Link 1
For task 3, my experience was very similar to Agnes’ despite using different voice-to-text tools (iPhone vs. Google Docs). We both noticed that the punctuations are missing and some words are transcribed out of context to words with similar pronunciation, so the resulting text does not accurately capture our intention. In addition, we both discussed the differences between orality and written text. However, we focused on diverse aspects. I made some connections between voice-to-text technology and memory. On the other hand, Agnes highlights the non-linearity of oral conversation and points out that oral story-tellings are usually socially co-constructed. Agnes made it clear that although the transcribed text is a form of recording of oral speech, the constraint of the course design makes the resulting text a poor representation of academic speech or casual narrative. Her perspective inspires me to think about oral story-tellings under the social constructivism’s and social cognitive theory’s lenses, and the potential implications of using the mode of expression in education.
The link to my task 3:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540helenzhang/2022/06/04/task-3-voice-to-text-task-helen/
The link to Agnes’ task 3:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540ag/2022/06/12/task-3-voice-to-text/
My comment to Agnes’ post:
Hi Agnes,
Thank you for documenting your feelings and experiences.
I agree with you and Erin that punctuation is the most noticeable difference between written text and machine-converted text. I tried to pause longer for the computer to add a comma or period, but it didn’t work. It is interesting to know that we can actually say out loud the name of the punctuation to get it recorded. It is counterintuitive, and it interrupts the flow of the narrative.
I also resonate with you that we shorten our stories in conversations. As Bolter (2001) proposes, writing is a fixed, linear path that audiences have to follow. It is precise and polished so it is more “academic” as you mentioned. On the other hand, oral communication involves social interactions and co-creation. The goal is to convey the idea, and it can be achieved using different methods. In the conversation, we ask for clarifications or explanations if we do not have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the meaning. Converting the narrative to the writing makes us feel vulnerable as we lost the opportunity to construct the path based on audiences’ feedback.
Link 2
For task 4, my approach to creating the potato stamp and documenting the process is drastically different from Jocelyn’s. It reminds me that students are diverse; education needs to be student-centered to empower students to grow with respect to their different backgrounds, prior knowledge, and skill level.
Jocelyn’s methodology and the end product are amazing and extend my thinking beyond what I have experienced. She used a variety of technologies during the creation process (searching for appropriate words on the search engine, creating the mirrored text using Illustrator, printing the sample with the printer, and aligning the potatoes with the skewers). Her literacies in block printing helped her create better quality potato stamps more efficiently. It is interesting to see that she decided to use a technology that is invented quite recently to recreate ancient block printing. It reinforces Ong’s idea (2002) that technology and its affordances shape our cognition. Once a technology is widely used, it is difficult or even impossible to think and act like the predecessors who lived before the invention. Just like oral culture only exists before the introduction of literacies in the area, block-printing culture only exists before the invention of the printer. Printers materialize (Haas, 2013) text to a higher extent by allowing mass production at a lower cost in the household. As the result of materialization, it liberates human’s ability to share ideas.
In addition, Jocelyn chose to use mini sped-up videos to capture her creation process. Her multiliteracies skills (The New London Group, 1996) and the well-designed architecture make her post a great tutorial for creating potato stamps. Her method inspires me to cohesively integrate multimedia representation with the appropriate content knowledge in teaching.
The link to my task 4:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540helenzhang/2022/06/11/task-4-potato-printing-helen/
The link to Jocelyn’s task 4:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/jocelync/task-4-potato-printing/
My comment to Jocelyn’s post:
Hi Jocelyn,
This is so impressive! I love how you documented your creation process using videos, and your end product is so professional and awesome.
I totally agree with you that existing knowledge plays a significant role in shaping our work. As someone who has not done this before, I did not use any tool other than the carving knife and paper, and I carved my potato in the wrong direction (without considering the mirrored effect). Your post made me realize that the task does not require additional cognitive effort if we use the appropriate tools. The printer simplifies the carving, and the skewer simplifies the reprint.
Text technologies influence how knowledge is constructed, distributed, and materialized. It is difficult to mass produce books with potato stamps. At the same time, people constantly enhance text technologies to simplify our daily work and to satisfy our needs. As a result, the later text technologies replace the previous technologies or make it obsolete. For example, as you mentioned, the printer remediates the potato stamp. The new technology becomes a part of our tool set, and it shapes our thinking (i.e. it is difficult not to think about using it for creating the potato stamp).
