New Literacies Using Stop Motion Animation
Jacques Boudreau
Pascal Routledge
Mark Blades
Ryan Lutes
We are a self-selected group of four teachers (two elementary teachers, one junior high teacher, and one high school teacher) working together on a collaborative project for our university course. We are involved in a Master’s Degree Programme in Curriculum Studies with a focus on Technology Integration at Mount Saint Vincent University. This is for the course titled Research Seminar in Curriculum Studies: Literacy and New Technologies.
We were tasked with participating in a previously unfamiliar ‘new literacy practice’ involving new technologies. We chose to create a stop-motion animation artefact as neither of us had previously engaged in that process.
Where is the ‘Literacy’ in Learning?
This paper is a beginning level discussion regarding New Literacies. These literacies are “socially recognized ways of generating, communicating and negotiating meaningful content through the medium of encoded texts within contexts of participation in Discourses.” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 224) Our group was involved in the creation of a stop motion animation film using the new technological stuff. This is not only available but accessible by today’s youth and all 21st Century Learners. We began with materials commonly found in a classroom such as Star Wars figures, a combination lock, modeling clay, and cardboard. In addition technological materials, digital cameras were used to record images which were then imported into Windows Movie Maker Live. The internet was employed to provide sound clips that we added into the movie. For our group these activities created a need to further develop skills within these areas of digital literacies. This skill basket is part of the 21st Century learner package. For a learner in the 21st Century, thereby success will be measured by the mastery of these new literacies. Our group acknowledged the skills gained through this process were not ones taught in the traditional classroom. Using today’s strategies of collaboration, online discussion, responding critically to text through affinity spaces, internet searching, and artefact generating we attempted to be 21st Century Learners.
For this study, we collected data as we underwent the creation of a project that we argue is a new literacy. We created a stop animation video using Star Wars characters. Data was collected through the full participation of four teachers in creating a technological artefact. Colin and Lankshear define full participation as “engage[ing] directly and completely with the context being observed. At its extreme, full participation requires researchers to become as much as possible ‘insiders’ to the ‘scene’ being investigated.” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 225)
The data that was collected was collected using numerous methods, some of which were traditional, and some more modern. For example, data was collected from interviews, however, the bulk of our data come directly from the field notes that were written as the product was created. These notes were created using a variety of methods. In many cases, we were able to capture our creation on video. In addition, head notes were used and put on paper in the form of post defacto notes. Head notes are “mental notes researchers make while systematically watching an event within a context where writing observation notes in the heat of the moment is impossible (p 228). We found this to be a very daunting task. At times, all four group members were engaged in the various stages of the creation process and it was very difficult to ensure that data was being collected.
In order to get over this hurtle, we decided that we would video tape our sessions in order to distribute it amongst the group so that we could have more concrete field notes. We encountered some technological issues and we could not distribute the video to the group electronically, however, we consulted the video from time to time to gather some data.
In addition to head notes and defacto notes, we also maintained a reliable set of field notes. Field Notes are “mainly written in the heat of the moment as events unfold before the researcher’s eyes and tend to be the primary data collection tool during observation” (p 229). Often times we had a few group members working on the project, and one member taking field notes. This ensured that nothing of significance was forgotten and could be further analyzed.
After the completion of the project, our field notes became the focus of our work. The main method that we used to analyze our data was pattern matching. Pattern matching is a process of "identifying patterns discernable across pieces of information" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004, p. 305). Instead of testing our data to see if it matched a particular theory as Yin suggests, we chose to analyze our data and notice what patterns were clear. Fetterman “emphasizes the process of patterns emerging from the data itself. Identifying patterns in this sense does not require the researcher to ‘test’ patterns.” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004, p. 305)
We coded our data and two main themes became apparent for us. Firstly, the type of learning that we engaged was almost exclusively Just in Time Learning (JITL). Through further coding, we came up with four sub categories of Just in Time Learning that we took part in. These were JITL for acquiring Tips and Tricks, drawing on our JITL, Problem Solving through JITL and JITL through Trial and Error.
Secondly, most of the ways that we did our just in time learning was through affinity spaces. Through our research we embarked on a journey through the various stages of affinity spaces. We took part in these affinity spaces, and as we became more literate in stop animation our role in these affinity spaces changed. This journey will be explored later in this paper.
