Watch the podcast here: https://youtu.be/mcc3IhpDZiY
The recording was made on 11th December 2024. I wrote the personal reflection shortly after and gathered audience feedback in January and February 2025 through an online listening session, written and oral feedback delivered remotely.
This episode tracks the development of the archetypal image of Santa Claus. We discuss the original Saint Nicholas, war propaganda featuring Santa Claus, Coca-Cola and the racist colonial history behind some Santa traditions.
After receiving feedback from episode 1, I decided to include much more image analysis – as evidenced by the Gillian Rose framework in my notes – and to allow my guest to draw their version of Santa as a starting point.
Below is a copy of my notes, including bibliography:
I invited peers from my course, students, and critical friends to listen to and watch the podcast on Google Hangout.
The listeners could then submit feedback through a number of avenues:
It was amusing watching emojis pop up as the episode went on. People left comments when they enjoyed a section, I also answered a couple of questions.
All of the feedback has been anonymised.
This is the feedback given orally, it was transcribed at the time and edited for clarity:
“I liked the conversational vibe, it felt relaxed and easy to listen to even though I don’t know much about art history.”
“I would like more structure – I wanted to know what I should take away at the end of each image analysis, maybe it could be a recap? Or a summary.”
“I found it hard to follow the history and geography, you could use the video to add a time line or extra details.”
“I thought Tom was more of an expert than an audience insert – but I did enjoy him analysing the images, he knows his stuff! It sounded like you were surprised too.”
“Could you introduce the guest and yourself more clearly? So that we understand what base knowledge each host has. At the moment I’m like, why should I trust this man?”
“I needed some technical terms to be explained – this could be onscreen if missed in conversation.”
“I felt like if I kept listening to more episodes I would start learning more about analysing images.”
“It was really easy to take in the information. I could understand a lot of what you were saying, even though I had holes in my base knowledge.”
“Because it was a story, I could find myself again if I got lost.”
“I’m not an aural learner, I like visuals more. The things that stood out to me I already knew a little about – like Coca-Cola and Santa. I remember the images well.”
“The racist imagery stood out to me – not in a bad way! You were able to talk about it in a way that was still respectful but had humour. It felt cathartic. Like these images are so ridiculous. You took them apart and that took away a bit of their power.”
“The podcast is informative and causal. The presentation and images that pair with the podcast made learning easier and more approachable. The subject itself is relatable – everyone knows something about Christmas but not its history. The conversational tune also helped in making the learning easier. I don’t feel spoon fed information. I also liked that the content is not too “art/design specific” which makes the learning more approachable.”
“I learnt about how story, history and representation of Santa was twisted through myths, caricature and beliefs.”
“Seemed like more image analysis and maybe a quicker pace too so it felt like it flowed really well and I felt v engaged the whole time. Maybe this was also because I already had a strong interest in the topic, so just generally was more captivated than the previous epi. Also a big thing for me was that Holly and Tom were coming from different angles and had different knowledge but it came together really well, gave me a really great understanding of the subject matter.”
“Really liked learning about the basic timeline of Father C’s evolution, and then how Tom and Holly were questioning how things changed together, to come up with more juicy ideas and thoughts to build on the hows and whys and link things together. I think it was really helpful how there was a structure but they still allowed themselves to steer slightly off when interesting questions or ideas got brought up. That really got my mind buzzing too, felt like it made the subject more exciting because they were both really excited and were learning new things / thinking of new ideas together.”
“Part of the podcast is about criticizing the racist history/artifacts which was very interesting. I would have loved to seen it with more drama/shock eg. Maybe zoom into the black faces of santa or show how horrific looking the children or demon are looking in the print?”
“There could be even more images, particularly when talking about a specific part of an image – would be great if Holly could crop or zoom or highlight on the screen. Did the images say where they from/found? I can’t remember now but that could actually be really helpful for future ref and looking back on the episode without the audio or Holly nearby. I wonder what would happen if there was like a summary at the end? I’m not sure, but I feel like when I was discussing it after I found some bits that were mentioned at the very start harder to remember.”
“Really liked the duo. And obviously liked the visual analysis and all the different arts – I am the target audience for sure.”
“I would have liked to see the zooming on the details of the images at the same time that they mention they are doing it.”
“I really thought it was a good level and mix of facts, and bouncing off each other, with jokes and other historical references.”
“For Tom, I think for a non-specialised audience having people who know iconography etc. is always a really good thing. Tom was kind of my audience insert, but not fully. They both taught things to the audience in different ways. Tom is the first recipient and person to learn from their info, then as the listener we kind of receive both informations together as complimentary. I would like more episodes!”
From an anonymous critical peer on the BA course!
This article deals with the telling of personal stories and the emotional impact of listening.
second person space – the space between storyteller (or self) and the story listener (or other)
neural coupling – the process by which neural patterns of the storyteller mirror the story listener
narrative medicine – medicine professionals are trained to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories and plights of others
transformative learning – “learning that transforms problematic frames of references… to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change.”
McCann S, Barto J, Goldman N. Learning Through Story Listening. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2019;33(3):477-481. doi:10.1177/0890117119825525e
Watch the podcast here: https://youtu.be/j6nOzXn_UCg
The recording was made on 28th November 2024. I wrote my personal reflection shortly after and gathered audience feedback in early January 2025 from trusted peers.
