Review of the video – ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us’ (Wesch, M 2007)
Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015, 11:30
Visible to anyone in the world
My initial views of watching the video included: An Open Education Resource (OER) with good production value that was complex with advanced content; Creative and Visual; Clever techniques to explain technical content (such as HTML) by demonstrating it in an authentic way; Busy and quick content with pop ups, scrolling, minimising and maximising(reflective of media use today); Web 2.0 explained with an explanation of the ripple effect this has on the world outside of technology itself.
I then watched the video again but without sound. I found that my engagement with the content was lower and I found myself being distracted onto other tasks and therefore missed much of the content. For my own experience, I found the music an important factor to ensure that I was immersed into the content. The choice of music had synergy with the content being covered, being both technical and digital in sound.
Accessibility is a key point. I have had a few issues of Web 2.0 tools that some learners have struggled to access due to technology such as use of browser and which version they were using. Also video content relies on fast broadband (buffering is neither fun or engaging!). Many of my learners live in a rural setting where connection is still an issue in terms of speed. Therefore you have to offer alternatives. For those that can access video learning objects then they can benefit from this but there needs to be the consideration of offering alternative formats be it transcripts or resources that are less data heavy.
In terms of design, videos can be created to have visual messages to support the content. Such as in the video ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us’. This technique ensures that the visual message is as strong as it can be for those that cannot access the audio content.
Review of the video – ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us’ (Wesch, M 2007)
My initial views of watching the video included: An Open Education Resource (OER) with good production value that was complex with advanced content; Creative and Visual; Clever techniques to explain technical content (such as HTML) by demonstrating it in an authentic way; Busy and quick content with pop ups, scrolling, minimising and maximising(reflective of media use today); Web 2.0 explained with an explanation of the ripple effect this has on the world outside of technology itself.
I then watched the video again but without sound. I found that my engagement with the content was lower and I found myself being distracted onto other tasks and therefore missed much of the content. For my own experience, I found the music an important factor to ensure that I was immersed into the content. The choice of music had synergy with the content being covered, being both technical and digital in sound.
Accessibility is a key point. I have had a few issues of Web 2.0 tools that some learners have struggled to access due to technology such as use of browser and which version they were using. Also video content relies on fast broadband (buffering is neither fun or engaging!). Many of my learners live in a rural setting where connection is still an issue in terms of speed. Therefore you have to offer alternatives. For those that can access video learning objects then they can benefit from this but there needs to be the consideration of offering alternative formats be it transcripts or resources that are less data heavy.
In terms of design, videos can be created to have visual messages to support the content. Such as in the video ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us’. This technique ensures that the visual message is as strong as it can be for those that cannot access the audio content.
References:
Michael Wesch. (2007). The Machine is Us/ing Us. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g. Last accessed 10th March 2015.