Analysis and Reflection

In In providing feedback for the mashups, how did you decide on which proposal(s) to write about?
When deciding which topics we were going to work on, each of us felt that it was important to write about something which wasn’t too generic and/or too well publicized, i.e. something which most students already knew about. The concept of “Emoticons” fit that bill perfectly. As well, we wanted to touch on something that was as directly appropriated with and relevant to our course title (“Cultural Transformation”) as possible. Hence, we agreed on Global Cultural Flows from an Industrial Society to an Information Society.
By reading and evaluating other's work, what did you learn about your own work?
We learnt that editing is major component of any writing process. A number of the mistakes we pointed out when evaluating other’s work, were mistakes that we found ourselves making as well. Feedback was critical, in that it provided us with insight on what we were missing, what we needed to provide more of, and where we were focusing too much on the peripheral.
How did the feedback provided by others effect your work?
Whenever it was constructive, and it often was thanks to the CASTE template, we applied the changes accordingly. Occasionally, the suggestions from others were variable, i.e. it would work your way or ours. I personally found the criticism a lot more constructive than the praise.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of feedback loop.
I’m hard pressed to think of any disadvantages. Unconstructive feedback for example, does not hinder us. When we receive a suggestion that we don’t agree with, we simply consider it and reject it. But even so, feedback whether good or bad compels us to consider, and that’s advantageous whichever way you look at it. I suppose the only potential risk involved is the tit-for-tat syndrome. (I slam your work therefore you have an agenda against mine, or vice-versa) But I wouldn’t suppose this to be too prevalent.
Anything you think is relevant to this feedback process and possible improvements.
With the “CASTE system” in mind while providing feedback, the process of evaluation will work. Perhaps a suggestion would be too “lighten” the praise factor a little. Too often, I find people embellishing what they evaluate. I’m all for “credit when credit is due”, but conversely, should we refrain from (or sweeten) criticism when it is required? There’s a very thin line between criticism and condescending feedback. So what’s the way out here?

Analysis and Reflection (end of term)

I have to be honest, it wasn't until too long ago that i realized what this course was truly and specifically about. Even now however, i really only have a "better idea" of it. Why are we doing this? Why Wiki? This seems like CCT100 and CCT101 all over again, except with more emphasis on web culture,etc. The video of Web2.0 and how the "machine is us/ing us" says a lot. In my psuedo-scholarly understanding of things, Wikispaces is a platform within a broader platform (the Internet), that we (and this means ALL of us) are really more important than the medium(s) which we all have in common. We ARE the Internet. We, the participants and creators of the platform itself are what make the platform work. Hence, we truly do deserve the title of "Person of the Year". Wikipedia embodifies this truth by exemplifying through its main purpose - contributing and mashing of information - how we are all connected and part of one community, be it via Facebook, MySpaces, YouTube, or the millions of blog cites floating around as well.

The course structure catered to this purpose. 75% of the load were all hands-on application and usages of what the community described above is ultimately about. The application of Flash for our Learning Objects, albeit time-consuming and traumatic, is and will be undoubtedly useful. In sum, everything we have done or used is crucial for what's in front of us. Again, I need only refer to Time's article of Person of the Year to support my point.

For feedback's sake, i felt the only shortcoming was the feedback for our mashups, in that some groups were heavily "feedbacked" while others, which perhaps bore slightly duller content, weren't. Maybe, we should be assigned of certain groups in the future.

Michael Jones' enthusiasm throughout the course was key. And Mike, when i look at the number, and to some extent the quality of the lecture and textbook summaries volunteerly posted by various students in the course, i'd say you did a successful job.

See you in the exam.