Knowing With New Media A Multimodal Approach For Learning 1St Ed Edition Lena Redman Full Chapter

Knowing with New Media: A Multimodal
Approach for Learning 1st ed. Edition

Lena Redman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/knowing-with-new-media-a-multimodal-approach-for-l
earning-1st-ed-edition-lena-redman/
A MULTIMO
ODAL APPROACH FOR LEARNING
LENA REDM
MAN
Knowing with New Media
Lena Redman
Knowing with New

Media
A Multimodal Approach for Learning
Lena Redman
Monash University
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
ISBN 978-981-13-1360-8 ISBN 978-981-13-1361-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1361-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018947627
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: Compassionate Eye Foundation/Jasper White
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
To the Creators of the future world.
Preface
Sleepwalking
The prognosis that many jobs will be automated in the near future is a
frequent keynote of many current scholarly debates. As futurist Martin
Ford (2015) writes: ‘Computers are getting dramatically better at per-
forming specialised, routine and predictable tasks, and it seems very
likely that they will soon be poised to outperform many of the people
now employed to do these things,’ (loc. 1333). Another proposition
that is often emphasised in the present-day academic, professional and
popular discourse is the inevitability of human/machine convergence.
‘Humans will be augmented with brain implants that dramatically
enhance intelligence’, writes Ford (loc. 3772).
While these two topics are distressing, what is truly astounding is the
speed with which they are advancing into all spheres of modern reality.
Ford’s analogy to illustrate this acceleration proposes imagining that a
penny was deposited in a hypothetical bank account in 1949, the year
when Norbert Wiener wrote his influential essay about the upcom-
ing digital expansion. According to Moore’s Law, which suggests that
the processing speed of a computer chip doubles every second year, the
hypothetical bank account increases with the same speed. Then, as Ford
theorises: ‘by 2015, our technological account would contain nearly £86
million. In addition, as things move forward from this point, that bal-
ance will continue to double’ (loc. 1186). This mind-boggling progres-
sion from a penny to £86 million in less time than the average human
vii
viii Preface
life-span, which still doubles every two years, contains ample shock
value to arrest our busy daily routine with a puzzle—are we taking this
seriously enough? Are we not just sleepwalking into an all-encompass-
ing digital habitation, gradually abdicating our human primacy to the
supremacy of automation? If the enmeshing of humans and machines is
inevitable and moving faster and faster, would it be possible to direct the
course of history to mutually beneficial convergence rather than rivalry?
And what kind of a path would this be?
According to another futurist, Leonhard (2016), humanity still
has a chance to influence the digital invasion as ‘we are not yet at the
point where those [speed] doublings are so great that the results will
overwhelm our understanding and inhibit our capacity to act’ (p. 2).
Leonhard proposes raising awareness of the fact that we are living not
through an ordinary paradigm-shift but through ‘a Megashift that rep-
resents immediate and complex challenges and differs in nature to the
forces that have swept through society and business in the past’ (p. 32).
Leonhard argues that ‘The challenges we have experienced so far won’t
even register on the stress scale when compared with what’s to come…’
(p. 33). What is also critical for people to realise, Leonhard emphasises, is
the exponential speed with which this Megashift is progressing.
These two key points—the speed of the Megashift and the inevita-
bility of the human/machine convergence—indicate that in addressing
current challenges, people cannot afford to remain in the same position
and observe the unfolding of events from the same perspective as they
have in the past. The clashes of the sociocultural tectonic plates catalysed
by digitisation are so deep that to find a safe space to survive, humans
must re-evaluate how they see themselves in relation to their own tech-
nological creations and what they can do to remain themselves—that is,
humans. In other words, people must develop a high-level mindfulness
of what Leonhard defines as androrithms—human essences (p. 23)—and
differentiate them from algorithms—a code, a set of rules to be fol-
lowed in accomplishing a task. Androrithms, according to Leonhard,
are ‘largely unnoticed, unsaid, subconscious, ephemeral, and unobjecti-
fiable’. They can ‘appear to be clumsy, complicated, slow, risky, or inef-
ficient compared to nonbiological systems, computers, and robots’ (p.
23). Leonhard believes that ‘the idea of giving machines the ability to be
[enabling them with androrithms] might well qualify as a crime against
humanity’ (p. 18). How can we then classify the opposite side of the
Preface ix
issue—the systematic reduction or even discarding of androrithms, ‘those

elusive traits that make us human,’ that, as Leonhard argues, ‘has already
started all around us’ (p 23)?
In the theme of this book, this discarding of androrithms is consid-
ered within the promotion of STEM education with the emphasis placed
on algorithm-based disciplines. As Governor Patrick McCrory of North
Carolina once put it, higher-education funding should not be ‘based
on butts in seats, but on how many of those butts can get jobs’ (Cohen
2016, The New York Times, retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.
com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-
and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html).
The argument presented in this book is compiled to oppose the
kinds of attitudes espoused by Governor McCrory’s. This book
defends young people from being viewed as a bunch of ‘butts in seats’
as well as a bunch of ‘butts’ doing their jobs. With regard to his fund-
ing of the General Education Board in 1912, John D. Rockefeller
wrote: ‘[…] we will organise our children into a little community and
teach them to do a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are
doing in an imperfect way’ (as cited in Rose 2016, p. 51). Stunningly,
the system of the contemporary schooling is still built on this foun-
dational principle, i.e., encouraging perfect responses and following
fixed instructions. This leads to conforming ‘to the central tenet of
scientific management: standardise everything around the [perfect]
average’ (p. 51). That is, using a highly optimised strategy of map-
ping individuals inside two-dimensional, uniformed frames. In other
words, borrowing from Governor McCrory’s terminology, the ‘butts’
are packaged algorithmically within standardised boxes to be trans-
ferred from a school supported by taxpayers to workplaces where the
money to pay taxes is made. In the production line, that is, school-
ing, that assembles and packages ‘butt’-automatons for well-paid jobs
to have better taxes in return, nonessential androrithmic data becomes
redundant. This attitude spreads across the political spectrum: as ‘US
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush told the audience that stu-
dents majoring in disciplines such as psychology [philosophy and lib-
eral arts] were headed for jobs at Chick-fil-A’ (Madsbjerg 2017, loc.
120). Similarly, as President Barack Obama once said: ‘[…] I prom-
ise you, folks can make a lot more potentially with skilled manufactur-
ing or the trades than they might with an art history degree’ (January,
2014, Observer, retrieved from: http://observer.com/2014/01/
x Preface
president-obama-thinks-art-history-degree-is-kind-of-useless-doesnt-
want-you-to-e-mail-him-about-it/).
The views above can be described, drawing on McLuhan and Fiore
(1967), as ‘look[ing] at the present through a rear-view mirror. We
march backwards into the future’ (p. 75). McLuhan and Fiore write:
‘When faced with a totality of a new situation, we tend always to attach
ourselves to the objects, to the flavour of the most recent past’ (p. 74).
Making their statements, neither Bush nor Obama looked ahead through
the windscreen where they could see jobs such as line work at Chick-
fil-A, skilled manufacturing and trades being among the first to be
replaced by automation. Humanity faces an unprecedented need for psy-
chologists, philosophers, liberal arts practitioners, historians, social work-
ers and policy makers to rethink and restructure the whole worldview
of how we perceive ourselves in relation to self-identity, environments,
technology and other factors.
In fact, ‘riding their cars’, politicians not only cannot stop ‘looking
through a rear-view mirror’ but are also failing to notice the major shift
occurring inside cars, where driverless technology is making rapid strides.
Driverless cars can be taken as an analogy to demonstrate humans’
passing over their control to technology. McLuhan (1964) suggested
that every technological extension results in human numbness, or even
self-amputation, ‘as an immediate relief of strain on the central nervous
system […] Whatever threatens its function must be contained, localised,
or cut off, even to the total removal of the offending organ’ (loc. 675).
With respect to the invention of the car, by relieving themselves from
walking long distances, humans imposed a certain degree of numbness
on their cardiovascular system and leg muscles. As automation begins to
take over drivers’ seats, people continue to strive to make machines that
think like humans and will eventually feel like humans. Like sleepwalkers,
we gradually enable technologies with more and more agentic power,
numbing ourselves in the belief that the machines will always remain
neutral tools to help relieve strain on our nervous systems. Placing the
machines in our driver’s seats and ceding them more and more control
over us, what kinds of self-amputations are we to expect?
In such a manner, we can diagnose humans’ current condition as
experiencing a numbing ‘compression syndrome’. On one hand, we are
being pressed by exponentially spreading algorithms, and on the other,
we are being numbed through the imposed degradation of androrithms.
Preface xi
The identification of the contemporary ‘compression syndrome’ is

a catalyst for this book to consider a contemporary human existence
between expanding technology and the oppressive powers that reg-
ulate society’s consciousness by cultivating automatons. In the text
of this book, automatons are referred to as either cheerful robot, who
happily comply with the programming they have received, or fearful
puppets, who cannot help but obey instructions from those pulling the
strings. Both groups have little agency to create their own reality, will-
ingly submitting themselves to the ruling social force and technologi-
cal intervention.
The Ripples pedagogy proposed in this book is premised on the
unique historical fact that the ownership of the means of knowledge pro-
duction has shifted from centralised institutions into the hands of indi-
vidual knowers. Thus, the knower is now enabled with the opportunity
to free him/herself from learning by prescribed standardised codes—al-
gorithms—and is empowered by technological means to discover,
integrate and assert their individual potential—androrithms—within col-
lective enterprises. The Ripples pedagogy represents a platform for the
knower to reconnect him/herself with natural, sociocultural environ-
ments, thus bolstering him/herself as an informed, confident and civil
agent in his/her exploration and formation of a mutually positive rela-
tionship with technology.
Melbourne, Australia Lena Redman
References
Cohen, P. (2016, February 21). The New York Times. Retrieved November 15,
2017 from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-
to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html.
Ford, M. (2015). The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of Mass
Unemployment [Kindle Version]. Oneworld. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Leonhard, G. (2016). Technology vs. Humanity: The Coming Clash Between Man
and Machine [Kindle Version]. Fast Future Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from:
Amazon.com.
Madsbjerg, C. (2017). Sensemaking: What Makes Human Intelligence Essential
in the Age of Algorithm [Kindle Version]. Hachette Book Group. Retrieved
from: Amazon.com.
xii Preface
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man [Kindle