Table 1: Field Notes Analysis
Just –in-time | Instance From the Field Notes | Affinity Space? |
1. Newbie – “Figuring out what could be problems” – Tips and Tricks | We went online to review additional stop animation examples and clips to further research what different types of stop animations were being produced, searching out information regarding color lighting, transitions, speed of each slide, duration. Found numerous Affinity Sites devoted to Stop Animation. | |
| We read The Complete Animation Course:The principles, practice and techniques of successful animation | |
| We experimented with creating a story and a short stop motion animation with clay. Put some of the tips and tricks that we learned to work in order to further refine our knowledge | |
2. Drawing on JIT knowledge – Using Tips and Tricks to Save Time | We took a series of 8 practice stills to see how it looked. We made corrections to lighting by attaching the spot light on the second tripod to provide ample lighting, the curtains in the kitchen were closed as M mentioned it was better according to his research on YouTube. | Drew on some prior knowledge from Newbie Research |
| Once the pictures have been taken, it is very difficult to go back and redo the same position. We marked tripod position and camera position by writing on the floor with a pencil and marking the table. Just in case we have problems. | Drew on prior knowledge from Newbie research |
| We discussed the frame rate of 0.4 seconds, which P and M have researched to be a consistent speed. So that you will have about 5 pictures/frames per second of watching the video time. | |
3. Problem Solving through JIT learning | Wanted to create a Star Wars opening effect. We Googled “Star wars opening crawl”. | Used google to find helpful material in an Affinity Space |
| Learned how to create crawl by using different versions of Windows Movie Maker | |
| Googled “star wars sounds” in order to find some sound clips for our animation. Found the following affinity sights. | |
4. Trial and Error as JIT learning | Setting the frame speed. Upon viewing on R’s computer we realized 0.4 s still looked choppy even though this is what some of our research suggested. We tried a few other speeds and we conclude that a 0.1 speed made video more effective and fluid. | |
| Setting the camera zoom to keep it consistent between shots | |
What is an affinity space? An affinity space is more than just occupying a here and now or presence. An affinity space refers to: “Approaching FFN as a space rather than a community then, is a way of focusing attention on the interplay among engagement, active participation, a sense of belonging, and the production of social space” (Black, 2008, p. 9). In application of this definition, affinity space is a place where participants can share their ideas and discuss topics affiliated with the website. Users are able to be involved in the shaping of the content of the space and the interactional organization of the space (Black, 2008, p. 22). In traditional learning we were intimidated by others because of their size, race, gender, or age. With the face to face space participants often feel unwilling to engage due to intimidation factors, thus valuable opinions and ideas are often lost. However in the new literacy mechanism all are equal as no one can see the other. According to Black “…‘newbies,’ or novices, and experts share the same activities and participate in the same space” (Black, 2008, p. 14). This lack of personal identity encourages experimentation and involvement within the website. In our research we found this to be true. By experimenting with affinity spaces, we were able to test solutions and none of us felt intimidated. As a researcher note, we felt mandated to examine our unwillingness to participate in online discussions. That is as users we could have made comments and entered into discussions with others on the site. We all chose not to and after some discussion realized it was due to our established learning styles, and lack of experience in using this learning mechanism-affinity space. “[Well, the affinity space *is* a learning space, but it is not *primarily* a learning space. It is a 'participation in a practice' space, within which, inevitably, learning occurs.]” (C. Lankshear, personal communication, June 8, 2011)
Furthermore, affinity spaces are not the mechanism for basic or fundamental learning, but rather a space for enhanced learning, which is highly motivational due to the willingness of the youth to participate in the practice- which facilitates the learning. Traditional classrooms generally do not allow students to network together, with various 21st Century digital skills or tools in technology. (Gee, 2004, p. 89) In addition, by tapping into affinity spaces and participating, youth are therefore able to gain or further develop their learning. Moreover, it is through the act of participating in the social affinity web site that youth and learners can be involved in their own unique interests and be engaged in learning the 21st Century skills.
