Author: Erin M

Check out our final Design Project: Collection Collective, a collaborative social space where users can view, learn, share and participate in the personal and public act of collecting.

In my first keyword response, I explored the term citizenship. I reflected on my time as a young art school student, navigating my way through an understanding and personal development of artspeak: the language that artists, art instructors, academics, critical theorists, curators, critics, and students use to talk about art. Artspeak is infamously pretentious, often criticized as being overly poetic, flowery, superfluous, or intentionally elitist. In my reflection on citizenship, I made the connection that the development of this type of language serves as a sort of citizenship, providing entry into the world of art – by understanding the language, one may become a participatory member of that world. Kalantzis and Cope (2010), members of the New London Group, explain the phenomenon of distinctive language, or “metalanguage” development within a community, “specialized disciplinary knowledge is based on the finely tuned conceptual distinctions typical of those developed by expert communities of practice and characteristic of bodies of academic knowledge. In the case of teaching writing, for instance, students develop a metalanguage with which to describe how texts work…” (p. 209). What I later began to realize within this course, is that the theme of my learning is in fact centred around the concept of social infrastructure. I would later learn about a series of related concepts that describe how the success of learning is made through various means of social interaction and semantic construction.

Kalantzis and Cope (2010), also introduced me to the notion of “communities of practice” (p. 209), and I came to understand that artspeak is one of many literacies taught in art school to support learners’ entry into the community of practice. Kalantiz and Cope explain, “In order to learn, the learner has to feel that the learning is for them. They have to feel they belong in the content; they have to feel they belong in the community or learning setting; they have to feel at home with that kind of learning or way of getting to know the world” (p. 205). Midway through this course I learned about the concept of the “affinity network” (p. 14) through the work of Ito et. al (2015), which represents another way to consider social grouping formed by shared interest. Below, Ito et. al, describe what they mean by “affinity network”:

Our use of the term “interest,” then, is not meant to signal an individual or innate quality; we see interests as cultivated through social and cultural relationships and located within what we call an “affinity network” of commonly felt identity, practice, and purpose. We draw from Jim Gee’s (2005) term “affinity spaces,” which he uses to describe online places where people interact around a common passion and/or set of commitments but broaden our focus to civic and political action and wider networks. We use the term affinity network to signal contexts that can span multiple sites and platforms but hold at their center joint interests, activities, and identities. (pp. 14-15, 2015, Ito et. al)

In the final weeks of this course, the theories and practices of social learning culminated with Gee’s (2007) idea of the “semiotic domain” (p. 18). James Gee, in fact, has influenced many of the texts we have covered in class – seeing various education technology academics referenced throughout each other’s’ works reveals a glimpse of the social practice that transpires in the semiotic domain that we as master’s students are currently learning within. Whether celebrated, condemned, or mocked, artspeak serves as an entry point into the semiotic domain of the art world – Gee’s (2007) writing details the concept of “semiotic domains” in depth. He provides the following definition: “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g., oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings” (p. 18). To further explain the notion of semiotic domains, Gee touches on related concepts such as social practice, “various distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, knowing and using various objects and technologies” (p. 15); affinity group, “the group of people associated with a given semiotic domain” (p. 27); and lifeworld domain, “… ‘everyday,’ ‘ordinary’ life is itself a semiotic domain. In fact, it is a domain with which all of us have lots and lots of experience…I mean those occasions when we are operating (making sense to each other and to ourselves) as ‘everyday people’, not as members of more specialist or technical semiotic domains” (p. 36).

I have come to understand these different realms: communities of practice, affinity networks and semiotic domains, as overlapping social convergences, connected with growing ease through the use of the internet and other digital tools and social media. The concepts mentioned above allow us to consider how people exist, interact, and converge in an increasingly connected social world to allow us to design educative environments that are based on these critical factors. By learning about learning, I am able to look back at my time in art school and understand that even though some aspects seemed needlessly complex and superficial, like artspeak, they actually form key literacies required to gain a full understanding of a specific culture.

Throughout this course, I have developed an understanding of the different ways in which social interaction and semiotic construction can create interest and a sense of agency in learners, and by applying these ideas to the design of learning, teacher-designers create learning environments that are reflective and inclusive of the everyday realities of the learners themselves. With this knowledge serving as a base, my next step is to develop my own methods to apply this knowledge in my own educative practice.

References: 

Gee, J. (2007). Semiotic domains: Is playing video games a “waste of time?” In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (pp.17-45). New York: Palgrave and Macmillan.

