Unit 4 Evaluation Criteria
Written Reflection
1. Creative, though-provoking, two-part title?
2. Introductory paragraph offers brief overview/definition/description of discussion area, without making obvious claims or gross generalizations?
3. Is constructed with a singular voice that is attentive to the checklist on page 175 and avoid the components of bias on page 174 of The Writer’s Harbrace Brief Handbook ?
4. Avoids the pitfalls of second person perspective, unnecessary passive voice? Are the sentences parallel (when appropriate)? Do pronouns and antecedents agree? Do subjects and verb tenses agree? Is syntax clear?
5. Uses a wide range of texts, drawing on a variety of perspectives, to consider and create a way of thinking about the topic that is critical, generative, and new(ish)? Identifies the major themes of the discussion and considers how those themes fit in or contribute to a new perspective?
Presentation of Research
1. Each participant contributes in near-equal fashion?
2. Presentation has clearly been rehearsed? Has the group reviewed Garr Reynolds’ Top Ten Delivery Tips and considered those tips that might apply to the classroom as an audience?
3. Presentation communicates the findings of the reflection without the recitation of the paper itself?
4. Thoughtful inclusion of an extra-textual medium to *complement* the presentation? Does it provide the audience with concrete examples and evidence of the thematic findings? If using PowerPoint, does the group use slides effectively, modeling their work on the principles of one of the following PowerPoint innovators? Lessig, Godin, Kawasaki, Reynolds.
Unit 4: The Collaborative Arcades Project
“[Benjamin’s] panoramic purview came about by collecting statements, analyses and responses from many perspectives” (Leslie).
Walter Benjamin was cultural and literary theorist—and radical intellectual–in the early 1900s. He worked as a translator and social scientist, but was also taken by the notion of history as constructed by context and “constellations” of ideas.
In the 1920s, Benjamin began his Arcades Project, where he set about understanding the cultural, architectural, and economic phenomenon of Paris’s arcades or glass-ceilinged outdoor malls.
For our purposes in unit 4, we’ll be modeling our work on Benjamin’s in two ways. First, we will use his method of research, which has been called montage or bricolage, and is essentially the act of collecting (and collecting and collecting) observations and texts that surround a particular topic or discussion and allowing the collection’s meaning to emerge from juxtaposition. Second, we’ll use the allegory of the arcades as methodology or guiding theory for how we interpret our research. That is, the arcades often connected seemingly disparate shops and buildings. In using the arcades-as-methodology, we’ll force ourselves not only to consider a variety of sources, authorities, and texts in our research; we’ll also take the time to consider the ways in which seemingly diverse ideas might converge to illicit new perspective.
For this unit, we’ll work in small groups (3-4 members). The first task will be to collect and observe texts using a multi-authored tumblelog. The collection must incorporate a vast diversity of perspectives. The group will then construct a dialogue about emerging ideas from the collection to produce a 5-page reflection on the possible implications of the collection. Finally, the group will be responsible to present their findings to the class, incorporating some sort of visual or extra-textual medium.
We’ll assemble groups in class. Once groups are assembled, the group will be responsible for deciding on a topic from the following list for their research (multiple groups may choose the same topic). I’ve offered up some URLs as starting points:
• “reality” media and video blogs: justin.tv, zefrank.com/theshow, lonelygirl15
• distributed knowledge and alternative epistemologies: intag, webepistemology.org
• digital inequalities/digital divide: Liberating Voices!
• “virtual” hate crimes: Reclaim the Media
• digital literacy/ “new” literacies: Cory Doctorow , Information Literacy Weblog
Schedule of interstitial assignments and activities:
Group Contract: Outlines scheduled meeting times; strategies for division of tasks and brief summary of group members’ strengths, interests, and possible contributions; explicit expectations of each group member; speculation concerning the final presentation. Each member should sign the document. Due on Wednesday 4/11.
Tumblelog: Each group will maintain a (b)log which warehouses observations and links to texts. The tumblelog becomes the montage. A tumblelog is different than a weblog in that the posts are more brief and often the posts appear random. The distinction is semantic; however, the generic description of a tumblelog is more accurate in reflecting the kind of work I’d like to see. Posts should be focused and brief, but also contain full bibliographic information and links. Think annotation from unit 1. URL due to me by email Monday 4/9. Number of posts should exceed 20.
Informal group progress reports: On Monday 4/16 and Wed 4/18 I will meet with groups individually for briefings. Groups should be prepared to discuss questions, concerns, and how the shape of their project is emerging or changing.
Reflection: A 5-page, collaboratively-written reflection that considers the possible implications of what the montage-work reveals about the multiplicity of the group’s topic. It should be one streamlined document, and include citations and a Works Cited page. Due on the day of the group’s scheduled presentation.
Presentation: Each group should construct a 15 minute presentation that includes at least one adjunct medium. The presentation should reveal the groups’ findings concerning their topic, but members should avoid simply reading from the reflection. Presentations will be scheduled for the last 2 class meetings 4/25 and 4/30. Groups will draw numbers to determine presentation order.
Presentation response forms: each group member must attend all presentations and complete a response form.
The last 4 weeks of class look like this:
Wed 4/3: Introduction to unit four. Assemble groups; overview of topics; group discussion to determine topic, preliminary meeting plan. Homework: Meet and construct the group contract. Begin collecting texts.
Mon 4/9: Set up group Tumblelogs and begin collecting texts and sources. Homework: continue collecting and observing. Write two annotations (4-5 sentences each) and bring them to class on Wednesday.
Wed 4/11: Scrutinizing paragraphs. Bring Ballenger and Harbrace (handbook) to class.
Homework: continue to collect. Tumblelogs should have 6-8 entries at this point; stop and read what your group has found, making sure to follow links when offered. Make a list of ideas (think the data table/patterns from unit 3) that emerge from reviewing the log as a whole. Bring the list to class on Friday.
Mon 4/16: Meet with groups to go over one another’s lists. Begin preliminary work on the reflection. Homework: continue to collect. Meet to prepare for the progress meeting on Monday.
Wed 4/18: Progress briefings; open.
Mon 4/23: Progress briefings; open.
4/25-4/30: Presentations.
Welcome to Unit #4–collaborative research
Unit 4 will cover the following mandated learning outcomes:
Students will collaborate and do small group work as part of their composing process.
Students will demonstrate a critical awareness of how their work as writers is influenced by their own positions, the diverse array of assumptions held by other audiences.
Students will develop strategies of collaboration, such as class discussion, group work, discussion boards, web logs, and group presentations.
Students will learn methods of collaborative research.
Students will learn strategies of reading texts across disciplines and will discover ways of integrating diverse perspectives into their investigation of the topic.
For this last project, we’ll explore a final aspect of internet culture: diversity. Our method will be montage or bricolage, in the tradition of Walter Benjamin’s Arcades Project.
For Wednesday, please read the following links:
The Passageways of Paris (parts I and II ONLY)
The Fragments of Passagenwerk (Browse this hypertext–you don’t have to read it all)
The Arcades in Parish (NY Times Travel Article)
Sources, Citations
Some last answers to questions I’m fielding via email:
What, specifically, are primary and secondary sources again?
Primary source: written BY a member of the discourse community. Blog posts by crafters (where crafters make up the discourse community). Profiles of users on a particular social networking site (where that SNS is your chosen discourse community). Other online texts where the discourse community is able to interact, construct identity, and network with others within (and without) that discourse community.
Secondary source: written ABOUT any component of your research, whether it is about your discourse community, or about theories of technology, or about sociology (of groups, individuals), about theories of identity, about social networking systems, etc.
How do I cite a blog post? How do I cite a video on YouTube?
Cite blog posts as though each post is an individual text:
Author. “Title of Post.” Title of Blog. Date of Post. Date of Access <URL>.
Cite YouTube videos similarly:
“Title of Video.” YouTube. Date posted. Date of Access <URL>.
I’m omitting, at this point, the reference to an author in the case of YouTube videos, simply because the people who post them are sometimes NOT the actual people who “write” or “direct” them (though admittedly, sometimes this IS the case). At any rate, the important thing about Works Cited is that your reader be able to find and refer to your sources if they so chose, and the above citation will allow readers to follow your “trail” as it were.
In-text (parenthetical) citations always use the FIRST component of the works cited entry. For the blog posts, use (Author) or (Author, “Title of Post”) when you are using more than one post from a particular blog. For the YouTube videos, use (“Title of Video”).
Nth hour samples to consider
Here’s a quick list of some of the more promising drafts I’ve seen this week:
Chikere and Lucia: Both drafts state the purpose of the essay early on (Lucia’s is in the second paragraph). Several of you have objected to this “blunt” manner of writing; however, in research work, especially ACADEMIC research scholarship, using a phrase that explicitly (bluntly) outlines the purpose of the work is actually VERY helpful and generally accepted. While you might have a good, creative, compelling intro right now, consider adding a sentence or two that overtly states your intentions. This also can be a test, because if your intentions don’t fit with what the assignment is asking of you, you might consider re-rigging.
Kasey and Anna: Use of concrete detail. It shows she has engaged with her primary sources enough to be able to describe, in detail and with quotation, the discourse community’s use of online spaces/texts.
Cassie: The quality and insight of Cassie’s analysis of her primary sources is noteworthy.
promising drafts
Also, if you’re interested in seeing what other students are doing to connect Weinberger to their research, check out:
Drew’s draft and Kyle’s draft.
These are both, clearly, works-in-progress. I wanted to showcase them because they each are working explicitly to analyze the discourse of their chosen communities through careful consideration of well-defined primary sources. Also, each paragraph of their drafts somehow ties into a larger discussion that can be connected to a component of Weinberger’s theory.
conferences, day 1 redux
Just some quick notes and thoughts that reflect the first day of conferences:
1. Conferences take place in the lounge on the second floor of Schine, above the food court. You might have to walk around the lounge once to find me, but expect me to be near a window. I do not hold conferences in my office because I don’t want to spend my whole day in a basement.
2. Some of you are so deeply wedded to the topic of your discourse community you’re losing sight of what this research project is asking you to do. Review the unit three assignment sheet for clarification: you are constructing “an essay that extrapolates Weinberger’s evidence and claims and applies them to a specific discourse community.” Essentially, you’re looking to expand a theory of Weinberger’s using some primary sources as a kind of case study or a body of texts, and so the main questions you want to ask deal with theories of internet communication and online social interaction.
Updates, post Spring break
Hi all. Hope you had a pleasant break.
If you missed class Monday 3.19, make sure you check the Unit 3 calendar for a schedule of the next two weeks. There is NO CLASS Wednesday 3.21 and you need to come to sign up for an extended conference (the schedule will be posted on my door after 1:00 on 3.21). Also, the week of 3.26-3.30 will be dedicated to extended conferences, so we will NOT be meeting as a class that week. Classes resume on 4.2, when your unit 3 project is due.
Class on Monday, 3.19 consisted of a 20-minute writing workshop, in which we built paragraphs that worked to connect the ideas and claims from our academic article summary to an idea or claim in Weinberger’s text. I collected the paragraphs to read and respond to.
During the second half of class, I demonstrated how to create a data table to generate ideas about our primary sources. Essentially, a data table requires three things: 1) you identify with certainty your primary sources, 2) you begin to read them and work with them closely, and 3) you begin to generate categories, patterns, themes or other connections between your primary sources that then position you to apply any framework your secondary sources offer. Download an example of a data table (this is only an example; yours will be considerably more complete than this!!) Please email me your data table by Thursday 3.22.
useful link for Wikipedia or campaign projects
This article over at Unit Structures might be of interest to those of you who are working on a project concerning EITHER the presidential campaign OR Wikipedia.
