The Virtual and Physical Classroom: Contemplating our use of the Blog

For our final writing assignment, each of our blog contributors wrote a short essay evaluating the merits of the class blog. While in our course we considered various modalities that encompassed physical and virtual space, in this assignment, students considered how various learning spaces impacted our discussions and knowledge building. For details on this assignment, please feel free to contact me at m.steigerwaldille@wustl.edu--I'm happy to share resources and materials.

[Image Credit: Koury Angelo]

Justin's Contribution:

Digital Scholarship

The physical classroom is one of the most thought-in, but the least thought-about, element of modern pedagogy. The digital classroom is a new format that offers new modes of engagement and that brings the space itself to the foreground. There are many apt metaphors among our readings for analyzing these digital spaces, but I find it most rewarding to conceive of such a space as a sort of digital world with a unique history. The course blog, in parallel with our in-class discussions, is analogous to Second Life -- it allows us to build a collective episteme that we then carry, explicitly or implicitly, with us in our future discussions inside and outside of the classroom.

In configuring the Blogspot website to locate the information that we place into it at a certain URL, we have, collectively, built a portion of the internet. We are “inhabiting an ever-expanding territory” (Jamison 2018, n.p.), locating ourselves among the vast cloud of websites, just as Second Life inhabit Second Life’s territories. This platform allows for a sort of shouting -- the foil to Chion’s (2012, 48-54) semantic listening: the encoding of information and dissemination of that code into space, without any particular care for how, where, by whom, by what or for what purpose it is heard.

Shouting plays a role in a variety of spaces, and is more closely related to production and encoding of information than it is to the physical act of speaking loudly, though a protester’s emphatic exaltations are a form of shouting. As we concl

‘uded in our studies of the Occupy movements, the auditory nature of protests is very important to their efficacy, and the digital plays a large role in that. Large groups of people and “human microphones” (Tufekci 2018, 95) are perfect examples of vocal production without direct expectation of response or of hearing, as are the widely deployed social media tactics involving things like hashtags. While these are interactive practices, they do not involve direct interaction or personal identification. On the class blog, we produce information and expect it to be interacted with, but we do not interact with those interacting with it. Thus, we produce information, an important practice, but we do not produce a direct dialogue about it.

This shouting becomes a “cultural product” of the class, much like the Eritrean content that Bernal (2014, 6) discusses in “Nations, Migration, and the World Wide Web of Politics” There, the Eritrean message boards are rife with production and dialogue around the content, but not around each other (a fact that I believe lies at the heart of why people engaged in such interactions consider themselves to be diasporic). In much the same way that surroundings -- the soundscape -- that Thompson (2004) discusses in “The Soundscape of Modernity” can create a collective experience, this shouting, heard by other members of the class, is ingested by its decoders and is, consciously or not, induced in our epistemes. This is also similar to the digitally participatory learning methods we examined; in much the same way a student of David Taub’s would emulate his guitar method, decoders of the blog may emulate the patterns of learning demonstrated there. Arthur’s discussion of the merging of physical and virtual senses, “people are using tech gadgets with their bodies” (Spirou 2018, n.p.), even directly addresses this. We are already ideologically fused with our technology and have been for a long time.

In-class listening is frequently purely semantic, or, as Chion puts it, “purely differential” (2012), but it remains dialectical -- it is necessarily a conversation. Online learning involves a different, indirect mode of interaction and loses the dialectical quality because it simply involves shouting or pure synthesis. This model is, however, useful for enriching classroom learning. It is crucial to avoid soley digital learning because listening, something within the sonic interaction of the classroom, is hugely important for cognition and intake. The blog, however, can play a role in that structure, just as shouting plays a role in protest and in expression online. It represents an embrace of a more freeform, Freirean model where the students are responsible for nearly all the shouting, augmenting the in-class decoding and enabling other students to share in an individual’s informational epistemology. This could be further enhanced by expanding the range of topics and formats that students can access for the blog, exercises in removing textual conferment and focusing instead on sound or interaction. Perhaps a virtual world could be shared, instead of a textual one, which would be far more accessible. Opportunities abound.

