I run a subject (“Integrated Media One“) within the RMIt media degree program. This subject has students using their available resources (i.e. smart phones) to record brief videos. These then become a small personal interactive film (using Korsakow). From this we then make a larger, small group, interactive video project (using Korsakow). There are lectures, and a weekly lab with approximately 20 students in each lab. I am delivering the lectures and two of the 5 or 6 labs. This means I am looking for someone to teach the remaining labs. The curriculum is described at the post industrial video site. The subject blog I use might be useful too.
Details. It is here in Melbourne, Australia. It begins end of February. Sessional means you are paid for the teaching hours you teach. You assess the students in your classes. You attend the lecture (and should be paid for doing so). You should be familiar with Korsakow, network literate/savvy, and have a minimum honours degree in a relevant discipline/field. Would be good that you’re interested in innovative teaching practices too. If you’re doing a Phd in or around this area and interested, this is a great chance to get some teaching, and also learn a lot, quickly.
Get in touch via adrian dot miles at rmit dot edu dot au
From Hannah Brasier, an honours student I am supervising (we’re working in Korsakow):
How do I conceive of and make a slow interactive online video work? This is a problem because there is little work available that considers the slow in relation to interactive online video. Deleuze’s concept of the affect image provides a possible framework and method for how to make and theorise such a work/project. This may provide a method and theoretical model for making and understanding complex multilinear videos in the context of the slow.
, research practice
Massively Open Online Courses, in the spirit of Stanford’s recent AI course, now one of the flavours of the e-education month. Some associated with the Stanford project have now spun off Udacity and Coursera. The education platform wars are beginning. For someone like me at a piddling regional university, this really is a great opportunity. Some of the grunt work of content can be farmed out to these sorts of eduservice providers freeing up time and resources for real engagement and learning. It is obvious that while these services may address the content issue, they are going to struggle with the epistemological and ontological facets of university education which revolve around learning how to be (a designer, media practitioner, economist, doctor).
Or just use the current ‘flipped’ model, send them to do something like Networked Life at Penn which they do in their own time then in class, let’s do, hey, I know, diaspora (or some similar enquiry based learning action) in our face to face class time. And note to self, what would a course on post industrial media look like in this format? Why?
Tags: Network Literacy
, network practices
It might not seem so but it is a bit of a radical step to let students assess their participation, themselves. Most of the time most teachers at uni don’t trust students to know how to do things like this (I’m not sure why), but they can, and they almost always do it very well. We spend time on this in the first class, revisit it in a few weeks and quite a bit of time in the last one. Why do we do this?
- because we want participation to be a diverse range of things relevant to the student
- and only they know if they have done them or not (since most of the things that count as participation are invisible to me in the class and in their submitted work)
- because we are always told that if you ‘put in’ you will get ‘more out of it’ so I put my money where my mouth is and make it worth their while (say, 30% of their final mark)
- it helps students to define who they are to your peers, so is actually about building and maintaining a reputation come trust network (and in an intimately networked world getting an understanding of this as an ethics matters
- if I have to assess it then it becomes little more than attendance, which is certainly no measure of something as diverse and complicated as ‘participation’
This is why it takes a while to do. We discuss how it went last time, what might be done differently this time, and then make a list of all the things that might need to be done by you to learn successfully across the semester. The small change this time, since they had experience of doing this already, was to use some ‘filters’ on the list: what would be the two easiest things for you to do? Why? The two hardest? Why? And which two would make the biggest difference? Why?
