Task 7: Mode Bending
Please check out my iMovie as my Redesign:
My Reflection
I think some of the benefits of mode changing are that it can be more engaging for the audience as the elements vary. There are many designs that are Linguistic, Visual, Audio, Gestural, Spatial, and Multimodal, which can help reach a wider audience.For example in Gestural Design you could communicate information with kinesics gestures especially for those that may not speak the same language therefore reaching a more global audience.
However, there are some challenges in mode changing. These challenges can be making new use of old materials, learning new platforms of design to change the mode of learning the requirement of some technology skills to perform certain tasks in design.
My Redesign Process
For my redesign, I chose to create an iMovie. I haven’t used iMovie much at all and really wanted some practice, so that I am more familiar with the terms and functions and can teach my students how to use it properly. For students to be successful, they invariably require a metalanguage to describe and reflect on their design process (NLG, 1996).
While analyzing the New London Groups modes of representation, a key point that I wanted to try and incorporate into my own redesign was how to create meaning in ways that are increasing multimodally such as, written-linguistic modes of meaning interface with oral, visual, audio, gestural, tactile, and spatial patterns of meaning (NLG, 1996).
In tried to incorporate Linguistic Design into my movie by providing metaphors of the mask that was in my bag, as a barrier to communication. I used background music as an element of Audio Design. I used Visual Design and Linguistic together with text and colors and lastly incorporated Gestural Design using Kinesics while giving a “thumbs up” (a non-verbal gesture) at the end of my iMovie. I found that it was slightly challenging to try and incorporate all the Multimodal Design elements in the model shown by the New London Group (1996). I was thinking about how challenging it was to condense all necessary information into the video without missing information and while making it convenient and efficient for viewers to understand the purpose and stay focussed just long enough to get the message (intention) across.
Things I still wonder…
In addition to this week’s readings, I have a few inquiries that came to mind. As Toffler (1970) discusses the difference between “vertical” (deep) understanding and “horizontal” (broad) understanding. There is much more horizontal understanding in literature today. With many social media applications, access to videos online, people browse quickly and can get a broad range of understanding in many things. As Toffler says, “busy people wage a desperate battle each day to plow through as much information as possible” (Toffler, 1970). However, to achieve a vertical understanding in something requires more of an investment in their time.
*How much can I learn about something using applications, without having to study/research in too much depth (vertically)? What are my students gaining in understanding while being more and more exposed to horizontal understandings of things?
When looking at how print literacy has evolved since the 18th century, how do technologies for writing change when teaching our students? For example, emojis, texts, abbreviations and numerous applications as platforms of shared knowledge. Are they reliable knowledge?
References:
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. (Links to an external site.) Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York.