I opened the conference with a presentation on Moodle: What Students Want (or, reading between the lines). I had examined survey data from 4 institutions to determine some commonalities in student comments and further, how to use those comments to improve the student experience.

Afterwards we had a wonderful lunch, catered by Metrotech students, and broke into 4 separate tracks for interest sessions: moodle basic users, moodle intermediate users, moodle administration, and moodle technical.

I attended a session that was videoconferenced from France. Nicholas Connault gave us a review of the new gradebook in Moodle 1.9. We used Elluminate, but had a lot of trouble with the connection. We dropped at least 5 times, and that was frustrating for the audience. Other video sessions were technically more successful.  We used Elluminate for all of them.

Next, I went to a session on adding closed captioning to video. We learned two different techniques for accomplishing this goal. One was using free software, called MAGpie. The other was using Camtasia. I think Camtasia was easier, but for individuals with real budget constraints, the magpie method works well enough. The major problem, of course, is getting the transcription to begin with. Metrotech was fortunate in that they could hire students in the medical transcriptionist program to provide the initial text files. Once these were created, you could copy and paste to the appropriate program and then cue the text to appear at the appropriate point on the video timeline. When the video plays, the CC button appears and the user can selectively show or hide the captions. I have been interested in closed captioning for some time, and was delighted to find out about these new tools.

My session on E-Portfolios: Getting Started with Moodle was the very last one of the day. I was delighted to find that the room was full and there were many people interested in a simple way to get started with portfolios. I started with an overview of the types of portfolios one could use, and the benefits and costs of each type. I also pointed out that some types of portfolios (showcase/employer) were not very compatible with others (growth/developmental). The last portion of the presentation demonstrated a number of portfolios pre-service teachers from McMurry had created using a standard instance of Moodle.

The conference ended around 4 p.m., and I am looking forward to the sessions schedule for tomorrow. There are a number that I am very interested in, and I will give one presentation on using uploadcourse.php to create course shells as a batch process and end the day serving on a Moodle Panel taking questions from the audience. The highlight of the day, of course, begins at 8:00 a.m. when we are addressed by Martin Dougiamas from Australia.

Originally uploaded by alterednate

It is clear that in my church there are no icons. We have no stained glass windows, no carvings, not even a cross. I have done little research on WHY this is, but I certainly experience this at each worship service.

The reason this interests me is because technology is starting to change this long standing situation. (Long standing being somewhat less than 200 years, I think).

We sing, we pray, we have scripture readings, and now we have A PROJECTOR! For the most part, the projector is used to project the words and music on the screen for the song service. It seems to me that the words and music are indeed easier to see, for those who are beginning to have trouble with their vision. The song leaders do report that it is gratifying to see people’s faces, rather than the tops of their heads as they gaze downward at hymnals.

Between songs, there are often prayers, scripture readings, the sermon, and communion. Rather than turning off the projector, our congregation has elected to keep an image on the screen.

I found this rather remarkable. I don’t know that anyone thought deeply about what this practice could mean. I note that the images supplied by the software developer were all landscapes. I have yet to see a person, an animal, or any man-made thing in the images. I have seen mountains, forests, wildflowers, clouds, oceans, waterfalls, and the like. Of course you can add your own images to the library, and I am wondering about what kind of repercussions might follow.

St John of Damascus wrote three apologies regarding the use of icons sometime during the reign of Leo III (717 to 741 A. D.). There was a raging battle between those who thought the use of icons was forbidden by scripture and those who thought the use of icons enhanced worship. Sometimes, I think there is STILL a battle regarding the use of icons in worship, and that spills over into the use of multimedia in worship.

Clearly, there are a number of scriptures regarding the use of images or carvings in worship. Various proscriptions are set forth in Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath” and Deuteronomy 4: 15-19 “5 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.”

St. John of Damascus explains, in the first apology, that it is indeed incorrect to attempt to represent God. However, he believes that when God “clothed himself with creation” (p.15) through the advent of Jesus Christ, He was no longer formless or bodiless. “When the invisible One becomes visible to flesh, then you may draw His image. . .” (p.18) St. John makes a clear distinction between adoring and honoring. Veneration of images, and by extension those individuals the images depict, is acceptable so long as one clearly reserves the highest degree of worship, adoration, for God alone.

Another thing that St. John discusses, and I think is germane to the idea of proper use of multimedia in worship, is that images are of two kinds: the written word and material images. Clearly both types of image were used even in Moses’ day. The written word (the law) was inscribed upon the tablets and representations of the wandering in the wilderness (the jar of manna and the rod of Aaron) were kept in the ark of the covenant. The ark was decorated with cherubim (so this must not have been considered a graven image). The entire meeting tent evidently served as a representation of the court of Heaven (Hebrews 8:5 “They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”)

Therefore, it seems to me that the interpretation of the scriptural prohibition against graven images (or indeed ANY images) must consider the purpose and motivation of the artist who creates the work and the individual who engages with the work as a part of his or her worship of God.