Version, 2013]. Berkeley, CA: Gingko Press.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The Medium is the Message. Berkeley, CA:
Ginko Press (2001).
Rose, T. (2016). The End of Average. HarperOne.
Acknowledgements
The Ripples theory proposes that an outcome of creative production is

the result of an individual and collective rippling within a sociocultural
milieu. Bringing together this book is a vivid example of such a perspec-
tive. Throughout the course of my doctoral studies, which laid the foun-
dation for this book and its further development, I must thank many
people. Among them is my daughter, Sasha Petrova, an editor at the
Conversation Media Group, to whom I owe more than I can express. I
am immensely grateful for her unflagging commitment to reading and
proof-reading the chapters of my doctoral thesis and her generous edito-
rial engagement with the text of this book.
I wish to thank the internationally recognised faculty of Education
at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia for becoming my alma
mater and providing me with the opportunity to pursue my postgrad-
uate research. I express my gratitude to Dr. Jill Brown, who went the
extra mile to support the completion of my doctoral thesis, contributing
her time and expertise with a conscientious and genuine commitment.
Likewise, I am very grateful to Associate Prof. Jane Southcott for her
intellectual guidance throughout the course of my doctoral study and
especially for her support at its completion. I am also grateful to Jane
for reading chapters of this book and sharing with me her expertise in
remodelling a thesis into a published book.
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Scott Bulfin for his inter-
est and appreciation for the thesis’ conceptual development and being
my supervisor, trusting me enough to endure my frequent independent
xiii
xiv Acknowledgements
explorations. I wish to thank Associate Prof Allie Clemans for acknowl-

edging and endorsing my ardent search for alternative ways of knowl-
edge-production. I am very grateful to Rosemary Viete, a student
support officer, for assisting me in becoming a teacher in Australia, and
later, for her kind help with my research.
I am thankful to my doctoral thesis examiners, Prof. David Forrest
and Dr. John Potter, for considering my thesis a considerable contribu-
tion to knowledge and bolstering my confidence in turning it into a pub-
lished book.
I am deeply appreciative to Palgrave Macmillan and especially to
senior editor Sara Crowley Vigneau for her careful guidance in the
preparation of this book publication. I am eminently grateful to an anon-
ymous external reviewer for his/her very positive conclusive comments.
Additionally, many thanks go to senior editorial assistant Connie Li for
her contribution to the production of the book and the cover’s designer.
I am also grateful to James Mathews for allowing me to use quotes and
images from his university assignment.
I am very much obliged to my family—my husband George; my son
Anton and, as mentioned above, especially my daughter Sasha—for their
patient reassurance and ongoing support. The completion of my Ph.D.
and publication of this book is truly an achievement that belongs to my
family.
Acknowledgements to the New Culture

Consistent with the Ripples pedagogy principle of creating knowledge
individually but with others, I would like to acknowledge my appreci-
ation for being a collegial particle in the collective synergy of wisdom.
In expressing my gratitude for being able to construct my own intellec-
tual project, I assert my indebtedness to the digital Ripplework culture,
whose endless resources have become so freely available to every individ-
ual knower, such as myself.
Through working on my doctoral study and then on this book, I
developed an immense appreciation for the cyber community of scholars,
authors and individual participants who not only shared their knowledge
with me but also allowed me to participate in their personal ripplework.
As a testimonial to this, below are two examples through which I
would like to demonstrate my gratitude to this cyber phenomenon.
Acknowledgements xv
Joe Kincheloe’s YouTube interview with Henry Giroux on the

topic of Critical Pedagogy (December 2007, retrieved, July 2013,
from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvCs6XkT3-o) opened
new horizons for me to formulate a different outlook on the purpose
and nature of pedagogy. Following my swelling enthusiasm, I began
to explore the discourse that was brought to light for me through the
lens of Kincheloe and Giroux’s talk. My approach was similar to the one
that anyone in the present-day would undertake: downloading related
books and articles available on academic sites—free and from Kindle—
searching websites, watching YouTube videos and ‘friending’ Henry
Giroux on Facebook (Joe Kincheloe is unfortunately no longer with us,
although his Facebook page exists under the loving care of his wife Shirly
Steinberg). As a result of my passionate action and amidst the avalanche
of the material I read, listened to and watched, I came across the book
titled Students as Researchers: Creating Classrooms that Matter (1998)
compiled by Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg (Eds.). This book
turned me into an ardent promoter of the individual student’s agency
in constructing their knowledge. This conversion paved the way for the
direction my doctoral study took, with its focus consolidating around the
critical point that the oppression in education exists, first of all, in the
form of the learner’s oppression: the oppression of Self. In addition, thank
you, Shirley for accepting my Facebook friend-request.
A few years later, after completing my Ph.D., I listened to Tara
Brabazon and Steve Redhead’s blog How Do I Change a Ph.D. into a
Book? (April 2017, retrieved May 2017, from: http://tarabrabazon.
libsyn.com/how-do-i-change-a-phd-into-a-book). Following Tara and
Steve’s advice closely, I worked on the monograph and remodelled
it into a book for publication. Again, thank you, Tara Brabazon, for
approving my Facebook friend request and allowing me to become part
of your exciting life, rippling with your warm-hearted radioactivity for
social change. I am also very sorry for the recent loss of your dear friend
and husband, Steve Redhead.
Providing me with a sense of belonging to a community of contempo-
rary, like-minded intellectuals, Facebook and Twitter networking played
a significant role in the development of my doctoral study. In times of
doubt, by various modes, it offered me encouragement and valuable
advice. People’s scholarly and personal endeavours, achievements and
activities continuously kindled my enthusiasm towards my own study.
This sustained engagement in the dynamic flow of people’s lives created
xvi Acknowledgements
an awareness of personal significance and developed a sense of oneness

with those who would traditionally remain utterly detached.
In short, ‘the whole universe awaits me’ at a ‘gigantic playground’
(Flusser’s 1985, loc. 1533). ‘My imaginative powers allow me to play
with all theories […] And I myself can, just by pressing the appropriate
buttons, affect this future by adding my own bits of information’ (loc.
1526). Such a possibility is both exhilarating and alarming. For the first
time in human history, we have a unified playground where the buttons
to play and to affect the whole are available to everyone. This gigan-
tic playground can become either the last terminal or a new beginning
depending on how soon and in what ways we reinvent the rules of the
game.
References
Flusser, V. (1985). Into the Universe of Technical Images: Electronic Mediations
[Kindle Version, 2011]. N. A. Roth (Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
FreireProject. (2007, December). Henry Girox: Figures in Critical Pedagogy
[Youtube video]. Retrieved July 2013 from: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=UvCs6XkT3-o.
Tarabrabazon’s Podcast. (2017, April). How Do I Change a Ph.D. into a Book?
[Podcast]. Retrieved May 2017 from: http://tarabrabazon.libsyn.com/how-
do-i-change-a-phd-into-a-book.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Self 1
1.2 Human/Technology Enmeshment 2
1.3 Alienated Learning 3
1.4 Reconnected Learning 4
1.5 Chapter Overview 11
References 15
2 Paradigm Shift: From Far-Ends to Circularities 19

2.1 Puzzle-Solving Paradigm 19
2.2 Sputnik’s Effect on Liberal Education 22
2.3 Standardised Testing: Cultivating Fearful
Puppets and Cheerful Robots 26
2.4 The Math Myth 28
2.5 Divergence and Convergence 32
2.6 Individual Curiosity Conventional Wisdom
Ripple: Leonardo, Isaac, Albert and Steve 35
2.7 Convergence Points 45
2.8 DOING KNOWING: The Ripples Pedagogy
in Practice 49
2.8.1 Learning Task One: The Newtonian Knower 49
References 52
xvii
xviii Contents
3 Mind-Cinema and Cinematic Writing 57

3.1 Mind-Movie Projector 57
3.2 Looping for Meaning 59
3.3 Narrative and Database Through the Process
of Layered Production 63
3.4 Overtonal Montage 65
3.5 Cinema Thinking and Sociological Imagination 66
3.6 Convergent Points 69
in Practice 71
3.7.1 Learning Task Two: The Shower of Experiences 71
References 73
4 Writing a Subtext 75
4.1 Changing Actively and with Care 75
4.2 Recovering the ‘Atmosphere’ 77
4.3 Gestalt—An Interplay of All Modes 79
4.4 Cinematic Writing 80
in Practice 86
4.6.1 Learning Task Three: Making Your
Own Meaning 86
References 88
5 Culture of Webworking: Knowing with

an Endless Catalogue of Resources 91
5.1 Participatory Culture and Remix 91
5.2 Remix and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) 95
5.3 DIY and Multimodal Bricolage 97
5.4 Eclectic Personal Choices 99
5.5 The Methodology of Collecting and Reassembling 101
5.6 Cinematic Bricolage Mechanics 104
in Practice 109
5.8.1 Learning Task Four: The Unity
of the Mind and the World 109
References 113
Contents xix
6 Complexity of the World: Circular Interconnectedness 117

6.1 Cinematic Bricolage in Ripples 117
6.2 Circularity of Self-Organisation 120
6.3 Developing the Ripplework 122
6.4 Epistemology of the Ripplework 123
6.5 Adaptation with Cinematic Bricolage 127
6.6 Feedback Loops 128
6.7 Ripplework Example 131
6.8 Role of the Teacher in the Ripples Pedagogy 133
in Practice 138
6.10.1 Learning Task Five: Piaget’s Equilibration 138
References 140
7 Cinematic Bricolage as Reconnected Learning 143

7.1 Nature and Nurture 143
7.2 Mental Grasps Within Cinematic Writing 145
7.3 Reconnecting the Self with the World Through Critical
Self-Reflection and Collaboration with Others 149
7.4 Reconnected Agency 153
7.5 Multimodality of Reconnection 157
in Practice 162
7.7.1 Learning Task Six: Agents of Knowing 162
References 163
8 DIY Creativity: Culture of Self-Sufficiency 167

8.1 Learning by Creating 167
8.2 DIY: The Path to Rippling 171
8.3 Creative Strategies 174
8.3.1 Codes and Matrices 175
8.3.2 Collisions of Incompatible Codes:
The Jester, Sage and Artist 176
8.3.3 Combinational, Exploratory and
Transformational Creativity 178
8.3.4 Metaphor as a Psychological Tool 180
xx Contents
8.4 The Ripple Model Example 182

8.4.1 The Spider Web 182
8.4.2 Combinational Creativity—Deep Remixability 183
8.4.3 Exploratory Creativity—Bricolage 185
8.4.4 Transformational Creativity—Self-Design 187
in Practice 190
8.6.1 Learning Task Seven: The Jester, Sage
and Artist 190
References 192
9 Engine Room of Creative Software 195

