Learning Progression in Secondary Students' Digital Video Production

Learning progression in secondary students' digital video production Stephen Connolly London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 I hereby declare that, except where explicit attribution is made, the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. 86,000 words (rounding to the nearest thousand and excluding bibliography, references and appendices) ABSTRACT OF THESIS Assessing learning progression in Media Education is an area of study which has been largely neglected in the history of the subject, with very few longitudinal studies of how children learn to become "media literate" over an extended period of time. This thesis is an analysis of data over three years (constituted by the production of digital video work by a small group of secondary school students) which attempts to offer a more extended account of this learning. The thesis views the data through three concepts (or "lenses") which have been key to the development of media education in the UK and abroad. These are Culture, Criticality and Creativity, and the theoretical perspectives that the thesis should be viewed in the light of include the work of Bourdieu, Vygotsky, Heidegger and Hegel. The examination of the student production work carried out in the light of these three lenses suggests that learning progression comes about because of a relationship between all three, the key metaphorical idea put forward by the thesis that describes that relationship is the dialectic of familiarity. This suggests that for media education at least, the learning process is a dialectic one, in which students move from cultural and critical knowledge and experiences that are familiar -or thetic - to ones that are unfamiliar, and hence antithetical. Over time this antithetical knowledge becomes familiar and students synthesise together their popular cultural and critical experiences with the critical experiences that they have in the media classroom. This synthesis is driven by the creative act of production work, which brings together the cultural and the critical, the familiar and unfamiliar. It is this key metaphor then, that offers an account of learning progression in media production, and the relationship of that process to creativity, criticality and popular culture. ii Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to my supervisor Andrew Burn, from whom I feel I have learnt so much across the nine years that I have undertaken this study. There has never been any point in this period when he did not make himself available for discussion of this work. Thank you so much for your great support, wit and wisdom over the last nine years. David Buckingham, who was the senior supervisor for my research in its first few years, also gave me very helpful advice at various points, but perhaps more importantly by his example, showed me the importance of being intellectually rigorous, organised and above all clear in one's research and writing. Several people read drafts of this thesis in addition to my supervisors at various points, and their advice was invaluable; thanks must go then, to John Potter and Anton Franks (who conducted my upgrade panel), Chris Richards and Sophy Friend. Thanks should also be expressed to my fellow media educators across the country with whom I have discussed the ideas in this thesis across the last ten years. The experience of writing it was much richer for having talked to them. They include, but are not limited to; Jenny Graham, Roy Stafford, Pete Fraser, Rebekah Willett, Shaku Banaji, Julian McDougall, Mark Reid and M.L. White. Many of the ideas explored in this research come out of the learning experiences that I have had while working alongside my fellow Media teachers in a number of schools across the last 15 years. These colleagues are really the most valuable resource I have had in my research, and so I thank, amongst others Jo Rockall, Laureen Todd, Melita Devine, Rachel Jarvis, Steve Kennedy, Oliver Rosen, Matt Johns, Pete Somers, Pat McNichol, Lucy Buchan and Tim Metcalfe. The bulk of the data in this study was collected at Haydon School, where, on and off for seven years I had the pleasure of working with Tom Daley, the teacher colleague to whom perhaps I owe the greatest debt, for showing me that contrary to popular opinion, Media education has the greatest impact when it is awkward, difficult and intellectually challenging. Thanks man. Finally, though by no means as an afterthought I must thank my family, especially my wife Yvonne and my two sons Guy and Gabriel. They have had to put up with my long absences and dark moods while writing, and I am so grateful for their love and tolerance. This thesis is, if nothing else, a testament to their patience and support. Steve Connolly January 2013 iii CONTENTS CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 - PROGRESSION AND PROCESSES: THE PUZZLE OF THE MEDIA CLASSROOM 1 1.2 - THE NEED FOR AN ACCOUNT OF LEARNING PROGRESSION 2 1.3 - WHO NEEDS SUCH AN ACCOUNT? 