Doug's 565A e-portfolio

For my digital story I decided to use the web2.0 tool xtranormal. The context for this story is a type of introduction/overview on nuclear energy. It could be used in a Physics 11 class as part of a unit on nuclear energy. Have a look:

This story could be used to feed into a research/critical analysis project on the pros/cons of nuclear power. Alternatively, it could be used as the beginnings for a debate on nuclear power.

I didn’t have any strong reasons for choosing the xtranormal tool over other web2.0 tools available for digital story telling. I’m quite interested in many of them, and I had a few different ideas or directions that I could go with it. I do like how the xtranormal site allows a user to easily incorporate humour through free-flowing dialogue. Some of the other tools that I looked at also appeared to have this same benefit. Pixton and Comiqs in particular looked fun and inviting. As well, they were very easy to use.

My first inclination for producing a digital story was to use one of the slideshow tools. A few of these have fantastic visual appeal, such as Sliderocket. While I can appreciate the slickness of a well-done slideshow, I also see them as being a bit limited in their educational usability. A user will need a strong set of photographs in order to tell a truly good story. Sometimes this is easy. For example, a powerful slideshow could be produced to tell about famine or strife in Darfur. In fact, this would arguably be the best way to tell such a story! Other topics such as nuclear power would be difficult to present with a slideshow.

Depending upon what tools are used in an educational setting, one can expect different results. As hinted at above, using a slideshow tool might be most effective at triggering an emotional response in either the presenter or the viewer. Perhaps the results would also be more contemplative. On the other hand, stories which use more dialogue may be more effective at eliciting reactionary responses or immediate action. This is partially what I would intend for the above nuclear animation.

If I were to consider web2.0 tools for student compositions, I would surely tend towards using tools like the cartoons and animations, along with Prezi and Glogster. The reason for this comes down to accessibility. While all web2.0 tools should be equally accessible in terms of allowed use, a teacher also needs to consider what tools the student can bring to web in order to create a digital work. Tools like Glogster and Prezi allow for a rich, visual presentation to be created from modest sourcing of content – simple text and images, a few photos, perhaps a video. This ensures that all students can use the web2.0 tool and take advantage of their imagination and creativity. I feel that other web2.0 tools such as the slideshow presenters really rely on having very strong photographic imagery in order to be best used.

Another issue that needs acute attention is knowing beforehand how assessment will be performed on a student’s creation. I have read about an instance where a teacher managed to have her students produce a wide and stunning array of Prezis for individual projects. She was proudly displaying the Prezis to a co-worker when all of a sudden the co-worker asked how she was going to assess them. Lacking any kind of rubric, specific goals or standards, the teacher was left with the problem of very subjective assessment.

While a teacher may want their students to be empowered by having them choose their own web2.0 tool to be used in a project, this can lead to the same problem of assessment as mentioned above. Sometimes it may be more suitable for a class to be restricted in options in order to ensure that specific objectives are reached and can be assessed.