| Previous | Contents References |
Next |
| |
Official And Unofficial EvaluationsEvaluations, whether they are in the more private form of tests or the more public form of oral feedback during production and viewing, promotes particular activity rather than constraining it. Often, it is the knowledge that an evaluation is coming that promotes the desired activity, such as in the tests of hand held motions or specific shots at Suburban High, but ideally, evaluations promote improvements on future projects. The three programs used a variety of evaluations, and the seriousness of each was generally a negotiation between instructors and students. The Boarding High program had no formal evaluation. This meant that there were no consequences for students who chose not to participate, and it sustained a sense that the program was simply an introduction to digital media. One activity that worked against the experimental nature of the course took place only in the first course: Students were required to do the tutorial in the iMovie program. The problem of four students and one intern clustered around a lap top was actually the least of the problems as students expressed their complete boredom with glazed eyes and a tendency to wander away. In the second course, the intern who had by default become the lead intern expressed great relief at not having to do the tutorial again. But the second course also did not promote even informal evaluations because they interacted very little with the students during production and decided to publicly view the two finished projects with non-video projects from another program, thus limiting the discussion about the work. In this course, activity was promoted instead through additional display of projects by interns and other students. Only in the third course was evaluation integrated into the activities: Interns worked closely with students, promoting activity through questions and suggestions, and the graduate-student intern who led the course attempted a discussion about the meanings and methods of improving videos after viewing each project. The intern had little success, however, in promoting discussion. The Suburban High teacher evaluated individual student activity with tests of text book material and its application to video work. He provided clear, objective criteria that was not discussed or contested. The criteria were generally oral and written. The video projects were similarly guided by clear, written criteria, but the assessments were of groups rather than individuals. Work on these projects consumed more time and was less structured. Traditional tests were truly private, while the evaluations of technical work and projects was partially public. The actual grades were not public information, but feedback was publicly given. During viewings, whether as part of a test of techniques or a larger project, the teacher offered specific criticisms, usually commenting on something good and pointing out the characteristics that were missing or flawed. There was little time devoted to this feedback, however, and there was never a general discussion. Instead the teacher had students evaluate projects via a form that was handed directly to students. These forms offered a rubric with all the criteria listed and space for comments. The criteria and estimation based on it were public, though not contested, and the actual scores students received were kept private. The evaluations at Urban High were uneven. In Media 1, evaluation was secondary, almost non-existent. The teacher led discussions of project pitches and video work to provide a public forum for evaluation, but these were typically chaotic. His attempts to speak with groups tended to fall flat. The classes were, however, successful in promoting critical thinking through these discussions, even if the promotion was missed by many students. At the end of the semester, the teacher had students calculate their own grades based mostly on how much work was completed rather than by how well it was done. No other formal evaluation was given. The Media 2 teacher had students pitch ideas and sought to engage students in improving them, but he offered no feedback for video work and focused increasingly on English assignments as the semester progressed. The Media 3 teacher graded and returned open-book quizzes of technical information but never discussed the material after the first couple of weeks. He also attempted pitches and discussions, but there was no evidence of how projects were graded and no public viewings of finished projects. The open-book quizzes promoted reading and learning about technical information, but evaluation in all three courses played a minor role. Formal evaluations in the form of grades has a utilitarian value in that it communicates the value of an activity. Every activity at Suburban High seemed to receive a grade, and this contributed to the seriousness with which students approached their work. The lack of evaluation at Boarding High permitted the students who were not as interested to withdrawal from the activity so that those who were interested could participate more fully. This self-selection was in response to and an adaptation to the scarcity of time and access to equipment. At Urban High, the general disconnect between students and school was neither furthered nor lessened by the invisibility of evaluations. At all the schools, I was disappointed about the lost opportunities for students to develop critical thinking via meaningful evaluative discussions of video at different stages in production. Reilly (1998) describes the class reviews of video work he observed, and I had the opportunity to observe the same instructor in a summer course. In these discussions, the teacher would promote ways of questioning and seeing that could promote critical thinking—particularly if sustained over many projects. In all the situations I observed, however, the arrangement of space 17 and lack of time were obstacles to meaningful discussions. The lack of public viewings was also a disappointment. Goodman (2003) discusses public viewings and the transformation students undergo in the process. Showing student work to wider audiences creates a powerful message about the value of their work. This was evident in the student news program at Suburban High: Once the show began to be aired, students’ enthusiasm flourished. The Media 1 teacher attempted such public showings twice—intended to include parents and guests—but the obstacles he encountered were too great: As previously described, he seemed overwhelmed and unsupported, and his students’ projects were incomplete at the scheduled times. At Boarding High, finished videos were presented in two of the courses, but again, obstacles undermined the viewings. The first showing I was unable to observe, but it’s importance was diminished by being after school, combined with a display of other art, and only for participants. The showing in the last course was held during class with the non-participating students prevented from watching but noisily occupying one side of the room, and the videos were shown on a lap top, limiting their visibility. None of these circumstances communicated to students that their projects were important. In both courses, interns tried to convey this importance, but as in Media 1, they faced too many obstacles. Across programs, evaluation and the lack of evaluation communicated dominant ideologies and the various contradictions and confusions in them. The teacher at Suburban High maintained a technological and individualistic focus despite also promoting other values such as team work. The differences between promotions in the beginning courses as compared to the advanced classes were enormous and reflect an emphasis on learning about all aspects of video production in the beginning courses as compared to the specialization of the advanced students. The inconsistencies at Urban High reflect the difficulties instructors had in adopting the ideology of the reform program in a school with too few supports and too many contradictions. The program at Boarding High had similar difficulties, but the strength of purpose in the art teacher's usual conduct and the interns' sheer presence gave greater coherence to the program. A characterization of these differences is presented in Table 5 as a summary of programs to facilitate comparison, though these are oversimplifications. |
|
| Previous Contents |
17
The
arrangement of rooms limited class discussions in all classes because
students did not face one another and the teacher’s authority was
accentuated in his position in each context. Acoustics were also a big
problem; students were difficult to hear. One potential solution would
have been to hold discussions in a smaller, more intimate room, and
perhaps with only portions of the larger classes. |
Next References |