Blog Post 1: Anh Thi
I contributed to this post by giving constructive feedback as well as an additional source that they could possibly use for their research. I actively engaged by watching her video, reading about her analytical framework and providing further research. My suggestion to consider reviews as a form of secondary research will hopefully offer her the change to obtain different perspectives by users who play the game. I also offered her the possibility of focusing more on the relevant fractions of the analytical framework in order to properly answer her thesis question – which I hope is a useful suggestion. I could have provided more feedback if I was an active gamer of ‘Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime’, however, I had never heard of the game till now. At least I learnt something new, which is what I got out of this experience!
Blog Post 2: Isaac
Isaac has a very interesting topic involving the research of sounds in gaming, which I found very interesting! I contributed by providing a couple of sources that I thought would be helpful to understand the different kinds of sounds that can be edited to make gaming more realistic (or unrealistic/futuristic). I noted his change of approaches and made sure to check that he isn’t giving himself too heavy of a load in terms of research and application. However, I did note that adding a post-structuralist approach may even make it easier for him in terms of research and information that can back up his previous research. These approaches engage with our lecture material. I suggested for him to explore different types of sounds and techniques such as “Kinetic Gestural Interaction” by providing two links which delve into this. I learnt from Isaac that podcasts and other audio media types are a good way to approach our topics, and I may consider this for my own digital artefact.
Blog Post 3: Isabella
With Isabella, I took a different approach to provide feedback as I had less information on the topic itself and more on her engagement that she has tried to obtain for her digital artefact. I engaged with her post by acknowledging her struggle to find engagement, and offered her the option to change the media format that she is using to reach a wider audience. Additionally, I provided a couple of Youtube channels that explore a similar topic that she intends to research. I wanted to provide her videos rather than blog posts or articles to provide different media formats that could be used – and hopefully, she gains inspiration from this. I hope my suggestions were useful, however, I should have provided feedback that is relevant to our lecture materials – as she did not mention any of it. I learnt a lot from Isabella by hearing her experience on reaching out for engagement, which I will be able to take into consideration when I do this for my own digital artefact.
What did I learn? What did I get out of the experience? How did I improve over the previous round of comments?
Through my comments, I have been able to identify some possible changes that I could make in my own digital artefact e.g. changing my media format and using a different research approach. Each blog was unique and took a different twist on a digital artefact, and it was interesting to see how our lecture material and readings were being applied. This experience has allowed me to think more deeply about my own digital artefact and I like how it has allowed me to think differently in terms of research methods and the possible structural or even analytical approaches that I could take. I believe I improved over the previous round of comments by being able to identify when lecture materials were being used, and as a result, I could more easily refer my own research materials to the student.