In their Project 2: Storytelling Animals Assignment [download here], my current ENGL1101 students made these videos that layer storytelling with educational content based on one chapter from John Medina’s Brain Rules. During the production of the videos, each team collaboratively wrote an outline, wrote a script, drew storyboards, shot footage, edited their footage into these videos, and uploaded them to YouTube. Individually, each student wrote an account of their composition process and a reflection on how their project achieved WOVEN (written, oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal) multimodal synergy. The title for the assignment comes from Jonathan Gottschall’s Storytelling Animals, which the students read and discussed in parallel with project 2. The students had already read all of the chapters in Medina’s Brain Rules before beginning Project 2. Now, on with the show!
Team: Tech Titans | Brain Rules, Rule 2: Survival
Team: The Mean Girls | Brain Rules, Rule 4: Attention
Team: All the Girls in ENGL1101 | Brain Rules, Rule 11: Gender
Team: Alpha Hawk | Brain Rules, Rule 7: Sleep
Team: Team Dose | Brain Rules, Rule 12: Exploration
This is the thirteenth post in a series that I call, “Recovered Writing.” I am going through my personal archive of undergraduate and graduate school writing, recovering those essays I consider interesting but that I am unlikely to revise for traditional publication, and posting those essays as-is on my blog in the hope of engaging others with these ideas that played a formative role in my development as a scholar and teacher. Because this and the other essays in the Recovered Writing series are posted as-is and edited only for web-readability, I hope that readers will accept them for what they are–undergraduate and graduate school essays conveying varying degrees of argumentation, rigor, idea development, and research. Furthermore, I dislike the idea of these essays languishing in a digital tomb, so I offer them here to excite your curiosity and encourage your conversation.
In the next few Recovered Writing posts, I will present my major assignments from Professor Kenneth J. Knoespel’s LCC 3314 Technologies of Representation class at Georgia Tech. LCC 3314 is taught in many different ways by the faculty of the Georgia Tech’s School of Literature, Media, and Communication, but I consider myself fortunate to have experienced Professor Knoespel’s approach to the course during the last phase of my undergraduate tenure. The ideas that we discussed in his class continue to inform my professional and personal thinking. Also, I found Professor Knoespel a great ally, who helped me along my path to graduation with side projects and independent studies.
This is another example of a WOVEN multimodal essay assignment. In it, I used WVE/written, visual, electronic modes to discuss a specific technology. These essays (focused on past, present, and future technologies) gave me a chance to use technology to explore the meaning behind and impact of technologies. The next essay will focus on a future technology of my own design.
In this essay assignment, we were tasked with exploring an imagined future technology. At the time, I was fascinated with wearable computing. However, I only knew about it from my reading in magazines and online. I could not afford a 2004-era wearable computing rig, so I thought about how to improve on an idea of wearable computing for everyone. If only I had made a few more connections–namely touch and the phone.
Nevertheless, I had a lot of fun designing the PCD and writing this essay.
Jason W. Ellis
Professor Kenneth J. Knoespel
LCC3314 – Technologies of Representation
November 18, 2004
Artifact of the Future – Personal Computing Device
The Personal Computing Device (PCD) is an inexpensive and portable computer that can interface with many different input/output (I/O) components. It is a one-piece solution to the ubiquity of computing and information storage in the future. Its plain exterior hides the fact that this artifact is a powerful computing platform that transforms “dummy terminals” into points of access where one may access their own computer that is small enough to fit in a shirt pocket.
The device measures 3″ wide by 4″ tall by 3/4″ thick. On one of the long sides there is a small 1/4″ notch. This notch matches with a similar notch on the interface port of wearable computer networks, computing stations, and entertainment systems. The notch allows user to insert the PCD in only one orientation. This protects the PCD and the interface port it is being plugged into. The PCD is housed in a thin aluminum shell. As the PCD does computing work, its circuits emit heat which needs to be removed from the system. Because of the very small (< 90nm) circuit manufacturing process, the PCD uses very little power which translates to it emitting less heat than today’s Pentium 4 or Athlon64 processors. Aluminum is an excellent choice for its metal housing because it is thermally conductive (removes heat), it is lightweight, and it is inexpensive.
There are no switches or indicators on the PCD. It has only one interface port as pictured in the top-left of the drawing above. This interface makes the PCD unique. This standardized interface allows the PCD to be used on any computing system that is designed for the PCD. Computer hardware, wearable computer networks, and home entertainment systems are “dummy terminals” which rely on the PCD to be the “brains.”
The PCD is a full featured computer. It processes data, runs programs, and stores data on built-in solid-state memory. Engineers were able to build a complete “computer on a chip” using new silicon circuitry layering techniques. The result of this is the Layered Computing System as drawn in the internal schematic of the PCD (below). Reducing the number of chips needed for a computing application has been a long-standing goal of electrical and computer engineering. Steven Wozniak at Apple Computer was able to design elegant layouts for the original Apple I, and later, the Apple II. He designed custom chips that brought the functions of several chips into a single chip. AMD is continuing the trend today after integrating the CPU memory controller onto the new Athlon64 processor. NVIDIA introduced the nForce3 250 GB chipset which integrated the system controller chip, sound, LAN (networking), and firewall all onto one chip.
The solid-state memory is similar to today’s flash memory (e.g., USB Flash Drives or compact flash digital camera memory). The difference lies in the density of the memory on the PCD. Layering techniques are used in building the solid-state memory so that it is very dense (more data storage per unit area than today’s flash memory). Typical PCD solid-state memory storage is 120 GB (gigabytes). The PCD’s large memory area has no moving parts because it is made out of solid-state memory. Traditionally, computers need a hard drive to store large amounts of information for random access. Hard drives are a magnetic storage that depends on round platters rotating at high speed while a small arm moves across the platters reading and writing information. Flash memory does not need to spin or have a moving arm. Data is accessed, written, and erased electronically.
The PCD has a built-in battery for mobile use. When the PCD is plugged into a wall-powered device such as a computer terminal or entertainment system, it runs off power supplied by the device it is plugged into and its battery will recharge.
The introduction of the PCD revolutionizes personal computing. The PCD empowers users to choose the way in which they interface with computers, networks, and data. Computer displays, input/output, and networks have become abstracted from the PCD. A user chooses the operating system (the latest Linux distribution, Windows, or Mac OS X) and the programs (e.g., Office, Appleworks, iTunes) for his or her own PCD. That person uses only their own PCD so that it is customized in the way that they see fit and they will develop an awareness of its quirks and abilities in the same way that a person learns so much about his or her own car.
The “faces” of computers (i.e., monitors, keyboards, mice, trackballs, and printers) are abstracted away from the “heart” of the computer. The PCD is the heart because it processes data through it (input/output) much like the heart muscle moves blood through itself. A PCD also acts as a brain because it stores information and it can computationally work on the stored data. The traditional implements of computer use are transformed into dummy terminals (i.e., they possess no computational or data storage ability). Each of these devices have an interface port that one plugs in their personalized PCD. The PCD then becomes the heart and brain of that device and it allows the user to interface with networks, view graphics on monitors, or print out papers.
Both the PCD and the dummy terminals are a standardized computing platform. Consumer demand, market forces, and entrepreneurial insight led to the evolution that culminated with the PCD as the end product. Consumers were overburdened with desktop computers, laptop computers, and computer labs. Every computer one might encounter could have a very different operating system or set of software tools. The data storage on one computer would differ from the next. A new standard was desired to allow a person to choose their own computing path that would be accessible at any place that they might be in need of using a computer.
Computer manufacturer businesses saw ever declining profits as computers were becoming more and more mass-produced. Additionally, no one company built all of the parts that went into a computer so profit was lost elsewhere as parts were purchased to build a complete computer for sale.
New integrated circuit manufacturing techniques allowed for greater densities of transistors and memory storage. These manufacturing techniques also allowed for lower power consumption and thus reduced heat from operation (which was a long-standing problem with computers).
With the consumer, desire for something new and innovative coupled with a new way of building computer components led to the founding of a new computer design consortium. Hardware and software manufacturers came together to design a computing platform that would fulfill the needs of consumers as well as improve failing profits. The PCD design consortium included computer and software businesses, professional organizations, and consumer/enthusiast groups.
The PCD almost didn’t see the light of day because of influence from large lobbying groups in Washington. This involved copyright groups such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). These groups decried the potential copyright violations possible with the PCD. Epithets, curses, and bitching issued from the RIAA and MPAA lobbyists’ mouths. Consumer outrage over these large business groups attempting to throw their weight around caused a surge of grassroots political involvement that unseated some Congressional members and scared the rest into line. The public wanted to see what would come out of the PCD Design Consortium before judgment was passed on its useful and legal purposes.
With the legal hurdles temporarily under control, the PCD was released to the public. New and inventive uses were immediately made of the PCD. One of the first innovations involved the Wearable Computer Network. Wearable computing was a long researched phenomenon at the Wearable Computing Lab at MIT and Georgia Tech’s Contextual Computing Group. The two factors holding back wide adaptation of wearable computing were the cost of the mobile computing unit and the mobile computing unit’s singular purpose. These two factors were eliminated by the PCD because it was cheap and it could be removed from the wearable computing network and used in other computing situations (e.g., at a desktop terminal or in an entertainment system).
Entertainment systems and desktop terminals became popular receptacles for the PCD. Music and movies purchased over the Internet could be transferred to the PCD and then watched on a home entertainment system that had a PCD interface port. Desktop terminals and laptop terminals also began to come with PCD interface ports so that a computer user could use their PCD at home or on the go, but still be able to use their PCD in other situations such as at a work terminal. Being able to carry a PCD between work and home allowed for easier telecommuting because all of a person’s files were immediately available. There was no more tracking down which computer had downloaded an email, because a person’s email traveled with that person on his or her PCD. Easier teleworking helped the environment in metropolitan areas because more people could do their work from home without needing to drive their fossil fuel consuming cars down the highway.
Instant computing access meant that PCD users were able to expand the possibilities of the human-computer dynamic. There was more Internet use and that use was more often on the go. As people began donning wearable computing networks for their PCD, they would chat with friends while riding a commuter train or they would spend more time getting informed about what was going on in the world with NPR’s online broadcasts or with the BBCNews’ website. Social networks like Orkut and Friendster received even more users as friends began inviting friends who may have just got online (with a mobile setup) with their new PCD.
As more computer, clothing, and HDTV terminals began to support the PCD, more jobs were created, more units were sold, more raw materials were consumed, more shipping was taking place, more engineering and design was going on, and new business models were being created. The web of connections built upon itself so that more connections were made between industries and businesses. The popularity of the PCD boosted tangential industries involved in building components that went into the PCDs as well as entertainment services. Aluminum and silicon processing, chip manufacturing, battery production and innovation (for longer battery life), new networking technologies to take advantage of the greater number of computing users who purchase PCDs, and PCD interface devices (such as HDTVs and wearable computing networks) all ramped up production as demand for the PCD rose. New services popped up such as computer terminal rental and new entertainment services that would allow customers to purchase copy-protected versions of music and movies that could easily be transported for enjoyment wherever the user took his or her PCD. Some entertainment companies held out too long while others reaped rewards for modifying their business models to take advantage of this new (and popular) technology.
Choice is the driving factor behind the PCD’s success. Wrapped in the PCD’s small form is the choice of human-computer interaction, choice of where to use a PCD, and choice of data (visual and auditory) to be accessed with a PCD. These choices are made available by the choices made by many people such as consumers, industrialists, and entertainment antagonists. Those who embraced the PCD and found ways of interfacing with it (literally and figuratively) succeeded while those that did not were left by the wayside.
I revised my “Maximizing the Brain” Project 2 Assignment for my current ENGL1101 students at Georgia Tech. It is currently in its third iteration, and I have ideas for its fourth iteration with more radical changes.
In the meantime, my current students have delivered their unique takes on their chosen chapters from John Medina’s Brain Rules. I have included their YouTube-based videos below.
For each project, a team of 4-5 students collaboratively wrote an outline, a script, a revised script (after receiving feedback from another team whose members collaboratively wrote their suggestions/questions). Then, they all contributed to drawing a storyboard for shooting and editing the video, which was also revised with feedback from another team. Finally, they shot and edited their video using equipment from the Georgia Tech Library’s Gadgets Desk (run by Justin Ellis) and software on their computers or in the Library’s Multimedia Studio. Individually, each student completes the project by writing a reflection essay explaining the rhetorical decisions made during each phase of the project.
