chapter two - is video editing really a group activity?

Gill Clayton , Great Torrington Community School

Part One: Initial Observations

What types of learning are taking place when students are editing film?

It seems that a multiplicity of things take place when students edit film: there are the group-working skills, and the editing process itself that needs a diverse skill itinerary. Whether or not these skills are transferable to other areas of learning is a matter that needs discussion.

The class used here was a mixed ability year 10 ranging from pupils working at level 2 on the National Curriculum to level 8. The class had been working on media as part of their GCSE English and had been set the task of producing a short 2-3 minute film using a specific genre and aiming for an imaginative use of camera for effect.

A group of 4 ‘able’ pupils (Louise, Philip, Eleanor and Matthew) has been set a differentiated task in collaboration with the Food Tech. Department designed to give them extra challenge. They had to produce a 5 min. ‘slot’ for a cookery TV programme on African cookery using a visit to school of an outside guest. To prepare for this they had researched cookery programmes on TV to determine what types of camera shots, angles and movements they would need.

The class then worked in groups in rotation: planning, filming and editing. This type of working was very successful as it allowed a great deal of observation of the editing process. This analysis is based upon all the pupils in the class, but mostly the able group as there was more time available to spend observing them than the others.

Watching students edit is a fascinating activity: there is an awful lot going on. Initially pupils need to overcome the problem of working with the technology. It proved easy to learn how to use the Casablanca Avio, students rapidly became experts and then taught others how to use it. In a matter of five minutes they were going from sitting at the machine cold, to starting to edit their material.

The first thing one observes is the need for the students to work as a group, there is much discussion about which parts of film to download, where to cut and trim individual scenes and in what order they need to go. This tended to be done with real thought; a real wish to get the best possible outcome.

Students tend to stay very focused, they are glued to the screen; there is intense concentration, even in a noisy classroom with a lot of group work going on.

Once scenes are downloaded and students are ready to begin editing this seems to be where the real challenge lies. Downloading scenes is straightforward, if things are not right; students know they can manipulate them to get what they want. But editing the scenes is different, they want the best possible outcome and a lot of work goes into achieving this. There is real thought and discussion about sequencing: what is going to go where. This tended to be done by visiting and revisiting the downloaded scenes to choose the ones that were required. Those scenes would then be cut or trimmed to exactly how they wanted them and put into sequence. Some scenes would have to be watched again and again, constantly flicking from one to the other before they were put in sequence to go towards the final film.

For most of the group the editing was made easier by the fact they had storyboarded their films, thus they had a good idea what needed to go where. For the more able group however this was not so, they had not known what was going to happen on the day of filming so had to film everything they could and then try to impose some sort of structure upon it. Because of this their editing was a lot less constrained and thus there was a lot more flicking from scene to scene to remind themselves what they had as they were trying to sequence it. For example, at one point they were looking through the scenes and stumbled upon one they had spent a long time looking for. They then had to find where it went which meant going to the sequence they had made, going back to the beginning, watching it and slotting it in where they had wanted it.

Once the sequence was in place and the group happy, it was a matter of finishing off: adding transitions, titles, music/dialogue etc. Students really liked that they could do all this because it made the final product look really professional; but it was during the editing process that it seemed the really interesting aspects came into play.

As an observer it was at first difficult to determine exactly what was happening; one could see what pupils were doing, but it was difficult to try and work out what was happening internally. As observation time mounted up however, several things were coming to light.

In this instance the first hurdle is the technology. Groups needed to acquire the technical skills necessary to use the Avio machine. Because a small group of year 11 boys had already become experts in using the machine they passed on their skills to the first group ready to edit: the ‘able’ group, and then the able group taught the next group and so on. This part of the process was very easy and smooth due to the simplicity of the machine. Students needed very little input before they were finding their way about themselves – it does seem a very simple machine to operate.