9.1 Digital Tools ‘at Hand’ 195
9.2 Building Blocks of Digital Media 197
9.2.1 Numerical Representation 198
9.2.2 Automation 199
9.2.3 Modularity 202
9.2.4 Variability 203
9.2.5 Transcoding 204
9.3 Perception Parallels, Software Layers
and Reconnected Learning 206
9.4 Agency of Transcoding 209
in Practice 213
9.6.1 Learning Task Eight: Human Machine
Enmeshment 213
References 214
10 Assessment, Learning and Sociological Imagination:

From Word-Count to the Value of Learning 217
10.1 The Conflict Between the Word-Count
and Multimodal Representations 217
10.2 Feedback Loops Assessment 219
10.3 Reconnected Curriculum 224
10.4 The Probes 227
10.4.1 Probe One, The Tea Party 228
10.4.2 Probe Two, The Harlequin 231
Contents xxi
10.5 Potemkin’s Village 232

10.6 The Struggle Not to Become an Automaton 234
in Practice 238
10.8.1 Learning Task Nine: The Potemkin Village 238
References 239
11 Probes’ Review Decoding Symbols

and Making-Meaning with Others 243
11.1 Looking Out for Messages: Crows 243
11.2 Figure-Ground Principle as Reconnection 246
11.3 Motion and Sound as Multimodal Codes 248
11.4 Internationale Strawberry Fields 250
11.5 Technology Rocks Potemkin Villages 253
11.6 Individually, Together with Others 255
11.7 ‘Here Comes the … Knowing’ 256
References 260
12 Conclusion 263
References 271
Index 273
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 The Recyculator. Author: J9 Stanton, Alice Springs, Australia

(Found-objects sculpture representing the recycling process
[Personal photograph]) 61
Fig. 4.1 Visualisation of cinematic writing 81
Fig. 5.1 Visualisation of remix and deep remixability—bricolage
outcomes 94
Fig. 6.1 Visualisation of gathering and processing data with the Ripples
model 130
Fig. 7.1 Ripples model 150
Fig. 8.1 The screenshots from James Mathew’s assessment task video
The Area Song 173
Fig. 8.2 Visualisation of the creative process stages in the ripples model 184
Fig. 9.1 Examples of visual interactivity that the teacher can demon-
strate using Adobe Illustrator when teaching about shapes 200
Fig. 9.2 Example of visual interactivity that the teacher can demonstrate
using Adobe Illustrator when teaching about perspective 201
Fig. 9.3 Fractal construction of a fern leaf using principle of modularity 202
Fig. 9.4 Unified projection of the production layers in Adobe Edge
Animate 207
xxiii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Database and narrative elements in cinematic writing 64

Table 4.1 Overlapping representational modes in cinematic writing 84
Table 5.1 Cinematic Bricolage system of knowledge production 108
xxv
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Self
This book is based on a doctoral study that sought to develop a method
of knowledge construction that could be appropriate to embrace the
complexity of the twenty-first century world. Boulton et al. (2015)
argue: ‘Complexity at its essence is not a model or method or metaphor,
it is a description of the way things are’ (p. 27). The perpetual techno-
logical changes of the modern era provoke even more complexity, ‘mess-
iness, variation, diversity and fluctuation’ (p. 26). In such conditions,
knowledge of the Self appears to be foundational to all other types of
knowledge. People must know the Self to address the turbulent circum-
stances and variety of content with which today’s technology bombards
our global village. Self-reflective knowledge opens one’s eyes to recognis-
ing the possibility of and constructing a path through the shifting sands
of what only recently appeared to be the bedrock of life. Seeing the path,
one gains confidence and resilience with which to meet the changeability
of existence. What they also discover is that their pathways are threads,
tightly interwoven into the fabric of their environment, circumstances
and the paths of others.
It is only through taking a walk and weaving the way for each new
step that people enter true communion with the physicality of their
surroundings. Through experiencing and reflecting, people develop a
conception of other minds and begin to act with appreciation of other
travellers both near, far and unknown. The Self and Others are the
© The Author(s) 2018 1

L. Redman, Knowing with New Media,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1361-5_1
2 L. REDMAN
dynamic forces that stitch through the fabric of reality, spin and clash in
the virtual tapestry of minds, continuously forging new patterns.
After spending the last few years studying the literature concerned
with new directions in education, I could not help noticing the recur-
ring pattern of the emphasis on the term ‘self’. For example, in rela-
tion to learning and knowledge production, such terms as: ‘self-taught’
(Thomas and Seely Brown 2011); ‘self-representational’, ‘self-reflex-
ive’, ‘self-authored’, ‘self-produced’ (Potter 2012); ‘self-creating’, ‘self-
transformative’, ‘self-governing’, ‘self-autonomous’, ‘self-generative’,
‘self-motivating’, ‘self-realising’, ‘self-monitoring’, ‘self-paced’ (Kalantzis
and Cope 2012; Cope and Kalantzis 2015); ‘self-regulative’, ‘self-
organising’ (Boulton et al. 2015), ‘self-blending’, ‘self-directed’, ‘self-
controlled’ (Bull 2017), and so on, are frequently encountered.
This orientation towards a self-prefix may suggest a scholarly consen-
sus that in searching for the new approaches to learning, the Self requires
a revised position in a number of ways. This also implies that the infor-
mal learning of everyday life has already taken care of this important
aspect of Self in a going-without-saying way, while in institutionalised
education, the Self keeps knocking at the door with little to show for it.
Formal education still alienates the Self from learning and ‘does not fully
engage the identity, interests and motivations of the learner’ (Kalantzis
and Cope 2012, p. 51).
1.2 Human/Technology Enmeshment
In the last twenty years, rapid advances in technology have caused a dra-
matic transformation in the dynamics of experiential structures. The tra-
ditionally constructed, carefully crafted practices and social categories
that survived for centuries have entered into the zone of turbulence,
and the traditional meanings of many practices have been challenged.
The practice of reflexive self-identity’s interpretation is one of those. It
has acquired new technological tools, a modified context and an altered
perspective. This situation exemplifies Marx’s premise, as interpreted by
Leontiev (1978), that through contact with the tools and objects of their
activities, people ‘test their resistance, act on them, acknowledging their
objective properties’ and change themselves.
Today, the learner is presented with digital tools as personalised means
of knowledge production in the context of everyday life learning. Like
breathing warm air on a frozen window, the screens of computers and
mobile devices ‘thaw’ portals and reveal a vision focused much further
1 INTRODUCTION 3
than the immediate surrounding. Providing people with facts, perspec-

tives, instructions for activities, and links to the networks of their personal
interests, the portals of new vision form personalised systems of con-
sciousness that reconnect individuals with their innate virtues. Advanced
opportunities excite new curiosity, foster new motivations and encourage
new participation in weaving new patterns of knowledge. Within the for-
mally organised system of education with a deliberately designed curric-
ulum and ‘centralised and hierarchical control of educational institutions
and the knowledge they distribute’ (Kalantzis and Cope 2012, p. 284),
the personalised conscious portal systems are rendered irrelevant.
This can be described in terms of Marx’s (1844) theory of alien-
ated labour, where he sees the product of labour being objectified—
‘labour’s realisation is its objectification’ (loc. 1250). In this way, learn-
ing realisations can also be seen as their objectification. That is, the
learner embodies the product of their learning into an output that is
exchanged for the grades they earn by passing their standardised tests.
The product of learning therefore becomes a commodity, whose produc-
tion is chiefly motivated by the need to be sold for the required points
that will determine the learner’s further progression. This concept can
be encapsulated into the notion, ‘pass and forget’. As Kincheloe and
Steinberg write (1998): ‘Once the test is over most students no longer
have any use for such information and quickly forget it’ (p. 5). The prod-
uct of learning will only be remembered if it has further practical applica-
tion in real life. Otherwise, the realisation of learning ‘appears as loss of
reality’ (Marx 1844, loc. 1250), decontextualised information that holds
no significance to the learner (Kincheloe and Steinberg 1998, p. 5). Such
learning, Girox (2011) asserts, ‘celebrates rote learning, memorisation,
and high-stakes testing, while it produces an atmosphere of student pas-
sivity and teacher routinisation’ (p. 10). Learning loses its intrinsic value
because the numerical appraisal is its ultimate aim. The learner becomes
more interested in generating an impressive numerical ‘account’ rather
than being the producer of personally authentic practical knowledge.
1.3 Alienated Learning
As a rule, in traditional education, the learner begins their project with
sources and materials constructed not from their immediate environ-
ment, daily interactions, or interests but from someone else’s abstrac-
tion of reality. These outside notions, sets of ideas, skills and techniques
reflect someone’s belief about what the learner should master in the
4 L. REDMAN
domain of knowledge. Thus, the situation of the learner’s estrangement

from their learning projects begins from being fed by someone else’s idea
of what the learner should know about the world they inhabit.
Marx (1844) states: ‘The worker can create nothing without nature,
without the sensuous external world. It is the material on which his
labour is manifested, in which it is active, from which and by means of
which it produces’ (loc. 1279). If we replace the word ‘worker’ with
the word ‘learner’, we can say that mainstream formal learning occurs
outside of being part of the sensuous external world. The experience of
being in the world is abstracted and embodied into artificially resourced
materials from which, and by means of which, the learner acquires their
knowledge.
Marx argues: ‘The direct relationship of labour to its produce is the
relationship of the worker to the objects of his production’ (loc. 1298).
Again, it can be said that the direct relationship of learning to its prod-
uct is the relationship of the learner to the objects of their learning. The
learner learns in order to pass a test with the goal of exchange the prod-
uct of their learning for grades. For standardised testing, the learner’s
personal interests, applied effort, curiosity, risk-taking, and innovative ten-
dencies, as well as the ability to construct their own knowledge, is not
only unnecessary but counterproductive. Within the confines of the tra-
ditional curriculum and standardised testing, the relationship between the
learner and their essential creative forces can be characterised as estranged.
Marx continues: ‘If then the product of labour is alienation, produc-
tion itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activ-
ity of alienation’ (loc. 1312). In comparing this to formal education, it
can be said that the learner is in the position of alienating their learning
from their own self, similar to the worker described by Marx, who faces
‘the product of his activity as a stranger […] Its alien character emerges
clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists,
labour is shunned like the plague’ (loc. 1312). In contemporary edu-
cation, this can be compared to school breaks and holiday homework,
which is usually seen as a grievous misfortune.
1.4 Reconnected Learning
The digital revolution has brought about a change in position between
power-holding institutions, teachers and individual learners alike and lev-
elled them into the same category in terms of their possessing the means
1 INTRODUCTION 5
of knowledge-production. This is a historically unique circumstance that

