So taking a cue from Bud the Teacher, I checked out Jon Udell’s post on how he creates his screencasts with Windows Media Encoder. I’d been trying to use Camtasia to do some inhouse training stuff, but it was really difficult to get the right file format and configurations to work with our servers and Windows Media Player. But Encoder did the trick. Really easy, and when I play the file off of our server, it looks crystal clear at full screen. The audio needs a bit of work, but I feel like I’m over a little hump with this.
So anyway, here is a Wikipedia for Educators screencast. It’s about five minutes long, and it could be much better with a bit more planning, but you get the idea. I’ve added it to my feed as an enclosure as well, now that Manila lets me do that. Let me know if something doesn’t work.
Just a note that I have emphasized to my teachers that Wikipedia should be used as a starting point for research, not the end all be all answer to a particular question. Primarily, I wanted to introduce the concept of screencasting to them.
I used Windows Media Encoder to create several short instructional screencasts for “just in time” support. Very easy to do and I usually create them in response to a repeated request for support.
Screen Captures
Kids can do this very easily.
I tried Camtasia myself but wasn’t thrilled with the file size. I did a 4 minute screen demonstration and the file came out at 14.1 MB. I tried out Macromedia Captivate and the same file came out at 1 MB and was saved as a .swf file – made it much easier for me to share with others online.
Will and anyone else who has insights into this,
I recently was a volunteer reviewer of web projects done in the Doors to Diplomacy contest run by Global Schoolhouse. One thing that is required for these projects is that students clearly site where they got the information used in their web sites. A couple of them used Wikipedia as a sole source for some of the information on their pages.
I am really concerned about Wikipedia used in this way. I kind of like the idea of collaborative construction of a knowledge source. However, I am not sure that I would want my students to be getting information for their own projects from other unknown people who may be inexperienced, or opinionated or just plain wrong. We tend to think of an Encyclopedia as a SOLID, trustworthy resource and I am sure that is why students go to Wikipedia and treat it the same way.
It is true that even Encyclopedias have points of view and inaccuracies and should not be used as a single source, but that is a huge educational shift.
Janice Friesen
friesenj@emints.org
Janice…I’m about th get into this debate more extensively with my librarian who is not very comfortable with Wikipedia at all. All I can tell you is this: many of the entries that I have seen evolve on Wikipedia have been nothing short of amazing, from the standpoint of depth, accuracy, and to a lesser degree, writing. I would point specifically to the article on the tsunami from last December. But I would also point more recently to the page on the papal selection process. While it has been pared down since the new pope was named, it was an amazing resource of information about what was happening. I’m not saying I spent a lot of time looking, but I would bet that it was one of the most comprehensive and accurate resources on the Web about this topic. Was it perfect? No. Totally unbiased? No. But I have to tell you that I would not dissuade a student to use it as a source of research in this instance. Single source? No. But then I would say that about any source.
Look, right now, 99% of sources are unknown to us, even those who publish books. Time and time again we see cases of blatant disregard for the truth and boatloads of bias. (Pick just about any book about US politics and the state of the world published in the last 18 months.) So for anyone to say without reservation that a printed book is necessarily better than Wikipedia is just not accurate. And to say that dozens or hundreds of people who collaborate on an entry can’t attain the same level of accuracy and lack of bias as Britannica or Grolier’s is also not accurate. They absolutely can. They absolutely do.
Wikipedia requires faith in a process and a group of people, faith that few of us believe is well placed because we’ve been told that the Internet is filled with a bunch of ne’er do wells with their own agendas. I’ve worked on some articles in Wikipedia. I’ve done it in good faith, and I know many others have to. For me, it’s been a shift, just like I have clearly shifted to an advocacy of open source software solutions. In fact, though I may be naive, I find great inspiration in Wikipedia and the open source movement, because both represent groups of people who are trying to do good for the sake of, well, doing good. Hard to believe.
And here’s the really key part…if you or anyone else sees something wrong at Wikipedia, you can fix it. We can. And we should.
Please don’t read this as a rant…your concern is certainly appreciated. We’re all trying to figure this out, and my opinion isn’t the right opinion…it’s just one of many. What’s cool is that we can share it. Thanks for making me think and write more about this, and I’d love to read your response.
Will,
I truly appreciate your response and don’t consider it a rant. I think the main issue here is that it is MORE and MORE important to teach students a broader type of literacy than they have had in the past. We could just rule out use of the Internet and Wikipedia and such because they “might” have wrong information, but it would be so much better to teach students to ALWAYS use several sources for their information gathering. I think it is a VERY important issue and really appreciate hearing from someone who has more experience than I do at using the Wikipedia.
Janice
Janice…take a look at this screencast about Wikipedia if you’ve haven’t already. Did a lot in terms of convincing me…
That is fascinating!
Thanks,
Janice
Touché!
Your last comment hits it right on the spot: having students learning how to differentiate between fact and fiction… It’s all about developing critical thinking skills. The Internet (in general) and Wikipedia (in particular) are fertile grounds for this learning to occur. With astute teaching-learning activities, it is possible.
Jacques
My more-techie colleague reviewed it and noted that it took a long time to download, even over a T-1. Using 16-bit audio and a 1024×768 resolution contributed to this, I’m sure. We have a lot of users on dial up at 800×600. She also wondered which version of WMV file it outputs, since a lot of people consider Windows Media Player 9 to be spyware for the way it reports back to Redmond. Thoughts?
Credit where due department – I suggested your idea of having students critique, correct, contribute to, or create a wikipedia entry to an instructor who’s redesigning a literature course. She already had a multimedia project as a course requirement; I suggested the wiki idea as another option alongside of Powerpoint, music video, etc. She loved it.