Steve Jobs was a real inspiration to me. His creative vision, his attention to detail, his passion, his charisma, his leadership, his dogged pursuit of perfection, his sense of style, his resistance to mediocrity, his pleasure in beauty and simplicity.
I’ve had very few heroes in my life and Steve is right at the top of the list. I hope that he will continue to be an inspiration to the great company that he built.
The following short film was shot and editing entirely on the new iPhone 4. Yes, you read that correctly… I said shot AND edited on an iPhone. The quality of the images is incredible for such a small device. Editing was achieved using the new iMovie app for the iPhone. I know it is easy to be wowed by Apple’s publicity and Steve Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field but this is really impressive stuff. When iMovie was first released on the Mac just over 10 years ago it blew me away. It was one of the features that led me to purchase my first Mac in 1999 (a blueberry coloured iMac DV). The potential that iMovie offered for regular (non-expert) users to make high quality movies with relatively inexpensive equipment was very significant. As is so often the case, Apple’s integration of hardware and software was critical. Along with iMovie they introduced the Firewire connectivity that made the process of getting footage from a DV camera to the Mac really straightforward. iMovie on the iPhone 4 is a similarly significant development in video editing, and not just for consumers. The fact that you can now carry both the shooting hardware and the editing software and hardware in your pocket is remarkable and would have seemed unbelievable back in 1999. The fact that the picture quality of movies made on the iPhone 4 exceeds that of the movies that I was able to make on my iMac DV is even more extraordinary. Who knows what will be possible in another 10 years time?
Perhaps more interesting than the initial movie shown above is the ‘making of’ documentary that follows. It is clear that the guys that made this film know a thing or two about movie making. They also have the benefit of some specialist gear to help them get those great shots with the iPhone. The use of a tripod (and in this case, dollies) makes all the difference (as I am forever telling my students when they learn to make their own movies).
I’m keen to see other examples of movies made entirely on the iPhone so please feel free to post links in the comments below. I can’t wait to see what kids can do with this technology.
This episode builds on the previous screencast in this series, ‘Storing & Displaying User Input Data’. That episode introduced most of the key elements for programming user interactivity and I’ll not be introducing any new programming elements here; it is really just a matter of using those elements in a slightly different way. If you’ve not already watched that screencast then I recommend that you do so before watching this one. If you have already worked through that episode then you should find tracking a user’s score quite straightforward.
In this screencast I develop the project that I demonstrated in the ‘Drag & Drop’ episode. So you might also want to watch that screencast to refresh your memory of how it was set up.
If you’d like to explore the example Mediator document that is demonstrated in this screencast, you can download it and edit it on your own computer (assuming that you have installed Mediator 9).
For those of you who don’t already know me, for my day job I currently work as a lecturer in Initial Teacher Education. Prior to this I was a Primary school teacher for a number of years, working in schools on the south coast of England. My particular area of expertise (such as it is) is Information & Communication Technology (or ICT). Within that field I have a specific interest in digital media technologies and their impact on the lives of young people both within and beyond the school gates. For this post I’ve decided to write about something that has some considerable significance within that context. It’s a bit out of character with the rest of the posts on this blog and is a bit of an experiment. If it finds a receptive audience then I hope to follow this up with other posts along similar lines. Otherwise I’ll stick to the software reviews, tutorials and screencasts.
Recently a friend and colleague of mine, Avril Loveless, passed on a link to a blog post written by a teacher working in the US, titled “What I’d Buy Instead of an Interactive Whiteboard”. The author, Bill Ferriter, teaches 6th Grade Language Arts in North Carolina and is a former Teacher of the Year. In the post he discusses how, given the opportunity, he would choose to spend the money that might otherwise be spent on equipping his classroom with an Interactive Whiteboard (hereafter referred to as an IWB). If you’re not already familiar with IWBs then this wikipedia entry should bring you up to speed. If you have a teaching role in an educational setting that uses IWB technology then I highly recommend reading Bill’s blog post. However, before doing so you should probably also read an article that he wrote previously, entitled “Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards”. The title alone should give you a pretty strong indication of which way he’s leaning on this one!
To what extent are Interactive Whiteboards actually interactive?
In that article Bill nails his colours firmly to the mast. He states that “even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase”. He goes on to assert that “[t]hey do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning”. This is a view that I have a lot of sympathy with. In fact the use of the term ‘interactive’ in the nomenclature for this technology is perhaps rather misleading. That term I believe has been used historically to refer to the ability given to a presenter to interact with computer software via the device. However, over the years IWBs seem to have been perceived to be imbued with deeper ‘interactive’ characteristics. Indeed IWBs have often been marketed as a technology that will ‘transform’ approaches to teaching and learning: suggesting that they might facilitate more innovative teaching methods. However, the practice with IWBs that I generally see in schools largely conforms to an old-fashioned ‘chalk and talk’ model of teaching and learning. In some cases this amounts to the teacher simply handwriting on the board as if it were a conventional whiteboard. Sometimes the teacher, or student teacher, has prepared some slides or pages containing images and text or they might have loaded up an ‘interactive teaching program’ or website. Occasionally a child might be summoned to the front of the class to interact with the IWB, although current wisdom suggests that this can slow the pace of whole class teaching and might therefore be best avoided. This hardly constitutes the kind of interactivity that promotes effective learning and teaching. As one of the comments in response to Bill’s blog post suggests, the term ‘interactive’ in classroom terms is generally used to indicate a shift away from teacher-centred approaches to more pupil-centred pedagogy and therefore from this perspective the term seems inappropriately applied to a technology which largely supports teacher-centred, instructional teaching.
Isn’t it all about how the teacher uses the IWB?
There is an argument that says that if the IWB is in the hands of a good teacher then it becomes a valuable piece of technology. Or, conversely, that an IWB won’t turn a bad teacher into a good one. However, the question that I would then ask is whether a really good teacher would choose to use an IWB in the first place, particularly if alternative technologies were on offer? What if teachers were able to choose for themselves the technology that was installed in their classroom? Investing in IWBs is an expensive business. Not only do you need to purchase the IWB itself but there is also the cost of a data projector and usually a ceiling mounting kit too. You need to have a computer shackled to the board, which is a further expense, and let’s not forget the installation costs.
Now, I wouldn’t want my views to be misunderstood here. I believe that the facility to present digital media to a whole class (or a group) of learners is tremendously powerful. However, as Bill Ferriter points out, an IWB is not required in order to achieve this. A mid-range data-projector and a set of speakers will do that job very nicely and will cost a great deal less. The money that is saved could then instead be spent in a variety of ways that would promote the kind of interactivity that underpins effective learning and teaching in the 21st century. I would encourage all teachers to carry out a similar exercise to that carried out by Bill and consider how they might exploit other available digital technologies in their practice. His list includes technologies that put the emphasis firmly on collaboration and shared knowledge creation.
Who is driving the adoption of IWB technology?
The extent to which adoption of IWBs in the classroom has been driven by teachers is questionable. For many years now the UK government, through Becta, its agency for informing policy and practice with ICT in schools, has been championing the adoption of IWB technology. And within Initial Teacher Education the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) has also pushed IWB adoption through the provision of directed funding for the purchase of IWBs and associated technology. It is interesting to note that when he was recently interviewed about cuts in Becta’s funding, Ed Balls (currently Schools Minister) talked about their success in “get[ting] IT into schools” and suggested that they needed to continue to “sell that technology round the world”. His comments leave me questioning the Government’s basis for promoting the adoption of technologies such as IWBs in our schools. Bill Ferriter suggests that improving pedagogic practice might not be the foremost concern of school leaders when making the decision to invest in this technology:
“Frankly, it seems like most school leaders don’t really care whether IWBs change instruction in meaningful ways in their school’s classrooms. Why? Because whiteboards aren’t an instructional tool in their eyes. They’re a PR tool-a tangible representation of innovation that can be shown off to supervisors and parents alike. Heaven forbid that you run a school without whiteboards if your colleagues down the street have taken a big bite of this 21st century fruit. You’ll look like a hayseed at the next PTA meeting, won’t you?”
I don’t believe that this view is as cynical as it might sound. Certainly I don’t believe that the provision of IWBs in classrooms is always a reflection of demand for this kind of technology from teaching staff. I work in an institution where every teaching space is equipped with an IWB and yet staff regularly bemoan the lack of conventional whiteboards and some have even written on the IWBs with permanent marker pens (in error, I think). This certainly doesn’t paint a picture of technological innovation being driven by the tutors.
If Interactive Whiteboards are the answer then what is the question?
In my role as a lecturer in ICT Education, I have to help prepare student teachers for working in the current context. Currently that context includes IWBs installed in almost all Primary and Secondary school classrooms and this provision is generally paired with an expectation (from colleagues in the partner schools and often also from University colleagues) that these are exploited as a teaching tool on a daily basis (if not in every lesson). However, it is also my role to encourage student teachers to promote the development of their pupils’ digital media literacy and their ICT capability. For this to happen it is vital that these children interact with technologies in ways that are much more profound than watching their teacher use an IWB and which reflect uses of technology beyond the classroom. That means using digital technologies to explore their environment, to model possibilities, to find things out for themselves, to develop their ideas, to present their knowledge in multimodal forms, to share their understanding, to collaborate… I could go on.
My ICT colleagues and I, often receive requests from student teachers for “more interactive whiteboard training” as many are under the impression that induction into the mystical ways of the IWB is the key to effective and innovative teaching practice: an impression that is often reinforced by the experience that they have on their teaching placements. IWBs appear to be widely accepted as a tool that is central to modern teaching practice and, at least according to student feedback, their effectiveness and impact is rarely questioned. Curiously it is often the teachers who are least digitally literate who insist on our student teachers using this technology when they are on teaching practice. Perhaps this is due to a perception that using this piece of technology is a sign of their readiness to ‘move with the times’, to adopt supposedly ‘innovative’ teaching practices? Or perhaps it is a misguided view that through using this technology on a regular basis they are fulfilling the children’s entitlement to an ICT education?
I believe that teachers need to be given the opportunity to select the tools that will most benefit their pupils’ learning. To be in a position to make informed decisions they need to be encouraged to explore a range of digital technologies and to carefully evaluate their impact. If this does not happen then there is a real danger that Interactive Whiteboards will continue to reinforce outdated models of teaching that will disengage learners. There is also perhaps a risk that with limited budgets the expenditure on IWBs will mean that funding for other technologies will not be forthcoming. Bill Ferriter’s blog post, and the comments that follow it, give me some hope that good practice will prevail.
What do you think?
What is your view on the potential of IWBs? Do you think I am writing them off too readily? How would you spend the money that you could save by not having an IWB installed in your classroom? Are you seeing a change in attitudes towards this technology in the classroom or is it just as popular as ever? Whatever your viewpoint, I’d be interested to hear it so please do post a comment below.
This screencast will demonstrate how to store data entered by a user. Using an example document, I’ll show you how to store a user’s name and then display that name on a subsequent page. In addition to storing text input, you can also store numeric data.
If you haven’t already done so, you should probably watch the Drag and Drop episode before watching this one as I assume that you already have an understanding of variables and the ‘Assign’ event (these are covered in more depth in the aforementioned episode).
If you’d like to explore the example Mediator document that is demonstrated in this screencast, you can download it and edit it on your own computer (assuming that you have installed Mediator 9).
In this screencast I show you how to create a simple interactive drag and drop matching activity in Mediator. You will be introduced to several key building blocks for programming interactivity in your projects. I would recommend that you watch all of the previous screencasts in this series before attempting to follow this one.
So, ScreenFlow 2.0, the latest version of the ScreenFlow screencasting application for the Mac, has finally arrived. Despite issuing a press release back in August stating that the update was slated for September, the makers of ScreenFlow finally got their new product out the door this Monday (26th October) – almost a whole month after September had been and gone. Interestingly, Telestream initially revealed their intention to update ScreenFlow to version 2.0 on the very same day that TechSmith launched Camtasia for Mac. A coincidence? I think not. Some might conclude that Telestream were anxious not to lose customers to their new rival on the Mac platform and therefore rashly promised a new version that they were then unable to deliver on time.
Having said this, I’m more than happy to overlook the delayed launch if the final product is a winner. After all, I’d much rather that they made sure that the application was stable before releasing it into the wild.
I’ll get around to my initial impressions of ScreenFlow 2.0 in a moment but before doing so I’d like to mention some of the limitations that I’ve encountered in the previous release. I’d also like to comment on the recently released Camtasia for Mac as it is likely that many people will see these as the two main options for video screen-capture on the Mac and will be trying to decide between them.
I’ve had a little bit of experience of using different Mac screen-capture software over the years. I had a brief flirtation with Snapz Pro back in the latter days of OS 9, but I then got frustrated when it took Ambrosia Software what seemed like an age to publish an OS X compatible version of the software. In more recent years, since the Mac moved to Intel, I’ve had some experience of using Camtasia Studio, the Windows-based progenitor of Camtasia for Mac. This worked nicely under Parallels Desktop and enabled me to create some good quality screencasts featuring Windows software. However, what I really wanted was a native Mac screencasting application and so I was delighted to discover ScreenFlow shortly after its 1.0 launch. ScreenFlow’s easy editing features really appealed to me and it instantly felt like a proper Mac application, with an attractive and intuitive interface.
