Pamela’s 1-Paragraph Project Descriptions

Beacause I will have limited internet access this week, I am posting these a little early. Here are my three project descriptions and in the spirit of “getting real” they are fairly short and reasonably modest in scope (I hope).

Idea #1: Mapping for Humanists
One of the most attractive types of project for humanists interested in experimenting with digital tools is mapping. The software is readily available (the Graduate Center and other CUNY schools provide institutional access to ArcGIS and there is an open source version as well) and the end product is has clear use as a research or teaching tool. There is a workshop in the CUNY system on the workings of ArcGIS but it assumes that the mapper will be working from existing data files, like census information. However, most humanists are working from information that does not already exist in appropriate file formats, if it available electronically at all. I propose to present a mapping workshop for graduate students in the humanities who have little or no experience with GIS software. The workshop would cover how to identify the kind of information that is map-able, how to get that information into a format that GIS software can use, and turning that information into a basic map.

Idea #2: The CUNY Graduate Center Theatre Project
The Martin E. Segal Theatre Center, in association with the Theatre Department at the Graduate Center, maintains a database of around 10,000 image of theatre for educational use. The database is a great resource for theatre students but even within the department not everyone knows about it, and few actively use it. The site was recently changed over to Omeka, making it a lot more functional, which provides a good opportunity to revisit what it can do and be for GC theatre students. My proposal would be to survey student use of the database, and also investigate what the Segal Center and the professor overseeing the collection would optimally like to see from it. Ideally this would lead to one or more strategies to increase student use and/or improve usability that I could implement.

Idea #3: Technology in Introductory Level Theatre Courses at CUNY
In her article on mediated performance in theatre studies Sarah Bay-Cheng highlights the need to consider how recorded performances are used to teach theatre. [Bay-Cheng, Sarah. “Theatre Squared: Theatre History in the Age of Media.” Theatre topics 17.1 (2007): 37-50. Project Muse. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.] I would go further to suggest that beyond recordings of performances, there are other technological tools that have made their way into the theatre studies classroom that have not received much scrutiny in terms of the way that they work pedagogically. To address this, my project would begin with a survey of instructors of introductory level theatre classes in the CUNY system (these would be the 1000-level courses or equivalent that fulfill the Creative Expression requirement of the core curriculum) to find out what technologies are in use and how they are being used. This would be followed by 2-3 more in-depth case studies which would entail discussion with the instructor and classroom visits. The resulting paper would record the general habits of CUNY instructors of introductory level theatre courses with regard to technology use, and evaluate the effectiveness of a select number of tools as defined by a yet-to-be-determined rubric.

question – assignment this week

hello world, and fellow colleagues.

I have been traveling and I have orals in two weeks and I am coming down with the flu, and so on and so forth… plus the cold freezes my brain cells.

so, I am a bit off as to the assignment for this week. As I remember it is one or two liners for our projects, correct? I looked at the assignments page but it was not there.

help?

thanks

K.

Collaboration/Corroboration: Questions of Power in the Collaborative Future

When I started reading Collaborative Futures I wanted to agree with their notion that greater collaboration is better for society. However, the further I read the more uneasy I began to feel. The authors of this collaboratively written work provide a nuanced examination of the benefits and potential pitfalls of collaboration. I fully support the notion that groups working collaboratively are better at problem solving and innovating more creative solutions to problems. This seems to work best in small scale collaborations where trust can be established, direct communication is possible, and the goals and organization of the project are clearly understood. My uneasiness comes in when the discussion shifts to large scale open collaborations. While such collaborations could be beneficial to society, they seem to be based on an altruistic notion of humanity that, from my perspective, does not exist.

Collaborative Futures tries to separate social and cultural production from the economic market economy. Yet, the authors also elicit a Bourdieuian analysis of their project when they invoke the term “cultural capital.” The invocation of Bourdieu negates the notion of altruism since, according to Bourdieu, all human action is interested action. Individuals will always act, consciously or not, in what they believe to be their best interests. This goes beyond the notion of economic incentive however to include the accrual of other types of capital. In this sense, the Free Culture movement establishes its own economy based on social and symbolic capital rather than monetary capital.

