Journal

 

Tuesday, May 1st 2012.

Having recently encountered Vygotsky and Sakharov's 'Dual-stimulation method', my first impression of how this method has been expanded in the Storyboard project is through the additional element of 'learning by teaching'.

 

Wednesday, May 2nd 2012.

'Learning by teaching' might also link my approach to Activity theory. This is something which I will be looking into.

 

Thursday, May 3rd 2012.

Today I emailed my supervisors and asked about whether all of my presentation for the May 4th progress review should be about what I've done thus far or if there can be some more 'speculative' discussion about where I think it might be going. They said that such speculation is fine if it is theoretically based.

 

Friday, May 4th 2012.

The progress committee meeting today went well so my progress documentation was approved. The digital thesis issue turned out to be quite different from what I was expecting. I had addressed all 9 criteria for the Storyboard thesis to be considered a 'creative work' with a 50:50 split between digital and hard copy submission. The chair of the meeting rejected this proposal as he said that most of the media was the children's work which is not the usual scenario when an 'artist' submits a creative work.

As for the digital side of things, he said that media students submit digital artefacts all the time. I was able to open my 100% digital thesis instantly because I had never deleted any of this thanks to my 50:50 folder containing the most recent developments. He said that this was quite exciting and that I should proceed with a 100% digital thesis submission. This is fantastic news as it is what I was wanting to do all along. There will still be some additional approval required but that is to be expected.

 

Saturday, May 5th 2012.

Today I reinstated (reverted) my 9 original .htm files effectively aborting the 50:50 model due to my new option of a 100% digital submission.

 

Sunday, May 6th 2012.

Many of my readings challenge my own teaching practice. Vygotsky stated that concepts need to evolve. In light of this, how good am I at teaching musical concepts in my own setting?

 

Monday, May 7th 2012.

The initial email feedback from the University regarding my digital thesis submission has been very positive.

 

Tuesday, May 8th 2012.

Today I emailed the Melbourne Graduate School of Research (MGSR) is response to their email from yesterday about the digital thesis submission details.

 

Wednesday, May 9th 2012.

Today I requested in inter-university library loan for Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Thursday, May 10th 2012.

I've amended the sections within my Literature review again as follows:

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Knowledge representation and animation
3.3 Multiliteracies, multimedia and multimodality
3.4 Technical and relational dimensions of multimodality
3.5 The affordances of text
3.6 Conceptual models
3.7 ICT in education

 

Friday, May 11th 2012.

My goal for this weekend is to catch up on proofreading/uploading these reflexive journal entries.

 

Saturday, May 12th 2012

I've amended the Literature review yet again as follows:

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Knowledge representation and animation
3.3 Multiliteracies, multimedia and multimodality
3.4 The affordances of text
3.5 Perception and interpretation
3.6 Metaphor and the transmission of meaning
3.7 Conceptual models
3.8 ICT in education

 

Sunday, May 13th 2012

Through a weekly university newsletter email I heard about a CHAT discussion group which operates through Deakin University. I've joined this as such discussions and reading will most likely be very helpful.

 

Monday, May 14th 2012

The Gibson book arrived today. Reading about affordances got me wondering about what the Storyboard project and method afforded. Amongst other things, it affords critique as the children's work is there for critique from both the students and from myself.

 

Tuesday, May 15th 2012

One of the University administration staff emailed me today about 'categories of research' as all research must now be identified with up to three research categories and their corresponding codes. I will discuss this with my supervisors at my next meeting.

 

Wednesday, May 16th 2012

I was pleasantly surprised to find that one of the books that I've been reading (Cloonan 2010) involved a Victorian research project. (I live and work in Victoria, Australia too).

 

Thursday, May 17th 2012

I've resumed some of my semiotics readings. I'm questioning how this will inform my research or what possible contribution I could make to this field.

 

Friday, May 18th 2012

Is semiotics a new way of looking at things or a new research agenda?

 

Saturday, May 19th 2012

I've amended the Literature review again:

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Knowledge representation and animation
3.3 Conceptual consolidation
3.4 Conceptual models
3.5 Multiliteracies, multimedia and multimodality
3.6 The affordances of text
3.7 Perception and interpretation
3.8 Metaphor and the transmission of meaning
3.9 ICT in education

 

Sunday, May 20th 2012

Today I came across Mishra and Koehler's (2006) 'Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model for the first time. This might be a useful way of situating my research and practice in terms of ICT.