has caused a shift in the agency of knowledge-production processes,
spreading it evenly between the three main actor-groups: society, teach-
ers and learners. In this regard, the task of digital literacy, as an educa-
tional discipline, must be oriented not only towards the development of
technological skills and the accumulation of a variety of attractive learn-
ing proficiencies but also to the historical-sociocultural alterations that
are at work at every junction of contemporary life. This leads to chal-
lenging the deeply ingrained attitude with which people have tradition-
ally viewed education: learning the existing symbolic systems of certain
disciplines and then expressing themselves strictly within the operational
modes of these systems.
This book proposes that by virtue of having the means and tools of
accessing data and constructing symbols, literally ‘at hand’, the learner
can now find ways of expressing him/herself in his/her own way. In
doing so, the learner can invent his/her own multidisciplinary, mul-
timodal and uniquely personal systems of knowing and sharing knowl-
edge. This can be termed as a reconnected learning, where the learner
reconnects the ways of learning with the ways of being.
In the context of reconnected learning, self-reflexivity gains signifi-
cant educational value. The process requires Self: an agent, the specific
continuity across time and space embedded in a particular complexity ‘of
shifting contexts’ as described by Giddens, as well as a method of con-
verting experience into embodied meaning. According to Maturana and
Varela (1998), ‘every reflection, including one of the foundations of
human knowledge, invariably takes place in language’ (p. 26). This book
proposes stepping ‘outside the box’ of verbal language and exploring the
reflection(s) conducted through verbal and other symbolic systems, or
modes of expression. Thus, self-agency is given an autonomous mode of
operation that is aligned with the agent’s individual abilities, skills and
interests.
In an attempt to grasp the complexity of the lived world, incorpo-
ration of a notion of typography as a movie projector (McLuhan’s 1962)
with bricolage as a research method (Lévi-Strauss 1962), gave rise to a
methodology of multimodal or cinematic bricolage. It has emerged from
enmeshing of collecting and interpreting data ‘by means of heterogene-
ous repertoire’, characterised by ‘tinkering’ with whatever resources are
available with the narration by overtonal montaging (Eisenstein 1949)
used in film production.
6 L. REDMAN
Compared to a craftsman, the bricoleur does not start his/her work by

obtaining the necessary materials and an appropriate set of tools and then
developing skills of the trade step by step. The bricoleur engages him/her-
self by deciphering messages hidden in the objects, activities or concepts,
or bricoles, that are inherent in his/her present environment or situation.
The process of decoding the messages leads to weaving a web of calculated
communication between other assorted elements that are also within reach
in the immediate surroundings. This process can present the bricoleur
with moments of great surprise and excitement at recognising ‘a dialog’
being developed between previously unrelated elements, or bricoles.
For example, iPhone and iPad were used for recording ‘grasps of
reality’—such as, for instance, sparks on the water and schools of tiny
fish darting under them—to be incorporated later into the text. It was
rather surprising to see how those seemingly discordant life-moments
found their integral ‘voice’ in the ensembles of multimodal composi-
tions. Samples from personal collections of photographs and old docu-
ments were scanned, fragments of the songs from the past were knitted
together with the symbolisations of the present life events. Personal
recordings from direct life-experiences were enmeshed with the elements
drawn from diverse internet resources: Kindle, YouTube, social media
sites, websites, blogs and so on. The data was synthesised and modelled
into the cinematic texts. This is a method in which alphabetic writing
was used as a ‘canvas’ into which other semiotic modes of expression—
images, sounds and motion—were integrated. In the study, it was identi-
fied as cinematic writing, that is writing with images, sounds and motions.
Cinematic writing is a multimodal form of expression in which informa-
tional and emotional weight is distributed between the modes of expres-
sion according to the individual intentions, tendencies, interests and
skills of the producer.
Due to categories such as ‘numerical representation’, ‘automation’,
‘modularity’ and ‘variability’, as identified by Manovich (2002), dig-
ital media catalysed what Manovich (2013) termed ‘new cultural logic
at work’, that is, a ‘deep remixability’ (p. 289). As a result, this deep
remixability of cinematic bricolage is conducive to endless hybridisation,
reflecting the specifics of the task and disposition of the producer of the
study by accommodating their ‘sociological imagination’ (Mills 1959).
The sociological imagination in this book is the thread that weaves indi-
vidual personalities into a fabric of broader natural, sociocultural, and
technological circularities: ripplework.
1 INTRODUCTION 7
The development of the Ripples model was inspired by the recogni-

tion of the present need to rethink contemporary education and a desire
to join a strong current of attuned voices calling for such a revision
(Buckingham 2007; Kolb 2011; Thomas and Brown 2011; Potter 2012;
Martinez and Stager 2013; Jewitt et al. 2016; Livingstone and Sefton-
Green 2016; Jefferson and Anderson 2017; Bull 2017; Gee 2017 and
many others). These pronounced calls for change are commonly asso-
ciated with the transformational potential of digital technologies that
influence dramatic changes in the world around us, while schools remain
largely unchanged (Jefferson and Anderson 2017). This is not to imply
that technology is ignored in schools but to suggest that in its ontology,
digital media cannot be perceived in linear terms, while education is still
largely structured in keeping with linear thinking.
Building on a vision of dynamic ripplework, the learning model pre-
sented in this text encompasses such operational dimensions as critical
self-reflection, multimodal communication, collaboration, distributed
agency and DIY creativity. The Ripples approach to learning adopts the
assumption of systemic-constructivist theory, which holds that ‘there is
little sense in thinking in a linear-casual way because everything is cir-
cularly connected; whatever happens manifests itself in utterly entangled
chains of effect’ (Poerksen 2004, loc. 2753). Framing digital technol-
ogies within the dominant linearity of traditional education therefore
creates a misalignment that becomes profoundly evident in the light of
‘cybernetics and other systems sciences’ that transform ‘our understand-
ing of living systems […] and we begin to pay attention to feedback
effects and processes of self-organisation’ (Stierlin 2004, loc. 2763).
Cinematic bricolage is framed within the process of digital representa-
tion considered through the lens of feedback loops and effects of self-
organisation. Through their study of the phenomenon of self-organisa-
tion, Maturana and Varela (1998) categorised living beings within their
environment as autonomous autopoietic unities. ‘A system is autono-
mous if it can specify its own laws, what is proper to it’ (p. 48). The
mechanism that makes living beings autonomous is autopoiesis (p. 48).
Autopoiesis, according to Maturana and Varela, is the recursive self-
reproduction of a living system through its own elements according to its
interaction with a larger circuitous system.
The mechanism of autopoiesis is examined in correlation with Piaget’s
(1950) concept of cognitive adaptation. Autopoietic unity resulting from
structural coupling, that is, recurrent interactions between a system and
8 L. REDMAN
its environment, is considered as corresponding with Piaget’s notion

of an individual achieving equilibrium with the given circumstances by
changing their actions, that is, by learning.
This text presents the Ripples model as a multimodal learning meth-
odology. Multimodality in the context of cinematic bricolage is a deep
remixability system. If Manovich defines deep remixability as remix
of the elements from heterogeneous categories and domains associ-
ated with digital productions, a deep remixability system of cinematic
bricolage expands further. Its remixability embraces actions, experi-
ences, observations, conceptions, techniques, materials, tools, expres-
sions and representations derived from the surrounding physical world
and intertwined with the same categories of simulated digital virtuality.
Thereby, the agency of a producer—that is, the producer’s ability to
act towards the purpose of an intended knowledge production—is cul-
tivated through an appreciation of the holistic conception of reality. In
this regard, I suggest that the Ripples model is a rigorous practice that
can provoke ‘epistemological curiosity’ by engaging the agent’s personal
associations with such factors as their family’s heritage, cultural tradi-
tions, closest relationships, immediate natural environment, individual
interests and so on.
The Ripples learning is rooted in the idea that the learning process
is not confined to schooling but is an inseparable part of existence.
‘Knowing’ belongs to life and this book is an attempt to reconnect it
with the idea of being. The methods of knowledge production—explor-
ing, recording, representing, making meaning of and sharing human
experiences—have been fundamentally transformed through the infusion
of digital technologies into all aspects of human activity.
For the processes of knowledge making, the privatisation of digi-
tal tools as the means of production alters the perception of a knower’s
agency, giving them the opportunity to be at the centre of their learning
activities. This book both theorises and exemplifies cinematic bricolage
in its layout and forms of expression. It shows how cinematic bricolage
reconnects, empowering the individual with a sense of personal identity
and responsibility and helping shape more aware social citizens.
The Ripples model is seen as an approach to learning that catalyses
a move away from fragmentality and uniformity towards the individual
customisation and privatisation of knowledge. By being endowed with
the opportunity to customise for oneself, the acts of representing and
creating have been expressed in a do-it-yourself (DIY) culture.
1 INTRODUCTION 9
Similarly, as in other areas of modern life, digital technology has also

remodelled and redirected the DIY movement. DIY is no longer a trans-
parent home-improvement practice to save money but is a culture of an
individual presence and personal power where one’s voice can be heard
globally and in an instant. DIY is a new counterculture that can be seen
as stating: ‘I am same like others but also different from the rest’. The
contemporary DIY ethic seeks to inaugurate autonomy for individuals
who personally elaborate their knowledge based on a personal ‘clear-
cut’. Individuals organise themselves into networks not in accordance
with their geographic locations but globally in conformity with their
idiosyncrasies.
In promoting DIY learning, the Ripples model cultivates a sense
of personal agency. ‘When the student is given agency over the task,
they can decide for themselves if something is a mistake, a detour, or
maybe a new path’ (Martinez and Stager 2013). Understanding your
own mistakes and finding a detour or a new path assists students’ abil-
ity to make, evaluate and act on their decisions. In other words, it
provides them with possibilities to exercise their agency, which allows
them to learn to be responsible individuals, ‘able to join with others
on an equal basis in the production and reproduction of social rela-
tions’ (Giddens 1991, p. 58). A competent agent trusts in him/herself
and feels in control of unpredictable circumstances of the social ‘con-
text that has moved beyond the certainties of normality’ (Jefferson and
Anderson 2017, p. 9).
The growth of agency through involvement with cinematic bricolage
and its DIY approach reveals another value considered within the inter-
twined structures of the natural, social and digital dimensions. From this
perspective, the bricoleur positions him/herself at the intersection of the
three dimensions, and in the flow of learning experience, he/she does
not exclude or give dominance to any of these dimensions. According
to my personal observations, this aspect gains urgency in the sense that
in collecting data for their learning projects or representations, students
progressively resort to comprehensive and easily accessible Internet data
rather than drawing on their own physical or social experiences as pri-
mary resources. This growing dependence on an artificially constructed
world of compiled facts and memories and, as a result, the increasing
disregard for the immediacy and richness of physical and social sur-
roundings appears to represent an evident threat to human agency.
The advancement of agency, that is, the capacity for active participation
10 L. REDMAN
in knowledge construction, drawing on personal, physical and social

