TechTrends

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 50–55

Lessons from personal photography: The digital disruption of selectivity and reflection

Article
  • 215 Downloads

Abstract

Recent technological, cultural and economic factors have shifted the balance between recalling and reconstructing internalised information and accessing externalised information. While digital artefacts constitute an enormous and valuable set of resources, human engagement and reflection are important to the meaningful synthesis and application of knowledge in specific contexts. This is particularly clear in the case of personal photography, where recordings of life events are used to cue not just the facts and details of what happened, but associated subjective, sensory and emotional memory. This article draws on research into personal photography to highlight contrasting drivers of engagement and detachment with digital media, and applies these to students’ use of digital media within education. The posing of complex, situated problems that require the use of technology to construct creative, collaborative, multimodal projects is suggested as a way of cultivating social obligation and encouraging selectivity, engagement and reflection with digital media.

Keywords

digital media distributed cognition memory multimodal assessment photography reflection selectivity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. dGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll, J. (2009). Plagiarism as a threat to learning: an educational response. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in Higher Education: A critical review (pp. 1-17). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chalfen, R. (1987) Snapshot versions of life. Wisconson: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(4), 594–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58(4), 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  8. Doidge, N. (2007). The Brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Erasmus, D. (2001). The adages of Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fawns, T. (2013). Blended memory: The changing balance of technologically-mediated semantic and episodic memory. In T. Fawns (Ed.), Memory and meaning: Digital differences (pp. 75-98). Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, G., & Konomi, S. (2007). Innovative socio-technical environments in support of distributed intelligence and lifelong learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23(4), 338-350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: Further Education Unit.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, J. (2011). m ss ng p eces [Video file]. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/20729065.
  14. Henkel, L. A. (2011). Photograph-induced memory errors: When photographs make people claim they have done things they have not. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 78–86. doi:10.1002/acp.1644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henkel, L. A. (2013). Point-and-Shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25(2), 396-402. doi:10.1177/0956797613504438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D. L., Johnson, M. K., & Galluccio, L. (1999). Facilitation and impairment of event memory produced by photograph review. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 478–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  20. Moon, J. (2001). PDP working paper 4: Reflection in Higher Education learning. Retrieved from http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/hr/researcher-development/students/resources/pgwt/reflectivepractice.pdf.
  21. Musello, C. (1979) Family photography. In J. Wagner (Ed.), Images of information (pp. 101–18). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self‐knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 1(1), 35-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. O’Shea, C. & Fawns, T. (2014). Disruptions and dialogues: Supporting collaborative connoisseurship in digital environments. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 259-273). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991) Situating constructionism. In I. Harel, & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Westport, USA: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Rathbone, C. J., Moulin, C. J., & Conway, M. A. (2008). Selfcentered memories: The reminiscence bump and the self. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1403–14. doi:10.3758/MC.36.8.1403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, D. (2003). Early modern information overload. Journal of the History of Ideas, 64(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ross, J. (2012). The spectacle and the placeholder: Digital futures for reflective practices in higher education. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Networked Learning. Google Scholar
  29. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  30. Roy, D. (2011). Deb Roy: The birth of a word [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/deb_roy_the_birth_of_a_word.html.
  31. Sellen, A., & Whittaker, S. (2010). Beyond total capture: A constructive critique of lifelogging. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Slater, D. (1995). Domestic photography and digital culture. In M. Lister (Ed.), The photographic image in digital culture (pp. 129–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Sorapure, M., Takayoshi, P., Zoetewey, M., Staggers, J., & Yancey, K. (2005). Between modes: Assessing student new media compositions. Kairos 10(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  35. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–8. doi:10.1126/science.1207745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van House, N. (2009) Collocated photo sharing, storytelling, and the performance of self. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(12), 1073–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van House, N. (2011). Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies, 26(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whittaker, S., Bergman, O., & Clough, P. (2010). Easy on that trigger dad: A study of long term family photo retrieval. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittaker, S., Kalnikaitė, V., Petrelli, D., Sellen, A. Villar, N., Bergman, O., Clough, P., & Brockmeier, J. (2012). Socio-technical lifelogging: Deriving design principles for a future proof digital past. Human–Computer Interaction, (April), 37–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations