CP805: Stop-motion film parable project
Abstract
Reference: Case Study CP 805
Classroom Practice: Year 10 Technology and Graphics
Title: Stop-motion film parable project
Duration: Three terms
Teacher: Chris Smyth
Overview
Two Year 10 classes were asked to communicate the values of their school using film and a biblical parable. Because the project preceded a term 4 control/mechatronics unit, robotics was used as an additional context. Two short (3-5-minute) films were made using animated puppets and stop-motion film techniques.
Background
St Patrick's College in Wellington is a decile 8 secondary boys school with a roll of around 660.
HOD Technology Chris Smyth graduated in 1995 with a BDes Design in Visual Communications Design from Wellington Polytechnic/Victoria University and spent almost seven years as a freelance technical illustrator, illustrator, designer, painter and model-maker. After completing his Graduate Diploma in Teacher-Secondary at Wellington College of Education in 2002, Chris joined the staff at St Pat's. Initially his energies were divided between the Visual Art department, and the Technology and Graphics department. In 2004 Chris was appointed assistant HOD Technology and Graphics. In 2006 he became a Beacon Practice teacher. At the end of that year he was appointed Acting HOD Technology for 2007, a position that was made permanent in late 2007.
Beginning in 2005, St Pat's had introduced what was termed 'cross-curricula projects'. These involved Year 9 and Year 10 students completing short two-week projects involving three departments. However, these were less successful than they might have been due to the difficulties with structuring and managing projects of this nature in a five- or six-period day. The practicalities of swapping classes had not been fully understood and many teachers came to resent the project as an inconvenient imposition.
During Chris's teacher training he completed a project drawing together visual art and technology within a film-making context. Positive feedback convinced him of the possibilities of taking a cross-curricula approach to teaching. Chris began his teaching career at St Pat's in both the Art and Technology departments, though, as a new teacher, he did not have the opportunity to develop units of work across both subject areas. In 2004 in the Technology and Graphics department he was able to do more and was supported in this interest by the then HOD of Technology, Brian Allen.
Chris had little involvement in the 'official' cross-curricula projects in the first year they were undertaken. With the additional planning and development time available through his involvement in the Beacon Project, he made it his goal to develop and trial a unit of work that explored a potentially effective way of working across subjects, that fits comfortably with the multi-disciplinary nature of Technology in the real world. Initial work on this was done in late 2005 when applying for inclusion in the Beacon project. This was slightly before the first of the school's 'official' cross-curricula projects was introduced.
Pre-planning
Chris has long been interested in film and film-making – as a 20-year-old he worked at the New Zealand Film Commission – and so it was a natural step to capitalise on this personal enthusiasm when creating a new teaching unit. When he began planning the film-making unit, Peter Jackson's much anticipated remake of the classic action thriller and special-effects-fest King Kong was about to be released. Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and Weta Digital are based in a neighbouring suburb of the school, and Chris was pleased that this timing would give the unit an attractive topicality. (Chris notes that some students at St Pat's were starting to recognise Technology classes as a possible pathway into careers in the creative industries.)
Because the unit would precede a term 4 control/mechatronics unit, Chris decided to use robotics as an additional context. Animated puppets could serve as characters, and stop-motion film techniques would enable students to experiment with special effects.
St Pat's is a Catholic school and the strong values it espouses made the choice of subject a logical one: a biblical parable. Targeting Year 8 students from feeder schools, their parents and caregivers, and the wider community of the school itself, the project seemed like a good way of both communicating the school's values and involving students and teachers from other curriculum areas.
Chris is a great believer in the value of Technology teachers establishing links with other subjects, not only to because it offers students advantages but because it also reinforces the holistic, multi-disciplinary nature of the modern workplace – an integral aspect of the Technology curriculum. As Chris envisaged it, the project would require his students to seek expert advice and help, and to reflect on the special character of their school as they developed their scripts and storyboards. For help with the storyline, they could consult the school's religious education teachers. For help with the script, the school's English department could become involved. For the film's score, the Music department may wish to contribute. (Chris says that staff at his school get on well and are keen to help each other out wherever possible.)
A primary focus for St Pat's is teaching students to apply Christian values to their daily lives. Chris chose parables as the storylines for the films to help students reflect on the values of the College in a context other than Religious Education classes or Mass. He also hoped to reinforce the sense of community – a strong feature of St Patrick's – through planning an authentic client/designer relationship between the class and Year 12 and 13 Graphics and Technology students who would be asked to design and build puppets and vehicles for the project.
Chris planned the unit using the department's planning format. He planned for learning outcomes, teaching points, associated activities, assessment plans, and assessment criteria. He also planned to ensure delivery of the unit was responsive and flexible. Although the unit was carefully planned in terms of what was important for the school, curriculum expectations, expected learning outcomes, assessment opportunities etc, Chris wanted to ensure delivery of the unit was responsive to individual student/class needs.
Delivery
Test Animation 1 video (2.6Mb .wmv)
Test Animation 2 video (2.8Mb .wmv)
These animation tests were used to test: camera and software use; use of film rig and lighting; size of movements for animation; and editing of images for animation.
Storyboard images: click to enlarge
This movie of the storyboard with script was used to test the clarity of storytelling, and the timings and sequencing of camera shots and angles to guide the shooting of the final footage.
During the first four weeks of term 1, Chris outlined the project to teachers from other departments to gain their support. The Religious Education and English departments offered to adapt some of their lessons to suit, while the Music HOD agreed to allow a small number of students to work in his department during some Technology periods. Religious Education, English and Music teachers of the classes involved agreed to make themselves available as advisors to small groups of students.
Chris is also a fan of group learning. At the beginning of the unit, he had students think about their interests and skills and critically assess their own abilities. He used this information, along with the student's own preferences and some diagnostic assessment of their prior learning in Technology, to create groups of students. Then he introduced the project by having students watch and discuss films with robotics as a theme, as well as films and 'special features' dealing with stop motion animation, storyboarding, planning and so on. Films included: I Robot, the original 1933 King Kong, and the Wallace and Gromit films. Chris also screened Jurassic Park – a landmark in the history of animation for special effects, as it was the first time that CGI (digital) effects were used in a full-length film to represent real, living creatures.
Chris presented the class with the project brief. He did this verbally rather than presenting the class with a written statement. This, he believes, encourages students to discuss the brief and engage with it rather than feel it is being imposed on them.
A paraphrased version of the brief that emerged from the class discussion runs as follows:
The class identified key stakeholders and key factors. These were transferred to a class Gantt chart, providing students with an overall view to help them understand where they are at any point of the project, as well as being able to see how their group's work affects each of the other groups.
Based on this planning, groups were assigned different parts of the project: script, storyboard, backdrops, props, music, animation, film/lighting. Using student and teacher-initiated research criteria, the boys used the internet to research their area. Each group presented their findings to the class in PowerPoint presentations that were evaluated by peers and later refined. To increase the effectiveness of the group approach, Chris ensures groups communicate between themselves freely, as opposed to having each group operate in isolation. The initial experiments and trials and errors that every group endured were shared through regular rounds of presentations. Groups used these initial experiments to identify the skills and knowledge they had to acquire. The Gantt chart was updated as their body of knowledge grew and tasks were refined and redefined.
The script group developed a synopsis for the film based on a range of parables Chris provided. "I selected a range of parables that would translate relatively easily to film. The reason for this was simply practical necessity – there was not the planning time available for this to be done with other staff. Teachers are excessively busy people – increasingly so year-by-year as administrative tasks increase. This is the biggest barrier to inter-departmental, or even intra-departmental collaborative planning (though we are relatively good at that in the St Pat's Technology department)." The script and storyboard groups developed the characters and briefed the Year 12 Graphics and Technology students, who prepared the puppets and designed the vehicles used in the film.
Guided by the teacher, the Year 10 students identified experts who could help them with the project and developed a range of interview questions. A key factor Chris had identified early in the project was the ability [or lack of ability] of students to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts –within small groups, whole class conferencing, interacting with clients, stakeholders and outside experts (teachers of other curriculla).
"Despite many reminders, and even setting up potential meeting times, I did not force students to meet with the expert teachers. Many of the students were reluctant to meet with the teachers. I am not certain why – laziness may have been a factor, or perhaps they found it an uncomfortable situation. I had to manage that aspect of the project by providing it in a more formal way. Most of the expert input happened when I ran a couple of lessons and invited the relevant teachers to join the class to watch the film in partially completed form and give some feedback to the students."
The project was also shown to a group of Year 8 students on two occasions to gauge their reaction as to the clarity of the storytelling, etc.
Filming began early in the third term, and then progressed relatively quickly. The preparation took a lot longer than originally planned, but that is the nature of such a project, and it was this aspect that provided much of the learning. The interactions and interdependence of groups contributing to the success of the project was both a challenge and a highlight of the project.
"It requires a great deal of organisation and perseverance on the part of the teacher in order to keep everyone motivated and productive."
A digital video camera on a tripod was used to take still photos – around 90 per lesson during the production phase. (Chris suggests that a digital still camera would be equally effective, and that a bracket clamped to a desk would work in place of a tripod.) Lighting was provided by way of a couple of lamps – a spotlight-style lamp and an adjustable desk-style lamp. Large sheets of white card were used for 'fill' lighting. Small 12-volt lamps with a transformer were used in one of the films to provide model 'street lamp' lighting.
Chris did the editing, using Windows Movie Maker. Chris says this software is not ideal, as editing has to be completed in small sections, saved as video clips and assembled later. The programme frequently freezes/crashes and has to be shut down and restarted, so frequent saving and plenty of patience and late evenings are required.
The project was intended to take place in terms 1 and 2, with the presentation of outcomes in term 3. However, it took longer than expected and extended into term 3 with presentation of outcomes in term 4. The unit of work planned for term 4 focussing on programming simple robots was flexible enough to accommodate the change. Research into robotics, and a PowerPoint presentation of this research, in was done by groups who had 'down time' from the film making during the first three terms. This was an effective way to keep everyone working on relevant aspects of the whole year's programme.
Selected students described the project at the Wellington Beacon Practice Cluster presentation at Parliament in October 2006 and at two afternoon presentations of class-work to Year 7 and Year 8 students from local schools.
During the implementation of the unit, Chris developed some unconventional and useful methods to plan and manage lessons in a complex project of this nature, including something he calls the 'Visual lesson plan'.
"I used this planner for many lessons during the most intense phase of the project, to manage and communicate the many varied activities taking place. This is a plan drawing of the two linked rooms I was using, as well as the attached storeroom and my office. Included in the drawing were each of the identified workstations, named for each of the groups. This was photocopied to A3 size, and put up on the classroom walls for students to refer to as they entered the room. I also photocopied this at A4 size for my own use. For each lesson, I would date this lesson plan and write next to each workstation the resources, equipment, specific activities and teaching points for each group for that lesson. I carried this with me for the lesson, using it as a guide as I moved from group to group. Each group was provided with an information sheet on what they were to be doing in this lesson – either one given to all groups or one specifically targeted for a particular group. This corresponded to the visual lesson plan, of course. Groups became good at being responsible for their work-station and the setting up and storage of their work."
Outcomes
Addressing specific curriculum outcomes was major focus of planning and process. This involved students working to a brief, developing that brief as a project unfolds, using planning tools and developing an outcome, using ongoing evaluation. Students used specialist knowledge and understanding of the nature of technological activity in the context of the stakeholder communities.
Most groups achieved good quality research. Effective evaluation of each group's work by the whole class led to improvements in the depth and presentation of this research. The use of an assessment schedule in this process was valuable, Chris says, and was well received by the students. Most came to appreciate the need for project planning. Use of the whole-class Gantt chart and having the students plan their required steps, supported this understanding, as did watching and discussing documentaries about film production, including the documentary about the original 1933 King Kong, and a number of other 'special features' documentaries.
Assessment was transparent and frequently involved the whole class, peer, and self-assessment. Students were required to evaluate their learning and outcomes and identify their next learning steps on an ongoing basis.
Student engagement in hands-on experiments was "generally very good". Student work was often innovative and self-motivated. Chris thinks the inherent interest of the project helped – robots fascinate most people, as does the process of film-making, and Year 10 students are no exception.
Student engagement was also helped by the use of group rather than individual activities. While this was the case for most students, Chris points out that it wasn't true for all: "Some people just don't work so well in a group situation, but are still able to collaborate by working on tasks on an individual basis."
The complexity of the project allowed Chris the flexibility to change groups to suit the changing demands of the developing project and to find areas of interest to engage and motivate students. However, as is generally the case with a group of 30 or so people, some students didn't 'buy in' to their role within a group and did not contribute fully.
Chris found that some groups were too large and, as a result, there were communication and group dynamics problems. To better manage students who, for whatever reason, were failing to perform, Chris took a flexible approach to the make-up of the groups, creating smaller ones as the situation demanded to undertake specific tasks identified earlier. For example, a splinter group was charged with the planning and production of the film's title sequence.
Separate groups prepared the script and developed the film's storyboard, while other groups were engaged in research and experimentation. Download a movie file of the storyboard (3.8Mb, .wmv).
The storyboard was created from the script and, as it developed, guided the work of the props and backdrops groups. The completed storyboards were filmed with the correct timing of scenes so that the music could be composed while the filming progressed. The animation and lighting groups worked together on short test sequences using an early, partly-built puppet and experimental props and backdrops prepared by the relevant groups.
The opportunity to contribute to a project much larger than they could individually achieve, as well as to present their work to younger students, generated considerable enthusiasm among students, Chris says.
The opportunity to present the work at Parliament was an added bonus, when this event was planned towards the end of the year.
St Pat's has emphasised differentiated learning for some time and Chris believes his project sat neatly with this teaching ethos, providing opportunities for students with varied learning styles to work in ways they otherwise might not. At the same time collaboration was also a strong feature of the project. Learning occurred within an environment of social interaction. Some Year 12 and 13 Technology and Graphics students designed and built the animation puppets and vehicles used in the films, others designed posters and other promotional material. These students had valid and accessible clients to work for, while junior students had the experience of designers working for them to fulfil their requirements. Collective ownership of outcomes was a feature of the project.