spaces and experiences, with the incorporation of digital technology as a
means of production, represents not only the technicality of the method-
ology but also the ethical stance undertaken by the cinematic bricolage
approach.
In the Ripples model, digital media is a set of production tools, some
of which have become mobile and always ‘at hand’. They travel through
physical spaces together with the knowledge producer and are present
at various social events and situations. They can be defined ‘by [their]
potential use […] because the elements [that] are collected [with them]
or retained [are retained] on the principle that they may always come in
handy’ (Lévi-Strauss 1962, p. 18). To have a set of production tools at
hand, that is, available and affordable, is a historically novel opportunity
that allows learners to participate in knowledge production processes in
a unique way. They are able to reconnect with the Self and develop per-
sonal agency that makes an individual move away from a standardised,
single perspective to ‘celebrate the local and heterogeneous, the plurality
of voices and meanings, the patchwork, pick and mix, and the pastiche’
(Altglas 2014, p. 4).
The doctoral thesis from which this book is developed was ‘a pastiche’
or, to put it more precisely, cinematic bricolage compiled in EPUB for-
mat consisting of dynamic interactions between multimodal components
such as text(s), animations, interactive/audio and video elements. This
book, however, due to the technical limitations of publishing, is set in
a format that reduces the multimodal text to only two modes of expres-
sion: writing and a limited number of static images.
As mentioned, the process of knowledge production in cinematic
bricolage is achieved by means of recursive loops. Cinematic brico-
lage adopts the methodology developed by Berry (2004). A brico-
leur, according to Berry, ‘threads’ through the relevant areas to the
issue under investigation in feedback loops with increasing amplitude.
This results in the growing complexity of the initial concept (p. 111).
The thesis that I put forward in this book is that the Ripples model is
a knowledge-production methodology that aligns with the aspirations
of twenty-first century self-reconnected and self-inventive learning. To
defend this argument, I move through recursive and gradually expand-
ing feedback loops, exploring, discussing, spinning, teasing out and
rearranging threads from the relevant fields of knowledge to weave a
new pattern.
1 INTRODUCTION 11
1.5 Chapter Overview
This chapter examines aspects of contemporary reality such as the
dynamic interconnectedness between the self and others and the enmesh-
ment of human and technology logic. Throughout the following chap-
ters, these two conceptual couplings are developed into undulating
circularities that pulse through and activate all other circularities of the
proposed pedagogical model. Current education methods are considered
as alienating the learner from their own psychological predispositions and
immediate natural/sociocultural environments. The proposed pedagogi-
cal model suggests creating learning conditions in which the learner can
reconnect with him/herself by discovering, extending and strengthening
their natural abilities through a kindled reconnection with others, remixed
with technological tools of knowledge-production and entanglement with
their lived experiences.
Chapter 2 discusses the supremacy of common puzzle-solving systems
established by a particular set of scientific and moral principles that are
characteristic of a certain historical period. Strict adherence to a specific
set of paradigmatic assumptions and puzzle-solving methods converges
with modern education to form a centralised system of benchmarked
evaluations of student performance, manifesting in the glaring neglect of
their individual psychological dispositions and needs. The new emphasis
on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education
reinforces this imbalance and pushes humanities subjects further away
from the curriculum. The chapter discusses some of the reasons for, and
effects of, such a synthetic disturbance in the balance between the algo-
rithmic (puzzle-solving) and androrithmic (human essence) parts of stu-
dent’s development and argues for the reassessment and reconsideration
of this biased view. To this end, the Ripples model suggests considering
two operational learning circularities: divergence convergence and con-
ventional wisdom individual curiosity.
Chapter 3 introduces the concept of mind-cinema, suggesting viewing
its embodiment in the pages of a digital document through the appli-
cation of the genre of cinematic writing: writing with images, sounds
and movements. Taking advantage of the affordances of digital media,
the knower constructs their knowledge by recording the world around
them and placing the bricoles—material elements of the digital data—
on software’s representational layers. In this, we can observe a feed-
back looping circularity of stimulus response. The bricoles should be
12 L. REDMAN
viewed as stimuli, the elements of a database, while the responses are

the implicit reactions of the narrative dimension. The database bricoles
are juxtaposed on the production layers by a composite organisation of
the narrative steps, establishing the narrative database circularity.
Therefore, the application of the narrative database looping gener-
ates the representing meaning-making circularity.
Chapter 4 elaborates on the overtonal montage discussed in the pre-
vious chapter. It is the congruence of the dynamism of a given context
with the key element in the presentation. The key element is interpreted
in the context of the ‘collateral vibration’ by which it is represented, and
the two are therefore inseparable. Leaning on alphabetic text as a meth-
odology of the mind’s articulation that has been in use for millennia, cin-
ematic writing suggests considering it as the key element in multimodal
representations. Multimodal components are integrated into the alpha-
betic text not as additional embellishments but as an integral conglom-
erate in representing meaning-making. The gestalt—an interplay of
all modes—is the compositional unity in which every different modal
element plays its own role in signifying meaning. Given that every indi-
vidual has a unique perception of the world, students are encouraged
express themselves using the semiotic resources most congruent with the
articulations of their mind-cinemas.
Chapter 5 articulates the participatory character of digitised society
facilitated by the ubiquity of postproduction tools. The liberalisation
of the acquisition of cultural resources engenders the pervasive expan-
sion of the universal phenomenon of the remix. In a digitised society,
the remix spawns rapidly into a multi-hybridised category. It manifests
itself through mashups, collages, montages, memes and vidding and
becomes the prevalent medium of message transmission. Its hybridisa-
tion is actualised not only within related modes of expression but also
within modes that were considered incompatible before. Therefore, it is
recognised as a form of deep remixability and is associated with the prac-
tices of do-it-yourself (DIY). Thus, people with even minimal knowledge
in a given topic and having basic skills sufficient for their participation
can engage in the social exchange of their opinions, representations
and knowledge construction. Following this trait, cinematic writing is
merged with a DIY knowledge-production methodology based on a deep
remixability that is termed cinematic bricolage.
Chapter 6 frames cinematic bricolage into a systemic view of the world.
According to natural science, the living organism is viewed within a
1 INTRODUCTION 13
systemic structure and in continuous interaction with its environment.

By means of feedback loops, it continuously undergoes self-organisation
congruent to the medium of its existence. This chapter develops a con-
textual infrastructure for a learning model that is based on a view of a
dynamic ripplework and frames cinematic bricolage within its configu-
ration. The teaching and learning approach underpinned by the rip-
plework infrastructure becomes known as the Ripples pedagogy or the
Ripples model. The heartbeat of the Ripples pedagogy is charged by the
regular feedback loops taking place within self-reflective collaborative
circularities. The core focus of the Ripples pedagogy is to create learn-
ing conditions in which the learner assimilates new knowledge and by
self-designing, equilibrates him/herself with the environment through
capitalising on individual psychological needs and abilities and in collabo-
ration with others.
Chapter 7 delineates the layers of the Ripples pedagogy. It establishes
the Ripples model as a learner-centred, life-reconnected and inquiry-
based approach to learning. The model is underpinned by the integrated
system of five operational modes: self-reflection, collaboration, multi-
modal communication, distributed agency and DIY creativity. Students
organise their learning tasks around their individual interests and abil-
ities. Thus, they establish their reconnection with natural sociocultural
environments by discovering and nurturing their own innate inclinations
and talents and through the application of multimodal communication
methods that best suit their personal predispositions. The progress of the
learning task is activated by the feedback loops mobilised by self-reflective
collaborative circularity. Through utilising this mode of operation,
the students exercise their own agency and learn to recognise and recon-
nect their own assertiveness with the agentic values of others, as well as
the agentic power of the environments and the tools of production.
Chapter 8 suggests examining creativity as an underlying mechanism
in the production of knowledge. Setting themselves up for the quest
to formulate new, surprising, coherent, valuable and elegant concepts or
products, students benefit from ‘making do’ with what they are inter-
ested in and desire to engage with. Being intrinsically motivated, stu-
dents put themselves under the pressure of circumstances through which
they must find a solution to the set question of what if …? The DIY
culture of creative approach is considered an essential mode of oper-
ation. Students construct new knowledge not through the quality of
final representations but through the development of the ability to use
14 L. REDMAN
information and objects as psychological tools for finding a solution.

