. British Film Institute, London.
Burn, A., Durran, J., 2007. Animation, Moving Image Literacy and Creativity, in: Media Literacy in Schools: Practice, Production and Progression. SAGE, pp. 110–128.
Burn, A., Durran, J., 2006. Digital Anatomies: Analysis as Production in Media Education, in: Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 273–293.
Burn, A.N., Parker, D., 2003. Analysing media texts, (Continuum research methods series). Continuum, London.
Gauntlett, D., 2011. Making is connecting : the social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Jenkins, H., 2008. Why Heather Can Write: Media Literacy and the Harry Potter Wars, in: Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press, New York ; London, pp. 169–205.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J., 2012. Digital media and learner identity : the new curatorship, Palgrave Macmillan’s digital education and learning series. Palgrave Macmillan, New York ; Basingstoke.
Sefton‐Green, J., 2005. Timelines, Timeframes and Special Effects: software and creative media production. Educ. Commun. Inf. 5, 99–110.
mojowaejo 