Self-assessing my work as a course designer

I am really liking the re-designed DMA course. As noted in previous posts, what I've tried to do is DO some of the key things that I've only been able to talk about in previous years --and thus far I think I've been successful. It is quite a bit of work to "build the airplane while it is flying" but so far it seems worth the effort to have re-designed the course, even though I have had to unfold or unfurl the design on a week-by-week basis.

One of the new things is to ask participants to do some self-assessment. This weekend is the first practice with this. I created a rubric, in the form of a fill-in form, that is based on conversations we had in class and online about what constitutes a good blog. And I've now asked participants to use the rubric as an armature or job-aid to assist them in assessing their work as "bloggers". They will use this form again at mid-term.

I'm taking this opportunity in parallel to assess my own work as a course designer, and I will re-assess at mid-term as well. What I'm going to do for starters is just go through the list of course goals and objectives and comment on them re: how I think we are doing in meeting the goals set for the course. Since the goals and objectives may not capture everything that I would want to happen in the course, I will also offer a closing comment on elements of the course that may exist outside of the goals-and-objectives framework (which of course means that I may need to bring these 'outsiders' into the list of goals-and-objectives for next time). Here goes.

There are five goals for the course, so I will comment on each in its turn, and refer to specific objectives associated with each goal in my commentary.

Goal 1: Learners will enhance their 21st century thinking skills
Objective 1.1: Learners will be able to advance their thinking skills via practice, referenced to an assessment rubric, evidenced in online blog postings, and done in response to the five key/essential questions for the course. 
Objective 1.2: Learners will be able to categorize their thinking as transactional, transformational, or transcendent, by using these terms appropriately in reflective blog postings. 
 
Assessment commentary: The blogs have turned out to be the centerpiece of the course, so I feel pretty sure thinking is being practiced via engagement in online writing (which I consider to be a 21st century way to approach both thinking and writing, primarily because it is active). Also, I've used the terms cited in 1.2 fairly extensively, so I think learners have at least been given a good chance to assimilate them into their own vocabulary and use them. 


Goal 2: Learners will improve their 21st century talking skills
Objective 2.1: Learners will be able to advance their talking skills via practice, referenced to an assessment rubric, evidenced in online discussion forum exchanges, and done in response to the five key/essential questions for the course. 
Objective 2.2: Learners will be able to work conversationally, online and F2F, in in small groups, as evidenced in their ability to carry out a variety of assigned tasks in a timely fashion.
 
Assessment commentary: I have not yet finalized the discussion forum rubric but I have the data to assemble it (again its based on learners' ideas as to what constitutes a good conversation, which I gathered via discussion). Also, for now discussion forum work has had a somewhat less important role than blogging, so I figured it was better to start with the blogging rubric. Plus, overload can be a risk: two self-assessment tasks at one time may have been a bit much. A different timing will also enable a separate practice. Other than that, I think there have been many opportunities for conversation-based collaborative work, and as usual learners at UNCSA, who are often involved in collaborative activity all the time in their arts area, are quite adept at it.

Goal 3: Learners will hone their 21st century expert-perspective gathering skills
Objective 3.1: Learners will be able to choose from and appropriately use a variety of search engines to gather expert perspectives from the open-web, evidenced in research citations that identify search tools and website sources, and done in response to the five key/essential questions of the course. 
Objective 3.2: Learners will be able to choose from and appropriately use expert perspectives including including those of Walter Ong, Marshall McLuhan, Lev Manovich, Sherry Turkle, Marcos Novak, Donna Haraway, George Lakoff, Bruce Mazlish, and Mimi Ito, as evidenced in research citations that identify sources. 
Objective 3.3: Learners will be able to access, choose from, and appropriately use online library databases to gather expert perspectives, as evidenced in research citations that identify sources. 
Objective 3.4: Learners will be able to differentiate among high, medium, and low reliability/confidence sources on the open-web, as evidenced in research citations that include source identification and assignment of level referenced to an evaluative filter. 
Objective 3.5: Learners will be able to save, tag, and retrieve bookmarks from Delicious, as evidenced in research citations that identify platforms. 
 
