8
edits
Drumbeat/events/Festival/Barcelona/OpenRaval: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Drumbeat/events/Festival/Barcelona/OpenRaval (view source)
Revision as of 14:31, 11 November 2010
, 11 November 2010→General feedback/report
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
* Space, logistics and mood: | * Space, logistics and mood: | ||
The main space in which activities took place was the coffee area of the FAD building. The room was big enough to allow the distribution of the different workshops (concretely, each activity occupied one corner which also fits with methodology used to organize the session). | |||
Logistics were an invisible layer, at least for the ones who haven’t been involved in the organization of the activity, which means that it was really good. Ambience and dynamics were fluent and spontaneous. | |||
* Facilitation, timing and structure: | * Facilitation, timing and structure: | ||
In general, facilitators go straigh to the core of the workshop and try to catch participants interest since the beginning. Their role was closer to technical assistants rather than teachers or educators. | |||
Things happened as planned and the initial schedule was quite respected. There were a program and a planification, but there was flexibility enough to change things when necessary. At some point – concretely, at the end of the second session- participants’ attention decreased. This affected specially the scratch workshop as it required a bit more of concentration. The noisy ambient (not too much, but a bit) contributed to increase dispersion. | |||
The activities of the Open Raval Classroom were structured arround the idea of corners which means that each activity was realized in one specific area of the same room. This worked very well for the activities in which participants were really immersed. However, in some cases the noisy ambience generated affected the dynamics of the workshop. | |||
* Accomplishment of goals (above): | * Accomplishment of goals (above): | ||
| Line 85: | Line 93: | ||
* Things to improve in future editions: | * Things to improve in future editions: | ||
The idea of using the same room as a common space where to develop the different workshops allowed participants to acquire an overview of what was going on. However, as a consequence, ambience was a bit noisy, overall at the end of the second session. Possibly, it would be good to rethink those activities that require more concentration in order to adapt them to these conditions – or rethink the use of the space. | |||
May be it would be good to have a virtual space where to see/share final products. Obviously, this is more utopian than something that should/could be done with such a limited amount of time. Take it as a suggestion. In my opinion, despite participants could take part in two workshops – so they could try out different activities – each workshop was completely independent from the others. The only moment in which there was a “common situation” was at the end of the video workshop, when the two boys participating sang one of their songs in front of the camera. Appart of that, - as far as I’ve understood – for instance, there’s no way to see the final videoclip of their song nor the address of the wikipedia/semapedia entries created by the participants of the gymkhana. | |||
* Other comments / feedback: | * Other comments / feedback: | ||
Music as a key element at the time of working with teens. Video and the building circuits workshops were engaging because they integrated music. I don’t mean image is not a powerful resource, but I think it should be worked differently (need of finding links with participants’ interests. Video clip genre offers a lot of possibilities, but it requires more time and a different planning of the session. | |||
In general, the focus was on technology rather than in reflexion, critical thinking. Obviously, time was to short to develop this properly. Here I try to concrete why I’m saying this: | |||
• In the case of the video workshop I’m not sure if after the session participants have acquired a fully understanding of how copyright affects them and how they can use alternative licenses. Of course, during the workshop these issues were raised, but quite fastly and taking for grant certain aspects (for example “what is a “copyright free image”). | |||
• In the drawdio building workshop, all the attention was devoted to the technical skills required to build a working circuit. Again, limitation of time was the condicionant, but it would be good to deserve some to experimentation and ideas exchange. Otherwise, it can end being just a “fun activity” – nothing wrong against it, I also was dying to participate in the workshop – but a bit of reflection could enrich the activity, because there’s a strong DIY philosophy behind this. | |||
• Although I wasn’t following the scratch programming workshop much, they dedicated some time at the beginning to introduce the programming language as well as some of its benefits (again the idea that sharing is good is taken for grant. May be I’m mentioning something very basic, but I think that it would be good to verbalize why is good – specially because once we all go out of the room, in general, we are surrounded by a non-sharing social attitude. If one of the goals of the workshop is to encourage a sharing culture, this point should be reinforced) | |||
=== Digital gymkhana I (Find) === | === Digital gymkhana I (Find) === | ||