Online writing instruction has been the subject of much discussion, as scholars try to determine how best to create a writing class in a virtual setting. Many instructors are finding that attempting to translate methods used in a traditional class directly to an online environment can sometimes be next to impossible. Further, even when we do identify a set of ideal practices that may serve teachers well, issues of student access, institutional support, and technological savvy often complicate the implementation of even our most pedagogically-sound ideas. Finding technological tools to help mitigate these issues can be key, but we must be certain to approach these tools with a careful analysis of their usefulness and appropriateness for the goals we seek in our classrooms. Screencasting software is just one of many tools that has received a fair amount of attention in distance education, and an analysis of the possibilities of this type of program reveals that screencasting may be part of the answer to the question of how we can create a successful writing classroom online.
Overview of Screencasting and Its Uses
What is screencasting?
A screencast records the activity on a computer screen along with accompanying audio either from the computer itself or from a microphone. Thus, screencast software allows you to record yourself performing an activity on your computer and narrating that activity, and then allows you to save the clip of that activity on your computer and/or online. The screencast viewed by the user, then, resembles what someone would see if they watched over your shoulder as you performed and explained an activity on your computer.
Why use screencasting?
Synchronous communication seems to be the gold standard for conferencing and tutoring in the writing classroom because of its ability to connect students and teachers in real-time (Hewett & Ehmann, 2004; Neff & Whithaus, 2008), but sometimes that is unattainable due to technological limitations of the student, the instructor, or both. On the other hand, asynchronous communication is not without its benefits, allowing students to revisit content without the restraints of time (Warnock, 2009). Screencasting combines some of the benefits of synchronous communication with the flexibility of asynchronous interaction.
Additionally, the multimedia format appeals to visual learners and to students used to getting info in other-than-print format. The tool also allows for visual demonstration of physical activities and operation of tools (in fact, both Jing and SOM offer screencasts that demonstrates the logistics of screencasting with that particular software). The voiceover component allows students to connect with instructor in auditory capacity (something that may be limited in other areas of the course). Providing these kinds of multisensory guides for students provides much needed "scaffolding" advocated by Helen M. Grady and Marjorie T. Davis (2005).
Of course no tool is without its drawbacks, and though the potentials for screencasting are great, obviously the tool has its limitations. The most obvious drawback is the lack of two-way communication between instructor and student; thought he software replicates the instructor-side of a demonstration or critique, the student cannot directly respond. Additionally, screencasting does not provide an active interface for user. For example, if there is a link on a website in your screencast, the student cannot click it to find out more information (the screencast is, after all, merely a recording of your screen reproduced for the student in video form). Thus, the passivity of interaction with the screencast is of some concern if we seek to create interactive learning in the writing classroom. Most importantly, screencasting has the potential to reinforce the "sage-on-stage" model of teaching, something that most writing teachers work hard to avoid. Thus, screencasting should be used only in conjunction with other, more interactive teaching tools to ensure that the student is actively involved in the process of building and creating knowledge in the writing classroom.
How can screencasts be used?
The possibilities for screencasting across the disciplines are many, and in the teaching of writing, screencasts can be used to supplement many different areas of instruction. At the individual student level, screencasting can be used to provide a narrated review of writing. the instructor can move through a student's paper, pointing out problem areas and extrapolating audibly on comments already made with printed text in the document. Demonstrations of how to use other writing tools can also be useful for students, and screencasting allows students to see and hear the instructor guide them specific tasks, from setting up a running header in MS Word to how to apply templates in a presentation. Similarly, when teaching students about how to find resources for research writing, screencasting can be used to introduce the library home page, demonstrate the difference between credible and non-credible web sources, or explain how to perform effective database searches. Through screencasting, all of these activities come to life for the student more so than if they were presented in basic textual form or through even an audio-only explanation.
What software is available?
The market for screencasting software has exploded in recent years . Most software is proprietary (with the notable exception of the open-source CamStudio). Several packages are available that are replete with high-end editing and capturing options (Archee, 2008), but the most popular are quite expensive. TechSmith's Camstasia is a fully-functional screen recording and editing software available for purchase online. Abode's Captivate is perhaps the gold standard at this point in time, but again, the costs are prohibitively high, particularly for individual teachers. Some other programs offer similar features but are only available in brief trial versions.
Thus, this review focuses on two popular screen recording software programs that are 100% free: Screencast-O-Matic and TechSmith's Jing. Jing offers an upgrade to Jing's pro version for $14.95 annually, and Screencast-o-matic offers 1 hour at a time for $5 with additional features, but I will only be discussing the features available in the free versions. Often, institutional support is not available to instructors for supplemental software such as this, and freeware can be an effective counterbalance for instructors who have been given a limited set of tools by the college or university (usually in the form of all-in-one, proprietary software platforms). Thus, this option has increased in popularity even though, as Colleen A. Reilly and Jospeh John Williams point out, "institutional labor practices and other pressures appear to prompt writing teachers to use the institutionally supported courseware for their distance-learning courses" (p. 88). Thus, seeking out viable freeware options in screencasting software allows the instructor to supplement their course with usable tools without demanding support from the institution for their purchase and implementation.
