BCM325 Digital Artefact Report: A Series of Essay Videos on Educational Holography for Lecture attendance improvement

As part of the Future Cultures (BCM325) subject, I have been developing a digital artefact (DA) addressing a future challenge throughout the Autumn semester. Initially inspired by the holographic counterpart singers performed in the opening ceremony of an e-sport event, my project has pivoted around holography’s potential usage in improving lecture attendance of regional campus students. Employing a 3-time scale development model, I divided my DA into 3 stages of construction, which refer to the short-term future (5-10 years), mid-term (20-30 years), and long-term (50 years)

(You can find my digital artefact presentation at the end of this post or click the embedded links if you would like to watch right away)

Continue reading BCM325 Digital Artefact Report: A Series of Essay Videos on Educational Holography for Lecture attendance improvement

BCM325 Reflection 2: Swimming in the Flood of tweets

As proposed in my previous reflection on live-tweeting, I began interacting (following, retweeting, liking) with more friends and paying more attention to online discussions on Twitter in this second phase of weekly screenings. However, it was not until week 9 that I could pre-write tweets based on background research of films.

Continue reading BCM325 Reflection 2: Swimming in the Flood of tweets

Peer-Review: A Vicarious (Mutual) Learning Process in the Role of a Feedback Provider

Throughout the Future Cultures (BCM325) subject, I have often questioned myself about the purpose of writing reflections on my role as a feedback producer of my peers’ presentations. While feedback receipt generates a critical self-reflection (Nicol et al. 2014: 102), which plays a cardinal role in the higher education independent learning environment (Nicol et al. 2014: 113), feedback provision appears to hold little reflective values. I used to ponder that feedback provision was a non-reciprocal process, which only benefited my peers’ (the receivers) performances and somehow, my tutor’s (the main feedback producer) workload share. Hence, I found commenting on my classmates’ projects time-consuming. 

However, my perspective changed in this second round of peer-commenting on Oliva’s, Jessica’s and Susie’s beta presentations of digital artefacts (DA). By employing dual roles as a reader and a researcher, I felt that I could suggest further research directions, enrich my friends’ justifications for method usage and concept development, and improve their DA’s utility in turn. Compared to the previous commenting round, this time, I eschew echoing already preexisting feedback by not reading the beta posts’ comment sections beforehand.  

Continue reading Peer-Review: A Vicarious (Mutual) Learning Process in the Role of a Feedback Provider