In fact, Brown and Adler say that because Web architecture now provides a sophisticated participatory medium that is widely used for purposes of sharing, it can support multiple modes of learning (Brown, 2008, p. 18). Furthermore Brown and Adler say that “…the most profound impact of the Internet, an impact that has yet to be fully realized, is its ability to support and expand the various aspects of social learning.” (Brown, 2008, p. 18) Learners are able to further develop or reach a deeper fuller level of learning (Gee, 2007, p. 172). The Web or affinity site is the vehicle where we learn and how we learn further skills that are not necessarily worked on in the classroom thereby enhancing the learning.
It is important to discuss what an insider is in the construct of an ‘affinity space’. An insider is someone who is involved in discourse about a particular area which is at the basis of the affinity site or the social practice. “This means that being an ‘insider’ to a new literacy practice presupposes sharing the ethos values in question; identifying with them personally” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 228). An insider is someone who can make inferences, connections and interpretations of all kinds of levels to text within a particular space associated with an affinity web site -- or an interest shared with others -- that may only make partial sense to the outsider whereby the insider fully understands. (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 225) The act of being an insider carries a certain important understanding or “mindset” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 231) that is affiliated with the shared knowledge within the website involving new technology stuff. On the one hand it was concluded that participants who give advice are thereby insiders. However, according to an online discussion with Colin “…that is not true, because some people can spend years working in a practice and still not really ‘get it’. Insiders are people whose opinions actually count. They will always have *some* degree or sphere of expertise. ” (Lankshear, personal communication, June 8, 2011) Which forces the question: How does a participant in the culture become an ‘insider’ or furthermore an ‘expert’? Lankshear continues to say that:
You have to pay a lot of dues to become an insider, even though some insiders are vastly more expert that[n] others. Insiders have been around for a while and have paid a lot of dues to the practice. By contrast, someone can be a novice to a practice and yet have lots of relevant knowledge -- especially technical knowledge -- acquired elsewhere. There are lots of things I could provide answers to about stop animation, but I have never even made a single stop animation artefact, and there is no way I could possibly count as an insider. I just happen to know a bit about it from watching others work on SMAs, and I have read a bit, and I have some knowledge (technical) from other endeavors. ... Certainly, it is most unlikely that after a few weeks of mucking around in a field one can be anything close to an "insider". Although one could say that one is on the way toward becoming one… (Lankshear, personal communication, June 8, 2011).
In analyzing the definition and reviewing our data we believe that an insider is someone who understands the issues coupled with some knowledge and experience thus is at times able to provide solutions to problems and issues. It is important to note that not all of the solutions will be discovered through the affinity sites, experimentation, and trial and error contribute to the strategies used to provide solutions to our stop motion animation movie. Some of these solutions are based on the insider’s previous work within the affinity domain. It was imperative for us to become familiar with the insiders for our current research. As novices in pursuit of becoming more like insiders, we gained experience with the production of the stop animation film; we began to use terms and words that were specific to the making of our movie artefact all elements of insider traits. We were now using knowledge and experiences that labeled us as participants in the practice on the edge of insiders. Furthermore should we continue to develop our skills to produce a stop film animation movie we would likely still only be considered participants. We had become participants to the stop film animation movie affinity websites due to our participation in gaining knowledge, experiences and confidence; we even published our artefact on such social sites as YouTube and Facebook. This one publication did not qualify the team as experts in this affinity but merely on the way of becoming a better learner of the skills needed to be a 21st Century Learner. Our interest in this technique was to complete a sole project not seeking to become part of the culture.
In affinity sites it is stated according to Black that ‘newbies’ and ‘experts’ share the same activities, “ and that there is a wide range of expertise and many forms of knowledge that are valued; thus, the roles of ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ are highly variable and contingent on activity and context at any given moment” (Black, 2008, p. 14). Moreover our difficulty became, how to decide, who were the experts? We used trial and error to assess the value of the information and our willingness to grind (Jenkins, 2006, p. 23) through the stuff. In a practical application this meant taking an offered solution from the affinity list applying it to our project and evaluating the effectiveness. For us this pattern in our own data suggests that we were willing to work through the parts of our project that were difficult and use the, try, try and try again technique. The literature refers to this technique as just-in-time-learning concept. Our media production was on hold until we found a solution to move forward. The team required knowledge and or a skill in order to proceed, thus we used the just in time learning method.
