recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : marksample   14

Intro to Digital Studies – Davidson College Fall 2018
"Learning Outcomes

By the end of the semester, you will be able to do the following:

• Contextualize Internet culture within the broader history of culture and technology
• Critique computational approaches to questions about arts and culture
• Analyze an artifact of digital culture using evidence-based reasoning
• Evaluate competing social, ethical, and philosophical questions surrounding technology and social media
• Craft a responsible digital online presence

Reading and Other Course Materials

There is one book to purchase for DIG 101: M.T. Anderson’s Feed (available in the Davidson College bookstore).

In addition to Feed, there will be various journal articles, book chapters, and online material to read throughout the semester. I urge you either to print out the material or to use a PDF application to take notes on the digital version of the material. You are required to bring the day’s reading to class with you.

We will also watch several videos, usually available on Netflix or YouTube.

Content Warning: Some material this semester may disturb you. We will encounter graphic violence, substance abuse, explicit language, sexual content, and references to hate speech and abuse. Research shows that emotionally challenging material can still be engaged in productive and intellectually rigorous ways, provided you are prepared with coping strategies that allow you to regulate your emotional response to that material. I am always willing to help you strategize appropriate approaches to our course material.

Work

The required work for DIG 101 will take several forms:

(1) This class places a premium on engagement. Engagement refers to your involvement in the course, both in and outside of the classroom. Factors include preparation, participation, focus, use of office hours, and so on. It is essential that everyone has carefully considered the day’s material, attends class, and participates. I also expect students to bring the day’s readings to class, well-marked up with notes and annotations. More than three absences for reasons not recognized by Davidson will lower your engagement grade by a letter grade. More than six absences will result in a zero for your engagement grade. Engagement is worth 20% of the final grade.

(2) Each student will contribute to the class blog at least seven times during the semester. You’ll post on your own domain, but the blog posts will feed into our course site. Blogging is worth 20% of your final grade.

(3) Roughly every other week a small group of students will lead the rest of the class through a role-playing case study focused on some slice of digital culture. The group will prepare a scenario inspired by a real life example and assign roles for students. In addition to putting together the case study as a group, each individual in the group will write their own analysis of the case study and how it played out in class. The precise topic of a group’s case study is up to that group, although the case study should resonate with the broader topic of that week or section of the course. Possible topics include trolling, commercial content moderation, privacy, machine learning, algorithms and so on. Your case study is worth 20% of your final grade.

(4) The Life Online Project asks you to document and analyze what life online is like in 2018, from your own perspective or even a perspective that is not your own. This is an open-ended project that may be completed individually or in groups. In either case, two key principles of this project are that it must be public and that it mostly take place offline. Examples of such work includes zines, pop-up galleries on campus, performances, or installations. The Life Online Project is worth 20% of your final grade.

(5) The final interview is a one-on-one conversation between each student and me toward the end of the semester. During this meeting you’ll try to synthesize what you’ve learned. Together, we will evaluate your overall work for the class. The final interview is worth 20% of your final grade.

Inclusive Learning

I am committed to the principle of inclusive learning. This means that our classroom, our virtual spaces, our practices, and our interactions be as inclusive as possible. Mutual respect, civility, and the ability to listen and observe others carefully are crucial to inclusive learning.

The college welcomes requests for accommodations related to disability and will grant those that are determined to be reasonable and maintain the integrity of a program or curriculum. To make such a request or to begin a conversation about a possible request, please contact the Office of Academic Access and Disability Resources, which is located in the Center for Teaching and Learning in the E.H. Little Library: Beth Bleil, Director, bebleil@davidson.edu, 704-894-2129; or Alysen Beaty, Assistant Director, albeaty@davidson.edu, 704-894-2939. It is best to submit accommodation requests within the drop/add period; however, requests can be made at any time in the semester. Please keep in mind that accommodations are not retroactive.

Academic Integrity

Students at Davidson College abide by an Honor Code. The principle of academic integrity is taken very seriously and violations are treated gravely. What does academic integrity mean in this course? Essentially this: when you are responsible for a task, you will perform that task. When you rely on someone else’s work in an aspect of the performance of that task, you will give full credit in the proper, accepted form.