If we see large scale collaborations as establishing their own economies, then we have to acknowledge that they are also sites of power struggle. Does the open structure of large scale open collaboration open the possibility that a small well organized group could infiltrate and wield the power of the larger collective towards their own ends? Does the very nature of collaboration drive towards a state of “group think” in which dissension is silenced by the tyranny of the majority?

The authors begin to problemitize this situation in their discussion of Stephen Colbert’s actions on Wikipedia. Noticing the potential for a “group think” mentality on Wikipedia, Stephen Colbert coined the term “Wikiality” to describe to describe a phenomenon where a group of people can alter perception of truth through collaboration and corroboration on Wikipedia. He and his views adjusted the wiki page on elephants “claiming that the elephant population in Africa had tripled in the past 6 months (Collaborative Futures 53). Wikipedia responded by locking the article and deleting Colbert’s account.

I see two potentially disturbing power dynamics in this situation that raise questions:

  1. Who has the power to determine the ethics of the collaboration? Wikipedia removed Colbert’s claims, and his viewers’ corroboration of those claims, claiming site vandalism. While Colbert’s claims were blatantly false (it is satire after all), and were easily detected and removed as false claims. But what happens in murkier territory? The talk page for the Oberammergau Passion Play records a debate among wikipedia editors about whether or not to include the claims of anti-semitism in the play. Ultimately a version of the anti-semetic argument remain in the article (at least as of 3/2/2014), but is it possible that this significant element in the history of the play could be erased in service of an editor’s, or group of editors’, personal/political opinion that this aspect is no longer important? Who makes these decisions? On what basis?
  2. The issue of “Wikiality” itself raises interesting questions in terms of collaboration and corroboration. “Wikiality” as Colbert uses it is a form of group think in which a group of people can will facts into existence through repetition. In editing the wikipage for The Lost Colony play, I ran into trouble when i tried to check and add citations for existing information on the page. It was impossible to tell what information on the internet served as sources for the wiki and which were merely citing the wiki as the authority. In this instance the collaboration becomes the corroboration making claims appear to be facts. How do we avoid the dangers of this self-feedback loop?

Collaboration: Friend or Foe… Well it depends

A detailed and nuanced argument presented by Collaborative Futures illuminates the complex nature of collaboration as a process. And while I do, at heart, share these, and other, authors’ utopian idea of collaboration as an answer, or at least a step toward, a salvation of many social issues, I remain unsure about what do we really mean by collaboration and whether its positive effects are sustainable and always beneficial. Collaboration can take many forms and shapes, but it always requires a group of people. Any group of people, in turn, is susceptible to group processes such as group-think, othering, and diffusion of responsibility, to name a few. These can lead to dismissal of alternative opinions, uncritical evaluation of one’s own work, and privileging one’s point of view, particularly when collaborative groups form on the basis of “shared political perspective rather than interdependence through need,” which CAE conversely argues to be preferred. Two collaborative groups, regardless of how democratizing their respective infrastructures are, might be at conflict.

In fact, I wonder whether we would be as excited about collaborations if they did not have “our” best interests at heart. Would a collaboration among a group of corporate executives geared toward limiting  a supply of a particular resource to rise up the prices be considered a collaboration? Would a group of young professionals working under the collaboration criteria provided by Collaborative Futures but on a for-profit project be considered a collaboration? Or would we call it business? Is collaboration a business? Can or should it be?

To use an archaic definition of business as meaningful activity, any collaboration, I hope, is a business . But in today’s discourse it appears that word collaboration is being used as a juxtaposition to words like business, neoliberalism, and capitalism, to name a few. But is it really? Or is it all just rhetoric?

 

Blackboard is not Gorges

I have to admit that even though I had repeatedly heard complaints about Blackboard, I did not know what these complaints were really about.  As an undergrad, Blackboard was easy enough to navigate and allowed me access to course documents, which I often misplaced in piles of other papers.  As an instructor, Blackboard lets me communicate with the entire class at once in the form of emails or announcements and lets me share documents pretty effortlessly.  Aside from the site being down on occasion (but not so frequently to be a real nuisance), I did not see what the problem with Blackboard was. What I didn’t realize was that Blackboard is an expensive piece of software that is being bankrolled by CUNY money that could be better spent on other technologies.