When we returned to the affinity sites seeking solutions it became apparent there were two distinct issues. One of our problems was to solve technical issues and the other was a requirement to increase our knowledge of the practice as a whole -- in its 'purposive', 'epistemic' and 'normative', as well as its technical dimensions. (Lankshear, personal communication, June 8, 2011)
Technical issues were in the production of the stop motion film, items such as how to do inserts, floating objects and fading. The other requirement was to ensure we were being true to the Star Wars history. Knowledge of characters, events and roles was required to continue with our project. We tested the solutions that were posted, or were offered on the Fan Fiction Sites, our concern here was the reputation of the source – was this insider or an expert. By using the trial and error method, we tested the solutions offered and it soon became apparent that not all suggestions were solutions. If the suggestion failed we deemed the suggestion given from an insider or merely a participant who may not have had the experience in the affinity to provide the group proper guidance. On the other hand we considered we were not able to apply the solution properly but chose to seek another solution rather than return to the site and ask a question about the offered solution. We deemed however the suggestion was not provided by an expert. We then went back to the website and found another solution, tested their suggestions and if it was successful, and we were happy with the result, we concluded that they are more knowledgeable than the group. Students use this technique regularly in finding solutions to learning problems.
The act of “being” involved in affinity spaces
We engaged in a process in order to create our stop motion movie. We attempted to become 21st Century learners, go on line obtain information, knowledge and technical skills, use the information to complete a task, a stop motion animation movie. Furthermore, upon analysis of the data it is important to note that Google was our primary search engine which we used each time that it was needed to engage in the act of an online web search. Something that did not emerge in our data is that the search results could be different should the search be through the use of another search engine. Online web searches, through the use of Google, resulted in the discovery of essential information, required in the creating our stop motion animation movie. The group was able to discover specific affinity spaces in our search for information, some examples of typical searches are listed below:
It should be noted that through discussion concerning the concept ‘affinity spaces’ our group has been narrow in its scope and definition. ‘Affinity spaces’ may have several sites so the single source concept creates a limited scope toward affinity spaces.
After searching the internet and finding certain websites it was then evident that there were general knowledge websites regarding certain aspects of our stop motion animation film such as sound clips. Further searching through the websites and following recommended website links the group discovered additional fan fiction sites with specific insider tips and tricks which was the basis of the search at that time. The discovery of these subject specific fan fiction sites provided the necessary information that was needed for the further improvement and development of our stop motion animation film. In fact it was these specific fan fiction sites that provided reliable solutions. This exercise in research reinforced the leveling of the internet for information. We considered it similar to using a beginner how to book vs. the theory of the topic with applications.
Our previous model of seeking information from texts, printed word was avoided; affinity web sites were our base information source. By being involved, “affinity spaces offer powerful opportunities for learning” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 9). In this type of participatory culture activity, today’s youth are far more willing and able to develop their reading and writing skills, their social skills, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills which are mastered outside of the typical lecture style of teaching in the classroom (Jenkins, 2006, p. 4). By using the affinity web sites, which constitutes, the 21st Century learning style we produced our artefact. We experienced the volume of information available and the details involved creating a stop motion animation film, by using the click of the mouse. Thus we participated in and visualized the benefits of being involved in this type of participatory culture. This research experience vaulted us to test new ideas and review learning styles of our 21st Century learners. The feeling of everyone in the classroom watching learning was eliminated, the 29 pairs of eyes were gone, and I was able to experiment without being immediately judged. We there by judge this process in learning to be valuable and beneficial.
In our research we became takers, that is, just-in-time knowledge seekers. This technique follows a pattern: you are stuck, you require information and you seek a solution in the here-and-now to move your project forward. The information may be a skill or content, the process is to search for help online and then apply it to your own situation to solve your problem. Once we discovered the information and left the site, then the term we ‘searched’ the Internet applies in this instance. The approach is to find a solution and get out with the required information; there is no dialogue, interaction, or engagement with the site, or with other users of or contributors to the site.
