Categories
Uncategorized

Task 4: Manual Scripts and Potato Printing

Task 4: Manual Scripts and Potato Printing

I normally do most of my academic and creative work on digital devices like my Macbook or my iPad, so writing this reflection by hand felt unusual but also refreshing. On a laptop, I can rearrange sentences, erase mistakes instantly, and polish my drafts quickly. Handwriting, by contrast, slowed me down and made me think more carefully before I put words on the page. It reminded me of the historical shift from scroll to codex: just as the codex allowed readers to flip back and forth more deliberately (From Scroll to Codex, 2025), handwriting pushed me to write with greater intention than typing usually does.

When I made mistakes, I reached for correction tape instead of simply pressing “delete.” This act took extra time and interrupted the flow of writing. It left small traces on the page that reminded me of pre-mechanized writing, when revisions were physically inscribed into the medium itself. The readings on mechanization note how Gutenberg’s press brought efficiency and uniformity (Mechanization: Before and After, 2025), but I realised that mechanical neatness often hides the pauses, hesitations, and revisions that handwriting makes visible.

I also noticed how handwriting reflects character and emotion. The speed of my strokes, the slight unevenness of letters, and even the spots where I pressed harder with my pen all revealed my mood while writing. This felt far more personal than typed text which is uniform regardless of who produces it. Bolter’s (2001) idea of remediation came to mind here: new technologies like typing may be faster and tidier, but handwriting carries a tactile authenticity that typing cannot replicate.

For me, the biggest difference between handwriting and mechanized writing lies in how each relates to time. Handwriting feels embodied, personal, and expressive, while mechanized forms (printed or digital form) are built around speed and mass distribution. Innis’s (2007) point about the printing press accelerating knowledge production made me reflect on how much I value typing for productivity. Still, this task reminded me that handwriting invites a slower and more emotional kind of reflection, one rooted in patience and presence, like how my favourite book The Little Prince reminded me of.

References

Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

From Scroll to Codex: ETEC_V 540 64A 2025W1 Text Technologies: The Changing Spaces of Reading and Writing. (2025). University of British Columbia.

Innis, H. (2007). Empire and communications. Dundurn Press.

Mechanization: Before and After: ETEC_V 540 64A 2025W1 Text Technologies: The Changing Spaces of Reading and Writing. (2025). University of British Columbia.

Economies of Writing -or- Writing About Writing: ETEC_V 540 64A 2025W1 Text Technologies: The Changing Spaces of Reading and Writing. (2025). University of British Columbia.

Categories
Uncategorized

Task 3: Voice to Text Task

For task 3, I am asked to speak an unscripted, 5 minute long story into a voice-to-text app. Hence, I will first print my unscripted story here as reference.

My unscripted, 5-min story: Okay, so let me think where to start oh yeah last week I had this kind of funny kind of annoying experience on my way to school so normally I drive but that day my car just wouldn’t start the completely dead and of course it was the one morning I was already running late, so I thought fine. I’ll just take the bus. It’s been ages since I Lasted that and you know how when you’re in a rush every little thing feels bigger the bus took fewer forever to come I swear like 20 minutes and when finally that it was completely packed, I’m standing there holding onto the pole half asleep and there’s this little kid just staring at me the whole right like full of staring at first it was killed you know kids are curious, but then it was like 10 minutes in and he’s still looking at me and I’m like do I have something on my face anyway? so the bus was crawling along then I was watching the time and I realise I was going to be super late so I texted my colleague to cover my first few minutes and then right when I was typing the bus slammed on the bricks my phone went flying out of my hand like literally slid three seats forward everyone looked at me and a kid left so I shuffled forward grabbed my phone both sorry to the people glaring at me and then I noticed I’ve accidentally send my colleague half a text like it just sets I will be and then nothing so she called me and of course it’s super loud on the bus and I was yelling into my phone. I’m on the bus and I’ll be late everyone still looking at me at that point. I was just like great let’s make this the most awkward ride ever so finally I got off walk the rest of the way and when I arrived at school, my students were ready sitting there waiting and the first thing one of them said was teacher you look tired and I just saw yeah things you have no idea but honestly looking back it’s kind of funny now because it’s been so long since I wrote the bus and I kind of forgot that Whole fight of being stuck with strangers the small embarrassing moments and also just weird little stories that come from it so yeah, maybe my car breaking down wasn’t that bad it gave me something to love about later.

