Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Reflections The peer feedback period was extremely beneficial and really helped me to realise where I needed to make

changes in my artefact. In addition it prompted me to structure the narration to be more suitable for my target audience. My method of transferring notes from my essay into the script had caused me to somewhat blur the line of audiences. Consciously trying to keep the video on the same lines as my writing made it less engaging for the intended audiences. The full transcript of peer feedback I received, organised into questions, is available on the blog Appendix 5. My reflection on the peer feedback I received: Question 1. Given that the intended audience was A level students, I felt it was necessary to clearly establish the technological changes and historical context, if I wanted them to then reflect on the potential that this device now held. However when I watched it back myself I felt that the historical context was perhaps unnecessary. I was concerned that my views came from the fact that I had watched it several times during editing and also that I obviously knew this information- making it less interesting to me. So I asked my peers for their views on the length of the historical context. Claire Pollards views echoed my initial thoughts when she said, students don't necessarily have a sense of the developments in technology, which I guess is one of the biggest ironies of the digital native; that while they are immersed in technology, they in fact have little understanding of the time before it and how it came about. The remaining view was almost equally split, with some peers suggesting they it had the right balance and others suggesting that a slightly lighter approach with less historical context would be better. I cant help wonder however if this is because they, like me, are more aware of the historical changes. Vanessa Hughes and Liz Miller, interestingly both suggested that I include more focus on the convergence of other technology into the device. This made me think that actually, it was my initial intention to show that it was a converged piece of media with increased functionality. Although my aim is to focus on the particular functions of the video and camera, I did initially want to establish that the device had undergone a huge functionality increase, and I think this is an important fact that needs to be communicated to the audience. So Im going to add a visual representation, as this will be the best way of maintaining engagement, of all the different media converging into the phone1. I like Lizs phrase you couldn't do anything that creative with a mobile phone until relatively recently2, and think I will try to include this in my documentary narration. I feel that straight to the point and more summative remarks like this are lacking from the documentary and will help improve the understanding of the young student audience. I also acknowledge that due to the length of the video and the limited concentration span of the target audience, it needs to be engaging. Much of the feedback suggest including more visuals and even the inclusion of sound effects such as the kerching sound3, which I will do in a hope to achieve further engagement.

An initial concern that I had was that it had taken me too so long to get to my question, and I wonder if Claire Pollards suggestion about restructuring it could work to solve this. The more I consider this, the more I can see the value in altering the structure, perhaps bringing in the theory earlier to allow students to reflect on how that theory ties in with the examples they are presented with later. I can see the benefits of changing the structure 4 but the possibility will now be subject to meeting the deadline. Question 2. The feedback that surprised me most was the response that I should include more of the student tasks and interviews5. Its refreshing to hear that my own research is considered interesting, as during the editing of the video, this was the part which, for me, felt the least interesting. I had quite carefully selected comments and relevant phrases from the mass of student interviews to edit into the documentary, as many of their answers were long and irrelevant. But perhaps I need to go back and look into including more. I am conscious however of making it too long. It brought me to think back to Gauntletts (2007) views around creativity and uniqueness; that sometimes when you see something often, it becomes less unique and you miss the creativity in it. I hear analytical comments from these students all the time, and as their Media teacher, it is my job to encourage more articulated and thoughtful responses. Perhaps I had in this instance, let my professional relationship hinder how I valued their responses. Richard Sanders commented that some of the quotes were on the screen for too long, however I had purposefully made these parts longer as I was concerned that students would not have time to read them. In response to this comment I asked a few students what they felt. They commented that its too long, we wasnt really reading them either and its this big silence and makes you lose concentration. Perhaps I had asked the wrong students! Nevertheless I am now going to look into the duration of the quotes6, and also the frequency of them. Maybe there are too many and they are not all necessary for a student audience. Question 3. I was really in two minds about asking this question because I feel quite strongly that the examples were needed, but I realised that much of my resistance to ask stemmed from my reluctance to undo all the hours of work it took to edit them in. In spite of my reluctance I realised that the feedback would be honest and in the best interest of the artefact working. Thankfully most of my peers felt that the inclusion of the range of examples of mobile footage use was necessary in showcasing the range of ways in which this kind of video capturing is currently being used. Richard Sanders felt that I needed a narrower range of examples, but his reasoning that There are so many different ways that can be considered as a creative use of mobile technology, was in fact exactly my point! There are so many different examples of mobile video capturing and in order to question if this practice is creative they need to see the full range. Prior to this I think that students would envisage Youtube uploaded home videos as the only possible creative production from a mobile phone.

