What’s in your bag? If only they could talk…wait. What?

The Process of Redesigning “What’s in Your Bag”

Redesigning the “What’s in Your Bag” task provided an opportunity to integrate multiliteracies as discussed by Dobson and Willinsky (2009) and the New London Group (1996). This task was more about perspective-taking and giving my items a ‘voice,’ which added a dynamic and engaging element to the exercise.

I began by rethinking the original task and envisioning how the items in my bag could be given a voice. This wasn’t just about what the items say about themselves but also what they might indirectly reveal about me. This small yet significant detail had been overlooked in the original assignment.

A colleague of mine had used ChatterPix for a nutrition assignment for her Grade 4/5 class, where the food (now characters) were given a voice to talk about their nutritional value and benefits. Inspired by her innovative approach, I decided to apply a similar technique to the “What’s in Your Bag” task. This was an interesting challenge since ChatterPix videos are limited to 30 seconds and can only be used on my iPhone.

As I worked through the process, I realized it was going to take longer than I thought. After creating 27 clips, I had to airdrop all of them to my Mac and then put them together using the QuickTime Player app. Additionally, I used PicCollage to have both my personal and professional phones on one screen to help create a discussion.

Creating a clever script for each of the items was probably the most challenging part for me. I wrote the script out to ensure a more fluid result, focusing on the elements of linguistic design, considering delivery, tone, vocabulary choice, and voice to ensure the items’ voices were engaging and appropriate. Incorporating sound effects further enhanced the storytelling aspect and made the content more immersive.

Dobson and Willinsky (2009) highlight the importance of digital literacy in navigating the complexities of contemporary information society. This task required me to utilize various digital tools, such as ChatterPix and QuickTime, to create and share my audio recordings. By incorporating an audio component, I moved beyond mere textual and visual representation, enhancing the storytelling aspect and making the content more engaging.

Mode-changing proved beneficial for this altered perspective. Taking the same image and objects and adding to the overall story by examining them in a different light with a different intention enriched the exercise. This practice is advantageous in many situations.

Incorporating an audio component aligned with the New London Group’s emphasis on multimodal literacy, which includes linguistic, visual, audio, spatial, and gestural modes of meaning. This holistic approach helped create a richer, more engaging learning experience. According to the New London Group (1996), redesigning isn’t about replicating existing designs or merely being creative; it’s about transforming the original design. Transforming Task 1 involved reimagining how the items in my bag could tell a story and provide insight into my personality and daily life.

Redesigning the “What’s in Your Bag” task allowed me to integrate multiliteracies and digital literacy, making the task more engaging and reflective. By giving my items a voice and utilizing various digital tools, I was able to enhance the storytelling aspect and align with contemporary educational practices. This process not only made the task more enjoyable but also demonstrated the importance of perspective-taking and multimodal literacy in modern education.

References

Apple Inc. (2022), Quick Time Player (Version 10.5). [Mobile App] App Store. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/106375

Cardinal Blur Software, Inc. (2020). PicCollage: Photo Video Editor (Version 8.38.1). [Mobile App]. App Store. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/piccollage-photo-video-editor/id448639966

Dobson, T. M., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital Literacy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 286–312). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duck Duck Moose, Inc. (2021). ChatterPix (Version 1.4.1). [Mobile App] App Store. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/chatterpix-duck-duck-moose/id734038526?ign-mpt=uo%3D4

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Reflection

In my emoji story I started with the title, only because I thought it was a good place to start.  For this I used a word and then the rest I had to rely on the idea behind the movie.  This was because there weren’t any emoji’s that represented the words in the title.

In my depiction of the movie, I was relying on a concept that Kress (2005) doscusses, particularly his idea that the author assumes characteristics of the life-world of their audience. This means that the depiction was crafted with the audience’s experiences and context in mind. According to Kress, the reader interprets the material based on their life-world, effectively designing a coherent and complex sign that meets their needs from the information presented by the author or designer. In other words, I am hoping that you have seen the movie already.

When describing / depicting the plot, again I relied on a combination of the words and ideas. I worked in a traditional ‘writing’ format that was sequenced (left to right & top to bottom), “Sequence has effects for authorship and for reading. Hearers (and readers to a somewhat lesser extent) depend on the “unfolding”, the revealing of elements one after the other to be able to make sense of the whole” (Kress, 2005, p.13).

Next, I attempted to depict the plot using a non-linear approach (see below), which proved to be much more challenging. Kress (2005) explains that in spatially organized representation, the chosen elements are simultaneously present, and their spatial arrangement creates meaning (p. 13). Bolter (2000) emphasizes that digital media empower readers to actively participate in meaning-making by interpreting and interacting with visual and textual elements. While my emoji story lacks traditional text or hypertext, it still requires the reader/viewer to navigate and use cues within the depiction. Emoji stories embody these ideas by using visual symbols to tell narratives, enabling readers to actively interpret and engage with the content, reflecting the evolving landscape of digital communication. Some issue that came up: I couldn’t flip the emoji (mirror image) to depict direction and I couldn’t place the emoji anywhere, it still had to be on a line of text.

Other Thoughts

The readings made me reflect on a 10-year-old student I recently observed. He was looking up the character names of a movie he wanted to watch over the weekend. Instead of using Google, he went straight to YouTube to search. When I asked him why, he said it was easier for him to watch and listen for information rather than read it.