 

Monday, May 21st 2012

I found some interesting thoughts about technology and 'Meta-tools' on the University of Tasmania's web site. I haven't included this idea in my thesis yet but it might prove to be useful in conjunction with TPACK and CHAT. I came across it whilst reading about CHAT.

 

Tuesday, May 22nd 2012

The three University of Melbourne research codes which I'll discuss with my supervisor (Susan) tomorrow are:

130105 Primary Education
130202 Curriculum and Pedagogy Theory and Development
130306 Educational Technology and Computing

 

Wednesday, May 23rd 2012

Prior to my meeting with Susan this afternoon I borrowed several interesting books by Vygotsky and Eisner. During the meeting we agreed upon the three research codes listed above.

I've now removed 'perception' and 'interpretation' from my Literature review. I was only including them to say that they weren't relevant but Susan rightly pointed out that if they don't belong then they aren't relevant.

My revised Literature review is now:

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Knowledge representation and animation
3.3 Conceptual consolidation
3.4 Conceptual models
3.5 Multiliteracies, multimedia and multimodality
3.6 The affordances of text
3.7 Metaphor and the transmission of meaning
3.8 ICT in education

 

Thursday, May 24th 2012

I'm wondering if I need to choose a particular strain of Symbolic Interactionism?

 

Friday, May 25th 2012

The dramaturgical strain of Symbolic Interaction is something which I will continue to look into.

 

Saturday, May 26th 2012

I have received more positive response from the University. In response I sent the following email about the ethical issue of publishing online whilst at the draft stage (this thesis has been online for over two years now since April 2010):

Thanks again for seeing all of this through.  I would like to address the issue of the thesis being live online whilst it is still at the draft stage:

  1. The University of Melbourne’s ethics approval documentation was amended in 2009 to allow for the Storyboard data to be presented online at both draft and final stages. (MGSE HEAG ID: 79/09, Ethics ID: 0830967).  I also obtained the appropriate approval for the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD ID HR2009_000356).   This dynamic was included in the documentation which the primary school participants and their parents consented to.  It also allows the children to view their work online.
  2. Having the draft thesis online has facilitated academic interest and enquiries from other researchers.  The emergent nature of this thesis as a work in progress is also appropriate as Action research.
  3. Having the draft thesis online has also enabled some of the key terminology from this thesis such as the ‘Explanatory Animation Framework” to achieve a high ranking on search engines.  (The search results for this term ranks number one on Google).
  4. As for the thesis being ‘published’, the word seems to have two components according to the OED.  The ‘making generally known’ aspect is already facilitated by the online presence but the second component to ‘announce formally’ has yet to occur.   In my opinion, the completed thesis would still be published officially by removing the word ‘Draft” and putting some relevant submission and approval dates.  The University of Melbourne could then be listed on the title page as this is currently not the case.

None of these above points would be considered to be profound but I’ve been happy to address them as a secondary objective of this approval process is to set a precedent for future multimodal documents and their related issues.

Regards,
Brendan Jacobs

 

Sunday, May 27th 2012

Today I conceptualised as new metaphor for working within mutual Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) called an 'Exit strategy'. It is basically that a student and a more capable assistant put themselves into a theoretical hole and work to get out of it by completing their project. I also have worked this way for several years now through our biennial Short Film Festivals.

 

Monday, May 28th 2012

Today I inserted section 5.10.1 'Exit strategy' into the Research methodology as a new metaphor for researching the ZPD.

 

Tuesday, May 29th 2012

I have formulated three guidelines for an exit strategy as follows:

 

Wednesday, May 30th 2012

Today I added the following link to metatools in the Research methodology as it relates to CHAT:

http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/ilwebb/Research/tools_%26_artefacts.htm (N.B. link is no longer active)

I came across this on May 21st 2012 but by adding the link into the thesis as I am more likely to continue investigating this.

 

Thursday, May 31st 2012

I have changed the Literature review again by moving 'The affordances of text' to the Discussion section as '8.7.1 The affordances of hypertext'. The Literature review is now:

3.1 Introduction to the literature review
3.2 Knowledge representation and animation
3.3 Conceptual consolidation
3.4 Conceptual models
3.5 Multiliteracies, multimedia and multimodality
3.6 Metaphor and the transmission of meaning
3.7 ICT in education

 

Main menu