From: Lara Beaty (
Date: Sat May 21 2005 - 22:31:19 PDT

I agree that digital video is a powerful tool for research and
representation--one with at least two obstacles. I've just submitted
with my dissertation an electronic version with video clips because the
context of my research was high school video production courses. The
technology is not difficult to learn, but a major technical problem is
the amount of memory video requires. My electronic dissertation was
3.54 GB and required a dvd. (Without the videos for now, I've just
placed it at .) As electronic journals
become more readily available, this is the biggest obstacle.

The second problem is to use video with adequate attention to what the
camera is showing. Based on Bellman and Jules-Rosettes' (1977) work, I
used informant-made videos and studied how students used the cameras.
When using videos without an analytical eye on the camera operator, it
is easy to forget what effect the camera has on what is perceived.

On the other hand, videos show many of the details of an activity,
allowing analyses to be shared in ways that are otherwise impossible.
It is for this reason that it became the subject of my dissertation and
I devoted some time to learning how to use it.


On May 21, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:

> I am always in a frenzy i my part of the "real" world. Working in the
> administration is a round the year work with no semesters, and no
> breaks. But I do hope that your frenzy finishes.
> Anyway, I am also interested in the ways of representing the object
> of our analysis. I agree with you that audio/video has to become one
> of the necessary ways not merely to record -- but also to represent.
> And why not? The technology exists. We need to find out how to use the
> audio video as a tool of analysis, too. I think that we are at the
> very beginning, although videotaping started long time ago.
> It would be great to start publishing videos or at least excerpts of
> the videos together with the text.
> I also agree that a lot of work has to be done on the descriptive
> level and that is one of the first forms of analysis. What is
> interesting to me is what do we choose to describe and what do we
> choose to ignore. Like, as you mentioned, the emotional aspects of the
> summer migrant program did not come out in Kris' writing, although
> they were so plainly visible in the video. Finding out what do we
> "lift out" for description and what stays obscured and unnoticed,
> would be the first step of the analytical description, I think. In
> fact, I have learned from Ray Birdwhistle that there is no such thing
> as non analytical description.
> Ana
> Mike Cole wrote:Seems like people are still in the end of semester
> frenzy, Ana, at least I know I am! This is exam time for
>> grads and undergrads and deadlines for qualifying paper.. Madness!
>> I find it hard to imagine strong comparisons across these playworld
>> experiments, although the participants
>> seem to have some ideas about it. Beth and I discussed the
>> information contained in field notes and conjunction with/comparison
>> with video of the proceedings. A lot of work has to be done on a
>> purely descriptive level just to learn what each kind of represention
>> yields within a given play world sequence. I believe that the
>> representations will be complementary.
>> I am interested in this general topic of mode of representation of
>> our objects of analysis and what they afford for conclusions,
>> explanations, etc.
>> I was impressed, for example, with the fact that while I had read
>> Kris G's AERA talk and I have talked to her about the summer migrant
>> program more than once the emotional force of the performance
>> activities did not come through in the written talk (nore, I suspect
>> would
>> they come through in an oral presentation) but they NEEDED the video
>> that made manifest the socioemotional force of the activities.
>> I hope we can start publishing articles accompanied by web file
>> videos to enrich our ability to communicate about our objects of
>> analysis.
>> (Hah-- in our spare time!)
>> mike
>> On 5/18/05, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <> wrote: April is
>> gone, it is the second part of May. Hopefully, many people's end of
>> semester frenzy is gone too and maybe we can get back to the April
>> play discussions. I was re-reading description of the 4-18-05
>> discussion and conference with Penttie Hakkarainen. Here are some
>> long due comments:
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Excerpt from the discussion (which you can also find below after
>>> these comments:
>>> "Mike referred back to Pentti's four types of interventions noting
>>> that one might distinguish them further in terms of content (problem
>>> solving adventures and folktales), who participates (professional
>>> actors), and purpose (developing narrative skills, inducing
>>> aesthetic reactions). Is there a relationship between the content
>>> and the participation structure? He posed a further question: How do
>>> you measure, outline, or characterize the outcome of what is being
>>> done in the play world?"
>>> Comment:
>>> ANA: I want to make a comment regarding the issue directly above in
>>> the text. Also, toward the end of the discussion the same or similar
>>> issue is stated like this:
>>> "The conversation returned to the topic of how to evaluate, measure
>>> the activities in the play world. Pentti acknowledged the difficulty
>>> of evaluating the play world as it centers on the process rather
>>> than the results of learning. The question of evaluation is relative
>>> to the aims of each play world site."