Assessment commentary: Participants have been introduced to prominent Media Studies theorists and have been encouraged to refer to these theorists in blog and discussion forum posts. We have not yet worked with "a variety" of search engines --at least not a wide variety. We have talked about the difference between Google-style search engines, which cast a broad net, and StumbleUpon-style search engines, which in effect allow users to 'educate' and refine searching at the front end of the process so to speak. So we've begun to introduce variety. We've accessed the online Lexis database that our campus library provides access to, so again we have a start on meeting this objective. And we have used Delicious bookmarks to tag and store research finds. We have not yet talked about ways to evaluate web sources, nor how to properly cite internet resources, so these objectives remain untouched at this point in the term.
 

Goal 4: Learners will develop their 21st century knowledge constructing skills
Objective 4.1: Learners will be able to enact 21st century literacy, evidenced in the assembly of information and perspectives into knowledge-products, done in a variety of media (text, image, audio, and video), in ways that are relevant and responsive to the five key/essential questions of the course. 
Objective 4.2: Learners will be able to use the term ‘cloud computing’ appropriately, in relation to the advent of an era in which intellectual and creative work will transpire as easily online as socializing does, in blog and online discussion postings. 
Objective 4.3: Learners will be able to work effectively and appropriately in the Moodle learning management software work environment, as evidenced in their ability to carry out a variety of assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
Objective 4.4: Learners will able to use the Google Apps environment (including iGoogle, Sites, and Docs) as evidenced in their ability to carry out assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
Objective 4.5: Learners will be able to perform a variety of image creation and editing tasks using Photoshop Elements and other web-based image tools, as evidenced in their ability to carry out assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
Objective 4.6: Learners will be able to create and edit audio content using Audacity, Garageband, and other web-based audio tools, as evidenced in their ability to carry out a variety of assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
Objective 4.7: Learners will be able to create and edit video content using iMovie, as evidenced in their ability to carry out a variety of assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
Objective 4.8: Learners will be able to create avatars and attend meetings in a UNCSA online classroom within Second Life, as evidenced in their ability to carry out a variety of assigned tasks in a timely fashion. 
 
Assessment commentary: We have completed one challenge cycle at this point in the term, and have successfully IMO explored the use of image-collage as a way to explore themes in a non-linguistic manner, in response to our first essential question. 'Cloud computing' has been introduced in relation to Delicious bookmarks, and has been mentioned several times in other contexts as well (i.e., in talking about Google Apps). We've also used Moodle fairly extensively already, and Photoshop Elements has been worked with as well. We have not yet begun our involvement in audio and video learning, nor have we ventured into Second Life yet.
 
Goal 5: Learners will extend their 21st century reflecting (and assessing) skills
Objective 5.1: Learners will be able to reflect on, manage, and assess their group and individual learning processes, as evidenced in reflective writing done as part of completing challenge cycles on key/essential questions. 
Objective 5.2: Learners will be able to take part in the construction and use of rubrics to self-assess the quality of blog posts, discussion forum posts, and other work products. 
 
Assessment commentary: Learners have already taken part in the co-construction of rubrics for self-assessment, and are presently doing their first self assessment.
 

OVERALL ASSESSMENT COMMENTARY AND LETTER-GRADE

This has been a good term thus far in my estimation. I feel that 'the mood in the room' is great, the spirit of exploration is strong, and participants are being very considerate of one another. All of this is more important to me than matters of content. If learners complete this course successfully and are open to learning more, and wanting to learn more, or even just more likely to be in such states because they've had a positive experience, then I'm satisfied that a big part of my overall goal for the course is met. This is not to say that relaying content and skills is unimportant, it's more to say that I think these things hinge on the affective elements.

In terms of meeting the course goals, I think significant progress has been made --to the extent that I feel we're actually ahead right now of where I would have thought we might be. Room for improvement exists particularly in the area of providing individual feedback. This has been difficult for me to do given all of the in-course design work I am doing. Yet I also feel that I have been very responsive to discussions, and with general feedback. For example I posted summary comments in the first online discussion forum that I think were fairly extensive and responsive to what participants were bringing to the conversation. In the syllabus I have signed on for providing individual comments as part of mid-term proceedings, so this present gap will begin to get addressed soon.

