Group items tagged

I read the instructions to "mark up" the lesson plan as an invitation to write notes throughout the text. At first, I was not sure how to do this because it seemed that the marks I was making were blending into the rest of the document (and would have created a very nonlinear document, but also not accessible document). I then decided to change the font color to blue and highlight passages that I was marking. Because I could not tell which marks past collaborators made, I was wondering what this addition to the process might mean -- and if I was making the best choice. One thing I have noticed about critique and exchange in on-line environments is that I rarely know the person with whom I am collaborating. This is a very different process for me. I makes me more aware of how the comment might come across, how my tone might be interpreted, and makes me concerned that the collaboration could have a negative impact on the author. Because I value critiques that are generative, I am not sure how to resolve this. I think collaborating on lesson plans through a wiki could be a wonderful tool for teachers who have had personal introductions and established some trust with each other. I don't have any concerns about people changing suggestions I make on another person's work. In fact, I like that. Perhaps because it removes some of the responsibiltiy of how my words could affect another =). When it is my own work -- well, not every piece needs a collaboration, and not every stage of a work is ready for a collaboration. It can actually be liberating to let go of the control of a piece ... perhaps the complicated part is how we value other's remarks. Do we think everyone has something worthwhile to say about every topic? What happens when ideas we do not value show up on the ideas we've initiated?

The use of wiki for Story Cube lesson plan is creative idea. The idea of art teachers (pre-service, in-service) and art educators cooperate for making into the planning of lessons is amazing. I believe that there is a big possibility for the use of wiki. However, I feel a little bit complicated to participate in the lesson plan. When I visited wiki lately, I feel difficult to change the lesson plan because I am not sure to remove or change another person's work.

Hi all, I added my reflections about the facilitation to the comments section of the blog. Thanks so much for participating last week, it really opened my eyes and helped me to use wikis', blogs, and second life in a better way. Hopefully we'll incorporate this, or a version of this, assignment into one of the studio classes in Photography. Thanks, Rob

The floating layers of sticky note commentary seems to disrupt the grid rule, and the authority of the Web page. I think the "floating sticky note" changes the architecture of participation. kkb

That's really interesting Karen, it does step out of the document grid. Although I think Focault would argue that it's just another type of grid, one vertically layered perhaps? Certainly the power structure is evident in sticky notes in having defined authorship. I've been thinking today that the way to undermine this power system might be in the editing of each others work. By defying authorship the unseen power grid breaks down into bands of content that competes for attention, but isn't attributable to an individual. In this way perhaps the egos tie to it's output is undermined, and creates a truly collaborative document which is difficult to percieve as an individual. Perhaps the grid becomes the prosthetic by which we percieve the collaboration?

Haraway brings up a Foucauldian critique in her article Situating Locations, and more recent feminist theory does too (Ellsworth for example) in that the power grid between players always exists but it is in the recognizing and exposing the location of power that agency and co-existence of difference is possible. Annonymous collaborations can yield irresponsibility to one another. Allucquère Rosanne Stone/Sandy Stone tried such experiments in 3D worlds. Here's a link to a lecture I heard her speak regarding this issue when I was in Finland in the new media program: http://lumen2.uiah.fi/gamesandstorytelling/Sandy_Stone.html The issues you raise with the grid and text with Foucault quotes concerning social gridlocked, power, authority, ownership, collaboration, agency--are so important to consider, especially as educators who need to understand one's operating theory of knowledge and what it means to be human to be cognizant of what and how one is teaching.

Spivak (1988) critiques both Foucault and Deleuze in her article Can the Subaltern Speak? She notes the "failure of Deleuze and Guattari to consider the relations between desire, power and subjectivity" (p. 68). Regarding Foucault she faults his lack of recognizing that his theory of ideology is steeped "in its own material production of institutionality" (p. 68). Spivak argues that desire and subject are connected, a unity, and there is a need for theories of subject formation in two senses of representation (darstellung/rhetoric as persuasion & vertretung/rhetoric as trope)-and that "the production of theory is also a practice" (p. 70). She suggests "the possibility of collectivity itself is persistently foreclosed through the manipulation of female agency" (p. 78). It is this issue of agency being foreclosed by institutionalized systems (for example, with binary logic of computer databases) that has troubled theories of collective identity whether that identity is "teachers," "students," "women," or any socially formed category. Audre Lorde's question of whether the master's house can be only be changed with the master's tools is relevant to thinking about what we can do with the grid systems of a clockwork world, and how we go about subject formation, activism or mobilization for changing specific systems of oppression in referencing back to the concern of agency, voice, and authority.

