This week’s focus was on Multimodality, and we were exposed to an array of tools and platforms available to create digital stories. My primary takeaway this week was that there’s an infinite combination of technological ways to tell a story, and each medium has affordances and limitations. I focused on dialog and audio for my 30 Second (Elevator Spiel) assignment. I felt the medium was appropriate and suited the subject matter. I added a music soundtrack of some tacky elevator music to complement the effect of having to rattle off your professional accomplishment in 30 seconds on an elevator ride.I recorded the dialog in Audacity but switched over to Camtasia for the rest of the production as I’m more familiar with the tool. Audacity is not very intuitive. I need to watch a tutorial because I couldn’t just “figure it out for myself”, which is my normal approach to new software. I’m finding I tend to jump in and get some sense of orientation before I seek out tutorials. I think the readings forced me to stretch myself this week. Learning theory isn’t one of my top interests, so the Ackerman article forced me to engage my left hemisphere. But there were some interesting annotations to the article and it was a good conversation.
I’m a huge fan of aural storytelling. This American Life, Radiolab, The Moth, and many other story-based programs on NPR always capture my imagination. To tie into the theme, I critiqued a StoryCorps episode; “Spaceman”. I emphasized how much we rely on imagination when listening to a story as opposed to watching and listening. I think by limiting the amount of media, we create a more powerful storytelling experience. I think kids are exposed to so much- literally inundated with media, as pointed out in the RSA Animate piece. I wonder how many teachers have kids simply listen to stories and allow them to use one sense and their imagination to process it.
My favorite new thing was the list of tools available to use in the Digital Storytelling 2015 piece. I was familiar with some of the tools, but not all and it prompted me to seek out more tools in the Toolbox. So many tools, so little time… I’m really more of a Maker, than anything else.
Every week is so full of content and activities. I’m a little worried about getting everything done. I’ve made a spreadsheet to track everything, but I always feel like I’ve missed or forgotten to do something. Probably because the course is condensed, but I just feel like I’m always running behind. I’m out of town, camping, for most of next week, so I’m trying to get ahead. So, I’m not sure where I would like to go next, I just want to make sure I get there.
So, I feel that constructivism is the best fit for the pedagogy of DS106 and INTE5340. We aren’t collectively making (which I’m grateful for) as defined by Constructionism, although we are sharing, and Connectivism could be argued for as you are modeling and demonstrating and we are practicing and reflecting. But I think I’m leaning toward Constructivism for purely selfish reasons, as that is my preferred method of learning and how I’ve taught in the past.