Hello! This is an exercise in transmediation. Below is the original image of the Task 1: “What’s in my Bag” exercise.
Here is the same task, transmediated into a visual-interpretative format.
Engaging with the process of transmediation and shifting the task into something that felt similar but quite different took a surprising amount of creative energy and reflection. The London Group was on to something when they discussed the Redesigned, that meaning-makers in the process of remaking, renegotiate their identities (Cazden et al. 1996). The original task involved evaluating what is in your daily carry bag, examining it from a text technology perspective, and observing the links between the artifacts and the environment alongside the projected narratives accompanying the items. I sought to translate the activity in a way that not only engaged a different form of perception of the task, but also how it is processed by the learner engaging with it. I had to examine what I thought would be outside my comfort zone for the assignment, take on ways of knowing I’m not used to, and try to recreate the assignment in that form.
I was reminded of Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory and how human actors in education delegate tasks to non-human actors (technology in this case), and those inorganic actors then prescribe or even demand behaviour in return (Latour, 1992). Switching from a text-based request about a still image to a visually (soundlessly) interpreted medium increases the cognitive demand of the task in several substantive ways. The stimuli offered by the video, alongside the camera’s data, demand the viewer’s attention economy and require synchronous processing, as opposed to the asynchronous processing possible when viewing a still image. The interpretation of the drawn images (albeit poorly) requires an understanding of the cultural context of semiotic representation. For example, in the video, I draw a photo ID on a lanyard. If a user’s experience lacks exposure to such things, it may seem a nonsensical artifact; if a user is well-versed in lanyard ID culture, its place in the bag is understandable. One of my aims was to foster “higher-order” thinking into the exercise.
The potential benefits of mode-changing are quite apparent; learners are different and unique. A variety of modes respects the vast array of methods of knowledge transfer and interpretation, fostering a more approachable learning environment. If text-based questioning that only seeks a text-based response is the entirety of education for a learner, if that is not their particular inclination, then it’s easy to argue that the education isn’t equitable. It also fosters metacognition and possibly a better understanding of the topic when the learner can note changes in their interpretation across media. For example, if the connections on my laptop are seen differently in the still image than in the drawn hand, and a learner examines why, a greater understanding is potentially there.
The challenges have been alluded to above: they required self-reflection, creativity, and taking a step back to consider another way to present the task. The technical challenges were numerous, and the camera’s data was not intended to be part of the task, which felt like it added redundant, artificial difficulty. All in all, I felt this task quite the exploration of this concept.
References
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., & al, e. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/pedagogy-multiliteracies-designing-social-futures/docview/212258378/se-2
Latour, B. (1992) ‘Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts’, in Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 225-58,
–