I’m currently teaching at Hostos Community College in the Bronx.  The classrooms do not have anything but a chalkboard in them (they don’t even have chalk!).  I would like to show students video clips but in order to do so,  I need to sign out a COW (Computer on Wheels).  The problem is that there are few COWs to go around.  Knowing that the money spent on expensive software, which could be replaced with free and cheap software, could be used on projectors and computers for each classroom is infuriating.  So, yeah, now I get the Blackboard hate.  What I don’t understand is why administrators would continue wasting this money.  Is it ignorance?  Is it just the safety of sticking with the known?

Gold & Otte

One of my possible project ideas is to use some form of social networking site in which students and I could share musings on course topics, as well as any other more informal posts.  Part of what appeals to me about it is the possible re-formation of hierarchical relations — professors are people too, and the more students see that, the higher the likelihood for honest interaction (???).  However, I have to admit that there is something about this blurring of boundaries that is quite scary.  In the Academic Commons, members are much closer to being colleagues — even when interactions are between professors and graduate students — than in a social network encompassing undergrads and their professor.  Perhaps tapping into the same collaborative spirit that helped the Commons thrive would neutralize the possible pitfalls of social networking with students.  What I mean is that maybe instead of it seeming “inappropriate,” it could be seen as a project that we are all creating as a cohesive group.  To be continued…

One paragraph project descriptions

In an effort to scaffold your approach to the project short descriptions, we want you to write one blog post that contains at least three one paragraph abstracts for potential projects. These revised projects should reflect the Getting Real reading and the conversations with the post I.S. students. We challenge you to do less.

Please post these to the Assignments category prior to next weeks class.

Wikipedia Article – Group Assignment

The early mid-term assignment will be to collaboratively write articles for Wikipedia for texts you read last semester, being careful to cite each sentence of summary to the page in the original text. You should make use of the blog posts and discussions from last semester. You can see a list of the potential articles on the Wikipedia course page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:CUNY,_CUNY_Graduate_Center/ITP_Core_2_(Spring_2014)#Week_4:_2014_Feb._26_-_Wikipedia_Workshop_3_.26_Wikipedia_assignment_1_DUE

You will work collaboratively in three teams. We will sort out these groups in class. You will be encouraged to keep their conversation on Wikipedia talk pages and not in meatspace. The fact that you will be working off of a blog post that you did not author yourself, adds an additional dimension to the collaborative authorship.

The blog posts are summaries of the readings along with interpretations and discussion questions. You will have to separate out the opinion from the summary. (e.g. maintain NPOV and No Original Research).

These are the pages that we’re created two years ago:

Use book articles like these as models for your work:

Check in points:

  • March 5th: Write work plan on the article talk page; if no page currently exists, write it on the sandbox of one team member.
  • March 12th: Begin initial contributions on sandbox. Contributions should be cited.
  • March 19th: Article finished as a draft, and moved into article space. Peer review takes place. Final citations put in place.
  • March 26th: Article Due
  • April 2: Article Due

one last thing

this semester I started using Blogs @ Baruch for my class.

Each student needs to write one post regarding the reading and must write two comments.

THey also write by hand in a notebook which I call the Reading Journal. It is very itneresting that although they could be writing the same things in both medias, they don’t. The written by hand pages don’t ‘dare’ to do out of the box… they write very squarish things.

On the other hand in the blog posts the students ‘dare’ to say they dislike the reading, or how they find it. I have also seen that they respond to each other, they help each other out like when we were reading poetry and one student complained how hard it was and how she didn’t understand anything, another student commented on how she could approach it in another way, what she could do to find it easier…

ok, that’s it. too much commenting.

K.

Additional Mapping, Augmented Reality, and Open Educational Resources

Hi everyone, a number of links to resources that might be useful for you have recently come my way:

Mapping

Other Resources

Finally, here’s the link to more info on the open educational resources program being held at the GC on Friday 3/7 at 10am that I mentioned in our last class. RSVP by 2/27.