Another aspect of academic integrity is the free play of ideas. Vigorous discussion and debate are encouraged in this course, with the firm expectation that all aspects of the class will be conducted with civility and respect for differing ideas, perspectives, and traditions. When in doubt (of any kind) please ask for guidance and clarification.

Classroom Courtesy

While this course embraces the digital world it also recognizes that digital tools and environments complicate personal interactions. Studies have shown that students who use laptops in class often receive lower grades than those who don’t. Even more worrisome are studies that show laptop users distract students around them. I permit laptops and tablets in class, but only when used for classroom activities, such as note-taking or class readings. Occasionally I may ask students to turn off all digital devices.

Messaging or other cell phone use is unacceptable. Any student whose phone rings during class or who texts in class will be responsible for kicking off the next class day’s discussion.

Late arrivals or early departures from class are disruptive and should be avoided."
marksample  syllabus  digital  digitalstudies  davidsoncollege  2018  syllabi 
august 2018 by robertogreco
Peripetatic Humanities - YouTube
"A lecture about Mark Sample's "Notes Toward a Deformed Humanities," featuring ideas by Lisa Rhody, Matt Kirchenbaum, Steve Ramsay, Barthes, Foucault, Bahktin, Brian Croxall, Dene Grigar, Roger Whitson, Adeline Koh, Natalia Cecire, and Ian Bogost & the Oulipo, a band opening for The Carpenters."
kathiinmanberens  performance  humanities  deformity  marksample  lisarhody  mattkirchenbaum  steveramsay  foucault  briancroxall  denegrigar  rogerwhitson  adelinekoh  ianbogost  oulipo  deformance  humptydumpty  repair  mikhailbakhtin  linearity  alinear  procedure  books  defamiliarization  reading  howweread  machines  machinereading  technology  michelfoucault  rolandbarthes  nataliacecire  disruption  digitalhumanities  socialmedia  mobile  phones  making  computation  computing  hacking  nonlinear 
february 2018 by robertogreco
English 508 (Spring 2016)
[See also: https://jentery.github.io/508/notes.html ]

[From the description page:
https://jentery.github.io/508/description.html

"In both theory and practice, this seminar brushes against four popular assumptions about digital humanities: 1) as a service to researchers, the field merely develops digital resources for online discovery and builds computational tools for end-users; it does not interpret texts or meaningfully engage with “pre-digital” traditions in literary and cultural criticism; 2) digital humanities is not concerned with the literary or aesthetic character of texts; it is a techno-solutionist byproduct of instrumentalism and big data; 3) digital humanities practitioners replace cultural perspectives with uncritical computer vision; instead of privileging irony or ambivalence, they use computers to “prove” reductive claims about literature and culture, usually through graphs and totalizing visualizations; and 4) to participate in the field, you must be fluent in computer programming, or at least be willing to treat literature and culture quantitatively; if you are not a programmer, then you are not doing digital humanities.

During our seminar meetings, we will counter these four assumptions by examining, historicizing, and creating “design fictions,” which Bruce Sterling defines as “the deliberate use of diegetic prototypes to suspend disbelief about change.” Design fictions typically have a futurist bent to them. They speculate about bleeding edge technologies and emerging dynamics, or they project whiz-bang worlds seemingly ripped from films such as Minority Report. But we’ll refrain from much futurism. Instead, we will use technologies to look backwards and prototype versions of texts that facilitate interpretative practice. Inspired by Kari Kraus’s conjectural criticism, Fred Moten’s second iconicity, Bethany Nowviskie and Johanna Drucker’s speculative computing, Karen Barad’s notion of diffraction, Jeffrey Schnapp’s small data, Anne Balsamo’s hermeneutic reverse-engineering, and deformations by Lisa Samuels, Jerome McGann, and Mark Sample, we will conduct “what if” analyses of texts already at hand, in electronic format (e.g., page images in a library’s digital collections).

Doing so will involve something peculiar: interpreting our primary sources by altering them. We’ll substitute words, change formats, rearrange poems, remediate fictions, juxtapose images, bend texts, and reconstitute book arts. To be sure, such approaches have vexed legacies in the arts and humanities. Consider cut-ups, constrained writing, story-making machines, exquisite corpses, remixes, tactical media, Fluxkits, or détournement. Today, these avant-garde traditions are ubiquitous in a banal or depoliticized form, the default features of algorithmic culture and social networks. But we will refresh them, with a difference, by integrating our alterations into criticism and prompting questions about the composition of art and history today.

Instructor: Jentery Sayers
Office Hours: Monday, 12-2pm, in CLE D334
Email: jentery@uvic.ca
Office Phone (in CLE D334): 250-721-7274 (I'm more responsive by email)
Mailing Address: Department of English | UVic | P.O. Box 3070, STN CSC | Victoria, BC V8W 3W1

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. —Karl Marx"]

[via: "when humanities start doing design without designers because design's too self-absorbed to notice being appropriated"
https://twitter.com/camerontw/status/700175377197563904
includes screenshot of Week 7 note from https://jentery.github.io/508/notes.html ]
jenterysayers  text  prototyping  digitalhumanities  speculativedesign  design  english  syllabus  maryanncaws  johannadrucker  wjtmitchell  jeffreyschnapp  evekosofskysedgwick  technosolutionism  brucesterling  fredmoten  karenbarad  jeromemcgann  marksample  bethanynowviskie  fluxkits  detournement  poetry  exquisitecorpses  algorithms  art  composition  rosamenkman  anthonydunne  fionaraby  dunne&raby  syllabi 
february 2016 by robertogreco
Your Mistake was a Vital Connection | samplereality
"This summer I attended the first annual Institute for Liberal Arts Digital Scholarship (ILiADS) at Hamilton College. It was an inspiring conference, highlighting the importance of collaborative faculty/student digital work at small liberal arts colleges. My own school, Davidson College, had a team at ILiADS (Professor Suzanne Churchill, Instructional Technologist Kristen Eshleman, and undergraduate Andrew Rikard, working on a digital project about the modernist poet Mina Loy). Meanwhile I was at the institute to deliver the keynote address on the final day. Here is the text of my keynote, called “Your Mistake was a Vital Connection: Oblique Strategies for the Digital Humanities.”"
marksample  digitalhumanities  obliquestrtegies  2015  mobydick  bots  moby-dick 
december 2015 by robertogreco
Final Port-ject | Electronic Literature
[More on the course here: http://courses.digitaldavidson.net/dig220/about/
and http://courses.digitaldavidson.net/dig220/ ]

"Overview
The final project is a “port”—a kind of translation—of a work of electronic literature from one platform to another, not necessarily digital, platform. The process of porting forces one to define the “essence” of a work, and also reveals a great deal about the affordances of technology. The final project is due at the Digital Project Showcase, December 9, 3:30-5pm in the Lilly Gallery.

Rationale
Adapting a program from one hardware system to another is “porting,” a term derived from the Classical Latin portare—to carry or bear, not unlike the carrying across (trans + latus) of translation. A port is borne from one platform to another, and the bearer is the programmer or designer, who attempts to preserve the program’s essential properties from one platform to the next.

A translator faces the same challenges. Think about the questions that arise when translating a poem. Where does the poetry of the poem lie? Where is its poemness? In its rhythm? Its rhyme? Its diction? Its layout? Its constraints? Its meanings? Which of these must be carried over from one language to another in order to produce the most faithful translation?

In Nineteen Ways of Looking at Wang Wei (1987), a study of the act and art of translation, Eliot Weinberger reads nineteen different translations of a four-line, 1,200-year-old poem by the Chinese master Wang Wei, attentive to the way translators have reinterpreted the poem over the centuries, even as they attempted to be faithful to the original. With a single word, a translator may create a perspective unseen in Wei’s original, radically shift the mood of the poem, or transform it into complete tripe. Many times these changes come about as the translator tries to improve the original in some way. Yet translation, Weinberger writes, ought to be “dependent on the dissolution of the translator’s ego: an absolute humility toward the text” (17).

We who port face similar challenges. What must be preserved when a work of electronic literature is carried across to a new platform: the work’s interface? Its narrative or themes? Its interactivity? Its aesthetic design? The underlying algorithms? The constraints of the original? And should the port try to improve upon the original? Or perhaps “break” the original, by exposing its insides? Where does our humility come into play? The ethos of adaptation will vary from port to port and writer to writer; what you choose to prioritize will help to determine the qualities of the final port and its relationship to the original program.