After analysing the written script I got, here are my comments:

1. How does the text deviate from conventions of written English?

The written text deviates from the conventions of written English in several ways. Most noticeably, it contains very long run-on sentences without clear punctuation or paragraph breaks (which I have already foreseen). Spoken pauses such as “oh yeah,” “anyway,” or “so” appear, but because they are not punctuated in the transcript, the story reads as one breathless stretch of text. Moreover, there are many oral fillers. These oral fillers like “kind of,” “you know,” and “so” are common in speech but look redundant in a formal written work. There are also inconsistencies in tense and grammar, such as “the completely dead” instead of “completely dead,” or “It’s been ages since I Lasted that,” which does not make sense in written English.

2. What is “wrong” in the text? What is “right”?

To me, “wrong” in the text refers to the mistakes found in a “written text,” while “right” in the text refers to “the authenticity of an oral speech.”

What seems “wrong” in the text are these issues of grammar, transcription, and structure. First off, the lack of punctuation makes the text hard to follow. Also, the transcription errors such as “bricks” instead of “brakes” or “a kid left” instead of “a kid laughed” distort the original meaning when it was said orally. At the same time, much of the story is “right” in terms of oral speech.  The conversational tone, the use of fillers, and those personal comments create authenticity and show the speaker’s tone and voice. There are many emotional words such as “funny,” “annoying,” and “awkward” which give the story colour and a hint of personal touch.

3. What are the most common “mistakes” in the text and why are they “mistakes”?

The most common mistakes in the written text are those run-on sentences, speech-to-text mishearings, redundant fillers, and inconsistent grammar. These are considered mistakes from the perspective of written English because readers expect to see punctuation, accurate grammar, and precise word choice in written text. However, when we speak, we do not read out those punctuations, and those AI-tools might also mistakenly transcribe the original spoken words as some other words (due to noise of the surroundings and mispronunciation). These mistakes show the difference between how speech is produced spontaneously and how writing is carefully constructed.

4. What if you had “scripted” the story? What difference might that have made?

If the story had been scripted, the result would have been very different, as a scripted version would include proper punctuation, well-formed sentences, and corrected grammar. Mis-transcriptions like “bricks” would not appear. The story would be smoother and easier to read, but it would also lose the authentic rhythm of natural conversation. The hesitations, fillers, and small mistakes that make it sound spontaneous would disappear, meaning that the whole text would be more polished but less genuine.

5. In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?

After doing this task, I think oral storytelling and written storytelling differ in several ways. Oral storytelling allows for spontaneity, digressions, fillers, and on-the-spot corrections. It relies on tone, pauses, and body language to give meaning. On the other hand, a written one requires structure, coherence, and conciseness. It is because readers cannot rely on non-verbal cues (like body language). Errors that pass unnoticed in speech become highly visible in writing. Oral stories flow in unbroken chains of thought, while written stories must be broken into paragraphs and sentences, with punctuations to guide readers.

Categories
Weekly Tasks

Task 1: What’s in Ice’s bag?

Hello everyone, I’m Ice (you can also call me Teng), an English and Literature teacher in Macau and a student in the Master of Educational Technology program at UBC. For this task, I have chosen and emptied the black tote bag I carry almost every day just to show you what’s actually inside.

Inside, you’ll find a MacBook and an iPad Air, which I rely on for teaching, lesson planning, grading, and coursework. I also carry chargers and cables, since my days often stretch across school and study hours and I need to stay connected. I also keep a water bottle tucked in, a small reminder to take care of myself when teaching stretches on longer than expected. I keep some stationery, including a red pen that is essential for assessment correction and a clip to hold papers together. There are also mints and lipstick, little items that help me stay refreshed and confident throughout the day. My cardholder, car key, and a charm are practical necessities because I drive to work, and I also need to swipe my card four times a day as a record of my attendance when I arrive and leave. The charm, however, carries a more personal meaning! It was a gift from a former student, and I keep it as a reminder of the relationships that make teaching meaningful. Finally, I bring along an SSD, which I use to store and transport large sets of teaching resources, research files, and projects.

Each item in my bag plays a part in my daily routine as both a teacher and a student. My MacBook, iPad, and SSD are the tools I depend on for lesson planning, research, and coursework. The red pen is a must for marking assessments, while the cardholder  helps me track my attendance at work. Even the smaller things, the water bottle, mints, and lipstick, make a difference. They are what keeping me comfortable and confident through long days.

