Linking Assignment
Link 1: Michael Cafuta – Task 3: Voice to Text
Summary:
Michael’s Voice-to-Text task captures the tension between spoken and written language. His unscripted story, recorded after returning from Japan and embarking on a health kick, produced an unpunctuated stream of consciousness filled with natural pauses, fillers, and rhythm. In his reflection, he identified the absence of punctuation and paragraphing as key deviations from written English and noted that, while the transcript appeared chaotic, it successfully preserved the authenticity of his oral voice. He emphasized how voice-to-text technology exposes the gap between speech’s contextual flow and writing’s structural expectations—an insight that he related to ESL learners and accessibility.
Reflection:
Michael’s exploration parallels my own Voice-to-Text exercise, though our contexts differ. While his piece documented self-improvement through physical activity, mine recounted an everyday commute gone wrong; both revealed how oral spontaneity resists textual boundaries. His focus on rhythm and misrecognition echoed my discovery that speech-to-text tools struggle with fillers, noise, and accentual variation—reminding us, as Ong (2002) argues, that orality depends on performance and immediacy rather than permanence. I also appreciate how Michael framed error as insight: the “wrong” transcription became evidence of how literacy technologies privilege written conventions. Compared with my own analysis, which leaned on theoretical distinctions between orality and literacy, Michael’s reflection was grounded in personal experimentation. His use of the blog format (a linear text with embedded transcription) contrasted with my more essay-styled page, revealing how web-authoring tools themselves shape our representations of voice and thought. His work reinforced my sense that digital composition is not merely about accuracy but about revealing the material friction between speech, writing, and technology.
Link 4: Jonathan Dueck – Task 7: Mode-Bending
Summary:
Jonathan re-created his What’s in Your Bag task through an aural mode, transforming a visual composition into an audio narrative of ambient sounds and tonal fragments. His redesign explored how meaning shifts when the listener, rather than the viewer, interprets rhythm, tone, and pause. Drawing on the New London Group (1996) and Dobson & Willinsky (2009), he positioned multimodality as both a creative and theoretical act that expands, rather than replaces, print-based literacy.
Reflection:
Jonathan’s project resonates deeply with my own Mode-Bending task, as we both translated the What’s in My Bag piece into sound. While my podcast emphasized personal identity and classroom context through sound effects and narration, Jonathan leaned further into abstraction, letting sound itself invite interpretive play. His reflection reminded me how sound can democratize meaning-making by engaging listeners as co-designers. Technically, Jonathan’s use of pure audio fragments contrasts with my layered narrative approach. His composition foregrounds ambiguity, whereas mine maintains guided storytelling. This difference illustrates how the same theoretical foundation (multiliteracies and transmediation) can lead to divergent design choices shaped by pedagogical intent: his to provoke inquiry, mine to evoke empathy. Both highlight that digital literacy is an evolution of writing, like an ongoing negotiation between clarity and imagination.