The course blog is crucial to the world building of this class – it contains shared information that flourishes when discussed – but cannot exist without it, or the people that inhabit it, for it is with their shouting that the walls resonate and exalt.

Works Cited:

Bernal, Victoria. Nation as Network: Diaspora, Cyberspace, and Citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Chion, Micheal. "The Three Listening Modes." In The Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, 48-54. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Jamison, Leslie. "The Digital Ruins of a Forgotten Future." The Atlantic. June 06, 2018. Accessed December 12, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/second-life-leslie-jamison/544149/.

Spirou, Arthur. "Merging the Physical and Digital Worlds." Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum. September 07, 2018. Accessed December 13, 2018. https://hearinginvirtualspace.blogspot.com/2018/09/merging-physical-and-digital-worlds.html.

Thompson, Emily Ann. The Soundscape of Modernity Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

Tufekci, Zeynep. TWITTER AND TEAR GAS: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. S.l.: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2018.

Lizzie's Contribution: 

The class blog allowed us to share interests and personal reflections outside of class time, including a chance for me to distinguish my thoughts from those of my peers. This experience is comparable to Michael Bull’s analysis of urban chill versus urban warmth (Bull 198). Bull describes urban chill by providing an example of an individual listening to music with their headphones while in a big city (Bull 207). I am applying this same concept to how individuals in the course might engage with digital spheres independently and outside of the classroom. In reflection, I found Cristal’s comment on Arthur’s “Merging the Physical and Digital World’s” blog post (September 7, 2018)to be applicable, Cristal stated “A common complaint with emerging technology today is that while it connects us more strongly in digital spaces it simultaneously isolates us from each other in reality.” After reading this quote I felt as though the blog posts would detract from our in-class discussions by making our conversations less stimulating, yet, I’ve realized that this engagement with the blogs independently can make us better prepared to have in-depth conversations during class time. 

An area of improvement for the current blog system is considering what we use the blog posts for and how we interact with them. Currently, it appears that the blog is solely a means to engage in conversation. As we’ve talked about throughout the semester, most digital platforms can be used for multiple tasks; I think the blogpost could become a communal space for posting online immersive experiences. These would be viewed or listened to independently and then discussed in class.  According to Bull, listening to the sound in isolation, through headphones or in a car will elicit a different response than when someone listens in a room full of other people (Bull, The Audio-Visual iPod). To address the limitations of independent immersive experiences, it is important to analyze what immersive experiences look like in a group setting. 

Listening to sound as a collective group provides the opportunity to hear about sound qualities that were appealing to someone else and that might have been neglected otherwise ( Bull, The Audio-Visual iPod).  When we experience sound together in class, there is a tendency to feel more engaged even if that isn’t the reality. In Kate Crawford’s article, Crawford focuses on listening to social media platforms and how easy it is to slip out of active listening and lose our connection with others while engaging with a digital sphere (Crawford 87).  I see a correlation between this and our course as it is easy to become an inactive listener in regard to both social media engagement and our class discussion. One way to address this is by implementing more immersive experiences both during and outside of class time to keep us all engaged. While thinking of group experiences with immersion,I was drawn to Barthes and the grain of the voice, as it’s an experience that cannot be described using words, which shapes how others are experiencing it (Barthes 505). A blog post that could retroactively benefit from this would be the most recent blog post, “Class Podcasts: Immersive Experiences” from December 6, 2018, which links the reader to everyone’s podcast. While we didn’t engage with this material during the course, I would be interested in seeing how the experience of listening to the posts independently and then listening to one or all of the podcasts in-class would change someone’s experience with the material. This is a way to include the courses’ desire to engage with sound, digital and sensory experiences and doing so in a way that accommodates the array of experiences we had during the semester. 