Overall I'd assign myself a letter-grade of A for the first challenge cycle. I hope I can keep up with things as the new challenge cycles unfold. Having gone through the first cycle, I can see that the form will change in subtle ways (i.e., I am introducing the second cycle with a short reading rather than an assignment to just think about the given essential question). This may be a case where the structure/form can indeed kind of recede or fade to a more background position or layer as we all become more familiar with it.

Final draft of course design (for now)

Things are hoppin' I'm excited about the design of the new course, and about some recent related re-discoveries. Here's the text of an email I sent out to colleagues:

A friend sent me a link (included below) to a video of a TED presentation by Sugata Mitra. I think this video poses --in easy-to-grasp, concrete terms-- a critical question about the scale or type of change that new-media occasions for education. I sometimes wonder (okay I often wonder :) whether or not we are for the most part responding out-of-scale (e.g., making minor adjustments when the changes we are responding to are major). How would we be thinking about curriculum reform, classroom space, the new library, where we'd like to be in ten years, and so forth if we took what Mitra is doing and applied it to our context? http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html I would love to have a conversation on our campus community about this, and possibly even frame a bit of it as research. I'm thinking I may submit something to the ARTStem project-grant program to see if we could get some funding for it. Anyone else interested in exploring this?


Several years ago I co-wrote a piece about an inter-disciplinary, inter-institutional pedagogical experiment I engaged in. The piece is called University to Diversity: The Story of 2 Live Class. In it I state the same conclusion that Mitra arrives at in the linked-to piece above; namely, learning is an emergent phenomenon resulting from self-organizing systems. If systems are damped and disturbed (in other words not allowed to self-organize) then teachers (I could be provocative and say dictators :) have to step in. In many ways teachers as actors create a need for themselves/ourselves by impeding the self-organizational capacities humans in interaction have.

The same colleague that pointed me to the Mitra TED talk, put it this way:

I don't think the important variable is "how many computers" but rather
"how can we get kids engaged with other kids over an interesting
learning task." In the clip he had fewer computers than children, but
the key was that he gave them an interesting task, the technology to
accomplish that task, allowed/encouraged them to talk with each other
and he got out of the way. We tell kids to sit down and don't talk, then
we precede to tell them a bunch of stuff we think they should know in a
form that all but makes it unknowable to them while we punish them if
they talk with each other. And we call this "education."

You have a lot if not all his ideas in practice in your classroom. You
don't have 25 students sitting quietly in rows all facing you and
writing down what you say that might be on the quiz. You have them
sitting in small groups and facing at different angles. I guess you must
have turned the podium into kindling or maybe some art project by now,
but it is not in front of the room. You allow and expect the students to
talk during class. Success comes not from the number of computers but,
as always, from the pedagogy employed.

It was interesting for me to see his success and to remember that we
should trust the kids to learn. The only real question is "Can students
learn when they are being taught?" As long as they are not taught, I am
sure they learn well.

E is for Ethos: Bringing it All Back Home

My last post was in June, and during July DMA course re-design, and the related exploration of Moodle and so forth, have been simmering on a back burner. I've been continuing my experimentation with Moodle and Macintosh, continuing to build an additional Google Sites content-site for the course (a software-studies field guide site), and continuing to play with video-cast or vodcast style presentations (useful in particular for the online version of the course due to roll out in 2011). But mainly --and this is my translation of what it means in this case to have something on the "back burner"-- I've been working on the ethos of the course. It's one of the pleasures of summer to step back and reflect on the spirit or feel of the course, its holistic/essential aspect, and to make sure that it is as relevant as it can be to its context, audience, and times.

This is what I mean by working on the ethos of the course. It may seem odd to think of a course as having an ethos (I mean usually we think of ethos as the property of speakers or audience) but I do see courses as "having a life of their own" in important ways. Parker Palmer writes about 'putting the subject matter in the center of the room' when teaching, in such a way that neither the students nor the instructor own it. In this way the subject itself becomes a party to, or participant in, the conversation --in much the same way that the physical classroom (or online classroom) becomes a participant or actor. So in some ways "the course" is a kind of virtual being. In any case, it's in these ways that I think a course can be said to have an essential holistic, a spirit, or an ethos. Interestingly, Julian Semilian remarked in an interview I did with him that when he considers becoming involved in a film project the first question he asks is "What is the spirit of the thing?"