Another outcome Chris was pleased to observe was the change in student perceptions of what technology is. This broadened from the artefact-based perception held by many students at the beginning of the project to a richer, deeper appreciation for the field.
Similarly, the level of understanding of Technology as a subject was raised within the College. Staff from a wide range of subject areas gained a greater understanding of what the subject entails.
Chris had group representatives present a project outline to key stakeholders. Information gleaned at the presentations was fed back into the class Gantt chart.
From a personal point of view, Chris says the project gave him experience in the teaching of collaborative, creative projects, this being different in nature to the individual nature of most of the work we normally do at school. He sees the success of the unit in the wider context of having his students obtain a wider view of the world in terms of opportunities available to them both now and in the future. Some students identified specialised areas of interest within the project as work progressed, and new aspects were added to the projects as a result. Several of these students continued with these areas of interest in their Year 11 Technology studies. These interests relate to student's potential career choices.
What next?
In 2007, Chris had planned to repeat the unit, with some modifications. However the class he had was a more challenging one, so he taught a much simpler film-making project. He reduced the scope of the unit and trialled some alternative approaches to certain aspects of the project in an attempt to maintain student involvement – with varied success. He did not use outside experts and the research phase took a lot longer. Short plasticine animated 'monster' films were made by small groups, with students within the groups having changing roles at different stages of the project.
While this may have been slightly disappointing, the school's senior management has taken (great) interest in the film project, and considered it in the wider context of school's desire to promote cross-curricula initiatives.
Chris believes the original project was a good start, a way of generating interest and trialling ideas. "The work that followed, with support from the Rector, was to use the project as a starting point to work with staff from other curriculum areas to develop a model that could work effectively within our school across subjects, which is where we have got to now."
Other projects may have different contexts but similar aims in terms of collaboration, cross-curricula links and differentiated learning. Chris believes the joint planning of units of work across departments within the College will be key to sustaining and improving the concept long term.
During term 4 2006, Chris chaired two planning sessions – a full-day and a half-day – with teachers from other curriculum areas with a view to developing a workable model for cross curricula or integrated projects. Departments involved in this planning included English, Social Sciences, Religious Instruction, Science, Visual Art and Music.
At the beginning of 2007, Chris was involved in two planning meetings to develop a collegially planned cross curricula project at the request of senior management. The outcome was a Technology/Science/Maths two-week project that was trialled with two Year 9 classes. The project was later used with all Year 9 classes during the year. However, Chris regards the project as a stepping stone towards his ideal as there were timetabling constraints not suited for the model preferred by Chris and the other teachers involved.
Chris subsequently had informal discussions with teachers from Science, English, and Music with the aim of developing a further cross-curricula project using the preferred model. This was to have been trialled in term 4 of 2007 as a model of how things might work across departments. However, there was insufficient time to implement the project effectively, so the decision was made to wait and put it in to the pool of ideas for future work.
Chris's ideal is to have a project that is truly integrated into the normal year programme of each curriculum area involved, developed collegially with each teacher. Most teachers who have been involved in previous senior management-initiated cross-curricula projects acknowledge that having a compulsory, three-subject area unit of work that interrupts the normal programme creates tensions and difficulties. These include taking valuable time out of existing planned programmes (more of an issue for some subjects than others), difficulties in timetabling of rooms (especially computer rooms), communication and resource management difficulties in passing lesson/student progression from subject teacher to subject teacher and classroom to classroom over two weeks of classes in three subjects.
In 2008, Chris is trialling a new model he believes will solve these issues.
"The new model was developed in meetings I ran at the end of 2006, and refined in a series of meetings with the Rector and Assistant Rector through 2007. At the beginning of 2008, all teachers of each Year 9 form class met for 15 minutes (instead of attending staff briefing) and discussed project ideas and indicated their desire to be involved. Buy-in was up to the teachers concerned. Every subject had the option to participate. Staff from three or more subject areas needed to commit to a project, which at that stage was undefined. At this point (mid-March 2008), this part of the process has taken place, with very good indications for involvement. Following this, an afternoon will be allocated to the staff involved, to develop a project structure. The school provides relief for this – a significant commitment.
"Essentially, links are made across subjects, using work that is already part of each department's programme, with adjustments made where needed. Assessment is carried out as per usual in each curriculum area. An outcome and timeline are to be identified, written up, and given to the Assistant Rector. This becomes that form class's official integrated learning project for the year. If three or more subject teachers do not 'buy in' to this concept, that particular form class will revert to the existing, two-week cross-curricula project in term 4."