Ito, M., Soep, E., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., & Zimmerman, A. (2015). Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructures. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(1), 10-29. doi:10.1080/03626784.2014.995063

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.200

Although it wasn’t entirely clear until I read it, James Gee’s (2007) chapter, “Semiotic domains: Is playing video games a ‘waste of time?’” succeeded in bringing together a collection of key concepts I have gravitated toward unknowingly in my past learning and teaching experiences, and throughout this course.

The concept of semiotics is prevalent in visual arts education – how could it not be when art making itself is visual semiotic poetry: what can I evoke in others  when I combine this collection of symbols/images/shapes/colours/etc.? Aspiring artists need to learn how to think about how what they create might be perceived and explore then evolve within that realm. Perhaps it was the way in which it was taught, or where my head was at as a young adult, but semiotics made me question everything, considering it all from a new perspective. I fixated on the idea of first seeing, and first connecting conceptual meaning to shapes and objects as a new person in the world (I think of babies as ‘new people’). This perspective acquired in my undergrad allowed me to connect strongly with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory when I first learned about it early in the MET program.

Gee (2007) describes semiotic domains as “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g., oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings” (p. 18). Not that this description itself encompasses the whole of what is meant by the term. My understand is that a semiotic domain is governed by a specific or rather, specialized topic. For example, some semiotic domains I am part of or on the periphery of are as follows: Art Education, Mid-Century-Modern furniture, Modern Art, Paper Craft, Serigraphy, Reddit, Animal Crossing, Estate Law, Cooking/Food. What forms this semiotic domain as a distinct space is a series of shared social practices, and the internal and external design grammar that Gee (2007) describes (p. 30). Below I have listed the related concepts introduced by Gee that work together to describe different aspects of a semiotic domain. Some of these concepts have already popped up throughout this course:

• Social Practice: “various distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, knowing and using various objects and technologies” (p. 15).
• Affinity Group: “the group of people associated with a given semiotic domain” (p. 27)
• Internal Design Grammar: “the principles and patterns in terms of which one can recognize what is and what is not acceptable or typical content in a semiotic domain” (p. 30).
• External Design Grammar: “the principles and patterns in terms of which one can recognize what is and what is not an acceptable or typical social practice and identity in regard to the affinity group associated with a semiotic domain” (p. 30).
• Lifeworld Domain: “…’everyday,’ ‘ordinary’ life is itself a semiotic domain. In fact, it is a domain win which all of us have lots and lots of experience…I mean those occasions when we are operating (making sense to each other and to ourselves) as ‘everyday; people, not as members of more specialist or technical semiotic domains” (p. 36).

In my past teaching experiences and currently in my role as a trainer for staff administering estates, my focus has been always been less on the hard facts, that can be easily referenced, and more on the social, interactional aspects (e.g.: how we talk about estates, how we seek out information from others by providing the accepted vernacular, how we understand our roles, and how they allow – or don’t allow – us to take action). To me, it is both these social aspects as well as the workplace culture (within the office, and within the field of estates) that I aim to teach first as I believe it serves as a strong base for future learning.

For me, it feels relatively natural to emphasize these aspects in future teaching for adult learners, but this focus in education would differ in a variety of learning environments. I wonder if others actively tie these concepts into their teaching methods, or (like me) have been inspired to devise ways to further integrate the notion of semiotic domains in their future lessons.

References: 

Gee, J. (2007). Semiotic domains: Is playing video games a “waste of time?” In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (pp.17-45). New York: Palgrave and Macmillan.

Keyword: The Semantic Web

I kept coming back to the notion of the Semantic Web described by Anderson (2008) as an internet, “…where commercial content is augmented, annotated, enhanced and, in some cases, displaced by content created by end users themselves. Increasingly, ways are being developed to have content harvested, filtered, repurposed and transformed through the manipulation of both human and automated processes” (p. 19). I contemplated the concept to understand why I found it so captivating and thought about it metaphorically as a rapidly evolving cyborg-like organism, leading me to sci-fi notions of a dystopic surveillance state – or perhaps not so sci-fi, but real-life concerns of algorithms, and the mining and manipulation of personal data for commercial interests.