Getting Started
As you work on your port, think about your source material in terms of the elements of digital literature we’ve studied: data, process, surface, interaction, context. Any of these elements might be “portable”—the aspect of the work you focus on transforming into another platform. Also think about how the rules of notice and signification come into play with the source work, and how those rules might be transformed in the new medium.

Another way to approach the port is to focus on the seemingly most essential digital affordances of the work and turn them into something else, even their opposites. For example, if the source offers a relatively straightforward narrative, turn it into a wiki. Or if the work focuses heavily on images, render that textually. Or vice-versa.

I encourage you to review your private sketchbook for ideas. Also reread the public sketchbooks. There may be something buried there, some seed of an idea that could blossom into a compelling project.

Finally: be bold. Unlike Weinberger, I believe you can have “absolute humility toward the text” while at the same time producing something radically different from the text.

Tools and Platforms
• Twine
• Mediawiki (installable on your domain through the cPanel)
• Google Maps
• Timelines
• Storymaps
• Scratch
This list will continue to grow as I add add more possibilities!

Timeline
• Thursday, November 19: Proposal due (includes name of source work, medium of the port, and a project work plan)
• Thursday, December 3: Minimally Viable Port (MVP) due
• Wednesday, December 9: Final version due at the the Digital Project showcase, with the statement and reflection due by midnight on the same day

Project Statement and Reflection
In an addition to the port itself, you must write a project statement and reflection of 1,500-2,000 words. In this document you’ll reflect on the choices you made, what your port reveals about the original, and what you learned about the process of porting. Use the statement and reflection to address the criteria below that aren’t self-evident in the port itself. The best demonstrations of your project’s engagement with the themes of this course will be explicit analyses of and connections to various readings, theories, and material from the class (e.g. affordances, five elements of digital literature, properties of digital media environments, etc.)

Evaluation
The port will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Essence (the degree to which your port captures the source’s essence, however you define that)
• Insight (the extent to which you uncover and articulate surprises and insights about the source material through the porting process)
• Craft (the degree of mastery of the mode of composition or representation of the port)
• Intention (the sense of intentionality and deliberateness of the work)
• Theme (the level of engagement with ideas from this class and its online counterpart)
• Synthesis (the way you mobilize both your port and the original material to make some broader hypothesis or claim that matters)

Suggested Sources
• The works of Dreaming Methods
• The works of Jason Nelson
• The works of Christine Wilks
• The works of Alan Bigelow
• The works of Kate Pullinger
• Pieces from the first and second volumes of the Electronic Literature Collection
• Works in the ELMCIP Knowledge Base
• Works in the Pathfinders project
• Works in the Interactive Fiction Database"
classideas  marksample  eliterature  electronicliterature  if  interactivefiction  writing  literature  classes  digitalhumanities  twine  scratch  mediawiki  googlemaps 
december 2015 by robertogreco
Difficult Thinking about the Digital Humanities | SAMPLE REALITY
"Five years ago in this space I attempted what I saw as a meaningful formulation of critical thinking—as opposed to the more vapid definitions you tend to come across in higher education. Critical thinking, I wrote, “stands in opposition to facile thinking. Critical thinking is difficult thinking. Critical thinking is being comfortable with difficulty.”

Two hallmarks of difficult thinking are imagining the world from multiple perspectives and wrestling with conflicting evidence about the world. Difficult thinking faces these ambiguities head-on and even preserves them, while facile thinking strives to eliminate complexity—both the complexity of different points of view and the complexity of inconvenient facts.

Adam Kirsch’s much-discussed rejoinder to the digital humanities pivots on a follow-up post of mine, also about critical thinking. In this post—which later appeared in Debates in the Digital Humanities—I argue that most of the work we ask our students to produce is designed to eliminate ambiguity and complexity. It is ironic that Kirsch concludes my vision of difficult thinking represents nothing less than “the obsequies of humanism”—ironic because Kirsch’s piece is itself a remarkable example of facile thinking.

Others have already underscored the paranoid logic (Glen Worthey), glaring omissions (Ryan Cordell), and poor history (Tim Hitchcock) in Kirsch’s piece. You might also read Wendy Hui Kyong Chun’s and Lisa Rhody’s recent Working the Digital Humanities essay in differences as a pre-emptive commentary on Kirsch. And finally, The New Republic has published a letter from the authors of Digital_Humanities, disputing Kirsch’s claims.I don’t have much more to add about the particulars of Kirsch’s essay, other than to say that I already wrote a response to it—back in 1998. (In an issue of Works and Days that focused on the scholarship of teaching with technology, which even then was “taking over” English Departments—inasmuch as faculty were using word processors instead of typewriters.)