This chapter discusses and proposes some creative strategies and tech-
niques that can scaffold the dynamics of Ripples learning.
Chapter 9 discusses the implementation of mobile and stationary dig-
ital tools and resources for knowledge production that are ubiquitously
available to the modern learner. This chapter is an expedition into the
‘engine room’ of creative software. It delves into the specifics of the
operational modes of digital object construction. These modes are cat-
egorised as: numerical representation, automation, modularity, varia-
bility and transcoding. The chapter examines each of these categories in
relation to how deep remixability can be realised and the role it plays in
the representational meaning-making circularity within the context
of the Ripples model. This chapter also examines reciprocity between
the parallel structure of the mind’s perception and the instrumentality
of the production layers of creative software. The link is examined from
the perspective of unified sensory experiences and unified projection
of the production layers, thus indicating a more precise representation of
mental grasp and deeper awareness of sensory data in making meaning
of the experiences.
Chapter 10 links the development of the Ripples model of knowing
with the two probes implemented in my doctoral study for the trial of
cinematic writing as a multimodal approach of representing meaning-
making, as well as cinematic bricolage as a methodology of gathering,
recording, reorganising and analysing data. It starts with a discussion of
a substantial problem often faced by the user of cinematic writing as a
meaning-making approach. This is the assessment of a learning task by
word count. Under contemporary learning conditions, the word count
assessment is designed in such a way that the importance of the number
of linguistic symbols in articulating meaning draws to itself the entirety
of time and effort allocated to the task. The Ripples pedagogy proposes
the method of the feedback loops, analysed and represented with self-
reflective cinematic writing to be employed as an assessment methodol-
ogy. This chapter also argues for considering the process of knowing as a
social practice that can cultivate free minds equipped to live in a demo-
cratic society.
Chapter 11 analyses the probes. It discusses the application of a mul-
timodal metaphoric methodology to embody the mind-cinema within
the context of the two examined probes. This investigation leads to
the realisation that visual, audio or kinaesthetic symbols, often playing
1 INTRODUCTION 15
inconspicuously in our mind-cinema, can be infused with rich emotional

value linked to certain events or situations or an accumulated body of
knowledge. If given the role of valued interlocutors and treated as coded
messages from the unconscious, these symbols uncover things we previ-
ously ignored. The metaphoric logic of understanding one thing in terms
of another, which in cinematic writing is amplified by the unification of a
variety of representational modes, advances our self-awareness. Mapping
links between our self-discoveries and other people’s representational
expressions reveals sociocultural connections and psychological coher-
ence in the human perception of reality. This promotes the sense of
self-agency–the ability not only to think critically but to act upon this
criticality in accordance with individual strengths and in collaboration
with others.
The concluding chapter draws together the ripples discussed through-
out the book and provides a consolidated overview of the proposed
Ripples pedagogy. Following the instrumentality of the Ripples model,
this chapter oscillates back to the outset of the argument as a reminder
of why pedagogical innovations are urgently necessary and why current
educational trends may prove themselves invalid in our ever-changing
world. The Ripples model suggests a system of knowledge construc-
tion based on the discovery and development of an individual’s intrinsic
potential, and acting upon personal agency, reconnecting this poten-
tial with the learner’s natural and sociocultural environments. Learning
through the equilibration of the internal milieu within the medium of
existence is proposed as a life-savvy development, more essential in the
rapidly changing world than standardised, technological acquisition of
facts and specialised skills.
References
Altglas, V. (2014). From Yoga to Kabbalah [Kindle Version]. Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Berry, K. S. (2004). Structure of Bricolage and Complexity. In J. L. Kincheloe
& K. Berry (Eds.), Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research:
Conceptualising the Bricolage. Open University Press.
Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing Complexity:
Strategic Perspective for an Age of Turbulence [Kindle Version]. Oxford
University Press.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary
Culture [Kindle Version]. Polity. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
16 L. REDMAN
Bull, B. D. (2017). Adventures in Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Nurturing

Learner Agency and Ownership [Kindle Version]. Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by
Design [Kindle Version]. University of Illinois, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eisenstein, S. (1949). Film Form [Kindle Version]. In J. Leyda (Ed. & Trans.).
Harcourt Inc. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Gee, J. P. (2017). Teaching, Learning, Literacy in Our High-Risk High-Tech
World [Kindle Version]. Teachers College Press. Retrieved from: Amazon.
com.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late
Modern Age [Kindle Version]. Polity. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Giroux, H. (2011). On Critical Pedagogy (Critical Pedagogy Today) [Kindle
Version]. Bloomsbury. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Jefferson, M., & Anderson, M. (2017). Transforming Schools: Creativity, Critical
Reflection, Communication, Collaboration [Kindle Version]. Bloomsbury
Academic. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality
[Kindle Version]. Routledge: Taylor & Frances Group. Retrieved from: play.
google.com.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New Learning (Second Edition): Elements of
Science of Education [Kindle version]. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
from: Amazon.com.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1998). Students as Researchers: Creating
Classrooms That Matter [Kindle Version, 2001]. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Kolb, L. (2011). Cell Phones in the Classrooms: A Practical Guide for Educators
[Kindle Version]. International Society for Technology in Education.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Marxist Writers:
A. N. Leontiev: Marxism and Psychology Science. Retrieved from: https://
www.marxists.org/archive/leontev.
Lévi Strauss, C. (1962). The Savage Mind. G. Weidenfield (Trans.). University of
Chicago Press.
Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). Living and Learning in Digital Age
[Kindle Version]. New York University Press. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Manovich, L. (2002). The Language of New Media [Kindle Version]. MIT Press.
Manovich, L. (2013). The Software Takes Command: International Text in
Critical Media Aesthetics [Kindle Version]. Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved
from: Amazon.com.
1 INTRODUCTION 17
Martinez, L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and
Engineering in the Classroom [Kindle Version]. Constructing Modern Press.
Marx, K. (1844). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [Kindle Version,
2016]. M. Milligan (Trans.). Dancing Unicorn Books. Retrieved from:
Amazon.com.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1998). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological
Roots of Human Understanding (Revised Edition). Boulder, CO: Shambhala.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man
[Kindle Version, 2011]. University of Toronto Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination [Kindle Version, 2000].
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence [Kindle Version, 2003]. M. Piercy
& D. E. Berlyne (Trans.). Routledge: Taylor & Francis e-Library. Retrieved
from: Amazon.com.
Poerksen, B. (2004). The Certainty of Uncertainty [Kindle Version]. A. R. Koeck
& W. K. Koeck (Trans.). Imprint Academic. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Potter, J. (2012). Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship
[Kindle Version]. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Stierlin, H. (2004). The Freedom to Venture into the Unknown. In B. Poerksen
[Interviewer], The Certainty of Uncertainty. A. R. Koeck & W. K. Koeck
(Trans.) [Kindle Version]. Imprint Academic. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
Thomas, D., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating
the Imagination for a World of Constant Change [Kindle Version]. Create
Space Independent Publishing Platform. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.
CHAPTER 2
Paradigm Shift:
From Far-Ends to Circularities
2.1 Puzzle-Solving Paradigm

In his seminal book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about the
philosophy that underlies people’s understanding of the world and their
use of scientific methods in every sequential historical period, Thomas
Kuhn (1962) suggested viewing science as a puzzle-solving practice
(p. 36). A certain philosophical configuration is a skeleton, and people
build on its DNA to grow their understanding of existence, knowledge,
rational arguments, and values as well as the puzzle-solving methods.
Such a configuration, or as Kuhn referred to it, paradigm, ‘stands for
the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared
by the members of a given community … it denotes … the concrete
puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples,’ become ‘a
basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles’ (p. 174).
Since the rudimental purpose of education is to develop people’s
know-how to survive and progress in their habitual-natural, tradition-
al-cultural and established social milieus, education becomes a direct
reflection of the collectively endorsed paradigm, including its estab-
lished puzzle-solving systems. Typically, education takes its contem-
porary worldview for granted, framing curricula and teaching practices
within the proposed set of assumptions without challenging or interro-
gating them. According to Kuhn, it is ‘striking’ how little novelty the
© The Author(s) 2018 19

L. Redman, Knowing with New Media,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1361-5_2
20 L. REDMAN
conventional puzzle-solving traditions produce, either ‘conceptual[ly]

or phenomenal[ly]’ (p. 35). In accepting an existing worldview with-
out question, education turns the student into ‘a solver of puzzles, not a
tester of paradigms’ (p. 144).
Because the evolution of a society goes hand-in-hand with the gradual
accumulation of facts, empirical observations, technological inventions
and the emergence of new theoretical approaches, the validity of once
firmly approved assumptions is eventually challenged, causing a para-
digm shift. This is often associated with ‘the convergence, amalgamation,
or syncretism of originally disparate ideas and practices’ (Bunge 2003,
loc. 3885). The original picture in a jigsaw puzzle—a cosmology, a view of
the world, and its associated puzzle-solving techniques—its disciplinary
symbolisms and operational technologies, becomes more complex, gen-
erating new concepts and techniques. Social progress can be envisioned
as an inseparable flow of intellectual, social and technological currents,
constantly merging, creating new intricate compositions and carving new
patterns of thought and operation. Just as movement periodically reaches
a state of chaotic overflow, it restructures itself by redesigning the order
and instrumentality of the flow.
Moving within this continuity, education is an organic current that
transcribes and transmits collectively generated thoughts and practices
to the mass-cultivated younger members of society. Using Vygotsky’s
(1978) famous concept, education is a dynamic zone of proximal devel-
opment whereby inexperienced puzzle-solvers are assisted by ‘adult
guidance or collaboration with more capable others’ (p. 86). The zone
of proximal development is oriented to helping the puzzle-solver grow
from operating on the level of imitation to reaching the higher level of
independent mental activities (p. 87). The only issue with this approach
is the puzzle itself, as every puzzle has ‘the assured existence of a solu-
tion’ (Kuhn 1962, p. 36), or as in jigsaw puzzles, one predesigned
picture. ‘On the contrary, the really pressing problems, e.g., a cure
for cancer or the design of a lasting peace, are often not puzzles at all,
largely because they may not have any solution’ (p. 36).
Consequently, the instrumentality of contemporary education rests on
the principle of a puzzle-solving methodology that implies a ‘one size
fits all’ confirmed solution and established ‘correct’ methods for arriv-
ing at it. This further alienates the learner from self-discovery, innova-
tion, the production of alternatives and the search for effective means
of social integration. If we return to the metaphor of a society as inter-
flowing intellectual, social, technical currents running together towards
2 PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM FAR-ENDS TO CIRCULARITIES 21
progression, we can see that today’s puzzle solving-oriented education

is no longer a natural rivulet in a synergetic dance with the others but a
heavily restrained channel.
During the turbulent paradigm shift from Newtonian cosmology
hypothesised as an ordered, mechanistic clockwork to the fluid and cha-
otic worldview of the twenty-first century, contemporary education has
appeared to be under arrest, sailing on a residual construction of the past
and desperately clinging to stability and reassurance. This ‘enslavement
to clockwork regularity and chronology’, as Porush (1991, loc. 1558)
describes it, continues to saturate the whole fabric of contemporary edu-
cation. From orderly class bells to standardised drills and testing, bench-
marked knowledge and systemic pedagogies reinforce conformity of
thinking, which promotes the growth of the dispassionate learner.
It is still a common belief that the laws of exact sciences and the well-
established order of things can continue enabling us, humans, to maintain
control over nature, social experiences, our wellbeing and each other. This
is exemplified in the cultural attitude shared by Galileo (1844) that mathe-
matics is the alphabet used by God to write Nature’s laws (as cited in Doll
1993, loc. 559) and Rutherford’s expression that ‘all science is either phys-
ics or stamp collecting’ (1984) (as cited in Doll, loc. 1412). Such a mind-
set endorses the exclusion of the concepts of self-discovery, arts, natural,
cultural and social integration and has caused ‘devastating effects on cur-
riculum’ (loc. 1412). ‘As both Dewey and Piaget have pointed out, it is
interaction that form the heart of growth’ (loc. 1412).
The absence of interactions with nature and the social world results
in an undeveloped sense of caring for the environment we live in and
for the other living beings with whom we share this environment. For
short-term profits, we keep damaging our planet, the only home we
have. We are happy to buy cheap products while turning a blind eye to
the fact that the people who produce them may be exposed to hazard-
ous health conditions, or that they may be children working in physically
unbearable surroundings. We ignore the fact that mass production has
turned us into monsters who nourish our children with the stress-infused
milk from maltreated cows. As teachers, we are too busy cramming our
students’ minds with facts and operations, forgetting that among them
may be some who are desperately seeking help; who may be driven to
a suicide by being bullied under a teacher’s nose; or others who may
be becoming so lonely and angry that they take out their frustration on
their school community. We have no time for anything that is outside the
discipline’s content—we are too overloaded by teaching to a test.
22 L. REDMAN
2.2 Sputnik’s Effect on Liberal Education