Thinking about the DMA course on this level is not only pleasurable but crucial for me, because I think ethos sets the innermost/synaptic stage for the play of teaching and learning. Each year I try to improve on the feel of the course, and I think I've made reasonable progress. The redesign of the physical space over the first four years has helped the feel quite a bit. The development of the curriculum to explicitly include and intertwine liberal arts skills, media studies knowledge, and new-media/technology projects, has improved the feel quite a bit as well. This year's task is primarily pedagogical. I'm not starting from ground zero on this thankfully, yet I have significant work ahead of me to get the pedagogical aspect of the course to fully resonate with the feel of the room and the feel of the curriculum.

Institutions also have lives of their own, no? So part of my job in this regard is to create a resonant or synergistic relationship between the ethos of the DMA course and the ethos of UNCSA as a professional school. Here's my framework: I regard the essence or ethos of professional education as multi-level understanding. A professional needs to understand and operate within their field on all of its levels --technical, procedural, and conceptual. A professional school is thus a complex context that runs continual risks of: 1) lapsing into a trade school if technical and procedural aspects are over-emphasized, or 2) becoming a theory-driven hot-house plant if conceptual aspects are overdone. A professional school runs into even deeper trouble if it has no purchase on people's emotions or affective domains. So, I want the ethos of the DMA course to be open, welcoming, challenging, and relevant. And I want it to combine the technical, procedural, and conceptual aspects of digital media in a way that is optimally relevant to emerging professionals in the arts. All of the designs I've implemented have referenced this goal. The new design is no exception, yet it nonetheless represents a kind of sea-change in terms of further shifting the pedagogy further towards an explicitly learner-centered model.

NOTE: learner-centered pedagogy is something I have done successfully in the context of teaching graduate-level and undergraduate-level courses elsewhere, but I have found the UNCSA context to be particularly challenging in this regard due to numbers of students enrolled in the DMA course, and the first-year student audience for the course (I have relied on multiple-choice quizzes rather than dialog/conversation due to the automatic grading (via the use of Blackboard or, now, Moodle) and the odd/ironic comfort level that quizzes provide for first-year students who are in many cases just emerging from the test-based environments typical K-12). I think it's time to move beyond MC quizzes now, and started this move last year. Again this year is a major ramp-up or sea-change --I guess it's appropriate that I am starting my fifth year, having seen the students I had in my first year graduate last year.

BUT, I am as guilty as can be of "teaching about" learner-driven education more so than enacting it, and the new design attempts to rectify this understandable yet undeniable hypocrisy. Part of my design process this year has thus been to come out of denial on this point: I simply do not know how to take the final steps to design and operate learner-driven courses that are effective, and manageable from an evaluation/grading standpoint. So my work is cut out for me. I know I want to infuse the course with more peer-based communication and small-group work/projects, for example. But I don't know how to do this in a way that provides enough structure and individual accountability to ensure that students will engage the content with adequate feedback from myself and their peers. There it is.

Thankfully there are now some foundational touchstones in the education landscape that I can work with to build this new learner-centered model of practice.
The Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey (COLLES), which is built into Moodle, is one touchstone. It provides a concrete way for instructors such as myself to perform reality-checks with students as to whether or not a particular online lesson or unit contains adequate learner-centered provisions:

The COLLES survey comprises an economical 24 statements grouped into six scales, each of which helps us address a key question about the quality of the on-line learning environment:

Relevance
How relevant is on-line learning to students' professional practices?

Reflection
Does on-line learning stimulate students' critical reflective thinking?

Interactivity
To what extent do students engage on-line in rich educative dialogue?

Tutor Support
How well do tutors enable students to participate in on-line learning?

Peer Support
Is sensitive and encouraging support provided on-line by fellow students?

Interpretation
Do students and tutors make good sense of each other's on-line communications?

More...COLLES website

Another useful touchstone is the well-known Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. This set of principles is oriented towards course design and evaluation more so than lesson design and evaluation:

1. encourages contact between students and faculty,
2. develops reciprocity and cooperation among students,
3. encourages active learning,
4. gives prompt feedback,
5. emphasizes time on task,
6. communicates high expectations, and
7. respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

More...Seven Principles website

Another useful touchstone for those of us trying to re-design our practices to be more learner-centered is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). This tool is designed for institutions to use to gauge their learner-centered provisions, but can be easily adapted by instructors such as myself to scaffold our moves to learner-centered instructional praxis:

1. Level of academic challenge
Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Components of academic challenge include the nature and amount of assigned academic work, complexity of cognitive tasks presented to students, and standards faculty members use to evaluate student performance.