>>> So far, the descriptions of play episodes are very "thin" (global
>>> and not very elaborate) [despite the fact that they are nice and
>>> meaningful – please do not take this as a criticism!!!] –However,
>>> there are many dimensions that are mentioned: for instance: (a)
>>> introduced content; (b) who participates; (c) purpose; (d) length of
>>> play intervention; (e) props, costumes, stage development; (e)
>>> ownership; etc.
>>> It seems to me that before "evaluating" play worlds outcomes, one
>>> needs to develop descriptive techniques such that one can compare
>>> different episodes of play worlds described in this discussion
>>> session or in any other project. The main problem here, as I see it
>>> is to develop ways to describe a process (as Pentti said) rather
>>> than a result of learning. It is the main problem because it is a
>>> description of a dynamic, unpredictable and evolving activity – and
>>> yet, if we want to begin any evaluation, there must be a way to
>>> compare them on more dimensions  and in a greater detail then to
>>> just note the difference in the length of time or the level of
>>> "professional" expertize in dramatic arts.
>>> In order to describe a process, I think, that we need to think of
>>> what constitutes a "unit" of a process – or at least what are the
>>> "points" in the process that are significant for the process itself.
>>> One type of the units of a process that Mike mentioned, I think in
>>> the previous discussion, are various transitions (from one world to
>>> another) and points of transformations (of activities, characters,
>>> participant roles, etc...). For instance in the Narnia series, it is
>>> clear that the transition in the play world and out of the play
>>> world through the cupboard, became something very significant to
>>> everyone, maybe a bit more to the teacher (Tigerr).  How are these
>>> transitions doing in the other play worlds in Japan and in Finland? 
>>> Are there any other transitions in and out of the play world that
>>> should be described. For instance , Pentti mentioned children's
>>> participation in decision making. Is that decision making done
>>> "within" the play world or, do the  children  and adults  "freeze"
>>> the play world in order to "make a decision" or both? What are the
>>> means by which these kinds of transitions are done?
>>> What other kinds of units of a process would be important for the
>>> comparison of different play worlds? Here I think of particular
>>> "moves" by which a play word is built or unraveled, i.e. what
>>> strengthens and builds up the world, and what is a move that
>>> destroys and un-builds...
>>> Ana
>>> Robert Lecusay wrote:Here they are (in the body as well as an
>>> attachment). I have also attached
>>>> a copy of Kiyotaka Miyazaki's presentation.
>>>> (Since it's my first time posting to XMCA, I should introduce
>>>> myself: I'm
>>>> Robert Lecusay, first year grad student here at the LCHC, working
>>>> with
>>>> Beth, Mike, Sonja, Lars, Tiger, Christian, and Kelli on the play
>>>> worlds
>>>> project. Nice to meet you all!)
>>>> take care,
>>>> robert
>>>> Play worlds Meeting at LCHC
>>>> April 18, 2004
>>>> Kiyotaka Miyazaki Presenting
>>>> This was a joint teleconference between the Play worlds group in
>>>> Finland
>>>> (Pentti Hakkarainen) and the LCHC.
>>>> After introductions Kiyo began his presentation on the play world
>>>> project
>>>> he ran in a kindergarten in Ibi, Gifu prefecture, Japan. (See the
>>>> attached
>>>> file for the full text of the presentation.)
>>>> Briefly, Kiyo described the study site and the general
>>>> characteristics of
>>>> the project. He noted that the Japanese play world differed from
>>>> the LCHC
>>>> play world in the fact that it took place over a comparatively short
>>>> period of time (3 days vs. the ongoing weekly interactions) and
>>>> that it
>>>> involved professional artists (actors, musicians, and a
>>>> playwright). The
>>>> play world was based on a character that appears in many traditional
>>>> Japanese folktales, Oni the ogre. Over the three day summer play
>>>> world
>>>> session, the children in the kindergarten engaged with teachers and
>>>> actors
>>>> in a variety of activities that centered on the theme of Oni:
>>>> reading
>>>> books, reciting rhymes, playing tag, and drawing pictures. On the
>>>> final
>>>> day of activities the children, teachers, and actors took part in an
>>>> elaborate, large-scale pretend play activity involving, among other
>>>> things, the "kidnapping" of teachers by Oni, the rescue of the
>>>> teachers by
>>>> the children, and making peace with Oni.