Eternally revolutionary in his thinking and enduring in his influence,
John Dewey’s (1916) ideas on education remain fundamental today. He
writes:
As societies become more complex in structure and resources, the need of

formal or intentional teaching and learning increases. As formal teaching
and training grow in extent, there is the danger of creating an undesirable
split between the experience gained in more direct associations and what
is acquired in school. This danger was never greater than at the present
time, on account of the rapid growth in the last centuries of knowledge
and technical modes of skills. (Dewey 2015, loc. 484)
The dangerous split of schooling, as Dewey identified at the begin-

ning of the twentieth century, may plough its way through the disre-
gard for social obligations and connectedness to human associations.
In this scenario, the cultivation of the consciousness of young people
takes a lopsided course in which ‘remote matters’ conveyed and learned
through the symbolic systems of academic disciplines become the sole
goal of teaching and learning. The acquisition of lingual, mathematical,
computer and science literacies, in other words, ‘technical intellectual
skills’, without consideration for the ‘formation of a social disposition’
leads to the production of ‘sharps in learning – that is egoistic specialists’
(Dewey 2015, loc. 467).
Today, a hundred years after Dewey’s insightful prognosis, we can
clearly observe the split in education between learning abstract symbolic
literacies, on the one hand, and students’ innate abilities and interests
as well as natural and sociocultural environments, on the other. We can
also recognise a strong resistance to acknowledging and modifying this
condition of alienation. Cosmetic changes, such as cramming classrooms
with modern technology and publishing subject content online, are only
convenient new masks covering an old, rigid, mechanistic structure. It
can be compared to the famous Henry Ford quote: ‘If I had asked peo-
ple what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.’ When con-
temporary education faces the need to re-envision its fundamental
architecture, it camouflages it with a narrative that can be summarised by
a statement from Florida’s Governor Rick Scott: ‘The liberal education is
irrelevant, and technical training is the new path forward. It is the only
2 PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM FAR-ENDS TO CIRCULARITIES 23
way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by

technology and shaped by global competition. The stakes could not be
higher’ (as cited in Zakaria, March 2015, The Washington Post).
This quote reveals a time bomb, with its detonation triggered by a
united conviction that the heart of education must be located in teaching
technical skills. The operational literacies of disciplinary symbolic systems
have metamorphosed into a synonym of intelligence and academic com-
petence. In addition, yet, as Sir Ken Robinson (2001) points out:
If there were no more to human intelligence than academic ability, most

of human culture would not have happened. There would be no practical
science or technology, no business, no arts, no music, no dance, drama,
architecture, design, aesthetics, feelings, relationships, emotions, or love …
If all you had was academic ability, you wouldn’t have been able to get out
of bed this morning. In fact, there wouldn’t have been a bed to get out of.
No one could have made one. You could have written about the possibility
of one, but not have constructed it. (p. 81)
In relation to making beds, Governor Scott may have chuckled in

reply to Ken Robinson’s argument, saying perhaps something along
these lines: ‘That is precisely what I am talking about, Sir Robinson! All
you will need in the future are the skills to write coded instructions in a
mode a machine can follow, and it will do it for you, in fact, as many as
you need’. With regards to the blind optimism for a technological indi-
vidual or mass-production, Governor Scott may be right. However, what
is so dangerous in his statement, to the point that it can be associated
with a ticking time bomb, is:
(a) The separation from and deemphasising of liberal education in schooling,

which means that most of the sophisticated ethical decisions of the future
connected to technology’s invasion of people’s private lives, control of
each other, technical intervention in the biology of our physical bodies
and the future of the planet as a whole, will be subjected to the decisions
of people whose critical thinking skills are extended no further than the
operational capacity of symbolic systems related to their technical train-
ing. Moving inevitably and in a fast-forward mode towards creating arti-
ficial intelligence, would it not be wise for us as humans to emphasise our
humanity, to reinforce what we know about our humanness and to better
understand ourselves as individuals, so that as non-augmented species,
we will not lose our sovereignty and be overpowered by supercomputers?
24 L. REDMAN
(b) Stressing the restoration of American superpower and its victory in

global competition in a time when the paradigm shifts, or borrowing
from Gerd Leonhard (2016), ‘megashifts’ (loc. 71), are rapidly alter-
ing our very understanding of the term global sounds rather outdated.
As a global community, should we not begin thinking about how we
can stop competing for power and start working collaboratively before
our blind fight for profit and dominance pushes us into a final techno-
logical deadlock?
Nevertheless, lawmakers and curriculum designers keep contem-

porary education away from the turbulence of our time, within the
security of the commonly sanctified framework of structures and algo-
rithms. ‘The Industrial Age paradigm of profit and growth at all cost,
or some outmoded technological imperative that may have served us
well in the 1980’ (Leonhard 2016, p. 7) is still promoted as an assured
‘Moses basket’ set on a tried-and-true stream to a successful career,
oblivious to the fact that its course lies through seismic waves of global
restructuring.
William Doll (1993) points out that Western education’s tilt towards
the adoration of science, math and technology was accelerated by the
Cold War and reached its height after the launch of the first artificial
Earth satellite, Sputnik, by the Soviet Union in 1957.
Doll writes:
At this time, it was believed that professional, scientific knowledge would

help us compete with the Russians in space, defeat the communists in
Vietnam, eliminate poverty and improve health care at home, and increase
the knowledge base of young people. Teaching machines, programmed
learning, and a teacher-proof curriculum were the wave of the future, the
road to social salvation. (loc. 248)
Sputnik’s outer space triumph ‘alarmed the United States. One

of the first reactions was to decide that mathematics teaching must be
revamped, so we could regain hegemony over our primary adversary’
(Hacker 2016, p. 102). This approach gave rise to scientific knowing
that Donald Schön (1991) identified as ‘technical rationality’, ‘the pos-
itivist epistemology of practice’ (p. 31). According to the positivist’s
perspective, ‘craft and artistry had no lasting place in rigorous practi-
cal knowledge’ (p. 34). Fortunately, the Western world did not need to
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
— Te olette vaikutusvaltainen mies, herra kauppaneuvos. Teillä on
paljon tuttavia sanomalehtimiespiireissäkin.
Päivä pääsi paistamaan herra kauppaneuvoksen kasvoille. Niin,

niin, niinhän se oli. Kun sitä oli ennättänyt tehdä jotain tässä
elämässä, niin tiesivät muutkin, mihin sitä pystyi.
Hän siirsi tyytyväisenä syrjään pienen hopeatarjottimen, jolla

nähtävästi hänen aamupäiväkahvinsa oli tuotu tänne
työhuoneeseen, sitte keikautti hän kirjoitustuolinsa enemmän
Saimaan päin ja katsoi kelloaan.
— Oikeastaan on minulla kova kiire, mutta kun auttaminen on

kysymyksessä, täytyy olla valmis uhraamaan vähän aikaakin. —
Olkaa hyvä, puhukaa vapaasti asianne.
— Olen kauan hakenut työtä, — jos jonkinlaista. Hiukan olen

saanut, mutta siitä on ansiota liian vähän…
— Mutta neiti, — kauppaneuvos ei voi olla keskeyttämättä, —

oletteko pyrkinyt kotiopettajattareksi? Tai rouvan apulaiseksi? Kun on
nuori kuten te, ja kun lisäksi on tuollaiset kauniit kasvot…
Saima ei huomaa sanoja tai ei tahdo huomata. Hänkin keskeyttää.
— Herra kauppaneuvos, minulla on vanha ja kivuloinen äiti.
— Ai, ai, — ai, ai, se oli hullumpaa. — Hän näpäyttää sormiaan. —

Vanhoja ei pitäisi olla muuta kuin varakkaissa kodeissa. Eikä
sielläkään liiemmästi, ei liiemmästi. Se on minun kokemukseni.
Veri syöksähtää Saiman kasvoille.