However several things came out here. One of the boys in the able group – Matthew – decided he did not like the machine and refused to take part in the editing process. Interesting, as he is very able at ICT, indeed loves it. He wanted a computer, when it was pointed out that the Avio was indeed a computer then it was ‘not the right sort!’ Matthew said it did not seem ‘professional enough,’ a ‘real’ computer would give you more options, have a clearer monitor, show previews of what you want to do, like effects. He wanted a touch screen and that mouse: ‘it’s too big and too inaccurate.’ Also the interface was intimidating: it was ‘garish’, an ‘eyesore,’ the colours were wrong, and the layout of the screen, it ‘makes it difficult to concentrate.’ When asked whether it might be a question of familiarity he did admit that ‘it might be we’re so used to the environment of Windows.’ He was happy to teach other pupils to use the machine though – a chance perhaps to maintain his role of ‘technology expert.’

It is clear that he did have appoint about some of the Avio’s limitations: the freeze frame is ‘rubbish’ and it is, it judders about; and it would be nice to preview things like effects. He would have liked ‘markers’ to mark the scenes or where they were in the film. It would also be useful to have a copy function to copy scenes and use them in a different way. There was also a problem with not being able to insert on top of and insert which took some time to overcome.

On the plus side they agreed it was easy to use, it worked consistently and the sequencing part is clear. They liked that you can get back what you trim out, and trimming and splitting is so easy. In the end, as well as learning about media technique they said they had been learning about the machine and that ‘cutting and pasting in the right order [or editing] is quite a skill.’

A very important factor in editing is groupwork: the negotiation, compromise, merge of ideas and leadership skills needed to create the end product. Every group observed had a leader – or an editing leader, not necessarily the same leader who decided things at the planning stage. Louise who became the leader of the ‘able’ group said that editing is not really a ‘multi-person task,’ she thought it should be a maximum of two, possibly because in her case it seemed that she and Eleanor did most of it; the others tending to be observers who chipped in an idea now and again. Louise had a point; she said that there was a conflict in the individual vision of what the final film needed to look like, and the group vision. Had she been alone she could have just ‘gone for it,’ whereas in a group there had to be constant negotiation.

Negotiation as communication is very important in a group situation. In the case of the ‘able’ group the two girls had downloaded the scenes onto te Avio from two different cameras. Because the boys had no input here, when they came to edit they did not have half the things they wanted as the girls had not bothered to download them – they had not communicated their part of the vision –this was one of the reasons why the boys opted out of the editing process, they did not feel they had enough ownership of the film.

In this case working as a group is a very important factor and a skill that is directly transferable to other areas of learning.

Editing is a very creative process, but because students start with what has been downloaded it is creativity in a very disciplined way. In what is largely a sequencing activity – putting things in order until it makes sense; like a jigsaw puzzle, it works in the right order to tell a story – it is a case of developing the most creative sequence. Philip however found it very constraining. Comparing it to writing he said that when you write you have the ideas in your head and a blank sheet of paper, you can put anything down, there are no constraints; but the editing process is like playing with lego, you are constrained by the shape of the blocks, there are some things you cannot do – which is like editing, you are constrained by what you’ve got on film. An interesting and valuable point, to use his comparison to writing, it is like trying to write a story after having been given the words: there are still infinite possibilities, but you are under some constraint. Philip found it frustrating ‘you get lots of things buzzing around in your head, and then you find out you can’t do them!’ At one point his plaintive rang out in class ‘I’m allergic to editing!’

Yet Louise liked the framework, it gave her something to hang on to, and ‘besides, it can be very haphazard, you don’t have to start at the beginning.’ She felt the machine and process gave her a lot of freedom. On the one hand ‘it is a very simple, repetitive task,’ but on the other, ‘when you are sitting in front of the machine there is always something different you can do.’ When asked to elaborate upon that she offered: ‘you can cut the scene, there, or there, or there; and sequence it differently; in general if you aim for the perfection that’s in your head it’s always ok.’

And this is where the whole process comes into its own, if they go with what you can do and what they have, this is a very valuable experience for students. They loved the fact that they ended up with something that looked like a real film, that thay had done it all themselves – seeing their names on credits and hearing their peers clap was a real boost to self esteem and self confidence. And if this process does nothing else, it is worth it for that.