>>>> Next Pentti discussed what he saw as the four types of interventions
>>>> represented in the different play world projects:
>>>> 1. Problem-solving adventures in which the problem solving is
>>>> part of the
>>>> development of the story (e.g. Narnia)
>>>> 2. Play worlds based on classical stories and folktales - Here
>>>> the problem
>>>> solving aspect is not explicit.
>>>> 3. Play worlds involving the collaboration of professional
>>>> artists.
>>>> 4. Dialogical drama approach using puppets (Finland)
>>>> Sonja wondered to what degree the Narnia play world was an
>>>> educational
>>>> intervention that, for example, helps promote children's narrative
>>>> development, literacy, or oral language skills vs. a production –
>>>> creating
>>>> an event that changes the quality of children's experiences, their
>>>> experiences of school, of their interactions with their teacher.
>>>> She referred to three "genres" that were at work in the play world:
>>>> - Theatrical techniques for creating suspense (e.g. lighting,
>>>> costumes)
>>>> - Traditional pedagogical techniques (e.g. small group
>>>> activities)
>>>> - Activities from children's culture (
>>>> e.g. drawing, pretend play)
>>>> Pentti added that play pedagogy was theory driven, based on Gunilla
>>>> Lindqvist's reading of Vygotsky's ideas about the aesthetics of
>>>> play, that
>>>> aesthetic techniques are a way of inducing emotional reactions in
>>>> children.
>>>> Mike referred back to Pentti's four types of interventions noting
>>>> that one
>>>> might distinguish them further in terms of content (problem solving
>>>> adventures and folktales), who participates (professional actors),
>>>> and
>>>> purpose (developing narrative skills, inducing aesthetic
>>>> reactions). Is
>>>> there a relationship between the content and the participation
>>>> structure?
>>>> He posed a further question: How do you measure, outline, or
>>>> characterize
>>>> the outcome of what is being done in the play world?
>>>> Pentti's approach is to use structured field notes that include
>>>> descriptions of the activity, the participants in the activity, and
>>>> the
>>>> role of these participants among other things. The notes are
>>>> examined in
>>>> order to determine the "kind of sense creation that happens with the
>>>> kids." He added that it is also important to note the children's
>>>> contribution to the development of the play world (what they propose
>>>> happens next, the emotions expressed in this decision-making, how
>>>> the kids
>>>> define the problems in the play world).
>>>> Nilda (in Finland) (Milda? not sure if I have her name right) spoke
>>>> about
>>>> her work which, compared to the LCHC and Japan play worlds, is more
>>>> structured because of its institutional nature. Second-year
>>>> university
>>>> students enrolled in a practicum course (Development and Learning
>>>> through
>>>> Play) visit children (6 weeks – 5 yrs. old) once a week for four
>>>> hours and
>>>> engage in dramatizations and play activities. The dramatizations
>>>> (currently puppet shows) last about ten minutes then the rest of
>>>> the time
>>>> is spent engaging with the kids (those who want to participate) in
>>>> self-directed play activities. Observations are made of the type of
>>>> play
>>>> the kids engage in after the performances and from these
>>>> observations the
>>>> students and researchers try to understand what ideas were
>>>> important for
>>>> the kids. Nilda mentioned two examples. One of a girl who over time
>>>> drew a
>>>> series of drawing that made up a story. The other of an
>>>> individualistic
>>>> boy who, collaborating with a five year old girl and using all of
>>>> the
>>>> artifacts that had been created by the kids in the classroom during
>>>> play
>>>> related activities, put on a puppet show for everyone (the boy
>>>> invited
>>>> parents!) What was notable about this was the fact that the boy
>>>> went from
>>>> simply engaging in play to cooperatively organizing a dramatization
>>>> (including telling the audience how to behave).
>>>> Sonja wanted to confirm her interpretation of what Pentti and Nilda
>>>> were
>>>> discussing: the intervention objectives were not necessarily
>>>> determined in
>>>> advance but instead emerged in interaction with the children who
>>>> each
>>>> brought in their own perspectives.
>>>> Nilda responded that her goals and expectations were for the kids
>>>> to be
>>>> flexible players, to be able to play with others, to be able to
>>>> create
>>>> narratives in different forms. She then turned to the issue of
>>>> involving
>>>> professional artists in the play world, arguing that they are
>>>> necessary
>>>> because they can create and explain art forms in ways that school
>>>> teachers
>>>> cannot.
>>>> Kiyo returned to Mike's earlier question about understanding the
>>>> purpose
>>>> of the individual play project. He explained that at the outset of
>>>> his
>>>> project his purpose was to help children construct imaginary worlds
>>>> to
>>>> promote the development of imagination as a cognitive tool. This he
>>>> hoped
>>>> would in turn serve as a resource for the children to draw on in
>>>> their
>>>> everyday school activities. He went on to note the complications of
>>>> trying
>>>> to understand the relationship between the everyday school
>>>> activities of
>>>> the play intervention, noting that teachers, artists, and children
>>>> have
>>>> different goals. He also argued that teachers play an important
>>>> part in
>>>> developing children's imaginative activities in part because they
>>>> are
>>>> engaged with the every day.
>>>> Pentti posed the question: Is imagination mediating between the play
>>>> situation and the classroom situation? And went on to say that play
>>>> or
>>>> dramatizations do not necessarily translate directly into everyday
>>>> situations.
>>>> Nilda returned to Kiyo's point, agreeing that the main objective is
>>>> to
>>>> develop the child's imagination, adding that it is important to
>>>> create a
>>>> space in which the child feels that he or she can think and do
>>>> anything (a
>>>> space which begins with play). Imagination, after all, is an
>>>> activity that
>>>> is necessary in all the subject areas children encounter in school
>>>> (e.g.
>>>> math, physics).
>>>> Kiyo argued that school teachers mediate the resources that the
>>>> children
>>>> gain from play through the everyday school activities.
>>>> Sonja asked Beth if she wanted to speak.
>>>> Beth began by describing two moments that impressed her from her
>>>> visit to
>>>> the Finish play world site, moments that showed the children's
>>>> sense of
>>>> ownership of the play space. One moment, witnessing the kids
>>>> rushing to
>>>> take off their coats to begin playing, and another when the kids
>>>> forced
>>>> one of the actors, who was sick and preparing to return home, to
>>>> put her
>>>> costume back on to play. Beth continued with anecdotes from the
>>>> Narnia
>>>> play world. One child who said he hated the story, but only because
>>>> it
>>>> occurred once a week. He wanted it to happen everyday. Another
>>>> child who
>>>> was sick and who had to go home, but who cried her way into staying
>>>> to try
>>>> and participate, but eventually had to leave because she had a
>>>> fever. Beth
>>>> felt that this enthusiasm had something to do with the fact that the
>>>> teacher is fully participating in the play activity as well, that
>>>> there is
>>>> space in which the adults and children have a shared sense of space
>>>> and
>>>> time.
>>>> Nilda agreed that in the play situation adults begin to feel and
>>>> think
>>>> like the children which in turn may give insight into the child's
>>>> learning
>>>> process. She also brought up the point that children always have to
>>>> deal
>>>> with the adult world, but in the play situation the adults enter the
>>>> child's world and show their respect for it, there is a recognition
>>>> that
>>>> learning for children begins from their world, not necessarily from
>>>> the
>>>> adult world.
>>>> Brian noted the fact that the narratives used in the play worlds
>>>> contained
>>>> many traumatic situations. He asked about the relationship of these
>>>> traumatic situations to the intense engagement of the children, and
>>>> how
>>>> this related to the process of choosing the narratives that formed
>>>> the
>>>> basis of these play worlds.
>>>> Sonja responded that the children insert their personal narratives
>>>> into
>>>> the main narrative as they begin to interact with the characters of
>>>> the
>>>> story. She highlighted the example of the boy who wanted to have
>>>> the play
>>>> world occur everyday, saying that perhaps this was a manifestation
>>>> of the
>>>> boy's desire for constancy. The boy lives with his grandmother and
>>>> is only
>>>> occasionally visited by his parents.
>>>> The conversation returned to the topic of how to evaluate, measure
>>>> the
>>>> activities in the play world. Pentti acknowledged the difficulty of
>>>> evaluating the play world as it centers on the process rather than
>>>> the
>>>> results of learning. The question of evaluation is relative to the
>>>> aims of
>>>> each play world site.
>>>> Mike brought up the issue of comparability of, for example, the
>>>> pre-k/k/primary school play worlds to work in high schools, like
>>>> that
>>>> being conducted by Yrjo Engestrom. What about teacher evaluations
>>>> of the
>>>> projects? What about examining the children's representations of
>>>> the play
>>>> world in their drawings?
>>>> Pentti ended with a final comment about evaluations of Finish school
>>>> children showing that they scored high in cognitive abilities but
>>>> low in
>>>> motivation!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:05 PDT