As part of the BCM325 subject, I was assigned to comment on three digital artifacts (DA) amid the themes of futures cultures. Overall, I was impressed with my friends’ innovative thinking, and I tried my best to identify their strengths and weaknesses based on the criteria of the subject’s first assignment (please ignore my careless typos as I was in a rush for meeting deadlines), as well as suggested ways to improve their future DAs. During the process of giving feedback, I found myself spending much time considering how to comment constructively. Speaking an emotive mother tongue, I am aware that my careless word usage can result in offending people. Also, as I was the second commenter (2 out of 3 posts), I was concerned about repeating the first commenter’s ideas, which can prevent me from recognising unexplored qualities of the pitches.
In order to look further into my role as a feedback giver in this subject, I present my feedback on three DA pitches below for a critical self-analysis.
Nothando’s DA is a continuation of her previous project about immigrants’ stories in Australia. As this was my first comment out of the three, I felt that I wrote too long and my feedback was much of cherry-picking due to my attempt to avoid repetition of what the first commenter already contributed. I reminded Nothando of including feedback loops in her beta presentation and linking her previous project (as she refers to but did not provide evidence) in the description part of the BCM325 to provide more context for readers. I believe that embedding a link to her previous project would help to clarify her BCM325 research question as it appeared to me that Nothando does not state it clearly in her video. Following that, I suggested some focuses on framing research questions. Regarding the method and presentation of her DA, I offered two different ways of interviewing people that Nothando can apply.
Zoeya’s DA is built on her current media ritual of shit-talking on SoundCloud. As I was the first to give feedback on her post, I began questioning whether my understanding of Zoeya’s Da aligned with others, and if I sound stupid if my views turned out to be different from the majority. While Zoeya’s contextual part compliments on her video, I found that some parts of Zoeya’s speech and text being unclear to me in terms of the project’s scope. Thus, I suggested she specify her topics for discussion and recommended a Twitter’s poll for the selection of (sub)topics. I then searched for some ABC podcasts related to one of her broad futures topics to help her construct her talks and engage with the audience. Despite her inclusion of feedback loops, I asked for clarification on Zoeya’s ways of receiving feedback on the DA as I think SoundCloud is not suitable for the audience to provide detailed feedback for her shit talks.
I think Georgie has an ambitious project that looks into how short videos, specifically on TikTok, can become the main content created in cybersphere in the future. Despite being the second commenter (the first one was the same person who commented on Nothando’s post), this time I hardly concerned about repetition in the content of our feedback as I got over the feeling of being unoriginal, which made me feel that similar views are pure reproduction and plagiarism. Georgie’s pitch was informative with her text slides. However, some parts in her slides could not explain her ideas well, leading to viewers’ confusion about the theories she will use to carry out her DA, as well as about understanding the scope and focus of her project. I tried to help Georgie to narrow down her research question by asking specific questions to determine the focus of her DA.
Featured image: http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-peer-review-27797