— Suurinkin rikkaus olisi minulle sulaa köyhyyttä ilman… Hän ei
saa lausetta lopetetuksi.
— Ymmärrän, ymmärrän! "Nicht so hitzig", neitiseni!
— Olen vapaahetkinäni vähän kirjoitellut, vain omaksi huvikseni,

en ansaitakseni. Sitä en koskaan ajatellut enkä olisi uskaltanutkaan,
mutta nyt täytyy —. Jos tämä voisi kelvata johonkin sanomalehteen?
Itse en uskaltaisi tarjota tätä, eikä kai kukaan silloin viitsisi asiaa
ajatellakaan. Mutta jos te…
Hän laskee pakettinsa pöydälle.
— Ahaa, vai tällainen teidän asianne olikin! — Kauppaneuvos

irroittaa paperit kääröstä ja rupeaa selailemaan lehtiä.
Saima tuntee vapisevansa. On kuin olisi hänen sisimpänsä siinä

pengottavana. Ja penkomassa on mies, jonka huone on lämmin ja
valoisa, ja joka juo kahvinsa hopeiselta tarjottimelta sillä aikaa, kun
äiti ja muut,— joiden ei pitäisi elää, kun ei ole varaa…
— Hyvästi, sanoo hän hätäisesti. — Minä tulen joskus perimään

vastausta. — Ja ennenkuin kauppaneuvos on ennättänyt tointua
hämmästyksestään, on Saima jo kadonnut huoneesta.
Hitaasti astuu hän kotiin päin. Kohdalle tultuaan jatkaa hän

matkaansa, kääntyy sitte takaisin kotiportille ja sieltä uudelleen pois
päin. Kotioven salpana on pelko, sydäntäkouristava pelko, ettei äiti
jaksa kestää tätä iskua. Eihän hän paljon ole puhunut tuosta
paikasta eikä näyttänyt uskovan sen saantiin, mutta jos sittekin on
odottanut ehkä hartaammin kuin konsanaan Saima.
Ja vaikka äiti sen vielä jaksaisi kestääkin, oli se sittekin niin
armottoman lohdutonta, kun eivät olot ottaneet valjetakseen. Nyt oli
apu tarpeen. Nyt tulisi se aikanaan. Nyt ei sitä annettu. Jos sitte
kerran päästäisiin myötämäkeen, ei ehkä enää olisi häntä, jonka
voimat vastamäessä olivat ennenaikojaan loppuun kuluneet.
Hämärsi jo kun Saima avasi kodin oven. Keittiö oli tyhjä. Pimeässä
huoneessa ei hän voinut nähdä mitään.
— Äiti, missä sinä olet?
— Täällä. Minä lepäilen vähän.
— Oletko sairas?
— En, en. Muuten vaan rupesin tähän, kun ei ollut mitään

tekemistä ja kun tässä on lämpöisempikin.
Se vihlasi kuin veitsen terä. He tunsivat sen kumpikin ja puhe

katkesi siihen. Toinen ei rohjennut kertoa, toinen ei kysyä.
Vasta jouluaaton edellisenä iltana se vihdoin purkautui. Sininen

maito, nurkka, joka oli niin hatara, että siihen Saiman rääsytukoista
huolimatta kerääntyi jäätä ja lunta, ja ne kengät, ne lämpimät,
ostamattomat joululahjakengät, kävivät Saimalle viimein
ylivoimaisiksi. Yöt oli hän itkenyt, päivät vaiennut. Nyt puhkesi hän
viimein nauruun.
Hän nauroi pahaa, ilkkuvaa naurua sille lämpimälle ja mukavalle

huoneelle, jossa hänelle hauskaa joulua toivotettiin samalla kun
tingittiin vähän pois hänen vaivalla ansaituista penneistään. Hän
nauroi ja ivasi niitä, jotka joivat herkkujaan hopeisilta tarjottimilta,
samalla kun valittivat köyhien vanhusten olemassa-oloa.
Äiti koetti rauhoittaa, mutta silloin suuttui Saima. Oli äitikin
sellainen raukkamainen nahjus! Olisi kai osaansa tyytynyt, vaikka
olisi kuollut nälkään!
— Sanoisit edes jotain, suuttuisit, olisit suunniltasi niinkuin minä,

silloin ehkä helpottaisi. Mutta kun sinä aina vaan kärsit, kärsit, käy
kuorma minulle sietämättömäksi.
Saima ei ollut nukkunut viikkoon, mutta sinä iltana nukkui hän

itkuunsa ja mielenliikutukseensa.
Ensi kertaa ei hän viime työkseen peittänyt äitiä ja saanut

osakseen äidin tavanmukaisia iltahyväilyjä.
Aamuyöstä hän heräsi. Hän oli nähtävästi nukkunut vaatteet

päällään ja äiti oli peittänyt hänet. Hän rupesi muistuttelemaan
itselleen edellistä iltaa. Kurkkuun nousi henkeä salpaava pala.
Sydäntä kirveli kirpeän kipeästi.
Eikö köyhyys itsessään ollut tarpeeksi raskas taakka? Vieläkö sen

piti kasvaa ja monistua sen kautta, että se synnytti katkeraa mieltä ja
kovia, haavoittavia sanoja.
Tai siitäkö katkeruus johtui, ettei hän ottanut surua vastaan

oikealla tavalla, ei niinkuin äiti?
Kuinka hän oli saattanut sanoa sellaista kuin sanoi äidille, juuri
hänelle, jota hän käsin oli tahtonut kantaa läpi kaiken raskaan ja
kovan? Vai olikohan hän juuri siksi suuttunut, että hän rakasti niin
paljon ja kärsi niin pohjattomasti.
Äidin vuoteelta kuului samassa hiljaista valitusta.

— Oma äiti-kultani! — Saima kumartuu äidin puoleen.
— Tästä minä en enää nouse. Minä tunnen sen.
Hymy sammuu Saiman huulilta. Hyväilyyn kohonnut käsi painuu

puutuneena.
— Mitä voin tehdä, kysyy hän. Ja hän säikähtää oman äänensä
koleutta.
*****
Ne kengät, ne kengät, ne kauniit joululahjakengät, niitä ei enää

tarvittu. —
*****
Tammikuun viimepäivinä, pitkän piilossaolon jälkeen, rupesi päivä

yht'äkkiä paistamaan kevättä ennustavan iloisesti. Suurin osa kodin
irtaimistoa oli jo silloin panttilaitoksella ja kylmilleen jätetyssä
huoneessa makasi kuollut laudoilla.
Saima asui keittiössä. Hänen täytyi olla lähellä äitiä ja jakaa kaikki
hänen kanssaan niinkauan kuin mahdollista.
Ja hän sai paljon jaettavaa.
Lähettäjän kultaisilla alkukirjaimilla kaunistetulla, muodikkaalla

paperilla kauppaneuvos ilmotti hänelle, että käsikirjoitus tuli
julaistavaksi, ei sanomalehdessä, vaan eri kirjana. Hyvä palkkio oli
myöskin tiedossa. Kauppaneuvos onnitteli tämän johdosta, kauniisti
ja monisanaisesti lupautuen uraansa alkavan suojelijaksi. Hän oli
aina koettanut auttaa nuoria, eteenpäin pyrkiviä ihmisiä. Sen neiti
Särkkä kyllä tiesi.
Saima näkee yhtäkkiä edessään kuvan nuoresta tytöstä, joka
jännityksestä vavisten repäisee auki tämän kirjeen, ahmii sen
sisällön ja kiiruhtaa sitte viereiseen huoneeseen, jossa viskautuu
polvilleen, painaa päänsä äidin syliin ja toistaa riemu joka äänen
väreessä: Äiti, äiti, nyt se tuli, nyt minä voin pitää Sinua hyvänä.
Mutta tuo kuva onkin vain haihtuva harhanäky, kuva siitä, mikä
olisi voinut tapahtua, jos…
Itse teossa nousee hän, kääntää välinpitämättömänä kirjeen

kokoon ja astuu hitain askelin kuolleen luo. Hänen katseensa on
yhtä eloton kuin kuolleen käsi on kylmä.
— Äiti, hän sanoo hiljaa ja kuiskaamalla, — se tuli nyt — mutta tuli

liian myöhään.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PAKENEVIEN
PARISSA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Knowing With New Media A Multimodal Approach For Learning 1St Ed Edition Lena Redman Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowing With New Media A Multimodal Approach For Learning 1St Ed Edition Lena Redman Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowing with New Media: A Multimodal

Approach for Learning 1st ed. Edition

Knowing with New

ISBN 978-981-13-1360-8 ISBN 978-981-13-1361-5 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018947627

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover credit: Compassionate Eye Foundation/Jasper White

Printed on acid-free paper

issue—the systematic reduction or even discarding of androrithms, ‘those

The identification of the contemporary ‘compression syndrome’ is

Melbourne, Australia Lena Redman

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man [Kindle

The Ripples theory proposes that an outcome of creative production is

explorations. I wish to thank Associate Prof Allie Clemans for acknowl-

Acknowledgements to the New Culture

Joe Kincheloe’s YouTube interview with Henry Giroux on the

an awareness of personal significance and developed a sense of oneness

2 Paradigm Shift: From Far-Ends to Circularities 19

3 Mind-Cinema and Cinematic Writing 57

5 Culture of Webworking: Knowing with

6 Complexity of the World: Circular Interconnectedness 117

7 Cinematic Bricolage as Reconnected Learning 143

8 DIY Creativity: Culture of Self-Sufficiency 167

8.4 The Ripple Model Example 182

9 Engine Room of Creative Software 195

10 Assessment, Learning and Sociological Imagination:

10.5 Potemkin’s Village 232

11 Probes’ Review Decoding Symbols

Fig. 3.1 The Recyculator. Author: J9 Stanton, Alice Springs, Australia

Table 3.1 Database and narrative elements in cinematic writing 64

© The Author(s) 2018 1

than the immediate surrounding. Providing people with facts, perspec-

domain of knowledge. Thus, the situation of the learner’s estrangement

of knowledge-production. This is a historically unique circumstance that

Compared to a craftsman, the bricoleur does not start his/her work by

The development of the Ripples model was inspired by the recogni-

its environment, is considered as corresponding with Piaget’s notion

Similarly, as in other areas of modern life, digital technology has also

in knowledge construction, drawing on personal, physical and social

viewed as stimuli, the elements of a database, while the responses are

systemic structure and in continuous interaction with its environment.

information and objects as psychological tools for finding a solution.

inconspicuously in our mind-cinema, can be infused with rich emotional

Bull, B. D. (2017). Adventures in Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Nurturing

2.1 Puzzle-Solving Paradigm

© The Author(s) 2018 19

conventional puzzle-solving traditions produce, either ‘conceptual[ly]

progression, we can see that today’s puzzle solving-oriented education

2.2 Sputnik’s Effect on Liberal Education

As societies become more complex in structure and resources, the need of

The dangerous split of schooling, as Dewey identified at the begin-

way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by

If there were no more to human intelligence than academic ability, most

In relation to making beds, Governor Scott may have chuckled in

(a) The separation from and deemphasising of liberal education in schooling,

(b) Stressing the restoration of American superpower and its victory in

Nevertheless, lawmakers and curriculum designers keep contem-

At this time, it was believed that professional, scientific knowledge would

Sputnik’s outer space triumph ‘alarmed the United States. One

Päivä pääsi paistamaan herra kauppaneuvoksen kasvoille. Niin,

Hän siirsi tyytyväisenä syrjään pienen hopeatarjottimen, jolla

— Oikeastaan on minulla kova kiire, mutta kun auttaminen on

— Olen kauan hakenut työtä, — jos jonkinlaista. Hiukan olen

2.2 Sputnik’s Effect on Liberal Education

(a) The separation from and deemphasising of liberal education in schooling,

(b) Stressing the restoration of American superpower and its victory in