Throughout this semester, we as a class have engaged in conversations about sensory experiences both in-class and virtually, with positive and negative results. Although we are able to delve into the material using both methods, analyzing the content of the readings or a blog independently is vastly different than when the class is gathered together. My suggestion for the blog is to use it as a method of digital discussion but to also include immersive experiences that we would all complete outside of class time and then partake in as a collective group. I believe that restructuring the class blog can regulate how we individually think of sensory experiences and immersion, by creating a baseline for the class and thus improving our dialogues and digital engagement as a group.

Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. “The Grain of The Voice .” The Sound Studies Reader, by Jonathan Sterne,
Routledge, 2012, pp. 504–510. 
Bull, Michael. “The Audio-Visual IPod.” The Sound Studies Reader, by Jonathan Sterne,
Routledge, 2012, pp. 197–212.
Crawford, Kate. “Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media.” The Sound
Studies Reader, by Jonathan Sterne, Routledge, 2012, pp. 80–88. 
Spirou, Arthur. “Merging the Physical and Digital Worlds .” Hearing in Virtual Space:
Student Forum, 7 Sept. 2018, hearinginvirtualspace.blogspot.com/2018/09/merging
physical-and-digital-worlds.html.
Steigerwald Ille, Megan. “Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum.” Hearing in
Virtual Space: Student Forum, 6 Dec. 2018,
hearinginvirtualspace.blogspot.com/2018/12/class-podcasts-immersive-experiences.html.

---

Cristal's Contribution:

Most of our discussions and ideas from class readings have revolved defining the boundaries between our digital and physical worlds. Often these two worlds mirror each other since humans tend to integrate themselves in their digital creations, but the two worlds also differ. Our online and class discussions provide pertinent case studies of how digital and physical worlds compare to each other, especially when considering specific aspects shared by both platforms. Format, listening, voice, and exchange are all intrinsic aspects of both our online and class discussions. The differences between these aspects further suggest the advantages and disadvantages of our discussion platforms and what improvements could be made to either to enhance discussions. 

            Firstly considering format, our online and in-class discussion differ in terms of structure and references. Online, everyone primarily responds to one blog poster’s thoughts. This differs from class discussions where commentary is more freeform and is directed to anyone in the room. Our engagement with external sources also differs. Our online comments are often opinion-based and reference non-class sources while in-class comments are often supported by specific references to class readings. For example, on Arthur’s 10/10 blog post, every comment expresses our personal thoughts free of factual support; Justin and Lizzie also reference non-class media examples in their comments. This inclination to be more self-expressive in online discussions illustrates Bull’s conception of private spaces. The online space of the blog discussion is privatized on one’s personal computer and provides a retreat from the more hectic, less controllable public space of the classroom (277). Commenting in this haven of a private space allows for more ease in expressing one’s thoughts. 

Secondly considering listening, our online discussions illustrate reciprocal listening while our in-class discussions illustrate semantic listening. Reciprocal listening involves listening and responding to comments (Crawford 84). Semantic listening involves listening to and interpreting meaning from comments (Chion 50). Our blog discussions are us listening to the blog poster’s words and responding with comments. This differs from in-class, where we assign meaning to each other’s words without always having to respond. Reciprocation is not necessary in class because one can interpret what someone else says without reciprocating commentary.

Thirdly considering voice, our online discussions differ in precision and engagement with voice. The typed voices in our online discussions are more filtered and precise since more time is available to edit our thoughts. In contrast, our in-class voices are less filtered and precise since in-class commentary is on-the-spot, allowing us less time to refine our ideas and voice. There’s also a considerable difference in how we engage with our online and class voices. While reading someone else’s blog post, we are passively engaging with this person’s voice; we can be listening to music or conversing with someone while reading the post. This passive engagement with others’ voices differs from in class where a more active perception of each other’s voices is necessary. To quote Chion, “sound more than image has the ability to saturate and short-circuit our perception” (53). The active sound of voices in-class is more likely to lead to a change in our perception compared to in our online discussions. 