‘On the edge’ describes our interaction with the web sites we used to help us complete our video. First, after viewing the information we felt we were in no position to comment either positive or negatively on the quality or type of information provided. We had to go and test out the ‘help’ or tips we obtained prior to making a comment; we were in no position to evaluate the information at this point. Secondly our established learning styles dictate take information, asses then comment. Today’s learner would easily comment from the beginning at the source of information, stating the solution looked cool or thanks we will try this solution and let you know. We were not that brave. Now that we have completed the artefact where we applied solutions from the affinity sites we could go back to them and enter discussions as to what worked and did not work. Thereby through this activity, joined with further experimentation, additional research, and productions we would begin the long process of becoming or being considered ‘insiders’ and not just ‘searchers’. In analyzing this approach for a classroom application the essential component is the student being able to use the 21st Century Literacy strategies. We are being driven to provide opportunity to move us away from the 100% “Broadcast” (Tapscott, 1998) learning leaning towards the “Interactive” (Example 1) 21st Century Learning.
With the progression of technology, concepts like ‘just in time’ and ‘just in case’ learning have become more important with regard to education. The advent of the internet has changed the nature of learning. No longer are people forced to know a lot of information just in case they need it one day. In essence, the concept of education needs to be rethought. Today when a problem is encountered that the answer is in doubt, people have the ability to head to their laptop or Smartphone to find an answer. Often this same problem has been encountered by a multitude of people, who have posted advice about how they have solved their problem. In an instant we are able to access multiple possible answers each coming from their own perspective. This ability to instantly have almost any information has made it possible for just in time learning to move to the forefront of learning. For example, if I need to install a new electrical outlet I simply consult the internet by heading to youtube.com. There I can find multiple ways of doing it, as well as read review from experts. This just in time learning is by far more practical than learning about something on the off chance I will ever have to do it.
Throughout our creation of our stop animation artefact, it became clear that most of our problems were being solved using just in time learning. For example, even before we started we used the internet to research some Tips and Tricks in order to expedite our learning. Instead of making a multitude of mistakes and having to problem solve our ways out, we managed to gain some expertise in a just in time fashion. This JIT learning is in stark contrast to the just in case learning that we do in schools. School teaches all students the same thing. These “nuggets” of information is all of the things that society says that “everyone needs to know.” (Gee, 2008) However, more and more each day people are relying on technology to help them learn what they need to know, when they need to know it. This is the essence of JITL.
The first pattern that we noticed in our data was with respect to the type of learning we were doing during our project. We originally believed that we had instances of just in case, as well as just in time learning. Many of the discourse around just in time learning come from the success and shear popularity of video games. Gee and others argue that video games have created an atmosphere that fosters learning. This learning is done through just in time learning (JITL). There are many different applications of JITL, however, one that makes the most sense for us has to do with video game technology. Video games use JITL by providing game play information to the player on a just in time basis. Furthermore, this information gets entrenched in the player because it is given ” always in the context of the goal-driven activity that its actually useful for – and made meaningful by – and always at a time when it can be immediately put to use.” (Steinkuehler, 2004) Players are given critical information and then use that information to progress throughout their game, thus solidifying their learning. A just in case approach would be to make all players read the entire user manual in order to be prepared for things “if they happen to come up”.
However, with further analysis, we believed that all of the significant moments that extended our literacy of stop animation came through just in time learning. We further categorized our just in time learning into three sub categories: JITL for Tips and Trick, Drawing on our JITL prior knowledge and JITL for Problem Solving.
JITL for Tips and Tricks was used in order to immerse ourselves into the stop motion animation space. We used some traditional sources (books, interviews) to gather some information that would give us a good starting point for our research. Furthermore, we used Google to find some affinity spaces where we were able to get a really good sense of the stop animation community. This was used as a starting point for our stop animation artefact. While not all of this knowledge or learning would be put to use, it was nevertheless an integral part in the JITL process.
Instances of drawing on our JITL were also coded in our field notes. There was several times where one of our group members would exclaim that they found something to be the case in their previous Tips and Trick research. This was a huge time saver, as we already had some literacy in the subject based on our JITL. We then actually used this knowledge, thus solidifying it. This type of implementation is precisely what Gee refers to as one of the benefits of learning in video games. In the most successful video game the “player is immersed in a world of action and learns through experience, though this experience is guided or scaffolded by information the player is given and the very design of the game itself.” (Gee, 2005). This is precisely how the JITL worked for us.