This aligns with Kress’s (2005) idea of spatially organized representation, where meaning is constructed through the arrangement of visual and auditory elements. The student’s preference for video content underscores the importance of incorporating multimedia and non-linear resources in education, as it reflects the ways in which young learners naturally seek and process information.

In terms of pedagogy and the BC curriculum, this observation suggests a need to integrate more diverse media formats into teaching practices. The BC curriculum emphasizes personalized learning and developing digital literacy skills. By acknowledging and incorporating students’ tendencies to engage with information through multimedia platforms like YouTube, educators can create more effective and engaging learning experiences that align with students’ preferences and the evolving digital landscape.

Have we come full circle?

From week 3, reflecting on Ong’s (1982 /2002) exploration of orality and literacy, I find it fascinating how human communication has come full circle, from oral traditions to the development of visual representations and then to alphabetized languages structured by rules. Ong (1982/2002) highlights the profound shift from primary oral cultures, where knowledge was transmitted through spoken words alone, to cultures influenced by writing, which introduced new forms of organization and abstraction.

Personally, I see this journey mirrored in our contemporary shift towards multimedia and visual representation in communication. We’ve moved beyond the constraints of purely verbal or written forms to embrace a multimodal approach where images, sounds, and text intertwine seamlessly. This evolution, as discussed by Kress (2005) and Bolter (2000), acknowledges both gains and losses in how we construct and interpret meaning in a digital age.

In my experience, this return to visual representation feels like a natural progression, integrating the expressive power of images with the structured clarity of text. It bridges the gap between the immediacy of oral communication and the analytical depth of written language, creating a richer tapestry of communication than either could achieve alone. Thus, we are not merely reverting but evolving, leveraging the strengths of multiple modes to enhance how we understand and convey ideas in a technologically advanced society.

Do you agree, have we come full circle? Are we reverting?  What oral skills may have been lost? Can they be regained or retaught? What do we stand to lose of our written work?

References

Bolter, J. D. (2000). The breakout of the visual. In Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2^nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600110

Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Ong, W.J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Routledge. (Original work published 1982).

The Sharks

. .

Do you normally write by hand or type? Did you find this task difficult or easy? Explain.

By the nature of my job, I typically spend a lot of time typing, whether it’s for reports or emails. However, I notice that when I’m in a meeting and jotting down notes, I’m more inclined to do that by hand instead of using an app. Oddly enough, I am responding to this question using voice-to-text and then I’ll go in and fix it up just for fun.

I found the task at hand—pardon the pun—and writing manually quite easy. I probably take a lot of pride in my handwriting, a habit I developed as far back as grade four when cursive writing was part of the curriculum.  I remember having to rewrite two full pages of ‘W’s’, until Mr. Towers deemed it was satisfactory (see image below).  During the past eight courses in the MET program, I mostly took notes by hand in my Hilroy notebooks. It’s been only in the last two courses that I’ve switched to taking notes on my computer.

Week 3 Module: Language as Technology: Written Language, introduced us to Gnanadesikan (2011), Haas (2013), and Ong (2002). In their respective books, they mention the impact that written word has on memory over oral words.  I too, feel that writing by hand helps with my memory, recall, and ability to find information later.  Although the distinction between handwriting and mechanized writing is not addressed by these authors.

What did you do when you made a mistake or wanted to change your writing? How did you edit your work? Did your choice of media play a part in how you edited your work?

In this case, I thought out what I wanted to write about instead of it just being a total free write. When it came to spelling mistakes, I typically crossed out the incorrect word and continued writing. However, if I was unsure of the correct spelling, I would stop and look it up. I could have used simpler words, but I felt they wouldn’t do the piece justice. For instance, I chose the word “camaraderie” instead of “friendship.”

In some instances, I simply wrote the correct spelling over the incorrect one. For example, I changed “lose” to “lost” to “loss.”

I don’t think the choice of media played a significant role in how I edited my work. Instead, the formality of the work influenced my editing approach. Since I considered this a less formal piece of writing, crossing out words or writing over them was acceptable to me.

Other factors that might influence my editing include the audience, type of writing, quality of paper, and purpose of the writing.

What do you feel is the most significant difference between writing by hand and using mechanized forms of writing? Which do you prefer and why?

The most significant difference between writing by hand and using mechanized forms of writing is the personalized aspect of writing by hand.  Handwriting carries the unique characteristics of an individual’s style, including the pressure of the pen, the angle of the strokes, and the idiosyncratic flourishes that make each person’s handwriting distinct. This personal touch can convey emotions and personality traits that are often lost in mechanized writing. This individuality in handwriting makes personal notes, letters, and journals particularly cherished, as they provide a tangible connection to the writer.

My sister had an uncanny ability to write.  When I first moved to BC she would write me 17 pages letters.  Alone in my apartment, I would read – laugh, cry and laugh again as would read the pages.  It was just like she was there talking to me.

References:

Gnanadesikan, A.E. (2011). The first IT revolution. In The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet (pp. 1-12). John Wiley & Sons.

Haas, C. (2013). The technology question. In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy (pp. 3-23). Routledge.

Ong, W.J. (2002). Chapter 1: The orality of language.Links to an external site. In Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word (pp. 5-16). Routledge. (Original work published 1982).