The episode explores the history of graphic user interfaces, as a way of discussing semiotics, the notion of ‘style’, and Fisher’s interpretation of hauntology as capitalist critique.
My objectives were:
Below is a copy of my notes, including bibliography:
I gathered a group of trusted and critical peers to listen to the podcast and offer feedback.
“I was more engaged in the second half, there was less laughter and giggling and more discussion that was easier to follow.”
“I enjoyed the cheeky, fun and relaxed moments. I felt entertained while learning.”
“Really interesting topic, and very easy to follow along particularly when Lily described an image and then you asked some questions to make her dissect it further.”
“Main criticism is that it was a bit too long.”
“Lily was very funny and engaging!”
“Visuals were very helpful otherwise I would have been lost.”
“You both seem a bit mad but was entertaining.”
“Host and guest dynamic was engaging, I was asking the same questions that Lily asked. It felt like she was my avatar.”
“Can we have a teaser for the next episode?”
In my studio visit with Thomas O’Mahony, we discussed the kind of role-playing involved in podcasting – particularly in relation to Lions Led by Donkeys and Beneath the Skin. In these shows the host plays the role of ‘teacher’ and the co-host plays the role of ‘student’. The student is not a ‘tabula rasa’, they bring prior knowledge to the learning. In some ways the co-host is a listener insert. I’m starting to wonder if this is a form of observational learning for the listener.
To learn from the model the user must be paying attention to it.
The user must be able to remember the model.
The user may try to reproduce the actions of the model, but may not have the skill.
Motivating incentives may help users to reproduce the skill.
In the model I would present in the podcast, the listener would be paying attention to the host or co-host performing, for example, image analysis. They may find the delivery method memorable, aiding retention. If they encounter an image in the ‘wild’ they may try to reproduce the methodology. What would the motivation be? Good grades? Clout? Self-learning?
However, in order to prove this I would have to run further studies! Not something I have time for now unfortunately, but interesting for the future.
‘Observational Learning | Psychology, Behavior & Cognitive Processes | Britannica’. Accessed 2 February 2025. https://www.britannica.com/science/observational-learning.
The case study is from 2011 from a South African university.
Two case studies developing an approach for podcasts to enhance student learning. The case studies involve two groups of postgraduate students enrolled on a blended course over two years. Students were given discretion on how and when to listen to the podcasts. In Case 1, the podcasts were integrated into the pedagogy. In Case 2, they were loosely integrated. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. Access logs were also used for insights into the frequency of use. The findings suggest that students were confident using podcast for academic purposes. Within a constructivist learning environment, students were afforded control and flexibility, space for reflection and self-paced learning.
The thesis of this paper is that listening to podcasts on mobile devices could cognitively scaffold learning, converging students’ social and entertainment spaces into the learning space.
constructivism – students construct understanding through experience, integrating new information with existing knowledge
constructivist teaching methods – learners are actively involved in processing meaning, as opposed to passively receiving information
ubiquitous technologies – technology commonly available and accessible to most in a particular community
interpretive approach – researchers view participants in a study as active knowledge constructors
“… you can listen whilst you are walking or you can listen…the
(05MU/3 – 4)
period between… when I’m in between places is lost time”
Armstrong, J., & Franklin, T. (2008). A review of current and developing international practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education. York, England: Franklin Consulting.
‘Constructivism (Philosophy of Education)’. In Wikipedia, 30 January 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)&oldid=1272933062.
‘Constructivist Teaching Methods’. In Wikipedia, 24 January 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivist_teaching_methods&oldid=1271630101.
Ng’ambi, D. (2008). Podcasts for reflective learning. In G. Salmon & P. Edirisingha (Eds.), Podcasting for learning in universities (pp. 132 – 145). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Tsagkias, M., Larson, M., & de Rijke, M. (2010). Predicting podcast preference: An analysis framework and its application. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 374 – 391.
These notes are adapted from the notes taken during the studio visit:
Researched Tom and his podcasts, I prepared for a semi structured interview. I decided to focus on the following topics:
I sent the subject of the interview a consent form using Google Forms.
It was not possible to record the interview (it was attempted, but the file became corrupted…!). I took notes and drew as we spoke.
I feel I have a better understanding on the following:
Bruce Goebel argues that humorous texts help students develop critical reading skills and promote social justice issues.
Polysemy – coexistance of multiple meanings for a word or phrase
Goebel puts into writing experiences I have personally had while teaching. In particular, the emotional exhaustion caused by over exposure to tragic/troubling/serious works. I’ve also witnessed students light up again when something funny appears.
The piece spends time suggesting ways to put pieces of media side by side to analyse the social justice humour. This is something I want to do on the podcast – but the humour would come from either the ridiculousness of the sources or through the conversational analysis with a guest.
I agree with the need to carefully frame humour for students in class so that they understand when irony is being used. I wonder if it is possible or necessary to do the same for a podcast episode where I cannot see or control the audience. It would be good to get feedback on this from my listening ‘parties’.
Goebel, B. (2018) ‘What’s So Funny about Social Justice?’, The English Journal, 107(6), pp. 48–53.