I was at a really interesting seminar the other day which was largely about writing and the cinema. Was too short. But some of the incidental conversation was troubling. The visitor was pointing out how many of the undergraduates (as opposed to the postgraduates) struggle to get what is being discussed, or why it matters. There were supportive nods of heads and comments about how one or two would get it, the intent being that these are the ones who matter. This is self serving romantic nonsense that is the university myth we all hold dear. Imagine if primary and secondary school teachers had this understanding of their role and value as educators, and if your child wasn’t one of those one or two. The problem I have with this is that I was once one of those students. I relished the university experience, but the university didn’t teach me how to relish it, it didn’t teach me how to be ‘theoretical’, I came primed and already ready. Most of my peers, as with most of my students, don’t get ‘theory’ in the way we academics do, but we teach it as if they should and those that do get HDs and those that don’t get confused. When do we stop and wonder how to teach to the other 22 in the room? Surely that is what constitutes good teaching? All of us can wheel out our HD students as evidence of our teaching brilliance, except these students will almost certainly already be academically inclined and this will have had little, if anything, to do with us. This is another version of the ‘little academics‘ model, a Lacanian mirror phase moment where we misjudge the reflection of ourselves in these students as an imprimatur of our own ability.
In 2010 Integrated Media One, for the first time, used the Korsakow software for making and exploring multilinear online video.
course, workshop and reading notes (written in Tinderbox and published serially)
a teaching blog where commentary on student work was made
an archive of the 2010 final k-film projects made
, Vogging Theory
Integrated Media in 2011 returned to being based around the Korsakow software to explore how to make multilinear online video. There are:
rough course notes (lectures, workshop outlines, readings) written in Tinderbox and published serially to the web
an integrated media blog where I write occasional commentary on student work, provide some resources and the like
an archive of the final interactive Korsakow films created by the 2001 cohort
I write course notes using Tinderbox for lectures and lab/workshops and they are published serially to a rather messy and haphazard site. They are added to, amended, edited, each year. The 2011 course notes are located at vogmae.net.au/intmedia/2011/
, Vogging Theory
So, next week teaching starts. I am program director for the honours program, and do a lot of teaching into that, but the main teaching I’m concerned with at the moment is for Integrated Media One (a subject that is need of a name change). In previous years I’ve used a different blog to teach from, for the undergrad stuff, but last year that ended up containing some good stuff about interactive video. So, this year, the commentary is coming into here. I’ve archived all the courseware from 2010, and am in the process of building the site for 2011, as well as a generic HTML portal to the old stuff. Stay tuned.
Tags: Int Media
This years students have submitted, the work is out for examination, now we wait…. A mix of thesis and project outcomes. This is what was created:
In the honours program that I run I spend a lot of time with the students making things strange. (Actually that’s a reasonable description of how I do most of my teaching, honours or otherwise.) The majority are all from media disciplines, things like journalism, media studies, public relations and the like. But at heart their training, and the core of their educational experience, is as humanities students. This means most of their assessment that has really mattered has been written, that their primary mode of learning is individual, and that all assessment is individual. Group work is minimal, often reviled, and rarely developed in a manner where working in a group, rather than individually, makes much difference.
Anyway, one of the ways in which I make things strange is to regularly use completely different semiotic economies or registers as ways of mapping knowledge. In this case drawings. Generally they can’t draw, but this naivety can be valuable as all sorts of things turn up in their drawings simply because they are so unaware the drawings become highly self aware. If that makes sense. (Some produce highly regular patterns, others not, some stick to the centre, some to the edges, some have to cover the entire page, some only a corner.) As one of the completion tasks for the year I invited everyone to make a graph (so actually much easier than a drawing). The x axis is time, which in our case means the entire honours year. The y axis is bisected by the x axis so that it falls above and below the x axis. Above is positive, below negative. I then asked them to plot, as a line graph three things:
- their understanding of what research is as a practice or thing (research as a way of doing and not the common garden variety noun that they started honours with where research = to do a lot of reading about something)
- how much they know about their topic or research subject, and how that changed through the year
- how much what they were studying, or what their outcome would be, changed from what they thought they would be doing, and whether this change was good or bad
I then asked them to write on the graphs the three things (not in any order) that had the biggest impacts on their honours outcomes through the year. These are the drawings that resulted.