2 1.4 - ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION 3 1.5 - TOWARDS A RESEARCH QUESTION 3 1.6 - DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH CONTEXT 5 1.7 - AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDENTS 5 1.8 - LIMITATIONS - THE PROBLEM OF PEDAGOGY 6 1.9 - USE OF TERMS 7 1.10 THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS - ABSTRACTS 8 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 9 2.1 - INTRODUCTION: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXTS 9 2.2 - EMPIRICAL STUDIES 12 2.3 - LITERATURE REVIEW: CONCLUSIONS 20 2.3.1 - WHAT DO THE STUDIES TELL US? 20 2.3.2 - WHAT DO THE STUDIES NOT TELL US? 21 CHAPTER 3 - THEORETICAL DEBATES 23 3. 1 - THE BIRTH OF THE DIALECTIC 23 3 .2 - TOWARDS A THEORETICAL MODEL 25 3.3 - KEY THEORETICAL CONCEPTS 30 3.3.1 - CULTURE, CRITICALITY, CREATIVITY, FAMILIARITY & HEGELIAN DIALECTICS 30 3.3.2 - HEGELIAN DIALECTICS 30 3.3.3 - FAMILIARITY AND DEFAMILIARISATION 32 3.4 - RESEARCH QUESTIONS 33 3.4.1 - WHAT COUNTS AS CULTURAL CAPITAL IN RELATION TO THE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION OF THE MOVING IMAGE BY YOUNG PEOPLE AND HOW DOES IT CHANGE OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD? 35 3.4.2 - WHAT KIND OF FRAMEWORK CAN WE CONSTRUCT IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN STUDENTS CRITICAL AND CONCEPTUAL PROGRESSION IN TERMS OF MOVING IMAGE LITERACY? 43 3.4.3 - HOW DOES A STUDENT DEMONSTRATE THEIR INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY THROUGH PRODUCTION WORK , AND WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CULTURAL CAPITAL OR CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING? 49 iv CHAPTER 4 - METHODS AND METHODOLOGY 53 4.1 - INTRODUCTION 53 4.2 - CONTEXT 54 4.3 - RESEARCH DESIGN 56 4.4 - SAMPLE 59 4.5 - ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 60 4.6 - DATA COLLECTION 61 4.7 - DATA ANALYSIS 65 4.8 - CONCLUSION 70 CHAPTER 5 -CULTURE 71 5.1 - INTRODUCTION 71 5.2 - THESIS 73 5.2.1 - EXAMPLE 1 - GROUP DOCUMENTARIES 74 5.2.2 - EXAMPLE 2 - ANDREW AND THE ROLE OF FAMILY "INHERITANCE" 79 5.2.3 - EXAMPLE 3 - BRUCE, PEER GROUP AND POPULAR CULTURE 84 5.2.4 - THESIS: SOME CONCLUSIONS 88 5.3 - ANTITHESIS 90 5.3.1 -EXAMPLE 1 - POSITIVE REACTIONS TO ANTITHESIS: JASMIN 90 5.3.2 - EXAMPLE 2 - REJECTING AND RE-WRITING ANTITHESIS: PARODIES AND OTHER THINGS 92 5.3.3 - ANTITHESIS AND ANTITHETICAL RESPONSES: CONCLUSIONS 97 5.4 - ORTHODOXY 101 5.4.1 - ANDREW: MEA CULPA 101 5.5 - SYNTHESIS AND DEFAMILIARISATION 104 5.5.1 - EXAMPLE 1: JAMIE AND MUSIC VIDEO 105 5.5.2- EXAMPLE 2: BRUCE AND MUSIC VIDEO 107 5.6 - BEYOND SYNTHESIS, BEYOND DEFAMILIARISATION 109 5.7 - CONCLUSIONS 110 5.7.1 - FAMILIAL INFLUENCES AND FAMILIARITY 110 5.7.2 - POPULAR CULTURES: CULTURAL VALUE AND IDENTITY 112 5.7.3 - CULTURAL CAPITAL AND ACADEMIC CAPITAL 113 CHAPTER 6 - CRITICALITY 115 6.1 - INTRODUCTION 115 6.1.1 - CRITICALITY, CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND KEY CONCEPTS 117 6.1.2 - CRITICALITY IS ABOUT LANGUAGE 120 V 6.1.3 - REFRAMING VYGOTSKY 122 6.1.4 - CRITICALITY AND THE DIGITAL MEDIUM 125 6.1.5 - INITIAL CONCLUSIONS 126 6.2 - THESIS 127 6.2.1 - METALANGUAGE 128 6.2.2 - SUBJECTIVE LANGUAGE 130 6.2.3 - BECOMING CRITICAL - THETIC CRITICALITY 132 6.2.4 - OTHER CONCEPTS 135 6.2.5 - CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE THESIS STAGE 136 6.3 - ANTITHESIS 139 6.3.1 - YEAR 12: ANTITHETICAL DISTANCE, PLAY AND COLLABORATION 140 6.3.2 - CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE ANTITHETICAL 145 6.4 - ORTHODOXY 146 6.4.1 - ORTHODOXY: METALANGUAGE AND PRODUCTION SKILLS 147 6.4.2 - ORTHODOXY AND AUDIENCE 150 6.4.3 - SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ORTHODOXY 152 6.5 - SYNTHESIS 153 6.5.1 - SYNTHESIS: (FINALLY) UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONS 153 6.5.2 - SYNTHESIS, THEORIZING AND DEFAMILIARISATION 158 6.5.3 - SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SYNTHESIS 160 6.6 - CONCLUSIONS - BECOMING CRITICAL 161 CHAPTER 7 - CREATIVITY 166 7.1 - WHAT IS CREATIVITY? 168 7.2 - MULTIMODALITY -A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSING CREATIVITY 171 7.3 - DESIGN 173 7.4 - DESIGN: JASMIN 173 7.4.1 - JASMIN: CAMERAWORK 175 7.4.2 - JASMIN: ACTING AND MOVEMENT 179 7.4.3. - JASMIN: LOCATIONS 181 7.4.4 - JASMIN: TITLING 183 7.4.5 - JASMIN: DESIGN - SOME CONCLUSIONS 185 7.5 - DESIGN: LIANNE 186 7.5.1 - DESIGN: LIANNE - "DIRECTORIAL MODE" - YEAR 11 187 7.5.2 - DESIGN: LIANNE "DIRECTORIAL MODE" - YEAR 12 189 7.5.3 - DESIGN: LIANNE - SOME CONCLUSIONS 192 7.6 - PRODUCTION: THE ROLE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND THE CRAFT OF EDITING. 194 vi 7.6.1 - PRODUCTION: BRUCE 196 7.6.2 - PRODUCTION: JAMIE 200 7.7 - CONCLUSIONS ABOUT CREATIVITY 202 CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS 204 8.1 - ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 204 8.2 - PATTERNS OF PROGRESSION: How THE DIALECTIC OF FAMILIARITY EMERGED 208 8.3 - ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION 210 8.4 - BEYOND THE DIALECTIC (OR WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDS...) 210 8.5 - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 212 REFERENCES 213 APPENDIX 1- DATA SAMPLING AND LABELLING 220 APPENDIX 2 - SAMPLE DATA SET- VIDEO PRODUCTIONS 223 APPENDIX 3 - EXEMPLAR INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 234 APPENDIX 4 - EXEMPLAR EVALUATIONS 252 TABLE OF FIGURES FIG 1 - THE DIALECTIC OF FAMILIARITY 29 FIG.

Load more