However I think, as Claire Pollard pointed out, I need to make clearer links and make it explicit to the students the relevance of these examples7. I dont think it is as clear-cut as labelling this as uncreative capturing, as Claire had suggested. But instead I had hoped that these clips would be a stimuli from which students can debate whether this type of capturing is in fact creative practice? Although I guess this is Claires interpretation and in some ways the clips have been successful in prompting this very discussion between us. Question 4. I really struggled with selecting which quotations to include in the video, as I carried out a lot of reading and it all felt so relevant- although at times taking me off path. Richard Sanders comments on the portrayal of Jenkins were such an eye opener as to how, through the narration and the selection of quotes, I had possibly mis-portrayed Jenkins. After a brief moment of discomfiture, I actually felt a huge sense of relief that Richard had taken the time to watch my draft video and been able to point this out to me. I had not read any of Jenkinss work before this assignment, and his feedback made me really wish id invested more in sharing my work beforehand. Yes, there is the fear of exposing your weaknesses and mistakes, but the sharing of viewpoints was invaluable. I am changing the narration at that point and will ensure that I have portrayed Jenkins as I had intended. 8 Otherwise it was reassuring to hear that my peers, the kind of educators who would possibly use my video to inform their students, felt the theory was explained well for the intended audience. I did take note of the fact that its still a lot to take in and would suggest that when using the video there is the need to pause at points for discussion to take place. I considered sign posting PAUSE for discussion but upon reflection decided that that is a decision which individual teachers would want to make themselves, drawing on aspects that held more relevance to their group. Question 5. Im glad that the comments on the question of creativity were so varied; drawing on the conclusion that I had hoped to for- that the interpretation of what creative means, is ever complex and individual, and continuously open to debate. Richard Sanders comments on the creativity of the task were reflective of the students feelings. They had wanted to edit and manipulate what they had recorded to make it creative. A student from Group 4 had said in his evaluation, it would have been better if we could have used FinalCut cause its not possible to make something good without editing. I think a big part of this was the fact that they were Media students and I wonder however if I had conducted a similar task with a group of Sociology or Maths students, they would have felt the same? In addition it made me consider the task itself and its limits. I had attempted to leave the task as open as possible, in an effort to avoid hindering any creative ideas. But as Liz Miller pointed out this open brief caused panic and in some ways a delayed reaction. In hindsight I think the task would have benefited from more time. Due to the obvious curriculum constraints, I asked them to do this in a two hour lesson, but in essence for any real thinking to have gone into it I should have perhaps given them the task a week prior to the lesson.

The general consensus seemed to be well there wasnt really one. Some felt it was creative in ways, others felt not at all. But what was clear was that the individual interpretations were in fact influenced by their own views on the creators. Judith Evans felt that their age meant that this was as 'creative' as teenagers get, Richard Sanders felt that the collaboration of media was necessary and perhaps expected youngsters to embrace this, Vanessa Hughes saw a lot of positive in what they produced while Liz Miller wondered if the task had hindered the results. The person who saw the least creativity in what they did was my own work college Claire Pollard, someone who knows these students as individuals and, like me, had a pre determined set of expectations for them. Everyone person highlighted a different factor and in some ways I agreed with all of them. An agreement which forced me to reflect on the complexity of variables amongst the conditions of the task, the individuals involved and also the individuals passing judgment. These views were further evident in the second part of the response. Judith Evans re-affirmed her view that age was the key factor which determined the outcome of the task, dismissing culture and class. While most people expressed a view that creativity would differ due to such factors. Claire Pollards comment on the impact of this on technological determinism was interesting and brought to the equation the factor of choice- just because something good is available, doesn't mean people will take it. I think this is a real issue in some places, the decision to possibly be consciously un-creative, to reject creativity in an artistic, everyday form, as less valued than the scientific grand creativity than wins Nobel prizes. Gauntlett (2007, p.18). In all, the feedback from question five was, in my eyes, a huge success. The outcome of the task had prompted a very interesting reflection into what creativity was and how it is defined. The individual responses allowed an insight into how personal this definition is from on person to another, and all the factors that influence the definition. 6. The feedback on the additional task I set helped me to redefine my intended outcome. I think Vanessa Hughess comment about sharing is key, was crucial. They shared what they felt others would want to see, so perhaps when trying to encourage them to use their mobile phones creatively, I needed to encourage them to create something they would want to share. Possibly funny sketches, or scary clips would have been a better idea. Much of the sense of immediacy in the research examples I found derived from the concept that what is captured is shocking, unique, and realistic footage. However capturing something like that in reality is accidental, and requires no prior thought, no decision other than pressing record; therefore making it, in many ways, uncreative. I think Jude Evanss comment on spontaneity was also right and something I had overlooked. The challenge was to create something that embodied those characteristics of humour, and immediacy, which in turn would make them more enthusiastic through the motivation of sharing and receiving likes. I have since altered the task slightly and given them a longer period in which to do this.

