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.
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.
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.
Live-tweeting, in particular, and the whole BCM325 subject, in general, are the uncharted waters I have long avoided due to my quite low-tech self and aversion to sci-fi films. As multi-screens (film screen and Twitter screen) demand high levels of divided attention, I was afraid that these screens would distract me from either enjoying the films or engaging in online discussions with my fellows. Contrary to my initial thoughts, live-tweeting indeed compliments my watching experience. These are evident in the below curation of my comments and reactions during five in-class screenings of BCM325, which I regard as the milestones of my first phase in the subject.