Although it is difficult not to ruminate on these perpetually increasing concerns, I realized that the semantic web also lends itself to one of the most exciting digital phenomena: the rapid and expansive collaboration of user knowledge, data and experience for the purpose of learning, connection, and creativity. I am thinking about the massive user-generated hypertextual encyclopedia of Wikipedia, the DIY digital museum-like spaces of Tumblr fandoms, or Twitter’s ability to instantly disperse first-hand accounts of unfolding news and events. Sure, much of these sites’ success relies on pre-programmed, algorithmic semantic web capabilities, but to exist, this content creation also requires active and engaged user participation – which leads to another aspect of the semantic web, folksonomies. In a 2020 article exploring the functionality and history of the hashtag, Burgess describes a paradigm shift in the internet landscape, when users began generating their own taxonomies as they sorted through the steadily increasing data of the internet:

The Flickr folksonomy of user-contributed tags was paradigmatic of Web 2.0 ideology – marked by a shift from the web 1.0 idea that web development was about serving content to audiences to one where the goal was building architectures for participation of users (sometimes distinguished from passive website “visitors”) and the expectation that the user community’s activities would add further value” (para. 12).

Anderson (2008) also explains the folksonomy phenomena, “…through explicit tagging by users and through the tracking of usage. This data is then used to search, retrieve, reconfigure, and filter information on the Net, a capability that has application for many educational, entertainment and commercial applications” (p. 20). From one perspective, Anderson’s description sounds like a wonderful concept for us to ‘try’ to integrate in our future online learning designs, and from another perspective, this concept is already so mundanely part of our regular digital lives. I could think of many examples of how collected user-generated content on the internet is a regular part of our lives, but here are three (especially boring) examples from my day, today:

• • My headphone jack stopped working, so I Googled “headphones with usb connection” and read about The 5 Best Headphones of 2021 (Links to an external site.) as well as several other anecdotal posts about why usb connections on headphones are actually better
  • Every day, rather than reading than news, I read u/cyclinginvancouver’s provincial Covid-19 updates on the Vancouver subreddit (Links to an external site.), including the comments, which often feature supportive remarks from familiar users, and further data analysis, by anyone who wants to participate
  • To learn how to have different footers on different pages in Word I read through these Quora responses (Links to an external site.)

I want to continue to think of ways to integrate semantic web capabilities, both through thoughtful programming and design, and through allowing for user-generated data opportunities within the digital tools I create, (ideally, by consciously avoiding decisions that may lead to the aforementioned dystopic web). We can see that the functionality of the semantic web allows for millions of organically created, informal communities of practice across the internet, that many of us are accessing daily at various stages of engagement – it makes sense that we should aim to integrate this same social collaboration in our learning environments.

How do others interact with the semantic web? Have you found interesting ways to integrate semantic web functionality through educational technology?

References:

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning, 45-74.

Burgess, J. (2020, July 9). Friday essay: Twitter and the way of the hashtag. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-twitter-and-the-way-of-the-hashtag-141693

The term ‘postmodernism’ was tossed around flippantly at art school, yet it is one of those words I think many of us would have struggled to define. It makes me think of the time beyond the formalist geometric abstractions of the 1950s and 60s to an era where anything goes – but where every element holds an awareness of history, a depth of significance. Postmodern art can be anything: a remix of something past, a collage of multiple ideas, a realistic oil painting form a time before, but embedded with layers of meaning that invoke irony, skepticism, absurdity, humor, or anything other than innocence. Art for art’s sake can’t be postmodern, or it can be, but only if intentionality has been applied, reflecting the artist’s distinct perspective. Though we barely understood its meaning, we said “postmodern” with an air of sarcasm. We were taught postmodernism was dead. I took a seminar on post-postmodernism.

The Tate includes postmodernism as one of its ‘Art Terms’:

Postmodernism was a reaction against modernism. Modernism was generally based on idealism and a utopian vision of human life and society and a belief in progress. It assumed that certain ultimate universal principles or truths such as those formulated by religion or science could be used to understand or explain reality. Modernist artists experimented with form, technique and processes rather than focusing on subjects, believing they could find a way of purely reflecting the modern world.

While modernism was based on idealism and reason, postmodernism was born of scepticism and a suspicion of reason. It challenged the notion that there are universal certainties or truths. Postmodern art drew on philosophy of the mid to late twentieth century, and advocated that individual experience and interpretation of our experience was more concrete than abstract principles. While the modernists championed clarity and simplicity; postmodernism embraced complex and often contradictory layers of meaning (Tate, n.d.).

