Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Meeting with Matt
I met with Matt Lisle in Technology Integration Services today. He suggested that outlining and storyboarding the various tutorials should be my first step – even before I decide which software to use. So the sooner Roxanne and I decide how to re-divide the existing modules, the better. As for the software, he didn’t have any definitive suggestion on whether Captivate or Camtasia would be better for my purposes. Although the iSchool’s IT lab only has Camtasia, TIS has a copy of Captivate in their meeting room which I would be able to use (this worked out fine for another iSchool student last semester). Basically, Matt said that Camtasia is more user-friendly and is better for full-motion video recording while Captivate has a lot more built-in capacity for incorporating interactive features, such as simulations. Given this information, my first impression is that the added interactivity available through Captivate would be worth the extra effort it might take to learn to use it.
Monday, June 22, 2009
First thoughts on ways to re-divide module content
Given Bill Allen's (the BIO 206L prof who Roxanne has been working with) desire to have fewer, shorter modules, here are my first thoughts on how we could re-divide the material.
Current modules are:
• Introduction to Scientific Literature
• Using Databases Effectively
• Where and How to Search
Future tutorials could be:
1. Kinds of scientific literature and how literature fits into the research process (this would be a longer module)
2. Scholarly vs. Popular Articles (short)
3. Review vs. Research Articles (short)
4. Using Databases 1: Search Terms (keywords & controlled vocabulary)
5. Using Databases 2: Connecting Terms (Boolean operators, ways to limit your search)
6. Databases vs. the Library Catalog
7. Searching in PubMed
The “Using Databases Effectively” module seems most difficult to divide. "Introduction to Scientific Literature" could be divided into only two tutorials. It might make sense to do the searching PubMed module after the two database modules as a way to bring those concepts together. Then after they’ve talked about databases in depth for several weeks, they could discuss when not to use databases – when to use the library catalog instead.
Current modules are:
• Introduction to Scientific Literature
• Using Databases Effectively
• Where and How to Search
Future tutorials could be:
1. Kinds of scientific literature and how literature fits into the research process (this would be a longer module)
2. Scholarly vs. Popular Articles (short)
3. Review vs. Research Articles (short)
4. Using Databases 1: Search Terms (keywords & controlled vocabulary)
5. Using Databases 2: Connecting Terms (Boolean operators, ways to limit your search)
6. Databases vs. the Library Catalog
7. Searching in PubMed
The “Using Databases Effectively” module seems most difficult to divide. "Introduction to Scientific Literature" could be divided into only two tutorials. It might make sense to do the searching PubMed module after the two database modules as a way to bring those concepts together. Then after they’ve talked about databases in depth for several weeks, they could discuss when not to use databases – when to use the library catalog instead.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Questions and brainstorming about implementation
• Do I need to get permission from any vendors for screen-shots?
• How can I incorporate the stand up/sit down method for explaining Boolean operators that Roxanne described as being so helpful? A number of tutorials used Venn diagrams to explain Boolean logic in a way that seemed intuitive.
• A way to incorporate multiple examples could look something like this:
Explanation ⇒ 1 example (chosen randomly from a pool of examples) ⇒ Go On OR See Another Example (randomly chosen from remaining examples)
• Include closed captions as an option, but don’t default to them. (Difference between closed captions, which would replicate the entire spoken text, and call-outs, which would highlight particularly important aspects of the narration.)
• It seems to me that using a physical worksheet for the activities is desirable, both so that students can easily refer back to their work in the class discussion and the end and so that they can be handed in to Roxanne for the purposes of evaluating the module’s effectiveness. I should be sure this isn’t a faulty assumption, though. Would there be a better way to serve both of these functions?
• Will this be hosted on the Life Science Library’s website or on blackboard so that it can be referred back to later? How else could we provide something for students to refer to later? If it will be used separately from the course it will be important to make it easy to navigate between different parts of the module. In other words, for an in-class implementation of this module, linear navigation makes the most sense, but if it might be used in other ways, other methods of navigation could be necessary.
