DevelopmentInUrbanHigh

	Contents References
	Development In Urban High’s “Sex Talk” One group of students stood out in Urban High’s New Media 1 because the students were two years ahead of most of the students in the class, because they displayed a more positive student-school relationship, and because they were the only group to edit a project during the semester. The students could easily be considered the best in the class, but being older played an important role in this and in their work for the focal project “Sex Talk.” According to Rosemary, they wanted to tell the ninth graders “to think about it,” that is, to take their sexual behavior seriously. They clearly put more thought and energy into the project than other students, who mostly recorded themselves cooking, and this group was “serious” about their project, even if they frequently became silly. The video is just over 34 minutes long and consists of 72 shots. Though it was not edited, there were six distinct sequences: They started with two introductory segments (sequence 1), moved on to a condom commercial (sequence 2) and then a skit of a girl speaking to her father about sex (sequence 3). A series of mostly impromptu interviews of students and teachers, in groups and alone, followed (sequence 4). One interview was a sequence in and of itself, being of the school nurse in the form of a skit about a student seeking information; it was much longer and informative than the others (sequence 5). Lastly, the introductions were re-recorded away from school at one of the student’s homes with only two of the students present (sequence 6). The project had a clear topic and surprisingly coherent movement from scene to scene, given that it was not edited; the introductory shots provided clear indications of how it might have been edited. The message, however, became vague, particularly during the interviews. Part of the problem was that the project was not in strict accordance with the assigned genre: A“how to” video as promoted should have demonstrated a particular activity. A closer interpretation would have resulted in a demonstration of safe sex techniques. The sequence with the school nurse provided such a demonstration, but most of the project drew on other genres and did not educate about or contribute to the promotion of safe sex practices. The contribution of the interviews, in particular, was not clear. Rosemary indicated that the interviews had not been what they expected, but the questions and contexts were not structured to elicit the kind of answers that would have contributed to the message. The questioning—despite different interviewers—began two thirds of the time with, “What do you think about safe sex?” This and other questions elicited attitudes, opinions, and admissions, but rarely new information (though the “morning-after pill” was frequently introduced as a topic). Despite a strong purpose, therefore, the project had a relatively weak message. Agency was particularly interesting in this project because of the degree to which it was strong yet distributed between group members. This project in particular created the need to re-evaluate what it meant for the camera to initiate events. All events—except the off-task ones—were created for the camera, though not necessarily with the camera. The students in front of the camera were always negotiating and working with the camera operator to create events. This negotiation was frequently overt: The students in front of the camera would seek confirmation that it was okay to begin or to move in a particular direction. Much of the negotiation, however, is off camera, and the action started before the camera more than once. The visible action is clearly shaped for the camera by the actors or interviewers and frequently by the microphone. The camera did not, however, play a symbolic role, and during the interviews, it was usually the interviewers who mediated events. Only once did an interviewee speak directly to the camera operator, saying, “Stop the camera.” Though the camera was always part of and the reason for events, it does not solely initiate or independently shape events. Nevertheless, the students clearly assert their own purposes in their uses of the camera throughout production. By contrast, the students consistently demonstrated poor technical proficiency. Sound was the greatest problem: The interviews were always difficult to hear. Their handheld microphone did not work and the students did not make an effort to acquire better equipment. Similarly, no attention was given to lighting or white balancing. The only indication given to technical concerns was the use of a tripod when re-shooting the introduction. The camera operators, however, had surprisingly steady hands. They demonstrated their lack of skill instead in the frequently meaningless use of pans and zooms. Ed, the student who was usually the camera operator, demonstrated a belief that the interviewer should frequently not be shown, but she tended to do so only partially and did not zoom in or move closer, creating the impression that she was not committed to the belief. There was also a distinct lack of closeup shots, which exacerbated the audio problems. Similarly, there was an inattention to the look of scenes. Not only was no attention given to aesthetics through most of the project, but Skinny, when asked (in an imaginary communication with the “studio”) whether he was downtown yet, motioned with his arm, saying, “I’m downtown already. See?” All that could be seen, however, was a wall (see Illustration 7). The only indication of beginning to think about aesthetics came when two students re-shot the introductory scenes, trying different locations and one student changing clothes twice. This last suggests that aesthetics had just begun to be considered in the process. Self-expression was far more evident than in the more frequent cooking demonstrations. It was most evident in the students’ attempt to do a project that was meaningful to them—that asserted their position as older students with a sense of responsibility toward the younger students. The project mattered beyond simply meeting class requirements. They also expressed their personalities and opinions throughout in the manner of doing skits and shaping interviews. At some point, each group member appeared on camera and presented a version of themselves. As perhaps the best project in the class and certainly the one with the most time devoted to it, its potentials and inadequacies reveal more about the program than the students. The project was relatively strongest in terms of agency and self-expression because there were the greatest affordances for these qualities and little attention was given to other aspects by the students or the program (particularly in Media 1). The strongest promotions were to produce videos appropriate to the assignments, and therefore, it should be no surprise that the greatest differences among this group’s three projects related to their genres. An effort to compare the students’ three projects suggests that the strong purpose in the safe sex project led to less attention to aesthetics and less creative camera work. The genre of a “how to video” in general does not promote attention to these qualities. By contrast, their first project, a silent piece, demonstrated more attention to camera work, which seems to have been the goal of the instructor. Scenes were shot multiple times from different vantage points. Their final project, a public service announcement, was more attractive, facilitated by being shot away from school and then being edited but nevertheless showing more interesting camera work and some indications of style. Technical problems but strong storylines were qualities of each project. The differences in the projects that suggest some development relate most to which activities they undertook and gave the most attention to. The first project reflected experimentation in multiple shots of the same scenes taken from different vantage points. The second project included other people and made less of an effort to shape events—it was more spontaneous—but, in the end, returned to the effort of perfecting a look; this time, however, the “look” was affected through scenery and costumes and the role of the camera was neglected. The third project was actually edited after trying different perspectives. Thus progress was made by expanding on what activities to include, but there was little evidence that communication was more effective at the end of the three projects—except in the big addition of being acquainted with cameras and editing. The differences between projects appear to relate most to assignments, but they reveal that the qualities promoted by particular genres received the most attention.
Contents	Forward to Development At Boarding High With Wicket And Jerome OR Forward to Social Relations In Urban High's "Sex Talk"	References

Development In Urban High’s “Sex Talk”