We faced numerous challenges on the path to publishing our artifact. The many challenges were related to either encountering new concepts for creative needs or simply our ignorance (lack of expertise) with the technologies and/or programs used. Some of the problems were solved by an individual in the group but most were of a collaborative nature where the learning was sought, achieved, and shared.
Our problem solving techniques and processes for the purpose of this report will be confined to “online” and “technical” varieties. We admit that problem solving occurred in many ways and over various platforms and for many different purposes but the majority of our learning was a result of our experience with these two categories.
According to Jenkins (2009) people involved in participatory culture engage in as many as 11 new skills as they collaborate and network (p. 4). The first one, “Play” ties in with our group culture and our main choice to “experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving”. We chose the “messing about” route to problem solve. The “messing about” was a form of “play”. There was a sense of “fun” with the ability to achieve success and learning through our own exploration.
Technical problem solving is how we labeled the journey to get answers (digitally and manually) by using the tools already in front of us ie. Windows Movie Maker, hi-def video, digital cameras etc. (digital) and the clay, tripod, and figurines (manually). Digital problem solving included but was not limited to searching for optimal frame speed, matching digital camera zoom, transferring video field notes to shareable format, and emailing WMML project files. To gain ‘digital literacy’ Lankshear (As cited in Gilster, 1997) indicates that we must be able “to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it is presented via computers’ and, particularly, through the medium of the internet. Manual problem solving included but was not limited to experimentation with various action figures, using clay pieces to disguise other items and for figure stability and more.
We ventured into fan fiction sites to also assist with problems and to seek advice from the experts. These “Affinity Spaces” (Gee, 2004) allowed us to view exemplars of great work on our subject but also to get very specific items needed for our artifact. We used several fan fiction sites to find and recreate the actual crawl and to search for better alternatives for our sound clips.
Hagel, Brown and Davison (2010) have described three levels of ‘pull learning’: access, attract, and achieve. The problem solving pulls we were faced with made us access expertise when we needed them. We also tried to attract others who are relevant to our work through the displaying and publishing on YouTube. Finally, we had to pull from within our own individual abilities to collaborate to solve the problems.
Problem solving was required in many steps along the way to get answers and expand on our knowledge of stop-motion animation. The finished product came to fruition by the above problem solving methods. Our choices to problem solve as we did allowed us to gain ‘digital literacy’ and learning to use tripod for consistency.
Online problem solving was our label for utilizing the internet to our advantage. Our friends Google and YouTube were mostly prominent. We used numerous searches using both sites to gain information and access the already distributed expertise. We used these databases to problem solve difficulties with grabbing videos from YouTube, getting sound bites in appropriate format, getting best lighting practices and more.
We ventured into fan fiction sites to also assist with problems and to seek advice from the experts. These “Affinity Spaces” (Gee, 2004) allowed us to view exemplars of great work on our subject but also to get very specific items needed for our artifact. We used several fan fiction sites to find and recreate the actual crawl and to search for better alternatives for our sound clips.
Hagel, Brown and Davison (2010) have described three levels of ‘pull learning’: access, attract, and achieve. The problem solving pulls we were faced with made us access expertise when we needed them. We also tried to attract others who are relevant to our work through the displaying and publishing on YouTube. Finally, we had to pull from within our own individual abilities to collaborate to solve the problems.
Problem solving was required in many steps along the way to get answers and expand on our knowledge of stop-motion animation. The finished product came to fruition by the above problem solving methods. Our choices to problem solve as we did allowed us to gain ‘digital literacy’.
As participants, exploring the stop motion animation practice, one area that seems to occur many times was a trial and error method when we tried different aspects of the digital technology. American philosopher John Dewey suggested that directed thinking proceeds by implicit trial-and-error. We seemed to follow this idea, the question became why did we continue this pattern? Trial and error is usually not the best strategy to solve a problem; there are a number of problems with it. For example, trial and error is time consuming and not always recommended by a teacher to begin with. In math class, teachers will suggest the strategy but we quickly try to show why it is not efficient. What is it about this, beyond the project, that had our group exploring stop animation with a trial and error pattern?
