This week I started peeking into my old drafts. I’d be lying if I said I was eager to start this process; I put it off until I couldn’t justify doing so any longer.
As a little morale boost, I watched a few Neil Gaiman videos before cracking open my old drafts. The one below might not be revision specific, but I find that good writing advice tends to help re-center me before diving into the process. Neil Gaiman is always a joy to listen to; take a look at a short clip of his writing advice that I got a lot out of:
I chose to start by looking over my newer drafts first. I honed in right away on a story I wrote for an English course I took at Camosun College last year. That year of distance afforded me the opportunity to return to the piece with fresh eyes.
I was going through a bit of a tumultuous time; many of my relatives were getting sick, so death, distance, and the progression of complicated relationships through life were on my mind. It was interesting to see just how much this affected the themes of the story.
While the overall structure and message of the story still worked, I definitely paired down some redundant sentences and fiddled around with the imagery. I also caught a few embarrassing mistakes I managed to miss the first time around!
I’ve given it a few passes now, and have passed it off to a trusted reader to hear how the story lands for them, and to find out if I have missed any glaring errors. It is all too easy to miss one or two mistakes when one has re-read the same passage several times in a row!
Once this has been given the stamp of approval by my trusted reader, I am going to go ahead and add this to my “ready to submit” folder in my google drive. I’d like to aim to have 1-2 more stories in similar condition before I begin querying online publications.
This week was all about multimedia learning theory and screencasting. Multimedia learning theory is, in essence, the idea multimedia (aka media that uses both images and words) promotes greater retention of information than viewing media that uses only images or words. The term screencasting, then, refers to a video recording that is taken of your own computer screen or web browser. Screencasting is one way in which teachers can engage learners via multimedia learning theory. There is greater nuance to the applications and caveats of each, but for the sake of simplicity, I will offer the video links above for those who are interested in a more comprehensive explanation of both.
For an example of how screencasting might be used to teach learners how to navigate a website, please check out my video below, which shows viewers how to use some of the advanced search features on my favorite knitting website, Ravelry:
I can see there being many applications for screencasting in education, particularly in upper elementary and middle school, where students begin working more with technology. Screen casting could be used to offer the class a quick introduction to key features of a new website (like in my example video above), or to showcase a key skill that students need to learn for an upcoming assignment.
One of the fantastic things about screencasts is their replayability. During lab time, or even at home, students are able to review screencasts to ensure comprehension of content. This could be particularly helpful for ELL students, or learners who have less confidence and experience using digital technologies.
Possible drawbacks of screen sharing might occur when teachers overload students with too much information in a short amount of time (cognitive overload), or if they include a small video of themselves talking in the bottom corner of the screencast (which may distract learners from the key content being shared).
I could also see myself using digital media software (like video editing or screencasting) as an assignment for my students. Considering that digital videos are increasingly being used in educational, recreational, and home spaces alike, I think that teaching students how to create content themselves (alongside how to search for, as well as how to critically consume, assess and respond to online videos) is of growing importance. The cross-curricular possibilities are very appealing; students could create a video showcasing their latest science project, summing up its importance, and detailing its possible community impacts. These videos could all be watched as a class at the end of a unit. The ideas are endless!
This week in class we watched a Documentary entitled Most Likely To Succeed, by director Greg Whiteley. This film gave an interesting look into some of the problems with our present-day education system, pointing out that the root of many of these problems lies in that the system itself is outdated. Schools as we know them were designed to create hard-working and well-behaved laborers, and though the workforce needs have shifted greatly in the past few decades, these school structures still look much the same. While this Most Likely To Succeed focused on the US school system, many of the in-film critiques apply to the Canadian school system, too.
Most Likely To Succeed posits that a shift in our education system is necessary, and posits a potential solution in its showcase of High Tech High. High Tech High is a school that shifts away from the focus on standardized tests and rote memorization in most schools, and instead engenders inquiry-based learning, critical thinking, and the development of soft skills.
Many of the parents in Most Likely To Succeed were shown to be nervous about having enrolled their child in High Tech High. Some parents acknowledged that the current system is no longer working; increasingly more individuals graduating with prestigious degrees are struggling to get jobs out of college. Still, though, these parents grappled with concerns over how attending High Tech High, with its relaxed approach to the curriculum and lack of standardized tests, might impact their children’s post-secondary prospects.
