How to Make a Simple iMovie

How to Make a Simple iMovie by Laura Hearnsberger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Windows Live Movie Maker vs. Apple iMovie

I have a limited background in movie editing. I purchased a *MacBook Pro in June that came equipped with iMovie. I have tinkered with it, making a few how-to videos from screen recordings, but I still feel like a novice. I frequently revisit Apple’s help site and YouTube tutorials.

For this assignment, I downloaded Windows Live Movie Maker to our family PC for comparison.

Because of my dubious credentials, I decided to focus on each program's value from the perspective of a teacher. I first made a list of things I felt a teacher would be most concerned with: cost, flexibility for imports and exports, functionality, and ease of use.

CostWhile both are considered “free,” it is only true for Windows Live Movie Maker. iMovie came with my Mac as part of iLife, but this software suite costs $79 ($71 for NBISD employees at Apple’s Web site). The least expensive Mac computer costs $949 with the educator discount (MacBook - Intel Core 2 Duo/13” Display/2GB Memory/250GB Hard Drive/Mac OS X Snow Leopard + iLife). A comparable PC from BestBuy (no educator discount) costs $719.99 (Toshiba - Satellite Laptop/Intel i5 Processor/14” Display/4GB Memory/500GB Hard Drive/Windows 7). That $200 difference adds up when making purchases for a whole school. Based on price, Windows Live Movie Maker beats iMovie.

FlexibilityBoth iMovie and Live Movie Maker can import video from cameras and movie files already on the computer. A movie filmed with my iPhone 3G easily worked in both. This is important, because many teachers who want students to use video editing software will not have time to troubleshoot file extensions. iMovie would not import the WMV sample video I took from the PC library, but Live Movie Maker was able to import QuickTime files from the Mac.

Exporting to multiple formats, including YouTube, DVD, and HD movie files (WMV on PC, QuickTime for Mac) was equally easy on both programs.

FunctionalityiMovie has a steeper learning curve, but neither program is too difficult to start using almost immediately. It is possible that I am judging iMovie more harshly because I had no video editing experience prior to using it. The Live Movie Maker interface is simple and easy to understand, but it does not allow for as much advanced editing as iMovie.

One feature that I particularly like about iMovie is the ability to preview individual frames in sequence while editing. At first, it appears that Live Movie Maker has the same capability, but it does not. You see the same frame repeated, not a preview.

Both programs have the ability to automatically turn imported audio and video into a movie, including adding transitions, a beginning and an ending. It is called “AutoMovie” in Live Movie Maker and “Themes” in iMovie. iMovie’s themes offer more variety.

Ease of UseAs a recent Mac convert, I have noticed a trend throughout the Mac platform: Mac stuff works great together. Pictures can be taken in PhotoBooth, edited in iPhoto, and uploaded into iMovie with ease. Problems sometimes arise when using files formatted on a PC (like a WMV). If you intend for all work to be done on the same computer (which is logical for movie-making), Mac cannot be beat.

*The MacBook Pro I purchased in June was my first non-PC, so I am still “PC-oriented” for the most part.

References

Apple education store. (2010, September). Retrieved from http://store.apple.com/us-k12

BestBuy. (2010, September). Retrieved from http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=-1848909986048795109&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=1006408&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960

My Personal Story

Personal Digital Story Reflection

I enjoyed making my video, but it took a lot of work.

I knew I wanted it to be about my dog, but really about my husband and me, told with pictures of us and things that are important to us.

Many of the pictures that showed the beginning of our marriage were taken on film, so one of my first steps was to find and scan them. I went through the box with John, and we both enjoyed the feelings of nostalgia. At the same time, I started constructing sections of the script. Now that I was looking at the pictures, I was able to group them into logical chunks--food, trips, holidays, the lake and watch some themes emerge--home, family, etc.

I recorded the audio on my iPhone, then imported it to iMovie on my Mac. Using iPhoto, I divided the photos into the groups to be imported into the movie. Now came the trick part: making the pictures fit with the audio.

I am new to Mac (I got mine in July) and video production (I am a former yearbook teacher, not video), and I had some issues getting the timing to do what I wanted. I decided to take a more relaxed approach up front, then tweak the photos' locations at the end.

It worked, and we (John, Lou, and I) are pleased with the outcome.

Tool 8.1 CARE Model: Planning Tool (Harris, Edmonson, & Combs, 2010)

Identify Concerns that must change (look to the future)

1. need for as-needed support 
2. need for collaboration 
3. need for real-world, challenge-based instruction 

Identify Affirmations that must be sustained (look to the present)

1. high TAKS scores 
2. teacher ownership of classroom and student success 
3. low discipline problems 

SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely) Recommendations that must be implemented:

1. Monthly professional development centered around one aspect of 21st Century Instruction in the STaR Chart with follow-up classroom visits to support implementation. 
2. Volunteer inquiry-oriented teacher learning communities, with goal of producing future technology mentors 
3. Robust technology Web site with FAQ, anytime access to help, discussion board, STaR Chart breakdown, tips, forms for input, how-to’s, information from monthly professional development 

EVALUATE – Specifically and Often (Identify the best ways to evaluate the implemented recommendations.)

