In Task 1, Jon Gock's experience with this assignment looks frightingly similar to mine. We both have similar items in our bags, including, whistles, keys, the same exact energy bars, and even though I don't have a notebook or laptop in my bag, I regularly do carry those items. Jon and I both point to the fact that our items signify literacy in a variety of domains; digital literacy, proficiency with writing, social competence, and even using tech elements like USB's and projectors.
Something I found more interesting was that a whistle is a symbol of physical literacy, but could even point to similar values that we share. We value students being physically active and recognize the benefits that physical activity brings to someone's life. One could assume that we both value volunteering our time to help students develop physical literacy, and that we get something from it as well. Could an assumed value be seen as a text?
In terms of comparing our content-authoring tools and end-user interface, Jon has used UBC blogs (or Wordpress) and I have used Google Sites. I chose mine for ease of use at the expense of more personalization or reader engagement, but I am being selfish here. I am worried about my learning mostly, and I think that I benefit greatly by keeping my reflections simple. I like to see everything in one place. I noticed that Jon had comments open on some of his posts, but it was hard to see if there were any. I don't think there are any huge differences here, but maybe accountability could be influenced if people have the ability to comment on posts and question the writer's ideas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In week three, Patrick Blois chose to use the same voice-to-text software as I did to narrate and analyze a story. His reflections can be found here: https://sites.google.com/view/etec540blois/10-tasks?authuser=0
Even though we used the same software, Patrick's story looked quite different from mine. I'm not sure how I was able to include the proper punctuation in my writing, but it seems like Patrick had less success than I did. I noted that I tried to say the words 'period' or 'comma', or even 'end quote', but maybe my volume and talking speed contributed to a clearer and more understandable text. Even though we used the same software, it seems like we used it in different ways.
In his reflection, Patrick notes the differences between spoken storytelling and written text, commenting on body language, context, conventions, and flexibility in verb tense. I didn't really touch on these, but they are important to consider. I think that I changed my speech significantly knowing that it would be turned into writing, whereas Patrick spoke as if he were talking to a friend, not worried that he was being recorded.
Since completing this assignment I have had significantly more success with using voice-to-text software, specifically when texting on my iPhone. I have found the software to be significantly better than any other I've tried, and it saves me time when using it in a private setting.
I still like to think that my critiques of the Has (2013) paper hold true, and Patrick's reflections support this as well. He realizes that voice to text is only useful if it can create proper meaning, and he complains that messages and meaning can become muddled and unclear. In this case, voice-to-text will only be used as a beneficial tool if it can be improved upon; a technology will be made to conform to societal standards, and not the other way around.
References
Haas, C. (2013). The technology question. In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy (pp. 3–23). Routledge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I often wonder how handwriting and our proficiency with it affects other cognitive processes, but in this linking assignment I will share some similarities and differences between both Rico's and my reflections on our experience completing week four's handwriting activity.
Rico's entry can be found here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/enriconiedo/task-4-manual-scripts-and-potato-printing/
The theoretical concepts that Rico draws on in his reflection come from the work of West and Mitchell (2024), but I didn't attach as much permanence to handwriting as Rico and the reading suggest. Something I found interesting was that Rico said that the way he conceptualizes the story before he writes it differs depending on the medium he uses. When he writes by hand vs typing, the affordances of each medium influence how he will create the story in his head, and therefore change how it looks. When worried about making a mistake when writing by hand, Rico said that he made sure he knew what he wanted to write before putting it on paper. This raised an interesting question for me: Can typing for some people prompt greater creativity than writing by hand?
Upon reflection, being less skilled at writing by hand must influence someone's train of thought, and having to really focus on the writing must make it more difficult to focus on what you'd like to write. I didn't really consider this in my own reflection, as I was merely considering things from my own perspective. Writing my story in pencil made me free from worry in making mistakes, as I knew I could just erase them.
Some implications of these questions and reflections could be approaching writing in new ways with my students. I often get students to read their writing aloud to a friend to proofread for errors, but maybe starting with voice to text software could be a way to foster creativity, or get something down on paper for students who struggle to write enough. On a similar train of thought, using a text-to-speech voice reader, like a plug-in I actually use on Google Chrome, could be a good way for students to edit their work, or hear if their writing makes sense.