I agree that our education systems require change, and that moving away from standardized testing and rote memorization is a step in the right direction. I also believe, however, that in order to create meaningful change on a larger, systemic level, educators and policymakers need to re-visit what a successful education looks like. College acceptance or making 6 figures are not the only ways one can be successful. Passions, talents, and individual capabilities deserved to be accounted for and supported, too.
Of course, stating change is easier to imagine than it is to take action on. Even if many agree that change is necessary, educators and policymakers alike might have very different ideas of what that change looks like, and how to action it. There are various processes, democratic and autocratic alike, that must occur first —and these things take time.
One of the hotter subjects of discussion in our class this week was the AI program, ChatGTP. For those that don’t know, ChatGTP is a rather impressive AI technology that can, with the help of digital data it is trained on, answer almost any written prompt it is given. Unlike previous AI of its kind (cleverbot, anyone?), ChatGTP is rather sophisticated in both its breadth of knowledge and its delivery of said information.
For a little peak at what ChatGTP is capable of, take a look at this Shakespearean Sonnet it wrote me about the vegetarian pizza I forgot in my fridge:
While the poem above is rather silly in subject matter, the fact is that ChatGPT took my prompt and wrote a functioning sonnet that does, I think, a rather good attempt at fulfilling the prompt. The fact that it follows proper sonnet conventions (down to the rhyming scheme) and pulls out old English where possible is enough to make me and my creative writing degree more than a little nervous.
So what does it mean that an AI has this sort of capability? Well, it means that we are on the cusp of a new era of technology, and that we are going to have to reframe the way we think of writing moving forward. ChatGPT is already capable of generating entire essays on any number of subjects, and all within a minute or so. On one hand, the possibilities borne from such technology are incredible, yet on the other hand, what does this mean for critical thought or plagiarism?
Essays written by ChatGPT are not great. They lack references (which only adds to the plagiarism issue) and as such, they lack real credibility. A real critical mind (and plenty of fact-checking) would necessary before such writing could be used at all. There is also the fact these essays are written by an AI, and that submitting them as one’s own work and original thoughts is a glaring plagiarism issue in and of itself.
These will be the dilemmas that educators, workplaces, and individuals will need to debate over for some time. Already, however, AI-generated writing and art are being used in academic and workplace settings alike. What does it mean that technology is being released and used at a rate faster than we are able to fully grasp its scope?
I’m not sure what the answer is to that question, but I’m very much curious about what you might think. Shoot me a comment down below to let me know what you think, and feel free to check out ChatGPT yourself to get a better understanding of what this AI can do.
For my inquiry project this term, I’ll be exploring the process of getting short creative works published (online or through the mail). I have a BFA in Creative Writing from UBC; while I graduated from this program with a healthy stack of written pieces, none of this work has ever seen the light of day.
There is a busy semester ahead of us, and I am admittedly nervous about adding on the extra work of revising old stories and writing query letters on top of all the rest. I’m also nervous about putting my work out there —some of these pieces are 6+ years old and have only been read since by my closest friends and family. That all said, submitting my work for publication has been a long-term goal of mine, and what could be better than weekly school-imposed deadlines as a way to stay accountable?
While I’d like to leave myself some flexibility with this inquiry process, my tentative plan of attack will be to:
Revisit my old work
What is it like returning to years-old drafts? What pieces do I still see promise in? How much revision will each piece need?
Researching online journals and newspapers that are accepting submissions
What sort of work are these journals looking for? When are they accepting submissions? Are they paid or unpaid? How does each publication treat publication rights?
Creating organization tools to keep track of the process
Which journals accept simultaneous submissions? Which stories are submitted to which publications, and when? When did you head back? What was the answer? Sent in work digitally or via snail mail?
Application process
What is it like? How long do you have to wait to hear back? What is getting that first response back (acceptance or rejection) like?
I’m expecting that I’ll be able to dig into anywhere from 1-3 posts per subject above. As this course does end in April, there is a good chance that I might not hear back from any journals or newspapers until after this course ends. I intend to write a post when I receive my first letter back, regardless of when that is.
Looking forward to investigating this process further and updating you all next week!
This blog was a little tricky to set up, but here I am, writing my first-ever WordPress post! I’m looking forward to getting more blog-savvy as the semester progresses 🙂
