Comparing my results to the class revealed the following:
1) I shared 7 of the top 10 songs chosen.
2) My song choice that was the lowest shared was Peru, panpipes and drum, collected by Casa de la Cultura, Lima. and I shared that choice with 6 other people.
3) I shared commonalities with all my peers.
The biggest challenge with reviewing the network is not being able to see the how or the why. There was interconnection between all participants; we all shared in some decisions, be it what to keep or what not to keep. This connection only tells a surface story. Each one of us created our own criterium for choosing (or not choosing) a song; we are connected but not necessarily in our thinking process. I think that this demonstrates that we have commonality but that does not mean like-mindedness. It is information without explanation. Although we may share decisions, the reasons for that decision may not be shared.
These surface connections remind me of the description used with regards to surfing the web and how it could be approached breadth first or depth first. Our categorization and networking of information is based off of a surface approach (breadth) rather than the reasoning behind the choice (depth). More probing is required in order to find out the true meaning in our connections, just as going deeper into a webpage rather than reading just the summary listed on a search engine helps us to better understand a topic. It also reminds me of Boroditsky description that “sentences are small proportion of information around a scenario” (7.39, 2017). Our graphic representation is a small part of the information around our reasoning and decision making process.
This overall task is an example of how language has shifted into more of a constructive and collaborative task due to technology (as described by Bolter). We used technology to listen to our options, record our decisions, compile our decisions as a collective, and had it transformed into an idea. The writing of this document was inclusive; all our information was inputed to create text. It also mirrored some of the understanding gained from our emoji stories - interpreting the visual requires a different set of skills and a need for multiliteracy. Our key was given in the form of a caption, but for an outsider to understand the image without context (or a key) may prove challenging.
My findings in this activity can be applied to a larger understanding when it comes to our network connections of the web. For example, when pulling together information from a quick search on the web we may find a surface level of ideas but not get down to the “meat of the matter”. T his can be particularly impactful when those researching do not look at the who, how, or why of what has been created. There is deeper understanding to be had that is unseen unless it is looked for. In addition to this, there are the underlying messages of what has been excluded and the lack of justification for the exclusion. Weight is placed on what is important and what isn’t without visible reason, like weighted edges in a graph. Lastly, there is the ever present challenge of misinterpreting data.
Many questions came to mind when I was reviewing all the connections made between my peers and myself with regards to our choices for the top ten songs on the Golden Record. For example, what is the impact of the placement of our names and the location of nodes? How were the colours for our groups chosen? Why are the groupings by colour even? If a graph was created to show which songs were excluded what would that show? If we were given the same criteria to judge the songs, would there be more consistency between participants and how would it impact the final results? These questions could help in the redesign of this activity (if there was time to further explore), and therefore is another example of how learning sparks more learning.
References:
Boroditsky, L. (June 2017). [Video]. How the languages we speak shape the way we think
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. New York, NY: Routledge.
Comments