A few days ago I asked this question among others:

Value Added From Video
Obviously I think this is a GOOD application. Why do I think that?

Answer:
Because the video is critical to understanding the relationship between the pictures. You could have described it, but without the video showing the speed and relationships, you never would grasp the way it was working from a description — either in text or pictures. Video shines showing movement over time and that’s EXACTLY what was required. The speaker’s presence was required but not for what he was saying — rather for the performance. His being there gave the time track. He was manipulating it in real time. While it was possible that the video was editted to make it *appear* so, the audience responses, his actions, and the whole *performance* is what gave that piece power.

It wasn’t the software. While the software is, indeed, amazing, the fact that it was the subject matter of the video wasn’t what made the video good. They could have made a bad video with the same subject matter.

It wasn’t the information the the speaker gave in the video. Most of his words were largely referential to the happenings on the screen, or “stage setting” commentary that set up the contexts of the presentation he launched into. He was necessary as performer but NOT as information source. We needed to see him manipulating the system in order to solidify the time-track.

This is a ‘literacy’ skill — the ability to look at how the medium is used to deliver a message — and it’s a critical skill you need to learn in order to teach your students in the future.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm and is filed under Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.