! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ Analyzing the Process of Creating Student Made Film s Jenifer Jasinski Schneider, Ph.D. University of South Florida 2016 T his section of Analyzing Student Made Films focuses on one group of students as they created a disciplinary film The samples on the website in clude short excerpts of raw data, categorized by the phase of filmmaking. I selected these data bits as representative samples from 20 hours of video taped interactions between the students and teacher candidates. Below, I provide an overview of the larg er project, followed by additional details about the filmmaking process I describe the assessment and evaluation practices used in the context of the field experience in which the students created films and candidates learned to teach The filmmaking proc ess and my evaluative assessment of composing (broadly construed) serves as the basis for additional multimodal analysis of individual films. Project Overview In the context of my writing methods course, I initiated a design experiment to create a field b ased model for teacher education. I wanted the teacher candidates to apprentice into teaching under my mentorship and to learn in contexts that were optimal for candidate and K 6 student success. I designed the field component for my writing methods course with the pedagogical goal of creating a productive opportunity for teacher candidates to practice teaching composing under my direct guidance Across 20 iterations, I purposefully manipulate d the contexts and my instructional strategies to find the most effective ways to integrate authentic, multimedia literacy and print centric literacy instruction to support teacher candidates' professional development as well as to enhance K 6 student learning. E ach time I taught the writing methods course, I brough t the teacher candidates into the field to work with 50 100 students for a portion of the semester. Rather than attend class at the university, I taught class in various school settings where the candidates could practice teaching in small groups (Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Micro classrooms across iterations.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ # In each session I taught the candidates and students in one large space such as cafeterias or libraries so I could circulate, support and coach the candidates. Through a flipped curriculum model and d uring morning and afternoon sessions I taught the candidates particular strategies for teaching writing such as modeled writing, shar ed writing, and interactive writing as well as how to mentor and guide individual writers through conferencing and coachin g The teacher candidates worked in pairs to apply their learning by teach ing a small group of students I also taught composing strategies directly to the entire group of K 6 students in order for the candidates to observe my instructional modeling as I worked directly with the children. Following my instructional lead each of the small groups created two publications: a collaboratively composed text and a video based on a curricular topic Every semester I combined each group project into a larger co llection of student work and I disseminated the products to the candidates, the students, and their families. Creating a Student Made Text and Film Each semester, the project evolved in phases. Once the students received or selected their topic, they enga ged in a collaborative process to compose their text. They conducted research to learn more about their topic. They shared their research and brainstormed ideas. The n they began composing the text. The teachers supported their efforts by modeling strategie s and engaging the students in shared writing efforts. Using a p rocess of rereading and writing, the students continued revising and editing their text until the last day of the field experience (Day 1 to Day 5 or 6 ). Parallel to the completion of the te xt, the students conceptualized and composed a film on their assigned topic. They began the process by brainstorming ideas for their video. They composed the script and storyboarded scenes. They assembled or created props and found locations around the sch ool to shoot scenes. Then they edited their film using iMovie, adding narration, text, and effects to create meaning. During the writing and filming processes, I instructed the students to focus on the traits of quality texts such as developing strong ide as, creating a logical flow and organization with text structure s using appropriate voice, word choice, and sentence fluency, and editing for c orrect conventions (See Figure 2 ). Figure 2 Composing within the structure of a micro classroom.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ $ The teach er candidates managed and monitored the development of texts for their micro classrooms. To help them with project pacing and to ensure they met project goals, I created a schedule for their work times and an overview of the text development process. Table 1 represents the schedule for each day of the field experience. Time periods marked as USF indicate the teacher candidates were in sessions with me their course instructor Time periods marked as 5 th grade indicate the candidates and students were wo rking together. The last three rows feature a breakdown of the course content: a listing of the Traits, the process for Writing Text, and the process for Composing Video These guidewords served as pacing markers and content reminders for the teacher candi dates. Table 1. Schedule of instruction. DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5 DAY 6 8:00 am USF USF USF USF USF USF 8:30 am USF USF USF USF USF 5th grade 9:00 am 5th grade USF USF 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 9:30 am 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5t h grade 5th grade 10:00 am 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 10:30 am 5th grade 5th grade USF 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 11:00 am USF 5th grade USF USF USF Lunch 11:30 am Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 12:00 pm Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 5th grade 12:30 pm USF USF 5th grade USF USF 5th grade 1:00 pm 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade Premier 1:30 pm 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade Premier 2:00 pm 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5t h grade Premier 2:30 pm 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade Premier 3:00 pm 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade Premier 3:30 pm USF USF USF USF USF USF 4:00 pm USF USF USF USF USF USF Traits Ideas Organization Voice/Word Choice / Fluency Voice/Word Choice / Fluency Conventions Presentation Writing Text Planning Drafting Revising Editing Publishing Publishing Composing Video Script dev. Script & Pre prod uction Pre Prod / Production Production Production/ Post prod Post prod Asse ssing and Evaluating Multimodal Texts As the course instructor, I taught the teacher candidates and students how to engage in the writing and filmmaking process. Assessment strategies and the use of evaluative rubrics were i n tegral to my course instruction as well For the written portion of the assignment, I used a traits based model to help candidates and students identify strengths in idea development, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fl uency, and conventions (Figure 3 ). For the video porti on of the assignment, I also used the traits model to assess idea development, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions; however, I also used the presentation trait to break down the components of the film s (Figure 4 ) By creat ing an analytic rubric for the written and video products the teacher candidates and students understood the criteria for evaluating the communicative qualities of their texts.