To make sure one understands what we see as trial and error we are defining it as a general method of problem solving by analyzing what went wrong and making a change before trying again. One area that we can look at is the prior knowledge of computer programs that our group members bring to the producing and interacting with the software that we decided to use but juxtapose that with the fact that we had not made a stop motion animation before. David Shaffer’s book, How Computer Games Help Children Learn, says “Over the years , this process of learning by making mistakes and figuring out how to correct them—and doing that over and over—has been documented in a wide range of computer tools in a variety of subjects…. They[Programs] make it safe to make mistakes , and thus people can learn by making mistakes and fixing them rather than having to always get everything right” (p.68). In Live Movie Maker we are not afraid to make mistakes while attempting to create a movie. “Computers give children access to new worlds: to parts of the real world that are too expensive, complicated, …and to worlds of imagination where they can play with social and physical reality in new ways” (p.11).
An element to remember is that programs have evolved to allow unseasoned users to mess about without actually reading the ‘manual’ (if it even comes with one) or going into the help menu. After shooting our pictures and downloading into the Live Movie Maker program we began right away with trial and error. For example, we experimented to find the optimal length between pictures in WMM beginning with 5 seconds between photos and then playing the footage. We adjusted to fractions of seconds like 0.4 and 0.3 down to 0.2 until we finally agreed what looked like the best transition for fluid movement of the poses.
Some trial and error came before the download as we were setting up the scene and taking shots of the figures. We started the first scene and shot a dozen photos then we decided to see what the lighting was like and if each movement of the action figure was small enough to create the motion. When we went to view the photos on the digital camera, we realized that the zoom changed. Without knowing exactly where the zoom was, we started again but before the shoots continued we messed with the zoom to get it at a point that we could always find; as well, we marked the floor for the tripod to make sure we were consistent with our next attempt.
Through our analysis of the creation of our stop animation artefact, we went through a process of becoming literate with this new medium. We used 21st century skills to do this. That being said, we also had a lot of technological prior knowledge that we brought to the table, and our practice further entrenched this knowledge through our creation.
The literacy in what we did became evident through our reading of websites, viewing of animations, through group discussions (both on and offline), writing our scripts, and the creation of a new expository piece.
We engaged in a new literacy practice when we did just in time learning to gain the skills we needed to produce our artefact. Through the process of producing our video, we concluded that there were four different levels of just in time learning; Tips and Tricks, Drawing on JITL, Problem Solving and Trial and Error. Furthermore, we did these types of just in time learning through affinity spaces, and underwent, a very specific evolution through affinity. These “new school” literacies are learned almost exclusively online, and furthermore, attempting to learn these new literacies through traditional sources of learning is very limited.
It is clear that through our own just-in-time learning that we became literate and fluent in the area of stop animation. Furthermore, the implications of this type of new literacy can have a huge impact on our life as teachers. It is now our job to take this new type of learning and connect it with our 21st century classrooms.
Black, R. (2008). Adolescents and Online Fan Fiction. New York: Peter Lang.
Brown, J.S. and Adler, R. (2008). Minds on fire: Open Education, the long tail and Learn 2.). Educause Review January/February. 17-32.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Pleasure, learning, video games, and life; the projective stance. E-Learning, 2(3), 211-223.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good Video Games +Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games. New York: Peter Lang.
Gee, James Paul. (2008). New literacies: a professional development wiki for educators [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://newlits.wikispaces.com/Lucidly+Functional+Language
Hagel, J. Brown, J. Davison, L. (2010). The power of pull: How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion. New York: Basic Books.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Jenkins, H., with R. Purushotma, K. Clinton, M. Weigel, and A. Robinson (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Researching New Literacies: Web 2.0 Practices and Insider Perspectives, E–Learning and Digital Media. doi: 10.2304/elea.2007.4.3.224.
Lankshear, C. Knobel, M. (2006) New literacies: Everyday practices & classroom learning. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Shaffer, D. W. . (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Pulgrave Macmillan.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 521-528). Santa Monica, California: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
