Reflections+on+assignments+in+EDLD+5363+Video+Technology+and+Multimedia


 * Although EDLD was an interesting course, the knowledge gained from this course was not considerable because for years I had already worked with digital video before as a production technician in a television station, as a freelance videographer of special events, and as a recording technician in college. I can understand, from an educator’s perspective, that digital immigrants may not be familiar with motion editing, analog or digital. **
 * On week 1 of this course, participants had to create a “digital story” no longer than three minutes where students had to become acquainted with basic video editing programs like Imovie or its Windows MovieMaker. I would say that the only information new to me was the rubric employed throughout the course, as I felt that it did not address important technical criteria such as frame rate, proportions, or quality of editing in favor of more artistically inclined criteria like tone of voice or metaphor. **
 * In week 2, although the assignment was not graded, the criteria to evaluate a short video sequence were more technical than the week before, as they (implicitly) required to demonstrate the use of continuity, including but not limited to, transitions, credits, and a shot list, which is the most crucial part of effective video planning. Overall, I realized that the purpose of this activity was to get the student acquainted with unfamiliar video editing software prior to engaging in distance video editing group work. **
 * The rest of the course was devoted to the production of a group video online. I teamed up with two other students. We created a Public Service Announcement designed to encourage teachers to embrace technology. Collaborating to produce a multimedia project with two other people in faraway places was an absolutely new experience to me. My partners shot the videos, and I edited them. Overall, while I was pleased with the product, which was meant to be a fast-paced, hip way to attract attention to technology, I felt that the project suffered from two problems: logistics and lack of technical specifications. **
 * On one hand, collaboration on a personal basis can be complicated at times due to time or agenda constraints. Because our collaboration was online, in practice, we never coincided at the same time; this in turn created situations where conflicting messages crossed before clarification was established. On the other hand, the absence of specifications for multimedia formats created a situation where video files were not compatible with the software I had and where the quality of the original audio was very low. Download of converters to see the video files, as well as considerable audio editing, delayed completion of the aforementioned project. There were feelings among the group of inequality because inherently the video editor will have far more responsibilities than a videographer and, from a logistic perspective, it does not make sense to further divide post-production duties, such as adding titles or sound effects, among teammates. Although no issues beyond that puzzled us, we were in disagreement about equal distribution of our grades. **
 * In conclusion, although I understand that demonstration of knowledge about digital video editing is part of the state test for Technology Applications certification, my question to the professor would be about the applicability of video editing in the real Information Technologist world, because I have never seen them edit video as part of their responsibilities. Perhaps one suggestion for future endeavors would be to give concise technical specifications and rubrics that reflect this. **