These are my students’ videos that teach us how to maximize our brain’s potential through lessons learned in Medina’s Brain Rules.
Today, unfortunately, was the last day of my Science Fiction class at Georgia Tech.
At the beginning of class, my students completed their third exam. Unlike the previous exams, it only covered the material discussed in class this week: cyberpunk and Taiwanese SF. And unlike the previous 1 hour long exams, it was 30 minutes long.
After the exam, we began what I called an SF debriefing with Lego. I framed this end of semester activity by having them think about WOVEN (written, oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal) modes of communication. Then, I discussed the importance of one aspect of nonverbal communication: haptics. In the haptic mode, we touch, we build, and we visualize objects. It is an insanely important and often overlooked way in which our brains think, learn, and communicate with others. I told them that this activity was meant to allow them to think about and express some image or object from SF–either discussed in the class or not–that they liked or thought significant. To facilitate their work with haptics, I brought two bins full of Legos–some acquired from the local Lego Store and some from my secret stash. I told them to use up to 40 bricks/elements to build their model. After completing it, they would have a chance to hold it up and tell the class about it, and if they choose to do so, they could take it home as a gift and a memento of the class.
I gave the students about 30 minutes to build, and I encouraged them to get out of their chairs, stand around the bins to dig for bricks, and talk with one another as they worked–talk about what they were building, trade bricks, help one another, etc. It didn’t take much encouragement on my part to get them going–they took off like a fleet of rockets!
When each student had a chance to tell us about their creation, I would offer other connections and background information on their creation to further integrate it into the broader history of SF.
After class, Professor Carol Senf, who was observing my class, was kind enough to take a group photo of the class (see above).
I left my students with the encourage to continue their exploration of SF. I told them that I believe SF to be the most important contemporary literature. It examines the human condition, critiques our social relationships, imagines the effects of science and technology, and energizes our sense of awe and wonder. It can inspire us and it can teach us. Of course, it also can be smashing entertainment.
When class was over, the conversation continued with those students who had other questions about SF (Was PKD really a drug fiend? Who are important/good contemporary SF writers? etc.) and kind words to say about the class.
All that is left for my students is to complete their final papers testing a work of SF against definitions of the genre by others and themselves. I have to grade their third exams and their papers before I can submit grades next week. I am looking forward to reading their papers, but I am sad that this amazing class with these talented students is virtually at an end.
For the second major project in my ENGL1101 class at Georgia Tech titled, “Maximizing the Brain’s Potential,” students work in teams of several students each to produce collaboratively an entertaining and educational video based on a single chapter from John Medina’s Brain Rules.
Building on the success of my students’ work on this assignment in Fall 2013, I revised the assignment to make it more streamlined and process-driven by building a weekly, recursive structure into the peer review schedule.
During the first half of the semester, my students had already read Brain Rules and individual students had presented on the readings during class. The remainder of the class had also written Tweets (outside of class) and short summaries of these chapters (during class).
With this project, the students demonstrate their understanding of the material by transforming their chapter’s content into a video of their own creation. They went through the steps of creating an outline, script, and storyboards before filming and editing the video. The outline, script, and storyboards are peer reviewed on a team-to-team basis at the beginning of each week of this project’s duration.
Today, we will conclude the project by showing the videos in class and having each student write a review of the video (what works, what doesn’t work, suggestions for improvement, etc.). Each student also wrote and submitted a three page analysis of their use of WOVEN (written, oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal) modalities used in each deliverable of the composition process.
My English composition students at Georgia Tech are now well into their second major project, so I figured that I should get in gear and post my syllabus for my newly designed, WOVEN (written, oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal) focused ENGL 1101 syllabus. The title of my class is “Writing the Brain: Composition and Neuroscience.” Unlike the previous iteration of this class at Kent State called “The Brain and Writing,” I overhauled the whole class to only use nonfictional readings and more strongly emphasize multimodality in assignments and discussion. So far, I am very pleased with the results as demonstrated by the great work and commitment of my students. If you would like to read my syllabus, you can download it as a PDF here: ellis-jason-fall2012-1101-syllabus.
You must be logged in to post a comment.