Joan Vinall-Cox :: Blog

I tend to be what is called a “visual learner.”  As such, if I need to focus on what someone is saying in an instance where no corresponding visual is available, I will often close my eyes to block out any distractions.  Otherwise I might become too interested in the way the light reflects off the rings of my binder, or the different ways I can twist my pen cap between my fingers.  Even by closing my eyes I still run the risk of having my mind wander onto another topic entirely – like the weird lump in the back of the chair that’s jabbing me in the spine.  However, in this case, I found McLuhan’s words held my attention relatively well and I was able to focus on his message.  The overall sound quality of the clip was grainy and made it evident, even without the content of the interview, that this was not a recent recording.  This didn’t bother me, especially since it reminded me of the old, classic movies I often watch.  In fact, it created a context in which the dated information made sense.  Moreover, McLuhan’s voice was slow and clear, and I found it fairly easy to listen to his speech with minimal fidgeting on my part.

Of course, being a very vision-oriented person, I noticed that being able to see McLuhan’s face as he spoke added a new level of interest to the broadcast.  I enjoyed watching the way he pursed his lips or widened his eyes to emphasize a point, and this new sensory information made it even easier for me to pay attention.  I was still rolling a pen between my fingers, but the lumpy chair was no longer such a concern.  Unfortunately, when the visual changed from interview footage to images of things like filing cabinets and switchboards, I found the sudden shift distracting.  The new images had relatively little to do with what McLuhan was saying at that particular moment, so they seemed like an unnecessary addition that detracted from the interview and the message he was trying to convey.

Overall, I still preferred watching and listening to just listening, because I believe that the additional dimension of the visual alongside the audio created a far more complete experience – even if I was momentarily thrown by the shift in the visual display.

I was surprised to experience such a different reaction between just listening to the McLuhan video and watching and listening to it at the same time.

When I just listened to the video, I was able to understand it better. Whereas, when I watched and listened, I found the images very distracting. I also found the images dated and caught myself thinking about that, rather than the correlation between the speech and images. I think this relates to the fact that a part of phenomenology is the emotional or cognitive experience of the subject. Therefore, because of my experiences with modern technology and what I have access to, I reacted to the images accordingly. And that distracted me from taking in the speech.  

I thought this was a good tool to use for learning purposes. I realized it was better just to listen to something and I retain it better. I hope I can use this tool again for studying/learning methods.

Phenomenology is how we experience the world. It is unique for me. Unique for you. When the McLuhan radio interview was played for us during class on Oct. 1, phenomenonally speaking, I heard roughly HALF of what Marshall McLuhan said. Really folks ... 50% of what he said. Was I distracted by clicks, scrapes and coughs? Am I hard-wired as a "visual learner"? Was I exhausted after a fretful night worrying about my sick golden retriever??  Was I worried about the tanking stock market??? Possibly all of the above. But if I am truly honest about what went wrong for me during those 3 minutes of the McLuhan radio interview, then I will confess that I suffer from presbycusis which is otherwise known as "age related hearing loss". Ouch. It hurts to say it but there it is. I just couldn't hear him!!!  I strained and strained, and I did catch some important bits like when McLuhan talked about how society has become fixated on the "office" as a place which holds data, a place you commute to in the morning and home from in the evening. I liked that part and thought, "How the heck did McLuhan figure all that out back in the 1960's? But there was a whole lot that I missed. Even when I squeezed my eyes shut to block out the visual stimuli in the classroom, I could not take in what sounds my ears heard and convert them into sense.  

When the television clip was played - to my tremendous sense of relief - I "heard" and experienced much more. Perhaps it was the repetition of much of the same interview content that increased my understanding of McLuhan's comments. Or maybe it was because I could see him and his expressions that turned the lightbulb on for me. During the television interview, McLuhan's often smiles at Gzowski's questions. His smile telegraphs to the audience that he is amused and set me on the edge of my seat to await his response which was usually funny and profound.

For me, the visual dimension of the televised interview was critical. Yes, it helped me "see" the words being spoken which added another 25% comprehension, but more importantly it provided a context for the subject matter. I could see the fashion, the hairstyles, the furniture and bookcase and it deepened my appreciation of what a genius McLuhan was in the 1960's. So my experience, my phenomenon with the McLuhan interview is different from yours. And the reasons for that are endless. Presbycusis weighed in this time for me. What's your experience?

Phenomenology is observing different subjects when they experience something. When only listening to the McLuhan video I didn't really understand what he was saying, I don't really know if it was because the video was old or anything but it seemed really blurry to me. I also couldn't really focus because I didn't have a focus point and I ended up doing something else. When I was watching it however I have a point to focus on and I know what he's saying. His movement and everything makes me feel that he's enthusiastic about the topic he's talking about and I can focus on it.  I remember in class there were different people experiencing the same thing as me but there were people that held a different viewpoint in which they liked to listen to it more than just watch him.

I find myself teaching AS ICT to a few of the senior school's pupils this year. Quite a difference from the running the prep school stuff that makes up the majority of my day, but none the worse for that. We're following the new WJEC specification, although we've held off switching to Welsh as the medium of instruction for the time being. The coursework side includes quite an emphasis on 'presenting information', which, given my students are also studying art or photography, is allowing them to produce some impressive work.
Now our new media suite is up and running, today was the first chance we had to get started with InDesign, and a very good start it was too. We have our sixth form open evening coming up tomorrow, so we spent the lesson modifying one of the InDesign templates to produce some rather nice posters illustrating various ICT related concepts, using Flickr as a source for photos. Herre's one on Web 2.0, the main image c/o Will Lion:

I listened to The Silence of The Lambs by Iain Reid because I just happened to watch that movie at 7:30am this morning with my Dad.

Iain pads through the chicken coop with his Father, who introduces Iain to the chickens, sheep, dogs, cats, and ducks he will babysit for the next week or so. Iain balks at the job of overseeing the expectant ewes ready to give birth to lambs in the next day or so.

Iain finds the dog feeding schedule alone algebraic: Titan gets three cups of chicken-nugget sized dental food, but less in the morning, and sprinkle some  three-cheese parmesan on it, but only at night, and give Meg a scoop of diet food, and two scoops of regular food, and one quarter of half a can of soft food, and give titan the rest, but only if it isn't cold out, then he might not eat it, then give him the cheese, but don't give him cheese if he eats the soft food, and Meg is getting old so boil her a cup of chicken brouillon, but only if its cold out because she sleeps on the porch.

"Keep cool fool, even if you don't know what you're doin'" a young woman sings on an old record in the background.

 "Goodnight Girls" Iains father walks around the farm one last time. The next day Iain calls the neighbour to ask about a sheep with a small cut, that night, Iain can't keep a fire going to warm the house. He calls his brother, an engineer, who could always keep one burning.

The next day, a new baby lamb, surrounded by woolly welcomers, is born without incident. 

This story could have been an intriguing comedy of errors, but I felt the ending was unfinished, and the title did not suit the piece, the lambs weren't silent, nor did Iain really comment on how quiet the farm was, likely because farms aren't quiet.

The sounds were excellent, the farm noises, and conversation with his mother about feeding the dogs really added to the psychic space, or mental images of the story. But it left me wanting more.

The Silence of The Lambs never really came full circle for me, as it did in the theatrical movie this morning. Farms thrive on cycles, patterns, schedules, and Iain never told the audience how that went, there were problems he introduced, like feeding the dogs, but he never said wether or not they were solved. It's not like it was an unsaid, unanswered metaphorical question or anything, he just left it out. 

Overall, it was a great story, I was engaged untill it ended abruptly, leaving me with questions like why did he end here? What happened with the dogs, ducks, chickens? Were there anymore lambs? Did he get the fire going?

So I made up this aphorism: Nothing ruins a good story more than an unfinished end.

O' the differences personality make!

I sit and listen to the radio-only McLuhan Predicts the World. After one minute my visual-learning brain finds the knicks in the wall, dust bunnies in the corner, the professor, the hat of a classmate, the clicks of a laptop, my purse, my pen, my paper, back to my purse, back to the professor, back to the dust bunnies.

I noticed when I do not have images to accompany sound, I tend to lose the context of information presented to me, and although I listen, I do not follow as well as if I can see what I'm listening to.

Other students in the class commented they liked the radio McLuhan better because there were less visual distractions like background images, movements and sounds. They said it took away from what McLuhan was saying because the images were distracting; I find images focusing.

This is phenomenology. What I experienced was not what others experienced. They did not stare at pens and purses and professors, they sat quietly and listened. Others like me may have stared at cell phones, jackets, and red backs of chairs. Every experience was different. Perhaps classmates did not listen at all because his girlfriend needily texted him the entire class, or she just spilled coffee on her new pink suede boots. Every experience is different.

When the McLuhan Television Interview appeared onscreen I was intrigued, interested by the nuances of the conversation, watching for facial expressions to give away the real reaction to a tough or annoying question. I watched the interaction between the two men, their posture, their attire, do they fidget their hands when they talk? I like to have all of these signs to compose a deeper context behind what is simply heard without images. I like to know what is really going on in the interview. 

I noticed these men have two dominant personalities, neither one backed down in posture or facial expression. McLuhan is deliciously cool while Peter Gzowski did everything he could to rile him up. Their intertactions were playfully challenging, in good nature, but I will argue that each one hoped to leave the other at a loss for words.

The physical context of the interview gave a whole new level to the interview that just listening to a radio version would leave out to visual learners. Audio learners are likely adept at picking up clues like tone of voice, up and down nuances, and other cues visual learners are simply too distracted to pick up. Regardless of learning style, whats really going on in the listener, or watchers' life emotionally, or cognitively has a static effect on wether or not they listen or watch at all. 

http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~duke-wie/blog/2008/10/a-vision-of-stud

I’ve seen this video in the past, but had forgotten about it until someone reminded me. Worth watching again, now that we have a new semester.

Since about Friday no one can see my blog, including myself when logged in.

http://eduspaces.net/stevelee/weblog

In Firefox we get a strange 'redirect loop' error and IE just hangs.

My profile is OK http://eduspaces.net/stevelee but messages also so dead so I'm wondering if a rogue message has caused it though I have not got a notification email.

Can this be fixed for me? Or at least can I get a dump of  my blog as I can't get to that either.