When I first looked at the task description, I immediately though about various ways to change the semiotic mode of the first task: stringing videos of me using the various items, an audio only option, a Twine or some sort of webpage with hyperlinks to explore each of the different items so that the user can decide the order, and so on.
Yet, as I further reflect on the New London Group (1996)’s discussion of multiliteracies, especially around design, meaning-making, and “the game (purpose),” I revisited the first task to interpret its main purpose. Brown’s BAG Project “explores the duality between the way people characterize themselves in public and the private contents of their handbags” (Brown n.d.). I decided that I needed a semiotic mode that shows (not exclusively visually, as per the requirements) both my public image and the “story of the objects themselves” (Brown n.d.), and previously-considered options such as audio-only wouldn’t have been as effective in portraying a public image versus the private contents of a bag. I eventually opted for a video format of me talking to my audience through a camera, with one part of the video portraying my public self and the other a story about the private contents of my bag. Starting from this purpose of contrasting public and private then made choices about aspects of the redesign process such as the genre, the discourse, and grammars obvious.
For the public image section, I made various design choices to support the main purpose of portraying a public self. I used a neutral background similar to those used by Brown (n.d.), dressed in my work clothes, had an upright posture, and adjusted the lighting in the room. In addition, though in other video assignments I would typically work with a full pre-written script, I opted against it because my public image is not one that carefully crafts all their utterances, so thus I went with some pre-written notes to reflect my tendencies as a teacher to go off of my plans of a lesson and yet am flexible enough to explore students’ questions and ideas in group discussions.
I made completely different design choices for the private section. I placed the camera on the table where I send most of my time, with my storage closet behind me sometimes visible, laid back in my chair, dressed how I typically would at home, and I did not bother with lighting. My talks were also script-free (to better reflect my tendencies in private) story of an instance where I used several of the objects in my original task. As a result of these choices, I was far more relaxed in this section, and one thing that arose from this increased relaxation is more use of hand gestures as I talk.
After creating these two sections, I noticed that various modes of meaning and their elements discussed by the New London Group (1996) were apparent. The aforementioned body posture and hand movements are part of gestural design, background choices and lighting are elements of spatial and visual design. For linguistic design, elements such as delivery, modality, and transitivity were seen in the different ways I spoke, such as during the public section I paused more often to think of the next appropriate word to say, as opposed in the private section I spoke on auto-pilot and then corrected previous word choices. These unintended differences arose from the intended design choice of having pre-written notes (but not a full script) for the public section and not having anything at all for the private section.
My biggest take away from this task, aided by my interpretation of the New London Group’s article, is that starting with thinking about the purpose, in other words, backwards design, may be the best approach for the redesign process because afterwards, it’s easier to make design choices to support that purpose. This could apply to my own personal pedagogical practice as I redesign lesson plans and activities, putting more thought into the purpose, and subsequently, various design elements. Prior to this task, I thought of backwards design as just another professional development buzzword, and it wasn’t until reflecting on the New London Group that I began to appreciate the myriad of design choices that can go into the backwards design process.
References
Brown, E. (n.d.). BAG. Ellie Brown Photography and Artworks. https://www.elliebrown.com/#/bag/
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u