Link#1
How has your colleague’s experience differed from yours? And how do you know?
I chose Jamie’s bag task as I was drawn to the spacing of the picture and noting that she shared her work supplies, it looked observably less cluttered than mine compared to what I had, and I had less stuff in the picture. Jamie’s experience is that of reflecting on the things that power her to get to her job, the texts she describes are ways that describe her journey or migration towards the space she occupies (her work). She mentions this in what she considers her texts in the work that she does and what she has interpreted their meanings.
Jamie’s experience also delves into her comfort of being able to communicate a part of herself online, engaging in the conversation about her conscious engagement and preparedness and outlining a part of herself, where I tended to stick more to the professional nature of my role and previous roles. I stuck to talking about career and Jamie was more open in being able to share her traits and personalities outside of her work. This was evident in how I thoroughly enjoyed her conversation about the products in her bag and their representations to them.
What web authoring tool have they chosen to manifest their work?
Jamie used the UBC WordPress blogs very well. The image size was small, but I was able to make out the images as it was taken in a high definition format. WordPress text was well spaced out and she utilized the colour balance of the wallpaper and the colour of the text. My eyes felt relaxed while reading her content. In this case, the raw form of the wordpress blog was fitting as Jamie was sharing her personal experience with the audience. She wasn’t creating an article about the images, rather she let the text tell the story of the images she was sharing.
How does their tool differ from yours in the ways in which it allows content-authoring and end-user interface?
In comparing my tool and Jamie’s, I can say that she used simplicity very effectively. The descriptions she used were very straightforward and she used strong verbs to describe the meaning of the texts such as “suggests” and she linked the content to the readings with Scholes (1992) in the history of text. I used Genially because I’m observably thinking about many things when I see my products. I see layers and undertones within the stories that could only be captured using hotspots and pop up windows. It could feel like a lot of clutter for people.
Jamie’s use of WordPress is a representation of her commitment to leave out the clutter and to get to the core of what she is explaining. It’s focused and enjoyable. As a reader, I didn’t feel like I had any information that didn’t get left out and I didn’t think I needed to have anymore especially in an introductory exercise.
What literacies do their sites privilege or deny in comparison and contrast to yours?
In comparison the literacies that we privilege in both of our sites is our commitment to lowering cognitive load to the users. Both of our sites allow the readers to relax their eyes as we read or explore both of our content. The sites also allow us to slowly let the learner explore their interests using our use of headings and subheadings.
The contrasts we have, have to do with the layers at which we view our items. Like I stated earlier, each item for me has a contained story within it, an anecdote about something that I would share professionally whenever I have a new colleague join me. For me to capture individual stories or my style of drawn-out conversations, Genially worked as a better platform to navigate my own extroverted style and a way to organize my more chaotic and sometimes overwhelming thoughts.
What theoretical underpinnings are evident in your/your colleague’s textual architecture and how does this affect one’s experience of the work?
In this case, I find Jamie’s textual architecture similar to that of what Scholes (1992) describes the Greeks using text, which is that text conveys creation. This work, and the way it’s laid out creates Jaimie’s introduction to her classmates and a way to introduce herself to the technology of wordpress as well. For me this was also a space to compare what I did with Genially in the context for the use of an extensive exercise. Previously, I had used it for a short seek and find assignment in my previous semester, but never at this scale. Drawing from Scholes (1992), I’m also creating something for my classmates for the first time as I seek to find ways to create a way to give out information and to create an experience with this technology that I don’t have too much familiarity with.
How do the constraints of the course design manifest in your architectural choices? How have you responded to the pedagogical underpinnings of this course design in your own webspace?
I admire Jamie’s ability to share personal details about her preferences and some of her stories using the blogs. I for one still require a bit of time to get used to having my work shared in a public space outside of my teachers and classrooms. The constraints are what I’m feeling about how much I want to share online. But in terms of pedagogy, social cognitive theory outlines the use of this tool as a way for us to learn from each other (maybe the use of genially or the use of UBC wordpress blogs to another level) and to allow others from the internet webspace to share their wisdom with us.
References
Bandura, A. (2011). Chapter 17: Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E.
T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychological Theories (pp. 349-373). London: Sage.
Scholes, R. (1992). Canonicity and textuality.Links to an external site. In J. Gibaldi (Ed), Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures (2nd ed., pp. 138-158). Modern Languages Association of America.