The real argument, then, is not about when and how traditional formats like the PDF will be replaced; it’s about accepting that the familiar (and perhaps boring) research article still has its purpose, while at the same time thinking ambitiously and creatively about how the humble document can be supplemented with the modern features and functions that the digital environment offers.
Group items tagged
Boyer- Enlarging the Perspective.pdf - 2 views
-
Boyer outlines four types of scholarship, with implications for DP&S' work. Boyer notes that scholarship is often equated with research, and argues here for a more flexible, open-minded approach to definitions of scholarship, reminding us that "scholarship in earlier times referred to a variety of creative work carried on in a variety of places, and its integrity was measured by the ability to think, communicate, and learn." The crux of his argument is what he sees as the relationship between theory and practice, which enable and reinforce one another. Outlining four types of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching-Boyer makes it clear that scholarship is more than siloed, disciplinary research. It also includes those activities which make the findings of scholarship comprehensible to others, and the application of those findings to specific problems beyond the Ivory Tower. In Boyer's four-part model, discovery is essentially research, i.e., the creation of new knowledge. Integration involves drawing connections between existing knowledges, and making those knowledges intelligible to audiences outside the academy. Application is the use of scholarly understanding to answer questions and solve problems. It overlaps to some extent with the notion of service, though not all service is scholarship: "To be considered scholarship, service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiting the rigor-and the accountability-traditionally associated with research activities." Teaching, the final component of Boyer's model, is self-evident, and for him "teaching, at its best, means not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well."
Toward a common definition of "flipped learning" - 1 views
Guest Post: Is the Research Article Immune to Innovation? - The Scholarly Kitchen - 0 views
Making Culture - Expressive & Creative Interaction Technologies Center - 0 views
-
"Making Culture is the first in-depth examination of K-12 education makerspaces nationwide and was created as part of the ExCITe Center's Learning Innovation initiative. This report reveals the significance of cultural aspects of making (student interests, real world relevance, and community collaboration) that enable learning. "
The Scholar's Stage: Teaching the Humanities as Terribly as Possible - 0 views
-
Dive into the past and you will see this theme will emerge time and again: the purpose of studying history, philosophy, and poetry is to help us lead better lives and be better people. The humanities are an education for the soul. Placed next to these paeans to education, the aims of the "Theology of Dostoevsky" course are crippling. Reading Dostoevsky will help students will learn how to "contextualize literature within its anthropological milieu." Dostoevsky will teach them to see "the unique interpretive problems inherent in studying creative genres" and discussing his works will help them "communicate more effectively, verbally and in writing, about theological literature." That is the purpose of reading a man regularly called the best novelist in human history! We read him to "meet academics standards for writing and notation!" How painfully limited.
Author discusses new book about how American higher education has always been 'a perfec... - 0 views
-
The typical university is in constant tension between autonomous academic departments, which control curriculum and faculty hiring and promotion, and a strong president, who controls funding and is responsible only to the lay board of directors who own the place. Also thrown into the mix are a jumble of independent institutes, research centers and academic programs that have emerged in response to a variety of funding opportunities and faculty initiatives. The resulting institution is a hustler’s paradise, driven by a wide array of entrepreneurial actors: faculty trying to pursue intellectual interests and forge a career; administrators trying to protect and enrich the larger enterprise; and donors and students who want to draw on the university’s rich resources and capitalize on association with its stellar brand. These actors are feverishly pursuing their own interests within the framework of the university, which lures them with incentives, draws strength from their complex interactions and then passes these benefits on to society.
-
The biggest problem facing the American system of higher education today is how to deal with its own success. In the 19th century, very few people attended college, so the system was not much in the public spotlight. Burgeoning enrollments in the 20th century put the system center stage, especially when it became the expectation that most people should graduate from some sort of college. As higher education moved from being an option to becoming a necessity, it increasingly found itself under the kind of intense scrutiny that has long been directed at American schools.
-
The danger posed by this accountability pressure is that colleges, like the K-12 schools before them, will come under pressure to narrow their mission to a small number of easily measurable outcomes. Most often the purpose boils down to the efficient delivery of instructional services to students, which will provide them with good jobs and provide society with an expanding economy. This ignores the wide array of social functions that the university serves. It’s a laboratory for working on pressing social problems; a playpen for intellectuals to pursue whatever questions seem interesting; a repository for the knowledge needed to address problems that haven’t yet emerged; a zone of creativity and exploration partially buffered from the realm of necessity; and, yes, a classroom for training future workers. The system’s organizational messiness is central to its social value.
-
The idea that colleges should be valued for their organizational messiness is also quite interesting. Where does this messiness fit into Bucknell?
-
- ...1 more annotation...
The Digital-Humanities Bust - The Chronicle of Higher Education - 0 views
-
To ask about the field is really to ask how or what DH knows, and what it allows us to know. The answer, it turns out, is not much. Let’s begin with the tension between promise and product. Any neophyte to digital-humanities literature notices its extravagant rhetoric of exuberance. The field may be "transforming long-established disciplines like history or literary criticism," according to a Stanford Literary Lab email likely unread or disregarded by a majority in those disciplines. Laura Mandell, director of the Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture at Texas A&M University, promises to break "the book format" without explaining why one might want to — even as books, against all predictions, doggedly persist, filling the airplane-hanger-sized warehouses of Amazon.com.
-
A similar shortfall is evident when digital humanists turn to straight literary criticism. "Distant reading," a method of studying novels without reading them, uses computer scanning to search for "units that are much smaller or much larger than the text" (in Franco Moretti’s words) — tropes, at one end, genres or systems, at the other. One of the most intelligent examples of the technique is Richard Jean So and Andrew Piper’s 2016 Atlantic article, "How Has the MFA Changed the American Novel?" (based on their research for articles published in academic journals). The authors set out to quantify "how similar authors were across a range of literary aspects, including diction, style, theme, setting." But they never cite exactly what the computers were asked to quantify. In the real world of novels, after all, style, theme, and character are often achieved relationally — that is, without leaving a trace in words or phrases recognizable as patterns by a program.
-
Perhaps toward that end, So, an assistant professor of English at the University of Chicago, wrote an elaborate article in Critical Inquiry with Hoyt Long (also of Chicago) on the uses of machine learning and "literary pattern recognition" in the study of modernist haiku poetry. Here they actually do specify what they instructed programmers to look for, and what computers actually counted. But the explanation introduces new problems that somehow escape the authors. By their own admission, some of their interpretations derive from what they knew "in advance"; hence the findings do not need the data and, as a result, are somewhat pointless. After 30 pages of highly technical discussion, the payoff is to tell us that haikus have formal features different from other short poems. We already knew that.
- ...2 more annotations...
1 - 9 of 9
Showing 20▼ items per page