Cineliteracy and the Avio editing machine: an inductive study
by Jane Richardson
Background
Secondary school in Devon. Teacher of English and Media Studies, with pupils from Years 7, 9, and 10.
Focus on
To test the impact of editing activity on students' speaking and listening skills first of all with 2 boys – one year 7, the other year 10, under the instruction of a Year 12 boy, and later with pairs of boys and girls, in Year 9.
Summary
Stage 1
- less vocal boy didn't participate but still assimilated how to use the technology.
- The 3 boys communicated entirely via the computer – an active partner in the work: the 'silent communicator, encouraging them to think aloud'.
- Mouse control was given to the quieter boy, who immediately became talkative.
- The software is attributed with agency; it assumes, or is given, responsibility' – students encouraged to experiment
- Editing is potentially a gendered competence: rewarding the systematic and sequential learner; the visual thinker who can 'hold a sequence in his head';
- Editing sequences maybe requires a 'three-dimensional comprehension', including duration, shot limit, juxtaposition, direction
Stage 2: Pairs in Year 9
- Unlike boys, girl pairs don't take control.
- Girls use more inclusive language – use of 'we': full of negotiation, more eye-contact. Screen not a 'proxy' partner
- For girls, the screen is an active agent, but oppositional to them – an obstruction
- Boys have a more aggressive and competitive style
- Boys showed much more interest in equipment, with camera operation at the top – but wouldn't appear on film, maybe as there was for them little or no prestige attached to actually being on screen.
- Second boy pair also 'animate' the computer.
- Boys had an aesthetic agenda
- Boys more empathic with the screen; implicit mode meant no talk Overall
- No evidence of improved talk
- Experimental attitudes
- Negotiation
- Different students, different approaches, different dynamics.