Introducing Opera Face Gestures for Controlling Your Browser http://brendaclews.blogspot.com/2009/04/introducing-opera-face-gestures-for.html

mashup and remix data

collective intelligence

co-developers

I think Voice thread alone, is a great tool we can bring into the classroom.

What I was thnking about while listening to the YouTube video and this Voice Thread, is that it sounds like so many educators are TEACHING the technology, rather than USEING it. It sounds like a lot of educators aren't confortable enough with the programs or software to be able to use it effectivly in their teaching practice. I think if we are allowing our students to use say power point for their presentation of a report, than the actually creation of slide shoudl come last. The program use should be used as a supplement.

I am interested with what this group is saying about 1) students as co-creators, 2) expanding the four walls of the classroom, 3) the idea of the collective, and 4) encouraging collaboration.

I am excited to experience a form of communication and reading that uses various senses: hearing the voice of the speaker is powerful. This could be linked with specific (non-text) based images as well. Having voices from around the world, and of different ages and experience levels, participate in an asynchronous discussion is fascinating. I imagine this in-between time/space is a difficult time for educators. The video suggests we have moved from the industrial age to the digital age / information age, but our schools haven't kept up. What does it mean to be in-between? Instead of worrying about rigid categories for our next "age" -- what can happen in a moment in history when we are not quite "here nor there"?

An example at http://voicethread.com/#u278186.b341016.i1806317begun by Kathleen Nelms. It continues in another image posted by Michelle Randall at http://voicethread.com/#u278186.b341311.i1808348

I enjoy the concept of this site. It is a fun way for visitors to be creative and add their own interpretation of how they can twist and change this idea of creating a sign for this lost frog. It could be used as a great introduction project or as examples of how a simple concept can be turned into so many different perspectives and images. I like how some people created their own images, while other remixed popular media images to fit the overall goal of the site!

I like the concept of this site too. When I look at all of the frogs placed in different contexts, it makes me want to join in. Knobel and Lankshear (2008) claim that the appeal of a site like this is "to express solidarity and affinity." Perhaps one would be a sense of belonging by contributing to a project like this. The main image on the index page of this site looks like it was drawn by a child. Do you think that this site was put up by a youngster? Another question for the group - As a teacher/facillitator would you incporporate a project like this in your art classroom or educational context? Does participating in a project like this have any real educational benefit for the student? What might a student learn from creating and contributing? Is this Web 2.0 pedagogy? P.S. Don't miss Ashley's Frog on our remix Google doc!

I like this site too. Haven't found out how to participate, but would love to. I actually think this is like a Net art project. Don't really think this is put up by a child. I think Participating in this project would allow students to be involved in a collaboration, but also allows their imagination and creativity. Also understanding meaning changes in different context. An interesting way to learn visual culture.

Trusting users as co-developers

Harnessing collective intelligence

Requires social interaction (Buffington, 2008, p.36) Free availability to anyone with Internet access (Buffington, 2008, p. 36)

Does this intersect with collage? It seems to adopt similar principles. In some ways, this reminds me of Tristan Tzara's dada forms with realist content. In the exhibit last semester at PSU, it was suggested that collage emerges during times of political uncertainty.

The possibility of "multi-disciplinary" curricula beyond interdisciplinary curricula through the Web 2.0 pedagogy? The Web 2.0 reminds me of more possibility of synthesis or graft between media, educational materials, and disicplinary curricula.

Many games are designed for player to take on certain identites to role play. However, does these identites really engage people is another question. Sometimes it might be because there are not many choices.

Those who are familiar with playing video games what are the range of roles and who would be most likely to identify with those roles? Since I have sons it may be that they and their friends play games that do not have roles I identify with or desire to try out but its more than gender, it is also age, and difference in interests.

This thinking came up when i was playing the games in G4C. I questioned why do I want to be a refugee or other identities? When students are introduced to differnt games, do they really want to take the identities the game designed to play? From my experience, fantasy identity is most popular. The popularization of these games, such of World of Warcrafts, can explain this. Even avatars people who created in SL are fantasies. ideal self is a fantasy.

what are the potential and limiation of avatar creation in art education?

Both of these-anonymity as well as the possibility of causing a stereotype, prejudice, and preferential treatment depending on avatars' appearances-could be main limitations of avatar creation in the SL.

This sticky note process is so layered. If a person is a linear thinker Web 2.0 Pedagogy may look like craziness, but for those who see the world as complex and layered this form of communication is exceptional and colloboratively created. It reminds me of "Where's Waldo" as I search for the yellow speak bubbles.

Simple and clear definition