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ % Figure 3. Analytic rubric for assessing written text as the film script/p roduct.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ & Figure 3 Analytic rubric used to assess student made texts and films.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ Analyzing the Process of Creating Multimodal Texts The analytic rubric worked well for classroom assessment purposes. However, for research purposes, I recognized the need to engage in diff erent forms of analysis to understand the students' processes for creating films and to determine the structure and effect of their product s A focus group. To closely study the students' proc ess es and products, I engaged in a systematic examination of on e group's written and filmic text s The focus group included two male Mexican students, one male Puerto Rican student, one male Spanish student, one female Mexican/Cuban American student, and one male Mexican American student. All of the students spoke Spa nish at home and fluent English in school except for the student who recently moved to the US from Spain. (He needed time to translate his thoughts from Spanish into English.) The students partnered with one Cuban American teacher candidate and one Caucasi an teacher candidate Data sources The students composed a 585 word essay about the war, they collected several historical images from the Internet, and they produced a 6 minute video reenactment of a scene from the war. Aimee Frier (research assistant) video taped the entire process and collected approximately 20 hours of stud ent and teacher interactions. She also interviewed the students and teacher candidates informally. She collected all forms of text as they were shared or written (e.g., student rese arch notes from Internet searches, rough drafts of the text ). I gave the students a smart pen and captured text and audio as the students wrote. I also collected the teacher candidate s' observational notes and assessments of each student as a writer. Dat a preparation. Upon completio n of the field experience, Aimee transferred the videos to iMovie. She reduced background noise and increased the audio volume of the students' dialogue. She inserted day/time stamps as wel l. Aimee labeled the observational vid eo clips, placed them in chronological order, and shared the videos using Dropbox. Data analysis. I viewed all observational video and transcribed sections in which the students discussed composing decisions. Although I macro directed each day and guided the teacher candidates' instruction the actual work of the individual groups varied based on their particular topics and their participants' strat egies and desires. Therefore, through the observational videos, I was able to view the intricate details of t his group's process for the first time. Working with Aimee Frier and another doctoral student, Patriann Smith, we reviewed field notes and interview responses to supplement the video data. As a research team, we also viewed the final products (text and vid eo) and we examined all of the written documents the students produced. We determined the chronological sequence of activities across the six days. To further analyze the data, I categorized the video into the phases of filmmaking. This data sorting tech nique enabled me to closely examine and contextualize the ways in which students created visual meaning across different parts of the filming process Working with several doctoral students, I compared what I taught with the teacher candidate's instruction and then I compared the teacher candidates' instruction to the students' enacted process. For example, I examined the role of process versus product (Anderson, S mith, Schneider, & Frier, 2015) and discovered that I need ed to further investigate methods f or analyzing the students' semiotic strategies and strategies for determining the overall quality of the film I examined the processes of bilingual students as they collaboratively composed texts (S mith, Frier, & Schneider, 2014) and discovered t hese bili ngual students' use of multimodal strategies required knowledge of and acuity with various modalities that must co occur with the development of strategies such as trans navigation, cross checking, and meta modality awareness. In other words, knowledge in one modality (e.g. visual) can supplement knowledge in another modality (e.g., spatial) but knowledge of one system is not sufficient for the creation of a multimodal product. Therefore, these multilingual students demonstrated both nascent and expert know ledge of multiple modalities in print based composing contexts and across fields of film, theatre, dance, linguistics, literary theory, music, composition, and choreography.
! Schneider, J.J. (2016). Analyzing a Student Made Film (pp. 1 7). Retrieved from Multimodal Data Analysis: A Curated, Open Access Collection of Methodologies USF Libraries Digital Collections http://dig ital.lib.usf.edu/ ( And, I closely studied the teacher candidates' approximations of literacy instru ction under my mentorship (Smith, Schneider, Frier, 2013) and I realized the preservice teachers' implementation of instructional routines, their application of teaching techniques, and their responses to personalized coaching did not support the bilingua l students with whom they worked. In fact, their pedagogical enactments belied their stated dispositions in which they claimed support of bilingual learning. T his section of Analyzing Student Made Films includes short excerpts of raw data, categorized by the phase of filmmaking. These data bits are representative samples that contributed to several layers of analysis By sorting the data into the filmmaking phases and then engaging in content analysis focused on different research questions, I have examine d different aspects of the film production process and I have made modifications to my field experience model based on my ongoing interpretation of the data Key Publications Anderson, A.W., Smith, P., Schneider, J.J., & Frier, A. (2015). Live fr om Mount Olympus: Theatricizing two analyses of a multimodal, multimedia composition. Creative Approaches to Research, 8 (1), 75 96. Frier, A.D., Schneider, J.J., & Smith, P. (2013, December). Pre serv ice teachers' approximations of literacy instruction during a multilingual, multimodal field experi ence Paper presented at the meeting of the Literacy Research Association. Dallas, TX. Smith, P., Frier, A.D., & Schneider, J.J. (2014). Negotiating American history: Bilingual learners collaboratively compose information texts. In J.J. Schneider (Ed.) C asework in K 6 writing instruction: Connecting composing strategies, digita l literacies, and disciplinary content to the Common Core (pp. 193 203). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Smith, P., Schneider, J.J., & Frier, A.D. (2013, April/May). Leveraging lingu isti c "privation" into semiotic sufficiency: Examining multilingual learners' process of collaborative media composition. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.