However, ScreenFlow 1.0 did, in my opinion, have some significant room for future improvement. It certainly wasn’t perfect (is any application?). I soon became frustrated by the lack of easy media management. Moving captured video between documents was a far from intuitive process, involving dragging files to the desktop and then back into another project. This occasionally resulted in me accidentally deleting media files from the desktop that were actually in use in one of my projects. Another irritation was the inability to re-join clips that had previously been split. This became particularly problematic when I wanted to add a video action that spanned two clips. Other limitations included the lack of more sophisticated audio editing features and the non-existence of any video transition effects. Whilst many folk got round the latter weakness by exporting projects into apps like Final Cut for further editing, my personal Holy Grail, in screen capture terms, is an application that removes the need for further editing in additional applications. I’m pleased to say that ScreenFlow 2.0 takes a big step in the right direction in this regard. More of which later.
Now, not long ago now, TechSmith used the experience that they had from years of developing Camtasia Studio – highly successful screencasting software for Windows – and built a native Mac screencasting application, imaginatively named Camtasia for Mac. I’ve had a bit of a play with Camtasia for Mac, and my first impressions have not been entirely favourable. Perhaps its Windows heritage makes me slightly biased (I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case) but I just don’t find it as enjoyable to use. The interface, although similar in many ways to that of ScreenFlow, feels slightly too busy and just a little clunky. However, whilst I’ve bemoaned the lack of video transition effects in ScreenFlow 1.0, Camtasia for Mac offers several of these. It also offers various filters, such as color adjustment, drop shadows, glows and reflections. I’m sure that these filters will appeal to many users but I rather like the ‘less-is-more’ approach of ScreenFlow as this enables me to focus on the most important aspects of effective screencasting, rather than getting distracted by the more gimmicky frills. And whilst Camtasia for Mac offers what at first sounds to be a magical ‘Smart Zoom’ feature for automatically zooming relevant areas of the screen, I found this action didn’t always behave as I expected.
Perhaps more significantly I’ve also found that Camtasia for Mac, in its current 1.0 state, doesn’t cope very well with processor-intensive graphics – at least not on the Macs that I’ve tested it with. Other users seem to have experienced similar issues (for instance, read the MacWorld review). Conversely, I’ve always found ScreenFlow’s playback to be very smooth, whatever source I’ve been capturing.
Now, I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I think Camtasia for Mac is a heap of junk. It most certainly isn’t. And given that it is currently only a few months old, I expect that it will only get better in subsequent iterations. But, despite being tempted by some of its features, I found myself sticking with ScreenFlow 1.0 in preference to switching to the new kid on the block.
So how do I feel about ScreenFlow 2.0 now that its finally here? Well, in truth I’ve not yet had an opportunity to give it a thorough workout but my initial impressions are mostly very positive and I feel glad that I made the decision to stick with ScreenFlow, despite having my head turned by TechSmith’s Camtasia for Mac.
Telestream have added a number of video transitions in ScreenFlow 2.0 and for many people these will remove the need to use other applications for further editing of their screencasts. Much improved audio editing features also help in this regard. For instance, the audio ducking feature will mean that I no longer have to use GarageBand to create the intro/outro audio for my screencasts (where I narrate over a music track). The publish to YouTube feature will be a bonus for many, although it’s not a feature that I expect to use myself. There are also a number of small but very useful additions in this release. For instance, I like the option to ‘Hide Desktop’ from the menu bar icon. This simply hides any files/folders that are visible on your desktop, giving you a nice clean environment for your screen capture.
What I really like about this new version is that it remains consistent with the older version. Telestream haven’t made the mistake of trying to add too many new features. The new features that they have added are all really useful and they serve to enhance the overall experience of using the application. I can now simply drag and drop media from one document into another, which is a big improvement over the previous workaround. However there is still no option to re-join clips that have been split. Hopefully this option will be added in future releases but, on balance, so far I’m very happy with this update. I’m looking forward to using it in earnest over the coming weeks and months.
If you want to make a suggestion for a future feature, Telestream have set up a page on their blog where you can do just that. Some great suggestions have already been posted and seem to have been noted so I think we can look forward to ScreenFlow continuing to mature over the coming years.
If you have any tips for getting the best out of ScreenFlow, or Camtasia for Mac, please post a comment below.
In this screencast I show you how to add a little design finesse to elements in your Mediator presentations. I also show you how to create pages more efficiently through the use of master pages. I take the basic photo slideshow that I created in the first screencast in the series and develop this further. If you haven’t already watched this then I recommend you watch it now.
This is the second in a series of tutorial screencasts exploring techniques for creating interactive multimedia presentations in Mediator 9 (from Matchware). In this episode I’m focusing on the use of sound in Mediator projects. I’ll cover three different ways of handling the playback of sound files as well as looking at the use of the Sound Volume action. If you are new to Mediator 9, you may find it helpful to watch the first episode in the series before watching this one.