Sample Questions: How much reading and writing do students do? --In the first year? --In required general education courses? --In the major field in which you are interested? What is the nature of assignments in various courses and majors? Is memorization emphasized? Or higher order, complex cognitive skills? How much time do students spend preparing for class? --In the first year? --In the major field in which you are interested? What does the campus do to encourage students to spend significant amounts of time studying and on academic work? What do faculty and staff do to challenge and support students so they work to their potential?

2. Active and collaborative learning
Students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and have opportunities to think about and apply what they are learning in different settings. And, when students collaborate with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material they acquire valuable skills that prepare them to deal with the messy, unscripted problems they will encounter daily during and after college.

Sample Questions: In what percentage of courses do students work in teams to complete assignments, solve problems, or apply course content? How many courses require students to engage in service learning or take part in community-based projects? --In the first year or in general education courses? --In the major field in which you are interested? --How do students work with other students on projects during class? Is an internship required to graduate? What about for the major field in which you're interested?

3. Student-faculty interaction
In general, the more contact students have with their teachers the better. Working with a professor on a research project or serving with faculty members on a college committee or community organization lets students see first-hand how experts identify and solve practical problems. Through such interactions teachers become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, life-long learning.

Sample Questions: How often do students meet with faculty members outside of class? --To work on committees? --To meet in faculty homes or offices? What does the institution do to promote such contacts? Do campus committees require a certain number of students participate? How many students collaborate on research with faculty members? --In the first year? --In the senior year? --In the major field in which you are interested?

4. Enriching educational experiences
Educationally effective colleges and universities offer a variety of learning opportunities inside and outside the classroom that compliment the goals of the academic program. One of the most important is exposure to diversity, from which students learn valuable things about themselves and gain an appreciation for other cultures. Technology is increasingly being used to facilitate the learning process and -- when done appropriately -- can increase collaboration between peers and instructors, which actively engages students in their learning. Other valuable educational experiences include internships, community service, and senior capstone courses that provide students with opportunities to synthesize, integrate, and apply their knowledge. As a result, learning is deeper, more meaningful, and ultimately more useful because what students know becomes a part of who they are.

Sample Questions: What percentage of students participate in internships, study abroad, and community service? --In the first year? --The senior year? --In your major field What programs and activities does the institution provide to insure that students from different backgrounds meet and work together? --In the first year? --In the senior year? --In your major?

5. Supportive campus environment
Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus.

Sample Questions: What does this institution do to assure that students get the academic and social support they need to succeed and thrive? What is the nature of student relations with administrative personnel and offices? --Is it cooperative? --Or do students complain about the bureaucratic "runaround" when they have problems to solve?

More...NSSE website

Add to the above Mizuko Ito's research which documents the extent to which students' learning online in their own lives is interest-driven, choice-infused, and conversational/dialogic in format, and we have a reasonable picture of how contemporary education can be designed to optimize learner-centered learning.

What can be said of the overlaps in the above three indexes? First, I think all three enjoin the affective and/or ethical domain of how people feel about what they are doing (i.e., do they feel included in the planning, do their views matter, are they given an opportunity to voice their own ideas and hear the ideas of others, do they feel actively involved or just passively receptive, etc.). In this regard, Dewey's focus on "experience" perhaps encrypts the affective/ethical domain, in that experience can mean more or less anything. So current work, reflected in the above tools, is I think an attempt to decode, decrypt, and/or elaborate on the notion of experience --a notion which in some ways launched the ship that is now finding safe harbor in the current age of personal-industry media, which includes and encompasses the affective domain.

So, bringing it all back home, I guess the E is for Experience and Ethos. My practical aims for this year may also be Enterprising or Extreme, but here goes:

1. I will infuse the course with more ample dialog/conversation.
   I started using Facebook discussions last year and these worked very well. My task now is to create a system to assess this work (mastery-based? Rubric?).
   