In my mind, I see the most common components of multimedia (text, video, image, and sound) to each serve as a kind of “image”. I think the parables of Jesus were a kind of “image”, assisting his hearers as they came to understanding through picturing a scene with familiar elements but unfamiliar meanings. Now, we have more sophisticated means of creating and sharing these “images”. Some are interactive and require some overt action from the viewer, some are more passive.

Regardless, I think the limited use of images in my own church leaves our worship experience the poorer.

The book I am currently reading (Participating in God’s Life by C. Leonard Allen and Danny Gray Swick (New Leaf Books, 2001)) has proven quite interesting. Although it says nothing about multimedia, it says a lot about the search for connection and community.

I have heard many times, from the pulpit and in classes, that God reveals himself to Christian’s today through The Word. The Word and nothing else, in fact! Allen and Swick put it this way: “. . .God tends to become a subject to be researched through His book. Clues are extracted from that book, becoming data to be processed by our autonomous reason. . . God has given us His book, and through it He is accessible to our reason.” (p. 146) In fact, I heard a statement very similar to this by a gentleman teaching the Sunday morning adult class very recently. The consequences, according to Leonar and Swick are that “We achieved a semblance of autonomy and control, but in the process left ourselves estranged from the very source of our lives. . . [it is] thourgh our relationships with one another and especially with God we become more fully human.” (p 147)

I think this is important. I was taken back to my college days, a time of rebellion and wonder (long lost, I’m afraid, in the mundane swirl of daily events), when I believed strongly and acted upon the belief that “the self is something that is always being gained, expanded and reshaped through our relationships. . . We become who we are as we interact with other people, seeing ourselves a little differently through the eyes of others, and gaining more of an identify in a community of our peers.” (p. 147) I reflect on Facebook, and the swirl of community information that occurs when so many details of your “friends’” on-line lives are brought to you in a constantly updating feed of information. The sense of community is palpable and you are as plugged in to your friends’ datastream as they are into your own.

To conclude, I think that multimedia is a powerful tool to foster community within the context of corporate worship because it creates a totally immersive common experience. Whether that experience was provocative, evocative, uplifting, inspiring, or merely informative, you experienced it with multiple senses and so did everyone around you. To stretch Hugh McCleod’s comments on social objects to apply to multimedia worship experiences (which might be a pretty big stretch!) “The interesting thing about the Social Object is the not the object itself, but the conversations that happen around them.” (Item #11, http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/004265.html) A really powerful multimedia experience might spark conversation. It might inspire silent reflection.

Certainly each type of multimedia “activity”, from scrolling announcements to a video of the crucifixion complete with sound, motion, and image contribute in various degrees and ways to a collective experience. It seems that there would certainly be a threshold (difference for different people) where the experience would cease to be positive. A research question for another day . . .

Interesting passages:

p 86

The lesson for the church is simple: images generate emotions, and people will respond to their feelings.

Post-modern culture is image driven. . .the church now enters a world where story and metaphor are at the hear of spirituality.

p87-88

Cultures are symbol systems, intricate, interwoven webs of metaphos, symbols, and stories. What holds the culture of the church together–the metaphors it offers, the sybols it displays, the stories it itells? The post modern church seems to have lost the plot to the “stories of Jesus”. Could it be because the redemption story was told in th emodern era more by “creeds” and “laws” than by “parables”–narrative wrapped images?

p 91

Small changes in how we visualize life and the Spirit can generate massive changes in how we live our lives and configure our consciousness.

Visual language (metaphor evangelism, metaphor preaching, etc.) is no longer an option. We are a print-saturated, word-based church in the midst of visual technologies that are creating a whole new visual culture. . .

p 92

Metaphors are the medium through which biblical spirituality will be fashioned for this new world . . .

p 93

Metaphors are more than decorations. Metaphors are the most fundamental tools of thought. Metaphors are causes more than consequences of our reasoning. That’s why the power of liturgy is so immense: liturgy realigns our metaphors to conform to Christ, which transforms our lives.

p 95

But if there is not the “right spirit”, presentation means little–no matter how contemporary or high tech. . . If the spirit is there, presentation also means little–no matter how traditional or bookish. . . Metaphors generate a spirit that quickly captures and charges space. That is why the Jesus method of communication was not the exegesis of words, but the exegesis of images: “the kingdom of heaven is like . . ”

—————————-

I am going to think about the images Jesus used with his public addresses as well as with the disciples. Clearly there was no technology, but there were certainly a lot of well-understood, accessible metaphors. What does this mean for my students’ efforts at digital storytelling?