Link 3
For task 6, Marie and I used different Emoji tools to represent a movie. My emoji story is created using the computer tool (https://emojikeyboard.io) so the icons have black finishing lines and they are in bright colors. However, our approaches and reflections are quite similar. Contextually, we both try to recreate the visual images from the movie. The character emojis are chosen deliberately so that they have the same hair color as in the movies. Architecturally, we both follow the convention of texts in creating the emoji story. The plot is written from left to right and top to bottom. Furthermore, we both noticed that emojis can be ambiguous in conveying our ideas, and words can be more precise.
Marie makes a connection from the emoji story to the McRaney & McCulloch’s podcast which extends my thinking. She situates the technology in its historical context and discusses how its origin shapes its functionality today. Her perspective inspire me to think about why the technology is invented, and how it can shape its affordances and limitations in an educational setting.
The link to my task 6:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540helenzhang/2022/06/24/task-6-an-emoji-story-helen/
The link to Marie’s task 6:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/mfinchetec540/2022/06/20/task-6-emoji-story/
My comment to Marie’s post:
Hi Marie,
I think the movie is: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8041270/
I used the hyperlink so that it will not spoil the answer for other people who want to guess it.
You have done a really good job in representing the plot using Emojis. The reoccurring Emojis helped me a lot in guessing the answer. In addition, separating the three scenes into three lines also helped me visualize the progression of the plot.
I agree with you that Emojis are mainly used for conveying emotions and thoughts, so it is difficult to find an accurate symbol for movie elements like the villain. In this case, although Emojis are “images”, there are different from the drawings or photographs that Kress (2005) talked about. Because there is only a limited amount of Emojis, the meanings have to be ill-fitted into the predefined symbols. And the number of Emojis we have is less than the number of English words, so the plot has to be further abstracted from the text description.
Out of the three lines of plots, which line do you think is the most difficult one to recreate? How much time did you spend on choosing the symbols?
References:
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. New York, NY: Routledge.
Haas, C. (2013). “The Technology Question.” In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Routledge. (pp. 3-23).
Kress. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, Vol. 2(1), 5-22.
Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York; London: Routledge.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.
McRaney, David, and McCulloch, Gretchen. (Host & Guest). (2012–present). Because Internet [Audio podcast]. You are Not so Smart. https://omny.fm/shows/you-are-not-so-smart/194-because-internet
Link 4
For task 7, both Sage and I have decided to recreate the “what’s in my bag” task with a video. However, the genre and goal of our video are very different. I took advantage of the visual and audio modes of representation to make a casual, unedited “vlog” type of video. In my reflection, I focused on both the pros and cons of mode-bending by explaining how it compresses the information but loses precision. The orality of my video is critically framed and compared with the textual representation. On the other hand, Sage made an AMSR video. In addition to presenting the visual and audio information as I did, she also demonstrated the tactile and functionality of the objects by interacting with them, going beyond the five modes of meaning proposed by the New London Group (1996). Her video is more educational as she talked about multiliteracies and ASMR studies. Furthermore, her video is more interactive, immersive, and motivating for the audience to participate in the learning process. She invites audiences to socially co-construct knowledge on the interactive platform of Youtube instead of Google drive.
The link to my task 7:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540helenzhang/2022/07/02/task-7-mode-bending/
The link to Sage’s task 7:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sagecapogreco/2022/07/03/task-7-mode-bending-asmr-redesign/
My comment to Sage’s post:
Hi Sage,
You are so talented! I haven’t seen AMSR integrated with educational content either. Your video is indeed novel and memorable to me. I couldn’t imagine how difficult it was not to laugh at the mundane objects. The whole video is just so funny and adorable.
The video has thoughtful visual, audio, and gestural design, and forms an integrated meaning-making system of multimodal texts (The New London Group, 1996) of what is in your bag. Moreover, the “sound” of the object adds two other dimensions to the New London Group’s modes of meaning — tactile design and functional design. For example, if the audience does not have any previous knowledge of the AirPods case, it is difficult to judge its material and functionality by just looking at this rounded white thing. When you interact with the case by tabbing on the surface, it is clear that the case is made of plastic or similar material. Audiences can imagine the smooth and light sensation of the object by learning its tactile from the AMSR mode of representation. And when you open up the case, it is clear that the AirPods can be placed inside to be secured.