1. *Level I, participants’ reactions: Interviews/discussion board 
2. *Level II, participants’ learning: discussion/board/surveys 
3. *Level III, organizational support and change: surveys 
4. *Level IV, participants’ use of new knowledge and skills: lesson plans/discussion board/surveys/classroom visits 
5. *Level V, student learning outcomes: artifacts/classroom visits/pictures/videos/benchmarks 
6. Summative: 2011 STaR Chart Results (“District and Campus,” 2003). 

*“Critical levels of professional development evaluation” are formative assessments to guide activities (Guskey, 1998).

References

Harris, S., Edmonson, S., & Combs, J. (2010). Examining What We Do to Improve Our Schools: 8 Steps from Analysis to Action. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education, Inc.

Guskey, T.R. (1998). “The age of our accountability.” Journal of Staff Development, 19(4).

Potential Action Research Challenges and Their Solutions

Specific challenges I foresee in implementing my action research study:

• Administrator support 
• Perceived time constraints 
• “I would, but last time...” or “I would but, the students...” or “I would but, the network...” or “I would, but...” General negativity from a vocal few. 
• Digital “tourists” 
• “Back in my day...” types 
• People not knowing my role 
• People being unaware of the initiative 
• Not enough technology available to support initiative 

I intend to address these challenges by following Malcolm Gladwell’s suggestions for fostering epidemic behavior in “The Tipping Point.”

“Three characteristics--one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment--are the same principles that define how measles moves through a grade school classroom or the flu attacks every winter” (Gladwell, 2002).

Social epidemics are “driven by the efforts of a handful of exceptional people... It’s things like how sociable they are, or how energetic or knowledgeable or influential among their peers” that empower these people to start an epidemic.(Gladwell (2002).

Gladwell identifies three critical types of influential people. “In a social epidemic, Mavens are data banks. They provide the message. Connectors are social glue: they spread it. But there is also a select group of people--Salesman--with the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing” (Gladwell, 2002).

It will be my job to make sure that my message (I am here to help you integrate technology, and this is for real. You can trust me.) is “sticky” by getting it to the “mavens,” “connectors,” and “salesmen” on campus.

For now I do not intend to put much direct effort into converting the technophobes and obstreperous. Ideally, they will get caught up in the epidemic I create.

As for the availability of technology, the final challenge on my list, I believe that teacher demand as a result of my technology epidemic will take care of it.

References

Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a BIg Difference (Kindle Edition). New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Action Plan

Goal 
NBHS will be rated “Target” in all key areas of the Texas Campus STaR Chart by May 2015.

Objective/Topic 
Help teachers at NBHS meet “advanced” in the key areas of “Teaching and Learning” and “Educator Preparation and Development” on the 2010-2011 Texas Campus STaR Chart.

Action One 
Monthly professional development centered around one aspect of 21st Century Instruction in the STaR Chart with follow-up classroom visits to support implementation.

Persons responsible
Laura Hearnsberger
Teachers

Timeline
Throughout year 
Monthly, based on participants’ schedules

Resources 
Computer lab

Action Two 
Volunteer inquiry-oriented teacher learning communities, with goal of producing future technology mentors

Persons responsible
Laura Hearnsberger
Teachers

Timeline
Throughout year
August during teacher in-service
First Tuesday of each month thereafter
Classroom visits throughout month

Resources
Computer lab 
Promotion

Action Three 
Robust technology Web site with FAQ, anytime access to help, discussion board, STaR Chart breakdown, tips, forms for input, how-to’s, information from monthly professional development

Persons responsible
Laura Hearnsberger
Other Technology Curriculum Integration Specialists

Timeline
Content updated at least weekly throughout year 
Discussion board changes constantly with new teacher posts

Resources
Computer lab 
Promotion
NCTE Ning, as example

Evaluation 
*Level I, participants’ reactions: Interviews/discussion board
*Level II, participants’ learning: discussion/board/surveys
*Level III, organizational support and change: surveys
*Level IV, participants’ use of new knowledge and skills: lesson plans/discussion board/surveys/classroom visits
*Level V, student learning outcomes: artifacts/classroom visits/pictures/videos/benchmarks
Summative: 2011 STaR Chart Results (“District and Campus,” 2003).

*“Critical levels of professional development evaluation” are formative assessments to guide activities (Guskey, 1998).

References 
Dana, N.F. (2009). Leading with Passion and Knowledge: The Principal as Action Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Education Service Center, Region XV. (2003). District and campus planning and decision making (PowerPoint).

Guskey, T.R. (1998). “The age of our accountability.” Journal of Staff Development, 19(4).

Harris, S., Edmonson, S., & Combs, J. (2010). Examining What We Do to Improve Our Schools: 8 Steps from Analysis to Action. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education, Inc.

Hearnsberger, L.M. (2009, September). On blogging well [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://onbloggingwell.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Pitler, H. (2005). McREL technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reporduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED486685.pdf

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver, CO: McREL.

Schlecty, P.C. (2001). Inventing Better Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Texas Education Agency, Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2009). School technology and readiness: a teacher tool for planning and self-assessing aligned with the long-range plan for technology, 2006-2010.Austin, TX: Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/starchart