In the 2007 article, Ramadan Is Almoast Here, Nakamura frequently refers to the internet as an environment of postmodernity, forcing me to reinterpret my prior knowledge. Of course, it makes sense: the internet is largely mediated by visual culture (p. 37), a term Nakamura refers to often, along with concepts of iconography (p. 42), Rolande Barthes’ semiotic analysis of visual media (p. 67) and Judith Butler’s notions of identity (p. 47) – all key components of a fine arts education. Considering the internet through a postmodern lens leads me to conjure infinite space packed with endless iconography, each existing as complex signifiers to be combined by users to form unlimited combinations of signified content in acts of identity creation and communication. (I idealize this as an image-heavy form of Wikigalaxy, but the current iteration of the internet fits this description too).

In Nakamura’s article, I can’t help but think that each reference to postmodernism holds a subtle tone of sardonicism, not unlike our use of the word as young art students yet imbued with an informed criticism. Nakamura writes, “The figure of the performative self is central to the scholarship on online discourse and has been part of the argument establishing the Internet as a postmodern communicative space: as Hall writes, “the endlessly performative self has been advanced in a celebratory variant of postmodernism.”¹⁴ (p. 47). Where is the author’s tone positioned? Is it that the users she writes about, “immigrants, girls, youths, and people of color” (p. 47) are seemingly naive participants in a postmodern space, unaware of the postmodern practices they engage with? Is it because the celebrated postmodernism (p. 47) isn’t worthy of celebration, but instead further confounds self-identification and self-reflection with concerns of the male gaze, objectification, and racism rather than challenging them through active discourse? Or is it both? Or is it my own perception (bias?) that has brought this tone through my reading of Nakamura’s words?

Reflecting on how the internet might exist in a post-postmodern era (which we are surely in, or have surpassed), I am hopeful that part of what defines it includes a move beyond the self-indulgent, performative ambivalence of postmodernism, toward an active engagement and collective interest in challenging notions that continue to disenfranchise and oppress marginalize communities.

How do you perceive post-postmodernity? What are your hopes for the future of visual media and social interaction on the internet?

References:

Nakamura, L. (2007). Chapter 1. “Ramadan Is almost here!” The visual culture of AIM buddies, race, gender, and nation on the Internet. In Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the Internet. (pp. 37-69).

Tate. (n.d.). Art Terms – Postmodernism. Tate. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/postmodernism

Isamu Noguchi’s Akari: A Twine

As a collector and curator of objects, I wanted to choose one infused with a distinct history. I settled on a stubby paper lamp I bought at The Noguchi Museum on a whirlwind 36-hour trip to New York. The lamp is in my living room, and I often admire its minimal form and think about all the other thoughtful shapes and designs created by sculptor, Isamu Noguchi. My intention was to share the rich story of this simple, functional and seemingly common object.

I chose Twine as the platform to contain my artifact as its functionality allows visitors to actively engage and explore the material. Twine provides an interface to help one build a web-based narrative utilizing HTML, CSS and JavaScript – it’s not coding from scratch, the interface allows for easy building of a base, then the design can be tweaked at the user’s skill level. My aim was to create both a nuanced space, analogous to a well-curated museum, with a path or storyline within. Like walking through a self-guided tour at a museum, there is some guidance, but the pace and direction are determined by the visitor.

I feel I achieved the museum-like space I intended and was successful in creating a minimal design that reflects the aesthetic of my chosen object. However, my impression of Twine is that my exploration only touched the surface of what the platform can provide and with significant time and experimentation an even more engaging multimodal virtual space could be built.

The theme of agency is consistent in writings about engaging students, particularly children and youth. There is power in the word, perhaps because it refers to one’s inner potential, action and self-realization. In my first academic seminar in undergrad, the teaching assistant asked our small group if we knew what the word agency meant. (I legitimately did not). She explained its meaning to us slowly, with deliberate inflection to bestow it with a sense of importance that I eventually came to believe was deserved.

In high school my own agency fluctuated. It came and went without my awareness or understanding. In university it began to solidify, ultimately leading me to adulthood and eventually into being a participating and opinionated member of society.

In their 2015 article, Ito, Soep, Kliger-VIlenchik, Shresthove, Gamber-Thompson and Zimmerman explore how current and emerging technologies, as well as social lifestyles and civic awareness amongst youth can influence and encourage a highly connected, informed social culture, that can work together to allow for a “connected civics…a way to describe the learning that takes place at the intersection of three realms of activity: young people’s agency within peer cultures and public spheres; their deeply felt identifies, interest and affinities; and civic engagement and opportunity” (p. 15).

