This module’s readings have challenged me to articulate how a new media project in which I’m taking part with two other grad students will also serve as a pedagogical tool. As a part of an independent study project, I’m participating in the development of a web series that will feature faculty in conversation with graduate students, who will interview them about their work. Each episode will run for about ten minutes and depict an inciting incident that will lead into a more formal interview. As the series is titled Why It Matters: Humanities in Action, the final moments will depict how the professors’ research is put in action. Beyond planning the episodes, which necessitates conversations with faculty beforehand, as well as scripting framing devices and interview questions, this project requires the students involved to become even more familiar with the research going on in their own (English) department as well as the university more generally. Our goal is to create a series that demonstrates the value (for lack of a better word) of research taking place in the Humanities, especially in the context of the instrumentalist narratives surrounding the importance of STEM fields. As such, our goal is to focus on humanities fields exclusively with the hope that we can still put them into occasional conversation with STEM.

Although the goal of this web series is to allow graduate students to talk to professors about their research, I’ve also been thinking about its pedagogical implications. Reading James Paul Gee’s article “Good Video Games and Good Learning” has pushed me to think a bit further about the potential of the web series and new media in the classroom. While our aim is to showcase why we (graduate students) think professors’ research matters outside of the narrow confines of the academy, undergraduates will also have a role as the project goes on. Indeed, one of the things that shaped the development of the web series was the initial input of undergraduates based on a survey that sent to English majors during the early stages of project development. Additionally, we are working with three undergraduate interns who are interested in film and new media scholarship. One goal we have is for this project and the course/internship that surrounds it is to be able to look beyond the immediate present. I’m thinking, here, about how this project can keep pushing students’ exploration of ways to engage with scholarship and knowledge production. So, I’m using Gee’s article to consider how the web series is already working as a pedagogical tool to get a better sense of how it can continue to work as one. Because my colleagues and I are not new media experts in any sense, I know that my explanation of what is being taught is rather vague. However, I’m hoping that thinking about how a project like this can be more engaging for participants and viewers will allow me to implement these goals in the web series and my teaching in the classroom going forward.

The thing that stands out to me is the way that a project like this allows students to feel that they have more agency in their own education.  I’m aware that student “agency” is a term I throw around a good deal when talking about my own pedagogy, and sometimes it seems to have lost some of its meaning. However, the multi-modal elements (writing scripts, conducting video and in-person interviews, and filming episodes) and choices this project presents to students when they’re developing and producing episodes make me think that this could go a long way to encouraging this sort of agency. While they are currently a small group, the undergraduates who are working as interns are active participants in the shaping of the series. Though pandemic shutdown has thwarted our original goal to record live interviews with faculty during the spring semester, interns continue to work on developing episodes. This process includes researching faculty whose ideas interest them and crafting proposals to pitch. So, before students learn about methods of interview and production, they’re being asked to pursue topics that spark their interest. Next, they work on crafting preliminary interview questions and scripting their episode’s inciting incident, the moment that sets them off on their “quest” for answers. The stage between the preliminary and the formal, on-camera interview presents students with new challenges. They’ve begun with a sense of the direction in which they’d like to take the episode, but in most cases, their preliminary interview will redirect this (at least slightly). They’ll have to adjust their interview questions accordingly and, perhaps, even the inciting incident. Additionally, before the formal interview can take place, they’ll need to run their script and questions by faculty, working with them to create something of which each is proud. Because we haven’t reached the filming portion of the project, I’m not able to comment on that; however, I will include any filming-related elements that are on my mind in my brainstorming below.

1. Identity: Gee argues that “[n]o deep learning takes place unless learners make an extended commitment of self” (34).
   • The goal of the quest structure is to ask the viewer to identify with the student-figure onscreen going in search of answers from faculty. Since most viewers select what to watch based on their own interests, we hope they’ll feel a kinship with the questions driving the episode. Additionally, for students who are writing, producing, and starring in the episode, this quest will be their own. Beyond merely producing “content,” we hope that this will allow them to explore and write about subjects that fascinate them.
   • Another goal of the web series is to address the so-called “crisis” in the humanities. As many of our viewers will likely be students in the humanities, we hope that they will identify with the ongoing conversations that we will structure the series more broadly.
2. Interaction: “Games do talk back. In fact, nothing happens until a player acts and makes decisions. . . so, too, in school, texts and textbooks need to be put in contexts of interaction where the world and other people talk back” (34).
   • Interaction is an aspect of the web series that will probably be more static. However, at a departmental level, hopefully SBU’s English students will feel like they’re a bit more in conversation with instructors, even the ones from whom they’re not taking classes, as this will give them another way of accessing their professors’ ideas outside of the classroom. Since the course of the series is being driven, in part, by student survey results, we also hope that students will see their interests represented in the episodes that we produce. Finally, platforms like YouTube allow for conversations to occur in comments sections and, while not always ideal for scholarly discussion, this would allow another forum for us to welcome and address student concerns and ideas.
3. Production: “Players are producers, not just consumers; they are “writers,” not just “readers.” Even at the simplest level, players co-design games by the actions that they take and the decisions that they make.” (34)
   • Student interns who develop and star in episodes will have most of the production riding on their ideas. Therefore, this presents an opportunity to think about how their research and rhetorical decisions matter when they’re addressing an audience that is broader than their instructor or classmates.
4. Risk Taking: “Players are thereby encouraged to take risks, explore, and try new things” (35)
   • Talking to faculty about their research is nerve-wracking enough for graduate students. Many undergraduates will be dipping their toes into uncharted waters when it comes to having a one-on-one conversation like this. Each of the interns has set lofty goals for themselves, which requires them to explore subjects that are new to them and to think about research in a way that is, perhaps, a bit more specialized than they’re used to. It’s been encouraging to see that they’re all doing a phenomenal job.
5. Customization: “Customized curricula in school should not just be about self-pacing, but about real intersections between the curriculum and the learner’s interests, desires, and styles” (35)
   • Again, we hope that the choice we offer to viewers will help them retain some of the information covered in each episode. On a smaller scale, my goal with a similar but scaled-down project in the classroom would be to give students enough choice to spark their interest, but not so much as to overwhelm them. Students who are working on the current web series are guided almost entirely by their own interests as long as they remember to address the question “why does this subject matter?”

Again, I’m presenting this as general brainstorming to lay out some guidelines that I hope the web series will stick to. While we have excellent faculty mentorship for the project (Professors Susan Scheckel and Elyse Graham), they’ve given us a great deal of freedom in how we want to proceed with the web series as well as what we’re asking of the interns. Much of this is trial and error as we plot out our own episodes and then ask the interns to do the same, so I have a feeling that some of what I’ve articulated here might change. However, I think that a project like this has given us a good sense of how to engage students and give them more of a feeling of agency in their own scholarship.