The things in my bag can also be read like ‘texts‘ that tell a story about who I am and where I spend my time. My digital devices show how closely I’m connected to education and technology in Macau, while the red pen points to the more traditional side of teaching, marking and assessment. The attendance card reflects the routines of my workplace, where clocking in and out is part of daily accountability, and is worth 20% of my work performance appraisal. And the little charm from a former student reminds me of the relationships and human connections that make teaching meaningful.

The MacBook, iPad, SSD, red pen, and even my attendance card can all be seen as forms of text technology. They allow me to access, create, and store information in different ways, whether I’m writing academic papers, preparing lesson materials, or managing student work. What’s more, the red pen, even if it’s simple, is still essential for marking, reminding me that traditional tools continue to hold an important place alongside digital ones. Together, these items show how I move across different platforms of communication: typing essays, grading online submissions, creating PPT slides, marking on paper, or swiping a card that records my attendance. Each object represents a layer of literacy in my daily routine. These items show how my bag reflects a hybrid way of working and learning.

What’s in my bag highlights the range of literacies I draw on every day. They point to my digital literacy that I’m using cloud storage, multimedia platforms, and academic tools to prepare lessons and complete coursework. They also show my continued reliance (Macau’s and my workplace’s) on print literacy, like marking with a red pen. At the same time, the attendance card reflects institutional literacy, reminding me of the systems of accountability and workplace daily routines. Beyond these, the bag also reveals elements of cultural literacy. The small charm given to me by a former student speaks to the relationships and values that shape my teaching life.

These literacies are also tied to my professional role outside the classroom. I am a member of the e-Teaching and Learning team at my school, where I work to promote the use of technology and AI in teaching, learning, and even daily administrative tasks. This role means my literacies extend beyond personal use to leadership in digital transformation, encouraging colleagues to embrace these new tools and approaches; so, my bag is more than a collection of useful items.

Outwardly, my bag looks sleek and professional, projecting efficiency and order. That’s intentional! I work in an environment where I feel it’s important to appear professional, and I place a high value on being organised and efficient in my work. Privately, though, the contents of my bag tell a softer and more personal story. The charm from a former student (the Jellycat charm) show my sentimental side and the things I love. The lipstick reflect a practical part of me. I like being ready to look presentable at any moment. The mints are a simple way to keep my breath fresh during long days, while the water bottle shows how much I enjoy drinking water and staying healthy. In short, the public image of my bag is that of a capable teacher, but the private contents reveal a more practical, human side of me.

If I think back 15 years, my bag would have looked completely different because I was still a primary or junior secondary school student at that time. Instead of a MacBook and an iPad, it would have been filled with textbooks, exercise books, and a pencil case. The red pen might not have been there, because I wouldn’t grade my own homework. That would have been in my teacher’s bag. There would have been no SSD, just stacks of worksheets and maybe a dictionary and a bible (since I studied in a Catholic school). If I go back 25 years, I would have been a toddler, so my “bag” (my parents’ bags) would probably have carried snacks, toys, or napkins rather than tools for study or teaching….

If an archaeologist were to dig up my bag centuries from now, they might see it as a time capsule of the early 21st century when paper and pens still held on, even as digital tools were taking over. The MacBook, iPad, and SSD would probably be treated like ancient relics of a society obsessed with storing and sharing information. The red pen might amuse them, as it would be a proof that even in a digital age, teachers still clung to the tradition of marking with ink. The attendance card could lead them to conclude that Asian workplaces in my era were very strict about accountability, with people literally “swiping” in and out to prove they were present. And the charm might really puzzle them since it’s pretty challenging for them to think of that as a sweet gift from a student but a childish teacher who really loves toys.

References

Bailey, N. (1731). An universal etymological English dictionary. Knapton.

Beavis, C. (2015). Multimodal literacy, digital games and curriculum. In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Zevenbergen) (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: Potential, promises and pitfalls (pp. 109–122). Springer Dordrecht.

Postman, N. (2011). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Knopf Doubleday Publishing. (Original work published 1992)

Scholes, R. (1992). Canonicity and textuality. In J. Gibaldi (Ed.), Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures (2nd ed., pp. 138–158). Modern Languages Association of America.

Willinsky, J. (2002). Education and democracy: The missing link may be ours.Links to an external site. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.

Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarshipLinks to an external site.. MIT Press.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet