I really enjoyed working through this. I also like the way it enacts rather than explains its argument. I feel like it might be worth thinking about whether shortening the experience a bit might be good. It seems like slides two and three might be combined and get viewers to the search results sooner. I also wonder about the structure in terms of all of the blocking pages. It is nice that each mentions the name of the site. I wonder if it makes sense to adjust the blocking message more to give details about the kinds of decisions educators make to block content. The differences between something like Facebook and Wikipedia seem pretty stark. If you had fewer examples, it might make more room for this kind of differentiation. The stages on slides 20 and 37 might be eliminated/combined or thought about in terms of structure as well. The social vs academic seems the key distinction. Maybe you can bring out those distinctions more clearly and shorten the sequence or eliminate a stage. After slide 47, I feel like some adjustments might be valuable. I think a screen shot that shows the address bar with the workaround will be more clear. The text on 47 can be edited for concision and clarity. And then on the slides that follow with the successful searches, I feel like some results that show the value of the workaround make sense. How about a wikipedia page with great info or a screen from a game that shows an intellectual challenge? I feel like the final slide can be revised to be shorter; something like students with the intellectual skills to work around filters can research, learn, and challenge themselves with what they find. Shouldn't we trust them? This is a very nice project with an ambitious approach that is working well. Some scaling back and reworking the structure might make the experience of working through it deliver things even more sharply. Nice work.
I really enjoyed working…
I really enjoyed working through this. I also like the way it enacts rather than explains its argument. I feel like it might be worth thinking about whether shortening the experience a bit might be good. It seems like slides two and three might be combined and get viewers to the search results sooner. I also wonder about the structure in terms of all of the blocking pages. It is nice that each mentions the name of the site. I wonder if it makes sense to adjust the blocking message more to give details about the kinds of decisions educators make to block content. The differences between something like Facebook and Wikipedia seem pretty stark. If you had fewer examples, it might make more room for this kind of differentiation. The stages on slides 20 and 37 might be eliminated/combined or thought about in terms of structure as well. The social vs academic seems the key distinction. Maybe you can bring out those distinctions more clearly and shorten the sequence or eliminate a stage. After slide 47, I feel like some adjustments might be valuable. I think a screen shot that shows the address bar with the workaround will be more clear. The text on 47 can be edited for concision and clarity. And then on the slides that follow with the successful searches, I feel like some results that show the value of the workaround make sense. How about a wikipedia page with great info or a screen from a game that shows an intellectual challenge? I feel like the final slide can be revised to be shorter; something like students with the intellectual skills to work around filters can research, learn, and challenge themselves with what they find. Shouldn't we trust them? This is a very nice project with an ambitious approach that is working well. Some scaling back and reworking the structure might make the experience of working through it deliver things even more sharply. Nice work.