There is an excitement and idealism to this integrated learning framework, as it reflects on and incorporates the real lived experience of youth. In a study by Russell & Haney (1997) they assert that “assessments should be based on the responses students generate for open-ended “real world” tasks…” (p. 2) this simple statement has stuck with me, and I regularly question, not only in assessment scenarios, but in all teaching situations – does this activity reflect the learner’s reality? Ito et al.’s concept of connected civics does exactly that, it uses the learner’s reality as a facilitator of participatory and engaged learning, and when learning in connection with one’s social world, a sense of agency can be fostered, “in contrast to more fleeting or institutionally driven forms of learning, connected learning experiences are tied to deeply felt interests, bonds, passions and affinities and are as a consequence both highly engaging and personally transformative” (Ito et al, 2015, p. 14).

Ito et al. made it clear how radically different daily life is for youth in comparison to my own experience. Notable changes in society have occurred even from its published date of 2015 to now, and I can only assume that the speed of change and transformation in technologies and youth participatory culture will continue to accelerate. Although I am mostly educating adults, I still often wonder, how do I stay technologically and socially relevant? My currently role is technologically focused – will I be able to continue to keep up to date as tools inevitably evolve, or will I eventually lose track? What will fuel my future sense of agency? I’m curious how others reflect on these aspects of their future.

References:

Ito, M., Soep, E., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., & Zimmerman, A. (2015). Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructures. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(1), 10-29. doi:10.1080/03626784.2014.995063

Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers. Education policy analysis archives, 5, 3.

One could write a sci-fi dystopian novel (like In Watermelon Sugar or The  Giver) about making children studying dance steps for years without ever being permitted to dance.

Screenshot from:

Stager, G. (2014). Seymour Papert – Inventor of everything. [TEDx, 18 mins.]

In their description of the conceptualizing knowledge process, Kalantzis and Cope (2010) explain, “specialized disciplinary knowledge is based on the finely tuned conceptual distinctions typical of those developed by expert communities of practice and characteristic of bodies of academic knowledge. In the case of teaching writing, for instance, students develop a metalanguage with which to describe how texts work…” (p. 209). The example of a metalanguage, used to illustrate the process of conceptualizing through classifying and defining terms (p. 208) reminds me of the love/hate relationship art school students have to artspeak. I remember sarcastically (and of course, sincerely) throwing out words like didactic, postmodern, ephemeral and quotidian. In the first year, each class isn’t complete until everyone has communally complained about the complicated and ‘pretentious’ use of language, but by fourth year, we are all fluent in some form of artspeak.

I explored the readings looking for common terms, considering not just what has been assigned this week, but words that have been relevant throughout my experience in this program. What words form education academia’s metalanguage? I collected several that I may return to in future keyword discussions: participatory, collaboration, differences, collective, agency – but I stopped on a word that I see repeatedly and have come to associate with education theory: Citizenship.

I know by its frequent and shared usage that it means more than to hold legal citizenship to a country (though that interpretation alone is packed with layers of significance). Considering other education theories, I can guess it relates to one’s sense of belonging to different spaces or groups, or their “lifeworlds” (p. 215). I connect citizenship to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory: one’s learning is directly acquired through their social interactions, and perhaps their sense of citizenship is a factor that mediates (facilitates or hinders) this process. Searching outside of the readings, I came across Meira Levinson’s (2014) definition/explanation of citizenship and civic education:

It can cover solely the specific rights and duties of legal citizens, but usually it is used more capaciously to indicate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that children are expected to learn to be virtuous and civically productive members of society. Citizenship and civic education are key concepts in philosophy of education because their meanings, aims, and practices are so contested, both among philosophers and among actors on the ground like parents, educators, politicians, students, and members of diverse cultural groups (p. 1). 

The New London Group (NLG) (1996) calls for a new way of activating citizenship. They state that, “effective citizenship and productive work now require that we interact effectively using multiple languages, multiple Englishes, and communication patterns that more frequently cross-cultural community and national boundaries” (p. 64). This expanded perception of citizenship reflects and supports NLG’s concept of multiliteracies: one’s sense of self and sense of place in the world – or – their sense of citizenship is enriched when cultural and technological multiliteracies are engaged. Kalantzis and Cope (also members of NLG) thread this perspective into their 2010 article The Teacher as Designer: pedagogy in the new media age and provide a framework and direction for real world applications and examples of education designed with the inclusion of multiliteracies.

What lifeworlds am I a citizen of, and how do I engage in my own identity of citizenship? Surely, I am/we are on the periphery of one associated with education academia, and the exploration of the metalanguage is one way towards a deeper understanding.

References

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.200

Levinson, M. L. (2014). Citizenship and civic education. Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. (D. Phillips, Ed.). Sage. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12701475

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u