Evaluation of Jing and Screencast-O-Matic
Jing
Jing is a freeware screencasting offering from TechSmith, a company that also produces a free screen capture program (SnagIt) and the aforementioned Camstasia. To use Jing, instructors must download and install the software on their local computers. Jing's hallmark, the yellow sun, lies at the heart of the application and can be set up to appear at the top or side of the user's screen for easy access.
When the user creates a screencast through Jing, the program saves the video as Shockwave Flash (.swf) file. Jing then offers the user the option to save the file locally or upload it to a website. A free Jing account includes 2GB of storage on Screencast.com, a site managed by TechSmith that was designed for the hosting of their product files. Jing also offers optional buttons that can be added to the toolbar that allow for screencasts to be posted directly to YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter. The many options for hosting and file management, then, will appeal to educators who have limited access to spaces wherein they can host the files themselves.
One of the biggest reasons that Jing has risen in popularity in the educational community is that TechSmith has actively tried to collaborate with educators to provide resources and help for the use of Jing in educational settings. Their website offers a small but ever-expanding resource packet geared specifically toward those users who wish to employ Jing in the classroom. In recent years, much of the literature regarding screencasting in education has endorsed Jing as the best available option in freeware (Rethlefsen, 2009; Tagge, 2009).
Jing does, however, have its limitations, something that is not altogether unexpected in a freeware package. The free version of Jing allows for the recording of only 5 minutes at a time, so often presentations and tutorials must be split into multiple clips that must be managed separately. Also, because Jing creates files only in the .swf format, some users may have difficulty maximizing the use of their. The biggest drawback of Jing, however, is the very nature of the software itself. Users working from multiple machines (i.e., a home computer, a laptop, and a work computer) must download the software on each computer to be able to screencast from each one. Also, the system requirements can be tricky; older computers and netbooks with smaller displays struggle to accommodate the requirements of the software, which can present difficulties for users who seek a simple, streamlined tool for their screencasting needs.
Screencast-o-matic (SOM)
Unlike Jing, Screencast-O-Matic (SOM) is available completely online on a Java platform in most internet browsers. This frees the users to screencast from any machine with internet access. SOM also allows users to save their files as Quicktime (.mp4), Windows Media Player (.avi), or Flash (.flv) files, which in turn gives the user greater flexibility. Like Jing, SOM offers automatic upload to a free hosting space on SOM's site and also to YouTube. The length limits are also less constricted; SOM allows recordings up to 15 minutes for postings on SOM and up to 10 minutes for use on YouTube.
SOM, like Jing, has a handful of drawbacks, but most of them seem to be in the form of more minor annoyances. The site itself is framed and supported by GoogleAds, so users may be put off by the banners for various tech products that litter the page. Also, SOM has yet to offer up any targets educational support, although the site does offer a bevy of samples from other users that can be searched by applicable terms. The only technological shortfall that is overtly evident is the Java-based platform. Most users whose machines respond well to Java will not experience any issues, but because some browsers and platforms do not "play well" with Java, users should be aware of this possible limitation.
Conclusions
Several other options also exist presently, and more options will likely appear over time as demand for this type of tool continues to increase. Regardless of which software educators prefer, screencasting offer instructors the opportunity to demonstrate step-by-step computer procedures and to engage in multimedia interface with students who cannot communicate synchronously with video and audio. Screencasting offers instructors a way to enhance presentation of materials in online course to more closely imitate the types of presentations they might offer face-to-face.
References
Adobe Captivate 5. (2010) Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate/
Archee, R. K. (2008). Screencasting—the future of technical communication? Intercom, 55(3), 39.
Camtasia. (2010) Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia
Grady, H. M., & Davis, M. T. (2005). Teaching well online with instructional and procedural scaffolding. In K. Cargile Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online education: global questions, local answers (pp. 101-122). Amityville, NY: Baywood Pub.
Hewett, B. L., & Ehmann, C. (2004). Preparing educators for online writing instruction: principles and processes. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Jing. (2010). Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.jingproject.com/
Neff, J. M., & Whithaus, C. (2008). Writing across distances & disciplines: research and pedagogy in distributed learning. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reilly, C. A., & Williams, J. J. (2006). The price of free software: Labor, ethics, and context in distance education. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 68-90.
Rethlefsen, M. L. (2009). Screencast Like a Pro. [Article]. Library Journal, 134(7), 62-63.
Screencast-O-Matic. (2010). Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://screencast-o-matic.com/
Tagge, N. (2009). Jing and Yang: balancing asynchronous and synchronous training. Library Hi Tech News, 26(10), 6-7. doi: 10.1108/07419050911022261
Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: how and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
No comments:
Post a Comment