            Lastly considering exchange, our online discussions differ in timing and facilitation compared to in-class. Discussions on our blog are intermittent since everyone comments at different times. In contrast, in-class discussions are fluid since everyone’s commentary is being shared within the same time frame. Our blog discussions are also heavily facilitated by us students, while class discussions are often led by our professor. In Jerry’s 10/25 blog, the comments are responsive to Jerry and other commenters; Arthur directly addresses Jerry and Lizzie references me for an idea in my comment. Though Professor SI is present in this comment section, we students address each other and facilitate our blog discussion with ease. 

            Regarding these differences between our online and in-class discussions, each platform has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the online platform include increased reciprocation and autonomy. The blog discussions enable us to respond to each other’s ideas and makes it easier to keep account of our responses. The online discussions also encourage us to express our own ideas that are less derived from class materials and facilitate our own conversations. The advantages of class discussions are increased engagement with each other’s ideas and with the content of these ideas. Sharing ideas simultaneously in the same room makes it easier to be engrossed in a discussion. Class discussions also remove the pressure of formulating a response to comments, allowing us to focus more on the content of our responses rather than the obligation to respond itself. Disadvantages of the online discussions include its stratified structure and decreased engagement with ideas. Though we address other commenters in our comments, we still mostly discuss the blog poster’s thoughts rather than the thoughts of other commenters. Engagement with ideas is also decreased by being communication only happening through typed words and intermittent commenting. Disadvantages of class discussions are less student-facilitated conversations and hindered expression of thoughts. Though the professor-led structure of class discussions is standard and instructional, discussion facilitation by students is less likely in this environment. The on-the-spot nature of class discussions can also inhibit us from expressing our ideas without stumbling over words or forgetting our train of thought. 

            With these advantages and disadvantages in mind, encouraging students to expand beyond comments for the blog posts would be interesting; students could additionally include media links or articles related to the blog post topic. Allowing for some class discussions to be more student-led could also increase the discussion facilitation skills that often appear in the blog comments. Tying in the blog posts with class discussions (whether by the professor or students) more often could also reduce the differences between the two platforms.  

            Class and online discussions are intriguing and helpful in different and integrating some of their differences could enhance both discussion platforms. By generally integrating the autonomous, expressive aspects of online discussions with the engaging, communal aspects of class discussions, understanding of and communication of class topics could be greatly enhanced.

Works Cited

Abah, Jerry. “What’s in a name?” Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum, Blogger. 25 October 2018. http://hearinginvirtualspace.blogspot.com/2018/10/whats-in-name-abah.html

Bull, Michael. “To Each Their Own Bubble: Mobile Spaces of Sound in the City,” MediaSpace: Place, Scale, and Culture in a Media Age, edited by Nick Couldry and Anna McCarthy. Routledge, 2003, 275-293. 

Chion, Michel. “The Three Listening Modes.” Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, Routledge, 2012, 48-53.

Crawford, Kate. “Following you: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media.” Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, Routledge, 2012, 79-90.

Spirou, Arthur. “Virtual Voices.” Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum, Blogger. 10 October 2018. http://hearinginvirtualspace.blogspot.com/2018/10/virtual-voices-spirou-l98-330.html

Arthur's Contribution:

Over the course of this semester, our simultaneous digital conversations on the course blog and in-person class discussions, have provided complementary dialogues and contexts for studying and understanding the convoluted relationship between the virtual and physical worlds. We have investigated a variety of topics within this field, while striving to gain unique insights into how the virtual and physical realms affect one another. The dichotomy between engaging in both online and face-to-face debate of complex sociological issues and ideas, has demonstrated by each concept covered that the two are perpetually intertwined. Beginning to appreciate that truth, is fundamental to analyze situations where both virtual and physical bodies are inherently present.