You have also interacted with the audiences by directly talking to them, inviting them to learn about multiliteracies and contribute to the “distributed accumulation of knowledge” hosted on the Internet (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009, pg. 19). The immersive video is a transformed and situated practice of the task, and it demonstrates the embodiment of human experiences (The New London Group, 1996).
Link 5
For task 9, I noticed that I share half of the songs with Erin despite that we are placed in different communities. Erin also reflects on the phenomenon that the grouping is not merely based on one individual’s response by comparing Selene’s choices with other people in her community.
In addition, Erin conducts a search of the song names to see which ones are the least popular. I have done the activity mainly focused on our classmates as if the graph is directed from the person to the song. It’s interesting to view the graph from another perspective by reading Erin’s reflection. As Smith (1999) discussed in her studies, the cost of digitization and preservation is expensive. Studying the resources that most people choose to “lose” and the reasons for not keeping them is critical. Even when choosing songs representing human civilization to the aliens, people’s preferences (“liked [the song] better,” as Erin explains) and implicit thinking can still play a key role. The collective preferences shape the future.
Link to my task 9:
Link to Erin’s task 9:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/erinduchesneetec540/2022/07/13/task-9/
My comment to Erin’s post:
Hi Erin,
Your observation about Selene is very intriguing. I also noticed that when a person is placed in a community, it does not necessarily mean that he/she has the most connections with everyone in the community. I’m in community 3 with Yijun and Junel, sharing 5 and 4 vertices with them respectively. I share 5 songs with you, but we are not placed in the same community.
I’m guessing the software does not “optimize” for each person. Instead, it counts all the vertices produced by our class and makes selections based on everyone’s choices. Any other guesses? I wish Palladio can share its algorithms, so we know exactly why a person is placed in a certain community.
Link 6
For task 12, Jenny and I used different modes of presenting the speculative futures, but we share many similar ideas. In the utopian future, we both think that AI can help students customize learning and create learner-centered experiences. I imagined that everyone would have their own “study buddy” robot, whereas Jenny outlined that teachers can tailor classes based on students’ passions.
In the dystopian future, both of us worry that digital surveillance may result in robots having a dominant power over humans’ learning. As O’Neil’s study (2016) explains, characteristics like economic status, race, and gender can be embedded in the input data, creating outputs that discriminate against minority groups. Furthermore, discrimination can impact the learning performances of minority groups, and the algorithms eventually become a self-perpetuating prophecy. Both Jenny and I think that learning should be democratic, not controlled by authority. There should be ethics policies regulating AI for education, and social constructivism pedagogy should be integrated with the algorithms to ensure the technologies do not contribute to the system of oppression.
Link to my task 12:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540helenzhang/2022/08/05/task-12-speculative-futures/
Link to Jenny’s task 12:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/jennyschroederetec540/2022/08/03/task-12-speculative-futures/
My comment to Jenny’s post:
Hi Jenny,
Thanks for sharing the interesting speculations.
You have mentioned AI and learning analytics in both the utopian and dystopian future. They cause drastically different results when they are integrated with different pedagogy approaches. I agree with you that ethical considerations and pedagogy are critical for creating a brighter future.
Your dystopian speculative future reminds me of McMullan’s article (2015) about panopticon and digital surveillance. Big data and AI can be used to develop customized learning paths based on students’ diversity. However, if the data collection processes are not consensual, students’ privacy can be violated. Setting mandatory “success indicators” based on behaviorism pedagogy further compromises students’ autonomy and motivation to learn as you mentioned.
On the other hand, considering the social-emotional aspects of learning can help the teachers to better understand the data, and utilize them to facilitate learning instead of forcing students to learn. The learning analytics can make sure that no one is falling behind.
References
Dobson, T. M., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. The cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 286-312). Cambridge University Press.
McMullan, T. (2015, July 23). What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? The Guardian.
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (First edition). New York: Crown.
Smith, A. (1999). Why digitize? Retrieved June 15, 2019, from Council on Library and Information Resources
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.