Part 2: Is video editing really a group activity?

Initial observation had indicated that the editing process is about adapting to circumstances, working with what you have got and can do rather than what you wish you had and could do. It is a sequencing activity – imposing order on something that is initially haphazard. Within this sequencing comes multi-thinking skills – what goes where and in what order, and what’s left behind that needs fitting in?

These observations of students editing film had also thrown up the possibility that this was a valid group activity; that editing as a group developed communication and group skills; that unless groups could compromise, there was no final outcome. Further observation however, has turned this thought around and this case study now asks the question ‘is editing a group activity at all?’

The pupils used for this part of the study were from Year 10 and were two English classes (10Y and 10X). Pupils were mixed ability ranging from level 2 on the English National Curriculum to level 8. The groups had been working on media as part of their GCSE English. 10Y were set the task of producing a short 2-3 minute film using a specific genre and asking for the imaginative use of camera for effect. They were asked to plan in storyboard form and had 15 minutes to do the filming. 10X were given a lot more freedom and just asked to produce a short 2-3 minute film and had as long as they wanted to film.

The classes then worked in rotation: filming, editing and working on a piece of film analysis. This type of working was very successful as it allowed pupils to all be engaged in something meaningful, and allowed a great deal of observation of the editing process.

This case study is in some part based upon all pupils in these classes, but mostly a group from 10X: Paisley, Simon, Leitza, Gemma and Richard (Paisley’s group – thus called for reasons which will become later apparent). It was found that when filming, what most groups tended to do was to film the scenes in order; thus editing became merely trimming scenes, aligning them, adding transition effects between scenes and then finishing by adding titles and credits. This group however filmed both within school and at home; thus when downloading scenes onto the Avio had them out of sequence which meant they had a much more ‘realistic’ editing experience.

Observing students edit is a fascinating activity, there is an awful lot going on. Initially pupils need to overcome the problem of working with the technology. It proved easy to learn how to use the Casblanca Avio; students rapidly became experts and then taught others how to use it. In a matter of 5 minutes they were going from sitting ‘cold’ at the machine, to starting to edit their material.

The first thing one observes is the group dynamic, in general there tends to be much discussion about which parts of film to download, where to cut and trim individual scenes and in what order they need to go. This tends to be done with real thought; a real wish to get the best possible outcome.

Students tend to stay very focussed, they are glued to the screen; there is intense concentration, even in a noisy classroom with a lot of groupwork going on.

Once scenes are downloaded and students are ready to begin editing this seems to be where the real challenge lies. Downloading scenes is straightforward, if things are not right students know they can manipulate them to get what they want. Editing the scenes is different, they want the best possible outcome and a lot of work goes into achieving this. For most of the students it was a matter of trimming scenes to how they wanted them to look and then sequencing them - as most groups had filmed them in sequence anyway, this was not always the most creative part. For Paisley’s group however this was a real challenge; they had more material and it was totally out of sequence when filmed.

Paisley’s Group: a case study.

The dynamic of this group was very interesting: very mixed ability – a very able English student (Leitza) and a very able ICT student (Simon). However, it became clear very quickly that there was a definite leader of the group and that was Paisley.

Indeed every group observed had a leader – or an editing leader: It was they who tended to do most of the editing, perhaps with the odd input from someone else in the group; but largely the rest of the group became observers. In Paisley’s group’s case this was to the extreme. Paisley became a dictator – the final film was down to her and her alone – she was in control all the time. When editing, the mouse was constantly in her possession. On occasions when others in the group would try to suggest something, she would argue her case to get her own way. If she did not get her own way then she would often move on without a decision being made to the next clip or task.

When Simon tried to influence the editing he was mostly ignored and would give up. However when Leitza repeated and supported Simon’s suggestions Paisley would then take it up and give it a try. These occasions were few and far between though; it was largely Paisley’s product:

Leitza: I think you should let Simon have a go.
Paisley: Yeah… but I know what I’m doing now… I will mess it up if I give it to Simon.

The use of the pronoun ‘I’ is very interesting here, how can ‘she’ mess it up if Simon is doing it? She means that if Simon does the editing it will mess up what she wants and it will not be her vision of the film – in her head it has become her film and she wants total control. After this input she carried on editing and the rest of the group – perhaps seeing they had not got a chance – began to talk about something else. They were completely off the task.

Throughout, the talk indicated the activity of the group: silence tended to be Paisley editing and the others watching as silent observers – this tended to be the same in all groups; discussion, ranging from quiet, calm discussion to sometimes very heated, indicated coping with the group dynamic or trying to get it ‘right’.

Perhaps editing is an individual activity. Louise, a girl from another group, said that editing is not really a ‘multi-person task’ she thought it should be a maximum of two. She had a point; she said that there was a conflict in the individual vision of what the final film needed to look like, and the group vision. In Paisley’s group this was proven to be true. Louise said, had she been alone she could have just ‘gone for it’ whereas in a group there had to be constant negotiation. Louise however is a very accommodating, passive personality; a confident, strong personality like Paisley had no qualms whatsoever about ‘going for it’ – she did not want negotiation as it was her film.

(When offered a suggestion) “No… I know what I’m doing… I know what I’m doing!” (said with much force.)

It is interesting that before observing Paisley’s group it had been easy to believe that groupwork was an important feature – it had seemed that groups were having to negotiate and compromise to create the end product. There would be discussion about where to trim scenes to best effect and how to go about sequencing them. Within this group the final product belonged to Paisley – to the extent that towards the end of the process the rest of the group gave up and Paisley came along to the classroom to finish it off by herself, reinforcing the opinion of a boy, Philip, from another group ‘You can only have one editor.’ Revisiting original observation tapes and notes it can be seen that in fact few of the groups really produced a ‘group’ film; that there tended to be a dominant character who took control most of the time with other group members chipping in ideas now and again that either would or would not be acted upon.

If this is the case is it a valid learning experience? What types of learning are taking place when students edit film?

It seems that it is experimental learning, students were learning by doing, they had a quick ‘lesson’ on how to use the Avio, but they were learning all the time how the machine worked and constantly experimenting with it. Paisley with her hand ever on the mouse would move between shots, to special effects, preview them, select the best one, then add to the sequence of the film. For her, and the other editors to a certain extent, it was an extremely creative process. In what is largely a sequencing activity – putting things in order until it makes sense; like a jigsaw puzzle, it works in the right order to tell a story – it is a case of developing the most creative sequence. For some: Paisley and Louise, they created structure from non-chronological material - they really experienced the editing process. Yet because students start with what has been downloaded it is creativity in a very disciplined way. Philip found this constraining. Comparing it to writing he said that when you write you have the ideas in your head and a blank sheet of paper, you can put anything down, there are no constraints; but the editing process is like playing with Lego, you are constrained by the shape of the blocks, there are some things you cannot do – which is like editing, you are constrained by what you have got on film. An interesting and valuable point. To use his comparison to writing, it is like trying to write a story after having been given the words: there are still infinite possibilities, but you are under some constraint. Philip found it frustrating ‘you get lots of things buzzing around in your head, and then you find out you can’t do them!’ At one point his plaintive rang out in class ‘I’m allergic to editing!’

Yet Louise got a lot from this, ‘it can be very haphazard, you don’t have to start at the beginning.’ She felt that the process gave her a lot of freedom. On the one hand ‘it is a very simple, repetitive task,’ but on the other, ‘when you are sitting in front of the machine there is always something different you can do.’ When asked to elaborate on that she offered: ‘you can cut the scene there, or there, or there; and sequence it differently; in general if you aim for the perfection that is in your head it’s always ok.’

Which is clearly what Paisley did. She had the ‘vision’ from the start and when the material did not match up to the vision then, as Louise had said, she worked out another way of doing it so that it made sense. It is about adapting to circumstances, working with what you have got and can do rather than what you wish you had and could do. She worked hard with the machine to make sure that her final product was as good as it could be. And this is where the whole process comes into its own. If they go with what they can do and what they have, this is a very valuable experience for students.