This deeper metaphysical understanding- that virtual and physical spaces coinhabit and in total makeup- our entire human world and experience, is developed partly throughout the stark differences between our online and our in-class discussions of course material. Whether a particular ongoing dialogue is virtual or physical in nature, each type of conversation takes place within an entirely different structure, context, layout, and set of laws for conversing. Perhaps most overlooked, is that discussions taking place on the blog versus those held during class, are each confined to polarizing sets of social rules and expectations.

To clarify, I would like to reference my own early-semester initial blog post for the course, Merging the Physical and Digital Worlds[Spirou L98-330]. This was written at the conclusion of our second week of class, which I distinctly came on the heels of a complicated in-class breakdown and assessment of Jan Hadlaw’sSpace and Culturearticle. My blog post dealt with the notion of fusing the human body with technological advances in order to enhance certain capabilities and broached the conversation about the morality of “robotic” body-altering. In this case, I was empowered to choose a topic of personal fascination, piqued by my lingering thoughts regarding the most recent course module. My ideas felt unconstrained and welcomed by the informal digital platform. My argument was hardly rigorous and academic, yet it did not matter, and I was not worried about attempting to sound formal. Even my references were allowed to be mentioned casually and listed simply at the end of my post. What followed was an engrossing discussion fueled by my peers’ comments- a conversation taking place virtual, yet indirectly rooted in a week of physical discussion beforehand.

Contrary to my relaxed experience posting on the blog, my physical experience in-class on the day we discussed Hadlaw was conversely uncomfortable. This discussion (especially dealing with early AT&T advertising) felt extremely formal due to the assignment nature of being responsible for reading ahead of time; the difficulty and density of the article compounded this feeling for me because I felt entirely unprepared to contribute to a discussion of a reading I had not comprehended well. Critiquing my physical performance that day, much of my in-class comments were unsubstantial and were said only out of a feeling of duty to participate. However, I spent much more time worrying about how I could interject an intellectually acceptable statement into the conversation, than I did listening to the observations and wisdoms of my classmates.

The differing forms of listening that exist in virtual and physical discussions we have had, provides a powerful additional lens for understanding connections between these individual worlds. Specifically, in the virtual realm of discussion, there is a tendency to allow room for delegated listening to pass as attentiveness. This strikes me as alike to certain delegated listening practices of politicians, as discussed by Kate Crawford in Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media (Chapter 9 of Sterne’s Sound Studies Reader).

While this can be interpreted as a disadvantage of virtual conversation, the twin dialogues that have unfolded all semester illustrate that many perceived advantages or disadvantages arising from one form of debate or the other, either fill-in inadequacies of the other, or are supported when given context by the listening strengths of the other. For example, as suggested by Hannah Arendt in Jelena Novak’s excerpt that we read, “Speech is first and foremost a privilege in which the speaker, actively and politically, distinguishes himself to others.” This embodiment of voice is the weapon of the speaker in physical conversation. Having the attention of a room allows for impromptu thought and rapid integration of the ideas of others not possible otherwise. Making use of the push and pull balance of strengths and drawbacks, existing within a conjoined platform for both virtual and physical conversation, exemplifies the study of virtual and physical bodies in and of itself.

Works Cited:

1.    Merging the Physical and Digital Worlds[Spirou L98-330]

2.    Saving Time and Annihilating Space: Discourses of Speed in AT&T Advertising, 1909-1929[Jan Hadlaw]

3.    The Sound Studies Reader[Jonathan Sterne]

4.    Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media[Kate Crawford]

5.    Singing Beyond the Body[Jelena Novak]

Jerry's Contribution:

A Sound Analysis 

What does it mean to study sound? In class, we discussed our thoughts on sound openly. We pushed back on thoughts and we pushed forward on ideas we deemed challengeable. Outside of class, we had another outlet for discussion, a virtual blog. The goal of the blog was for us to write critical blog posts and comment on our peers’ posts. The blog became a reflection of what we were learning in class. Johnathan Sterne describes how we should think about sound studies best when he states, “Sound studies work is written and spoken. Although it can also be imagined and sounded, it is fundamentally a verbal practice because it is about sound” (Stern). Now here’s a quote from a blog post made by Justin, “That Brockhampton show that I went to and can't stop talking about (I promise I'll shut up after this/I'm not even particularly obsessed with the group….)Second, the audience was throwing itself into the experience physically. People were moshing hard af during……” (Ziegelmueller). This is Justin not only imagining the sounds of a memory, but more importantly analyzing the intersection of sound and live music via blogging. Hence, can blogging about sound be considered part of sound studies? Roland Barthes leaves it up to interpretation when he expanded on what the “grain” of the voice is, Barthes says “The grain is the body in the voice, the hand as it writes, the limb as it performs”(Barthes). Going back to Justin’s analysis there seems to be a “grain” present, however, are we allowed to translate his typing to his voice? Is blogging fundamentally a verbal practice. This is the lens I will view the blog, as I analyze how has our “virtual discussion” on the blog differed from our in-class discussion.

To establish a clear difference between the “in-class” discussions versus “virtual” discussions, I believe it would help understanding two key things about our virtual discussions: temporariness and longevity. Our virtual discussions live in a silo of information, this information is insular in part because we as a class never accessed it beyond our comments online. Before the midterms we never pulled information from the blog and examined it in class discussions. The blog and the information on it, in a sense never left the webpage it was on, figuratively and literally. Class discussions however, affect every facet of our class: blogs, workshops, and class media. The terms temporary and longevity are interesting as they are opposites. Therefore, this polarity puts the blog in an interesting dichotomy. The blog is temporary due to the information on a post acted on only once, maybe twice due to comments. Nevertheless, it still has longevity since it is in the virtual world of the Internet. The blog is forever, it will never wither, contrasting the classroom where we have class discussions. 

The blog plays a role in the background of our class.  However, we don’t “listen” to it as background. If we were to look at the blog from the point of view of virtual listening, we can intersect it with Crawford’s assessment of the 3 forms of listening. In Kate Crawford’s article “Following You” she describes three types of virtual listening: delegated, background and reciprocal. She writes that “unlike radio which is a one to many medium, Twitter is many to many” (Crawford). Although our blog post is closer to Twitter then a radio, the way we have interacted with it has been one to many. As a blogger to many commentators, we do more than “tune in,” we comment. Therefore, we do more than just background listen, we comment and in those comments; we ask for input, we seek validation and we offer critique. For example, in a blog I posted, Lizzie offered an interpretation of a previous comment “The last part of Cristal’s comment really sparked a thought for me- “I also wonder if FOMO is fear of not being at a specific place and enjoying the fun……..”(Lizzie Blog Comment). However, while this comment was also commented on by others, Cristal never responded to Lizzie or the others. Like a comment from someone on the President’s twitter, the response went unanswered. Although, we may not fully give feedback to the post, this listening is closer to delegated than any other. This could be due to the distance created by the lack of response from the blog’s author and how the blog post system works.  For these reasons blogging is actively apart of sound studies.

 Word Count: 748

Work Cited: 

Abah, Jerry. “Social Media and Me.” Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum.

Barthes, Roland. “The Grain of the Voice.” Sound Studies Reader, 2012.

Crawford, Kate. “Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media.” Continuum, vol. 23, no. 4, 2009, pp. 525–535.

Sterne, Johnathan. “The Sound Studies Reader.” New York: Routledge. 2012, vol. 30, no. 57, 2012.

Ziegelmueller , Justin. “Meditations on Beyonce, Concerts, and the Audience-Entertainer Relationship [.” Hearing in Virtual Space: Student Forum.