I do have something to say about the broader context of Kirsch’s essay. It’s part of a growing body of work committed to approaching the intersection of technology and the humanities with purely facile thinking. This facile thinking ignores contradictory evidence, dismisses alternative ways of seeing, and generally places its critiques of the digital humanities in the service of some other goal having little to do with either technology or the humanities. It might be click bait for page views, it might be purely self-promotional, it might be crisis opportunism, and occasionally it’s even a sincere but misdirected criticism. For example, in the case I explored in 1998, anxieties about teaching with technology were really anxieties about teaching, full stop.

The facile thinking about the digital humanities comes from both within and without the academy. It appears on blogs and social media. It’s printed in The Chronicle of Education and Inside Higher Ed, The New York Times and Slate. It’s in scholarly journals, wrapped in the emperor’s new clothes of jargon and theory. It comes from accomplished scholars, librarians, graduate students, journalists and interns, former academics, and university administrators. In nearly every case, the accounts eliminate complexity by leaving out history, ignoring counter-examples, and—in extreme examples—insisting that any other discourse about the digital humanities is invalid because it fails to take into consideration that particular account’s perspective. Here facile thinking masterfully (yes, facile thinking can be masterful) twists the greatest strength of difficult thinking—appreciating multiple perspectives, but inevitably not all perspectives—into its fatal weakness.

In one sensible comment about Kirsch’s account of the digital humanities, Ted Underwood reminds us that we can’t govern reception of our work. We can’t control how others think or talk or write about our work. I agree, but the problem—diagnosed by Matt Kirschenbaum, again in differences—is that so often the facile thinking about the digital humanities isn’t focused on our actual work, but rather on some abstract “construct” called the digital humanities. Matt thoroughly (and with humor) dismantles this construct. But more to my observation about facile thinking here, let me add a corollary to Ted’s point about reception. And this has to do with audience. We often mistake ourselves as the audience for other people’s work. However, the intended audience for facile thinking about the digital humanities is rarely people who work at the intersection of technology and the humanities. Very often there is a third (or fourth or fifth) party involved. Whomever you think a critic of the digital humanities is addressing, there is always someone else being addressed. This doesn’t just happen in the discussions outside of the academy, like Kirsch’s essay in The New Republic. It happens when academics appear to be talking only to each other. Let’s say one digital humanist levels an inflammatory charge against another. The charge is not really directed toward the second digital humanist; it is a charge meant to resound among another audience entirely. Facile thinking about the digital humanities is a performance, not scholarship.

What we need, obviously, is more difficult thinking about the digital humanities. I’m hardly the first to call for such a thing. Alan Liu is looking for more cultural criticism in the digital humanities, while Fred Gibbs wants critical discourse in the digital humanities. I’m dissatisfied with that word “critical” and all its variations—that’s why my formulation emphasizes difficult thinking over facile thinking. In other words, I don’t care whether you’re critical or not about the digital humanities—either the construct or its actual pedagogical and scholarly work. I simply want you to practice difficult thinking. That means evidentiary-based reasoning. That means perspectives not your own. Taken together, these add up to a kind of rational empathy. Show me how rational empathy means the death knell of the humanities and I’ll gladly take over the obsequies myself."
marksample  2014  criticalthinking  difficultthinking  complexity  education  digitalhumanities  humanities  empathy  criticism  adamkirsch  glenworthey  ryancordell  timhitchcock  wendyhuikyongchun  lisarhody  mattkirschenbaum  fredgibbs 
may 2014 by robertogreco
» History and Future of the Book (Fall 2014 Digital Studies Course) SAMPLE REALITY
"A book may only be made of paper, cardboard, ink, and glue, but it is nonetheless a remarkable piece of technology—about which we have mostly forgotten it is a piece of technology. This class is concerned with the long history, the varied present, and the uncertain future of the book in the digital age.

We will approach the history of the book in the most materialist way possible. In other words, when we say “books,” we don’t mean novels. We don’t mean texts. We mean books, the actual physical objects. Books have heft. They burn. They mildew. They smell. Their shape and design limit certain uses and encourage others. Similarly, books in the future—or whatever replaces books—will foster certain practices over others.

Over the course of the semester History and Future of the Book will return again and again to three central questions: (1) What is the history of the book as a physical and cultural object? (2) How have current disruptions in reading and writing technology changed the way we use and imagine books? (3) What does the future of the book look like?

Along the way we will consider reading and writing innovations such as electronic paper, e-readers, touchscreen interfaces, DIY publishing experiments, and place-based authoring. We will also address what some critics call the phenomenon of bookishness in contemporary culture—an exaggeration of the most “bookish” elements of a book, which may represent either the last dying gasp of the printed book or herald a renaissance of the form"
books  syllabus  bookfuturism  marksample  2014  projectideas  ebooks  technology  digitalhumanities  syllabi 
april 2014 by robertogreco
» Intrusive Scaffolding, Obstructed Learning (and MOOCs) SAMPLE REALITY
"If you think of riding a bike in terms of pedagogy, training wheels are what learning experts call scaffolding. Way back in 1991, Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum wrote about a type of teaching called cognitive apprenticeship, and they used the term scaffolding to describe “the support the master gives apprentices in carrying out a task. This can range from doing almost the entire task for them to giving occasional hints as to what to do next.” As the student—the apprentice—becomes more competent, the teacher—the master—gradually backs away, in effect removing the scaffolding. It’s a process Collins, Brown, and Holum call “fading.” The problem with training wheels, then, is that fading is all but impossible. You either have training wheels, or you don’t.

Training wheels are a kind of scaffolding. But they are intrusive scaffolding, obstructive scaffolding. These bulky metal add-ons get in the way quite literally, but they also interfere pedagogically. Riding a bike with training wheels prepares a child for nothing more than riding a bike—with training wheels.

My oldest child, I said, learned how to ride a bike with training wheels. But that’s not exactly what happened. After weeks of struggle—and mounting frustration—he learned. But only because I removed the all-or-nothing training wheels and replaced them with his own body. I not only removed the training wheels from his bike, but I removed the pedals themselves. In essence, I made a balance bike out of a conventional bike. Only then did he learn to balance, the most fundamental aspect of bike-riding. I learned something too: when my younger son was ready to ride a bike we would skip the training wheels entirely.

My kids’ differing experiences lead me to believe that we place too much value on scaffolding, or at least, on the wrong kind of scaffolding. And now I’m not talking simply about riding bikes. I’m thinking of my own university classroom—and beyond, to online learning. We insist upon intrusive scaffolding. We are so concerned about students not learning that we surround the learning problem with scaffolding. In the process we obscure what we had hoped to reveal. Like relying on training wheels, we create complicated interfaces to experiences rather than simplifying the experiences themselves. Just as the balance bike simplifies the experience of bike riding, stripping it down to its core processes, we need to winnow down overly complex learning activities.

We could call this removal of intrusive scaffolding something like “unscaffolding” or “descaffolding.” In either case, the idea is that we take away structure instead of adding to it. And perhaps more importantly, the descaffolding reinstates the body itself as the site—and means of—learning. Scaffolding not only obstructs learning, it turns learning into an abstraction, something that happens externally. The more scaffolding there is, the less embodied the learning will be. Take away the intrusive scaffolding, and like my son on his balance bike, the learner begins to use what he or she had all along, a physical body.

I’ve been thinking about embodied pedagogy lately in relation to MOOCs—massive open online courses. In the worse cases, MOOCs are essentially nothing but scaffolding. A typical Coursera course will include video lectures for each lesson, an online quiz, and a discussion board. All scaffolding. In a MOOC, where are the bodies? And what is the MOOC equivalent of a balance bike? I want to suggest that unless online teaching—and classroom teaching as well—begins to first, unscaffold learning problems and second, rediscover embodied pedagogy, we will obstruct learning rather than foster it. We will push students away from authentic learning experiences rather than draw them toward such experiences.

After all, remember the etymological root of pedagogy: paedo, as in child, and agogic, as in leading or guiding. Teachers guide learners. Scaffolding—the wrong kind—obstructs learning."
marksample  scaffolding  pedagogy  howweteach  belesshelpful  trust  education  teaching  learning  bikes  biking  johnseelybrown  annholum  allancollins  mooc  moocs  coursera  experience  balance  2014 
february 2014 by robertogreco
CDC official: we've reached "the end of antibiotics"
"Yesterday, Mark Sample tweeted about disasters, low-points, and chronic trauma:
"Low point" is the term for when the worst part of a disaster has come to pass. Our disasters increasingly have no low point.

After the low point of a disaster is reached, things begin to get better. When there is no clear low point, society endures chronic trauma.

Disasters with no clear low point: global warming, mass extinction, colony collapse disorder, ocean acidification, Fukushima.

To which I would add: drug-resistant infectious diseases."
2013  marksample  kottke  disasters  lowpoints  trauma  chronictrauma  antibiotics  disease  climatechange  globalwarming  massextinction  colonycollapsedisorder  oceanacidification  fukushima 
october 2013 by robertogreco
Atriums and Frame-Crashing – Allen Tan is…writing
"It turns out that there’s a rich well of writing already about context collapse – see Michael Wesch and Danah Boyd, among others – describing the paralysis that comes from writing (etc) online. You don’t know how to act because you don’t know who’s watching. This isn’t new, as Wesch compares it to talking to a video camera.

I think frame-crashing is the Jekyll to context collapse’s Hyde. While the latter is the current feeling of the disorientation, frame-crashing is an active act. You frame-crash when mockingly retweeting 15-year-olds who thought Cher died when seeing #nowthatchersdead. Journalists frame-crash when they quote cluelessly rascist people in stories about people of color. This isn’t a judgment about whether it’s fair (it varies), the point is that it’s done to someone."
allentan  danahboyd  michaelwesch  2013  contextcollapse  frame-crashing  marcfisher  tomscheinfeldt  mandybrett  bonniestewart  marksample  frankchimero  robinsloan  workinginpublic  ninastössinger  anandgiridharadas  audience  writing  feedback  vulnerability  iteration  online  journalism  sharing  purpose  audiences 
may 2013 by robertogreco
Debates in the Digital Humanities: What’s Wrong with Writing Essays, MARK L. SAMPLE
"As a professor invested in critical thinking—that is, in difficult thinking—I have become increasingly disillusioned with the traditional student paper. Just as the only thing a standardized test measures is how well a student can take a standardized test, the only thing an essay measures is how well a student can conform to the rigid thesis/defense model that, in the hands of novice scholars, eliminates complexity, ambiguity, and most traces of critical thinking."
gaming  videogames  publicwriting  2012  criticalthinking  standardization  standardizedtesting  testing  essays  writing  via:lukeneff  marksample 
january 2013 by robertogreco
SAMPLE REALITY · What’s Wrong With Writing Essays
"The student essay is a twitch in a void. A compressed outpouring of energy (if we’re lucky) that means nothing to no one. My friend and occasional collaborator Randy Bass has said that nowhere but school would we ask somebody to write something that nobody will ever read.

This is the primary reason I’ve integrated more and more public writing into my classes. I strive to instill in my students the sense that what they think and what they say and what they write matters — to me, to them, to their classmates, and through open access blogs and wikis, to the world.

In addition to making student writing public, I’ve also begun taking the words out of writing. Why must writing, especially writing that captures critical thinking, be composed of words? Why not images? Why not sound? Why not objects? The word text, after all, derives from the Latin textus, meaning that which is woven, strands of different material intertwined together. Let the warp be words and the weft be something else entirely.

With this in mind, I am moving away from asking students to write toward asking them to weave. To build, to fabricate, to design. I don’t want my students to become miniature scholars. I want them to be aspiring Rauschenbergs, assembling mixed media combines, all the while through their engagement with seemingly incongruous materials, developing a critical thinking practice about the process and the product."

[via: http://snarkmarket.com/blog/snarkives/books_writing_such/teaching_as_antiteaching_writing_as_antiwriting/ ]
teaching  learning  multimedia  tcsnmy  classideas  expression  criticalthinking  robertrauschenberg  process  mixedmedia  blogs  wikis  publicwriting  writing  education  marksample  2009  workinginpublic  teachingwriting  canon  cv  uncreativewriting 
march 2009 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read