References
West, R., & Mitchell, G. (2024, January 1). Stuff to Blow Your Mind. The Invention of the Book. [Audio podcast episode]. iHeartRadio. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-stuff-to-blow-your-mind-21123915/episode/the-invention-of-the-book-part-63031174/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Task 6, Tristan Wong picked a recent movie he had watched to represent with emojis, and he did this quite different from the way I did it. When I completed the assignment I attempted to represent the words in movie titles with emojis, whereas he tried to represent the story or plot. It was quite difficult to figure out what movie he chose, because he used a "water + fire = heart" series of emojis, and this could possibly represent a number of movies. I don't own a TV or streaming service though, so maybe I am out of date with my movie trivia.
I tried to make my emoji movie depictions so that people would have no trouble decoding them, but Tristan's seemed to be tough. I made a number of them as well so that if people had trouble with one they could try another.
Comparing how I did this assignment with how others have done it has highlighted the fact that text can be subjective at times. I am reminded of the emoji that some view as the 'high five', and others see as two hands praying. A flame emoji in this instance could mean heat, fire, or even something positive (as in 'that's fire'). Emojis can develop different meanings over time and can carry different cultural significance. I know that studies have been done to examine the effect that emojis can have on sales or communications in the business world, but this assignment has also highlighted that for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Attention Economy reflection, Jamie made a connection to how easy it can be to navigate content on a phone, and the User Inyerface experience also prompted these reciprocal thoughts from me. If something can intentionally be made difficult to navigate, then obviously much more thought and work has gone into making the reverse true, especially when apps are competing with each other for people's attention and ad revenue.
Having a five-year-old, I also hear other adults acting proud that their five-year-old's can use technology at such a young age. When a device is designed to encourage rampant use to the point of addiction, I am very reluctant to see this as a sign of merit, however. Am I becoming too skeptical or nervous if I am reluctant to get students (and especially my son) to use a phone for any type of learning?
Having recently taken the 'Digital Games and Learning' course in this MET program, I also often wonder if gamification in the classroom is doing students a disservice by meshing learning with rewards designed to produce dopamine in their brains. Sure, teachers might see a boost in engagement when they bring an online game into the classroom, but do students develop a curiousity about a topic, or are they merely interested because they're playing a game? Does quick dopamine affect their internal rewards system as well?
Here's an interesting video for anyone who hasn't heard of Jonathan Haidt yet. He has other videos online, and is the author of the book 'The Anxious Generation', arguing that students should avoid devices and restore healthy childhoods by incorporating more play into their daily lives.
I went way off topic here, but I suppose I was trying to be authentic in my experience and train of thoughts. Thanks Jamie for the prompt.
References
Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Penguin Press.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we always so scared of the future? Is this what helps to protect us as a society? Is this an evolutionary defense mechanism, engrained in all of our DNA? Is this why my five-year-old is reluctant to try new foods?
For my final linking activity I have browsed a number of my colleague's reflections on speculative futures, and I will focus on both Elaine's and Nick's.
Both of their narrations of the future seem to be bleak, with descriptions of dystopian societies. I'm not sure if these are more likely, but why do they appeal to us so much? Why do more of my colleagues go this way? Does fear attract more attention or bolster engagement? I know this is a topic for another post, but if we categorize or group texts by which emotions they appeal to, would fear be most prevalent in our society?
In his reflection, Nick refers to Harari's 2017 article, and worries that we could become too reliant on AI and too inflexible to adapt to a changing world, but I trust in humanity's abilities to use AI without succumbing to it's pitfalls. Humans are a naturally worried and cautious species. I think we will always be critical and cautious of AI, not just because of the number of movies that have been made detailing how AI will take over our society.
I agree with Harari that AI should be used with caution in respect to social inequality, but AI has the power to help teachers boost educational outcomes for students, and instill the values of lifelong learning, adaptability, and critical thinking. I think a key takeaway from Harari's paper is the call for proactive policy to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely (equally?) shared among people in society. I think like any tool, success depends on how humans will use it, or whether or not they use it to exploit other humans.
References
Harari, Y. N. (2017). Reboot for the AI revolution. Nature International Weekly Journal of Science, 550(7676), 324-327.