Digital Storytelling: Capturing lives, creating communities

Lambert, J. (2006). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating communities. Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner Press.

p. 142.
...historically, different technologies had been pushed into the classroom from above rather than in response to teachers' desires or needs. Consequently there was a history of resistance to technology by teachers, as technology often interfered with their classroom goals. The headaches of learning these new technologies and troubleshooting technical problems simple weren't worth it. Teachers for the most part have not felt comfortable with using technology themselves, which was reflected in how they imagined implementing it in their curriculum.

Teachers are tired. Teaching is a tiring profession. It is very emotional. Teachers are also tired of technology since it has been pushed into the schools from above fro years and rarely with any thought about as to how it would really integrate into actual classroom practice, or what teachers actually wanted to do, or about how how it impacts the relationships within a classroom that are so important.

Story is a much more effective repository of data than many research methodologies that use data points as metrics. When making digital stories, teachers are given a new way to be creative with artistic expression which is not encouraged in the context of their daily work. This re-energizes them about teaching by taking themselves back into the classroom and allows them to express it in a way they've never been able to.

Digital storytelling thus can be an action research tool, an iterative tool where the points of reflection develop a professional portfolio. The idea is to return to your earlier story, again and again, in each iteration, and have that shape the research questions and artifact collection over many semesters or years. (Can be very powerful!)

Self-empowerment; sense of audience (the public role became part of the process with digital storytelling); intense writing revision (much more careful critical reflection)

Reference:
Paull, C. (2002). Self-perceptions and social connections: Empowerment through digital storytelling in adult education. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, School of Education.

Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Other readings:

General
Campbell, J. (1988). The power of myth. New York: Doubleday.

Storytelling & Education
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cognitive Theory, Psychology, and Narrative
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Harvey, J. H. (1996). Embracing their memory: Loss and the social psychology of storytelling. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.

Interactive Digital Storytelling
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: The Free Press.
Miller, C. H. (2004). Digital storytelling: A creator's guide to interactive entertainment (1st Ed.). Focal Press.

Educational Resources
Scott County, KY
David Jake's Educational Resources
UK Digital Storytelling in Education
University of Houston's Digital Storytelling Resources

Reflection on Computers as Mindtools

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

I remember I had a hard time drawing flow charts for my Instructional Design class last year. At first I tried to draw the charts with Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, or Photoshop. They didn't work so well. Then I started using Inspiration. I felt so happy that Inspiration had provided me with a handy tool that allowed me to visualize and connect all the ideas for the project. In addition, it also allowed me to hyperlink those ideas with related resources.

Another example is the use of MSN and Skype to communicate with my family and friends back in my home country. Making international phonecall is so expensive and inconvenient. Online chatting (text, voice, and video) saved me a lot of money and made the communication simple and effective.

According to Jonassen, technologies should not simply become tools that the learners learn from. Rather, they should engage the learners in a process of knowledge construction. The concept of "Computers as Mindtools" provides me an in-depth understanding of meaningful learning and critical thinking supported by computerized technologies that occurs in our daily life.

When drawing a flow chart with Inspiration for my Instructional Design class, the software helped me to analyze and organize what I know and what I was learning. Accompanying the use of technology were the high-order thinking skills, as my work was to develop a concept map that connected a large number of ideas to each other via links. This process is what Jonassen called "Semantic Networking." And the Inspiration software I used belongs to the semantic organization tool category, one important member of the Mindtool family.

When chatting with my friends and family online through MSN or Skype, I was engaged in a meaningful conversation with one or a group of people. Those conversation tools helped me to interpret or visualize the message (e.g., a smiley face icon, webcam) and sometimes provided me a community-like environment(multi-user chatting, NetMeeting) which promoted socially co-constructed learning and communication. And best of all, they are totally free and user-friendly!

Highlights from the article:

I. Technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from (p. 24).

II. Classification of Mindtools

1. Semantic Organization Tools (analyzing & organizing; represent semantic relationships among ideas)
1.1 Databases: computerized record keeping systems; analyzing and organizing subject matter (e.g., MS Access, Filemaker, dBase, MySQL)
1.2 Semantic Networking (concept mapping): represent the structural relationships of knowledge; reflect the process of knowledge construction (e.g., SemNet, Learning Tool, Inspiration, Mind Mapper)

2. Dynamic Modeling Tools (describe the dynamic relationships among ideas)
2.1 Spreadsheets: computerized, numerical record keeping system, amplifying mental functioning; requires abstract reasoning, supports problem-solving activities, higher order reasoning (e.g., Excel. Representing, reflecting on, and calculating quantitative information)
2.2 Expert Systems: program that simulates the way human experts solve problems; an artificial decision maker; problem-solving: (e.g., PyKe, MQL 4, CLIPS)
2.3 Systems Modeling Tools: building simulations of dynamic systems and processes (e.g., Stella, Model-It)
2.4 Microworlds: exploratory learning environments or discovery spaces in which learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on one another; ultimate example of active learning environments, because the users can exercise so much control over the environment (e.g., Sims, Math Worlds, SimCalc)

3. Information Interpretation Tools (access and process the info; e.g., search engines scanning info resources like WWW, and locating relevant resources for learners)
3.1 Visualization Tools: represent and convey mental images (e.g. MacSpartan)

4. Knowledge Construction Tools: When learners function as designers of objects they learn more about them than they would from studying about them (e.g., Logo; Papert's constructionism)

5. Hypermedia: designing multimedia presentations requires project manage skills, research skills, organization and representation skills, presentation skills, and reflection skills (e.g., Flash, DreamWeaver, HTML)

6. Conversation Tools (socially co-constructed learning)
6.1 Online Telecommunications (sychronous: Chats, MOOs, MUDs, videoconferencing; asychronous: email, Listservs, bulletin boards, computer conferences)

III. Rationales for using technology as mindtools

• Learners as designers
  
  • the quickest way to learn about sth. is to have to teach it; learners are teaching the computer;
    
  • Mindtools require learner to think harder about the subject matter, constructing their own realities by designing their own knowledge base
• Knowledge construction, not reproduction (a constructivist use of tech)
  
  • Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in organization and representation of what they know
    
  • Learners are actively engaged in interpreting the external world and reflecting on their interpretations (participate and interact with the environments - mindtools)
    
• Learning with technology
  
  • The effects of technology vs. the effect with technology
  • Learning w/ tech: the learner enters an intellectual partnership with the tech
  • Qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus tech (mutual enhancement between the computer capabilities and the learner's thinking and learning); The whole of learning becomes greater than the sum of its parts
    
• (Un)intelligent tools
  
  • The appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension cognitive tool
  • Planning, decision-making, and self-regulation of learning are the responsibility of the learner, not the computer
  • Computer system can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these skills
    
• Distributing cognitive processing
  
  • The learner and the computer should do the part they do best
    
  • Learners should be responsible for recognizing and judging patterns of information and then organizing it
  • The computer system should perform calculations, store, and retrieve information
    
• Cost and effort beneficial
  
  • software readily available & affordable
  • easy to learn