• A possible solution to this could be to have two different versions that are only slightly different in navigation style.
• What do I need to know in order to do the implementation? Who do I need to talk to?
• Where should call-outs go in order to minimize how they disrupt the view of the entire screen?
• How will I strike a balance between having enough change in the visuals to make them interesting and having too much?
• How can I incorporate the stand up/sit down method for explaining Boolean operators that Roxanne described as being so helpful? A number of tutorials used Venn diagrams to explain Boolean logic in a way that seemed intuitive.
• A way to incorporate multiple examples could look something like this:
Explanation ⇒ 1 example (chosen randomly from a pool of examples) ⇒ Go On OR See Another Example (randomly chosen from remaining examples)
• Include closed captions as an option, but don’t default to them. (Difference between closed captions, which would replicate the entire spoken text, and call-outs, which would highlight particularly important aspects of the narration.)
• It seems to me that using a physical worksheet for the activities is desirable, both so that students can easily refer back to their work in the class discussion and the end and so that they can be handed in to Roxanne for the purposes of evaluating the module’s effectiveness. I should be sure this isn’t a faulty assumption, though. Would there be a better way to serve both of these functions?
• Will this be hosted on the Life Science Library’s website or on blackboard so that it can be referred back to later? How else could we provide something for students to refer to later? If it will be used separately from the course it will be important to make it easy to navigate between different parts of the module. In other words, for an in-class implementation of this module, linear navigation makes the most sense, but if it might be used in other ways, other methods of navigation could be necessary.
• A possible solution to this could be to have two different versions that are only slightly different in navigation style.
• What do I need to know in order to do the implementation? Who do I need to talk to?
• Where should call-outs go in order to minimize how they disrupt the view of the entire screen?
• How will I strike a balance between having enough change in the visuals to make them interesting and having too much?
Notes from other tutorials
Here were some comments I had while looking through the sample web tutorials available on the Science Information Literacy Wiki. They aren’t all directly relevant to the work I’ll be doing, but simply represent my impressions of what I was seeing.
• In several examples, I heard a lot of background noise (static-like, white noise) when the audio is playing. This is distracting, especially when it makes it apparent that audio was not recorded continuously. This points to the value in having a good microphone.
• The size of the video within the browser screen is important. In some cases I saw videos that were too small, making the text difficult to read. In other cases, the video was too big, so that you couldn’t see the whole image from a screen capture without scrolling.
• I ran in to broken links with some regularity. I think that using a lot of screenshots rather than linking out to other resources can help minimize the possibility of getting dead links in my modules.
• I found it helpful to include relevant information both before and after the actual tutorial. For instance, it is helpful to know how long a module is beforehand, and also to be able to print something at the end of the module.
• My favorite example was from the Yale Whitney Medical Library. Some notable features include: an abbreviated but informative table of contents on the left throughout; switching back and forth between power point-style slides and screenshots, nice zooming in on screenshots so that sometimes the whole screen is viewable (for context) and sometimes there’s a focus on the particular search box being used.
• In several examples, I heard a lot of background noise (static-like, white noise) when the audio is playing. This is distracting, especially when it makes it apparent that audio was not recorded continuously. This points to the value in having a good microphone.
• The size of the video within the browser screen is important. In some cases I saw videos that were too small, making the text difficult to read. In other cases, the video was too big, so that you couldn’t see the whole image from a screen capture without scrolling.
• I ran in to broken links with some regularity. I think that using a lot of screenshots rather than linking out to other resources can help minimize the possibility of getting dead links in my modules.
• I found it helpful to include relevant information both before and after the actual tutorial. For instance, it is helpful to know how long a module is beforehand, and also to be able to print something at the end of the module.
• My favorite example was from the Yale Whitney Medical Library. Some notable features include: an abbreviated but informative table of contents on the left throughout; switching back and forth between power point-style slides and screenshots, nice zooming in on screenshots so that sometimes the whole screen is viewable (for context) and sometimes there’s a focus on the particular search box being used.
Monday, June 15, 2009
What I've been reading
Here's a list of the articles I've read this week:
Armstrong, A. & Georgas, H. (2006). Using interactive technology to teach information literacy concepts to undergraduate students. Reference Services Review, 34(4), 491-497.
Aydelott, K. (2007). Using the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for science and engineering/technology to develop a modular critical-thinking-based information literacy tutorial. Science & Technology Libraries, 27(4), 19-42.
Bailin, A., & Pena, A. (2007). Online library tutorials, narratives, and scripts. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 106–117.
Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the Regis Libraries animated tutorials project. Journal of Library Administration, 48(3), 295-315.
Hrycaj, P.L. (2005), “Elements of active learning in the online tutorials of ARL members”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 210-8.
Ladner, B., Beagle, D., Steele, J.R. & Steele, L. (2004). Rethinking online instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(4): 337-345.
Lee, S. & Burrell, C. 2004. Introduction to streaming video for novices. Library Hi Tech News 21(2), 20.
Long, H. & Culshaw, J. 2005. How we used demonstration authoring software to create tutorials. Computers in Libraries 25(8), 6-8.
Manness, J. (Summer 2006). An evaluation of library instruction delivered to engineering students using streaming video. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.
Pressley, L. (2008). Using videos to reach site visitors: A toolkit for today’s student. Computers in Libraries, 25(6), 18-22.
Tempelman-Kluit, N. & Ehrenberg, E. 2003. Library instruction and online tutorials: developing best practices for streaming desktop video capture. Feliciter 49(2), 89-90.
Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). Multimedia learning theories and online instruction. College & Research Libraries, 67(4), 364–369.
Tricarico, M.A., Tholl, S.V. & O’Malley, E. (2001). Interaction online instruction for library research: the small academic library experience. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(3), 220-223.
Xiao, D.Y., Pietraszewski, B.A., & Goodwin, S.P. (2004). Full stream ahead: Database instruction through online videos. Library Hi Tech, 22(4), 366-374.
Watson, J. (2004). Going beyond screen captures: Integrating video screen recording into your library instruction program. Feliciter, 2, 66-67.
Armstrong, A. & Georgas, H. (2006). Using interactive technology to teach information literacy concepts to undergraduate students. Reference Services Review, 34(4), 491-497.
Aydelott, K. (2007). Using the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for science and engineering/technology to develop a modular critical-thinking-based information literacy tutorial. Science & Technology Libraries, 27(4), 19-42.
Bailin, A., & Pena, A. (2007). Online library tutorials, narratives, and scripts. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 106–117.
Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the Regis Libraries animated tutorials project. Journal of Library Administration, 48(3), 295-315.
Hrycaj, P.L. (2005), “Elements of active learning in the online tutorials of ARL members”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 210-8.
Ladner, B., Beagle, D., Steele, J.R. & Steele, L. (2004). Rethinking online instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(4): 337-345.
Lee, S. & Burrell, C. 2004. Introduction to streaming video for novices. Library Hi Tech News 21(2), 20.
Long, H. & Culshaw, J. 2005. How we used demonstration authoring software to create tutorials. Computers in Libraries 25(8), 6-8.
Manness, J. (Summer 2006). An evaluation of library instruction delivered to engineering students using streaming video. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.
Pressley, L. (2008). Using videos to reach site visitors: A toolkit for today’s student. Computers in Libraries, 25(6), 18-22.
Tempelman-Kluit, N. & Ehrenberg, E. 2003. Library instruction and online tutorials: developing best practices for streaming desktop video capture. Feliciter 49(2), 89-90.
Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). Multimedia learning theories and online instruction. College & Research Libraries, 67(4), 364–369.
Tricarico, M.A., Tholl, S.V. & O’Malley, E. (2001). Interaction online instruction for library research: the small academic library experience. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(3), 220-223.
Xiao, D.Y., Pietraszewski, B.A., & Goodwin, S.P. (2004). Full stream ahead: Database instruction through online videos. Library Hi Tech, 22(4), 366-374.
Watson, J. (2004). Going beyond screen captures: Integrating video screen recording into your library instruction program. Feliciter, 2, 66-67.
Notes on Software
So far, I’ve mostly been reading some of the literature and seeing what various librarians who have used screen capture and video creating software think about these products. I still have to look in more detail at the information provided directly by the creators of these products on their capabilities.
Suggested criteria for evaluating software include:
• What capture methods are available (series of screenshots vs. full-motion recording)
• Quality of audio and video
• Accessibility features
• File formats available for output
• Editing and enhancement tools (textboxes, control over format, file types supported, continuous narration, ability to import into Flash)
• Availability of interactive elements
• Delivery and management options (need for plug-ins, online/offline viewing)
Although Qarbon Viewlet Builder is also mentioned in some of the older literature, by far the most frequently discussed products are Camtasia and Captivate. Here’s a summary of what folks are saying about these two software packages.
Camtasia:
• Can record video from screen, record power point slides with narration, or import media files
• Can record audio and video separately and also edit them separately
• Helpful tutorials on use of the product are available online
• Variety of video outputs available
• Can add audio tracks, transition between clips, add callouts to point to a certain part of the screen, and hotspots to particular points in the video
• Chose Camtasia because of its interactivity and ease of editing
Captivate:
• Record a series of screenshots rather than a single video recording (per 2007 article – is this still true?)
• Works better to add narration after screenshot capture, otherwise audio splits whenever a new screenshot is taken
• Captions automatically appear to explain actions, and can then be edited
• Allows frame by frame editing
Overall, both products are reviewed quite favorably with Camtasia in particular frequently noted for its ease of use.
Open source software software options that were mentioned include Screencast-O-Matic, Wink, Cam-Studio, Webinaria. I’ll look at these in more detail in Week 2 to see how they compare to the commercial options.
Suggested criteria for evaluating software include:
• What capture methods are available (series of screenshots vs. full-motion recording)
• Quality of audio and video
• Accessibility features
• File formats available for output
• Editing and enhancement tools (textboxes, control over format, file types supported, continuous narration, ability to import into Flash)
• Availability of interactive elements
• Delivery and management options (need for plug-ins, online/offline viewing)
Although Qarbon Viewlet Builder is also mentioned in some of the older literature, by far the most frequently discussed products are Camtasia and Captivate. Here’s a summary of what folks are saying about these two software packages.
Camtasia:
• Can record video from screen, record power point slides with narration, or import media files
• Can record audio and video separately and also edit them separately
• Helpful tutorials on use of the product are available online
• Variety of video outputs available
• Can add audio tracks, transition between clips, add callouts to point to a certain part of the screen, and hotspots to particular points in the video
• Chose Camtasia because of its interactivity and ease of editing
Captivate:
• Record a series of screenshots rather than a single video recording (per 2007 article – is this still true?)
• Works better to add narration after screenshot capture, otherwise audio splits whenever a new screenshot is taken
• Captions automatically appear to explain actions, and can then be edited
• Allows frame by frame editing
Overall, both products are reviewed quite favorably with Camtasia in particular frequently noted for its ease of use.
Open source software software options that were mentioned include Screencast-O-Matic, Wink, Cam-Studio, Webinaria. I’ll look at these in more detail in Week 2 to see how they compare to the commercial options.
Welcome to my capstone blog!
As I work on my capstone throughout the summer I'll be keeping track of what I've learned here on my blog. I think this will offer me a useful way to think through what I've been doing as well as communicate that with my faculty advisor and field supervisor. I'm going to be posting on a weekly basis at the least.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)