Dina Akeels feedback consisted of more specific editing suggestions, many of which I have taken on board. Most of Dinas suggestion were in regard to visual adjustments and seem to follow the same consensus that it needed to be more visually engaging9. Hopefully through re-editing I can do this. The Outcome From the process of receiving feedback for my own artefact, and indeed leaving feedback for others on their work, I have grasped the value of peer reviews. Such to the extent, that I am going to encourage peer feedback in the same way among those students who have carried out the pocket the moment task. Its a very daunting experience, allowing others to scrutinise your work, but in the same way its refreshing and reassuring when you realise that your views are shared. I found that many of my concerns were shared, prompting me to act upon these. And even when they are not and the feedback is opposing your view, the process gives you a platform to re-justify your decisions, which is a very selfempowering. I felt great anticipation and anxiety when logging back in to read what others had written, but this was softened somewhat by the knowledge that I would review their work too. I reviewed everyones work; see my peer feedback appendix 6 on the blog, trying to be as supportive and positive as possible while giving honest and constructive feedback. Viewing videos , reading research and playing games, were all time consuming (the last one perhaps not so much), but this helped me appreciate the time that others had taken to watch my video and encouraged me to leave feedback which was as valuable as possible. On completion of my edited artefact I am feeling a real sense of achievement. My final reflection is in relation to my own creativity. creative activity is itself where the thinking through and the self-expression takes place, as well as being a process which creates an artefact which represents the outcomes of those thinking and feeling processes Gauntlett (2007, p.28) In this respect, I feel I have been part of a creative activity. I am content with the outcome of my artefact in demonstrating the critical theory I had wished to explore, and challenging the concept of creativity in the practice of mobile phone capturing. Had there not ben a deadline I would have continued to hack away at the video, searching for perfection, but then without the constraints of this project perhaps I wouldnt have been creative at all? I set out to look into how technology had or could encourage creativity. But I have concluded that creativity is a concept far too personal to assign merely to technology and its influences. And while, as Gauntlett suggests (2007, p.24) the symptoms of creativityare surely present in more everyday manifestations, more concrete and definitive examples of creativity are far more difficult to define. Society will always fear the changes that technological influences bring, fearing the unfamiliar and new- but the impact is not so straightforward. The theory of digital immigrants and digital natives is an example of how opportunity and environment can influence this relationship. But effectively society and technology are two sides of the same coin- both directly impacting on each other,

and both skimming the surface of creative influences but in a pool of far too many variables to define.

Changes I have made to my artefact after receiving peer feedback and writing this reflection I have tried emphasising the idea of convergence more- the enhanced functionality; I have used a visual collage of the converged technology to achieve this.
1

I incorporated Lizs phrase You couldnt do anything that creative with a mobile phone until relatively recently, and in general tried to summarise more of the points to make it more student friendly and easy to absorb.
2

I included the sound effect as suggested for the announcement of the shocking price of the Motorola DynaTac to enhance the impact.
3

After realising what a great idea this was I felt I had to at least attempt to restructure the video, but there was also the time constraints to consider and a growing fear of changing it too much. However in the end I went with my instinct and completely re-drafted the narration- re recording the whole narration and structuring it so that the main question and the theory are introduced at the beginning. I also used this as an opportunity to tackle another suggestion of simplifying the historical context. However the whole video still ended up being longer. But hopefully better.
4

I have taken on board the comments that people liked the student interviews and have selected a few more to include.
5

I have taken out quite a few quotes and tried to focus on those that are clearly linked to the points made in the video. I have also made the duration that the quotes are on the screen shorter,
6

I tried to make clearer links to the relevance of the examples used news footage, viral marketing etc, in order to maintain the focus of the video. I did this through script changes to the narration.
7

I have restructured some of the theory and amended the representation of Jenkins. I used Richard Sanders feedback as guidance for this.
8 9

I have made visual alterations as suggested by Dina Akeel.