| Previous | Contents References |
Next |
| |
Finished Projects And Their TopicsAs a result of existing constraints and promotions, a variety of video projects were produced and “finished” to different extents. Table 4 presents the number of projects from each course that were observed and copied for analysis. The first characteristic of note concerns the proportion of edited projects to be completed. If the success of a program were judged solely on the ability of students to complete their projects, the third course at Boarding High, with one hundred percent of the projects being finished (all three of them), would easily be judged as best, but of course, not all students who started working on the projects stayed with them until they were completed. Clearly, it is not a simple matter to complete projects. Sometimes, it is the fault of students who by choice or distraction do not finish. Examples of this existed at each school. Often, however, the fault is a technical one, such as in a hard drive crashing at Suburban High or the inability to obtain access to equipment at Boarding and Urban Highs. But most of the time, a fragile interest in video was confronted by unfortunate or neglectful circumstances such that the students seemed to simply wander off. At Urban High, students literally wandered off as they snuck or strolled out of the classroom. The problem of students not completing projects, which has implications for pedagogy to be considered in Chapter 5, interfered with my intent to compare edited with unedited video work. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that videos at both Suburban and Urban Highs were lost and that some members of a working group would volunteer their work while others in the group would not. The topics students chose were generally consistent with their assignments; at Suburban High, two of the “commercials” were actually public service announcements, but these slight genre violations were not commented upon. And many similarities in topics can be found across schools despite the level of diversity: Students showed an interest in music, skateboarding, and parody at each school. Cameras were used to tease and promote interaction at each school, though Boarding High was the only school where much of this activity was recorded. At both Suburban and Urban Highs, projects were done on and off campus, and automobiles played significant roles. While the number of cooking shows at Urban High certainly reflects the location and affiliations of Media 1, one cooking show was also recorded at Suburban High, thus the topic is not noticeably rare. Multiple projects about drunk driving were also completed, reflecting the topics’ applicability to assignments and the relevance for students. The difference that is most salient to the ensuing analysis is that only at Boarding High did students focus on the material environments. At all schools, students conducted mini-dramas, interviews, and performances, but only at Boarding High did students record murals, displays, and other objects with any frequency. At Boarding High, there was some sort of focus on the material environment in every project, while such occurrences were rare at the other two schools. The nature of the assignments, the environments of the schools, and the nature of student-school relations are all implicated as collectively contributing to this difference. The program at Boarding High promoted a material orientation while the other programs did not: Art, particularly as taught in most schools, tends to be visual and object oriented. The program also afforded students the freedom to move around, experiment, and seek out what was interesting. The constraints on time, on the other hand, prevented elaborate productions, and other students, who might have been involved, tended to be busy—a constraint that did not entirely prevent interaction. The fact, however, that students’ identities were embodied in artistic school displays and classroom art while absent in the displays at the other two schools is significant. Both artistry and meaning are implicated as attracting student interest. Future research could specifically seek evidence about the meaning of school displays for students by assigning art videos at multiple schools selected for their different environments. To some extent, however, additional evidence has already been collected: First, in pilot data (Beaty, 1998) collected in the South Bronx in an after-school club, students also showed an orientation toward the material environment. Because students usually worked on their videos after school, there were few activities to record, but the openness of assignments allowed students to express their interests in the vocational training they were receiving by seeking out its locations and tools. Their focus on the material environment is attributed to the lack of other interesting subjects, the encouragement to explore, and the interest students had in the tools they were learning to use. The evidence that best approximates the ideal study is in seven projects created through the digital art agency’s involvement at a different school. This other school resembled Suburban High on the physical level—having many institutional buildings and few displays of any sort outside the classrooms. Although less about the context is known, these projects were quite different from the Boarding High projects: They each involved at least a vague plot revolving around one or more characters. The edited projects showed far more evidence of planning. People were the focus, not objects or places, and only one was set to music. It should be noted that the interns were different and so was the class subject, but this reinforces the conclusion that the context as a whole is significant to the video that is produced. |
|
| Previous Contents |
Next References |