2. I will start the course with an "interests and issues" survey and/or conversation (the conversation option may be better, since this sets a resonant tone with item #1 above).
   
3. I will use small-groups substantively, again to incorporate conversation/dialog (i.e., groups can use Facebook, Skype, etc.) and also to build more peer interaction into the mix (peer evaluation perhaps in some instances? Again rubric-based?)
4. I will work out ways to give helpful feedback and fairly assess student work in this new pedagogical framework.
   

The intriguing part of this redesign for me as an instructional designer is that I will be attempting to embed the content of last year into the practices and/or assignments or projects of this year. For example rather than introducing dialog/conversation as an important (and neglected) element of the liberal arts skill-set, I will institute much more dialog/conversation into daily practice, assignments, and projects. I will still use the content-site I developed to scaffold the liberal arts skills development of conversation, but I will use it in a different way, which will open a space for new/additional content.

The new content will be learner-generated issues, structured initially by serious play in the early part of the course around identifying important problems related to new-media/technology. The plan (again, still sketchy at this point,  but I have a month to articulate it) is to then form groups around issues, and set in place an iterative, cyclical algorithm of small-group research, conversation, content-production (in a variety of media including but not limited to text), and sharing (presentations, postings, etc.).

Please wish me well on this voyage :)

Looking ahead to next year's course

Lots of changes are in store for DMA in the fall of 2010. The media-lab/studio is in the process of a major revamping, as are (as per usual) most other aspects of the course as well. Well, let me clarify that. Most of the content, which is now stable, will be rearranged, not necessarily changed or replaced. I will be adding resources in current/topical areas to feed new types of projects --but its the projects that matter, and the pedagogical design. I've been doing a lot of thinking, and writing (including a chapter I was asked to write for a forthcoming book on teaching and learning in virtual worlds) and it seems that NOW is the time to put the thought into action, walk the talk, or maybe run with it.

Some of the action swirls around the classroom. Less computers, all Macs. MORE. Four clusters of six desks. What am I doing. Here's an email I sent to Wilcox about this...

I'm still thinkin' about going with small groups (groups-of-five) as a design principle...

--The classroom could then have four clusters (for the four small groups that would be meeting f2f on any given day). Each cluster could have 2 new iMacs, one old iMac, three Flip videos, and an audio recorder or two basically assigned to it. The portable equipment would basically stay in the room, on a wall-shelf next to each cluster, but could be used during class time to go out and gather footage, sounds, etc.

--The online classroom tool-set would include Skype for audio and video communication (i.e., connecting with the f2f class during class-times, talking with group members, etc.), Google Apps for portfolio websites and documents, Facebook discussions for processing readings and so forth, and Second Life as a kind of experimental platform (that groups may choose to explore or not).

--I'm thinking each group member will have to take on a 'job' --sort of like a mini version of what they do at Warren Wilson-- and that the jobs might rotate throughout the term (or not depending on what the group itself thinks about how it wants to operate).

--This might mean that three small-group projects (somewhat more ambitious undertakings than the individual ones I've been assigning) would be required, along with individually-done quizzes and final exam.

This may be the time to shift over to small-group work, in part to prep for a more flexible arrangement when we shift to 2-semesters, and in part to enable the kind of social-learning that students typically already do on the outside anyway. I've wanted to do this but have not had the time to work out how to assess group work. The materials on how to do this are available, though, so I can probably get that part put in place this summer.

At any given point in the term, one group of five in each section is 'in the field' and coming to class via Skype (yipes, this software now lets you conference call with 24 people, still for free).

Maybe each group of five frames and enacts three types of project. A personal interest project --research, media production, etc. all in the wheelhouse. Then expand the circle to a local interest, then on up to a social or global interest. This scaling of interests, finding something in a personal interest that generalizes to a larger scale that is still interesting, then, again, on up. Isn't this kind of what is supposed to happen in college? We expand our interests? This might be what we work on in the beginning of the term. A survey possibly --what are folks interested in? Then some diagramming and so forth to figure out how to expand out from there in radiating kinds of circles.

How's this sound?

So that's that part. Been thinking a lot about dimensions. Like three or more. The first three for a 3D environment might be imagination, emotion, and intellect. So I'm grafting some of the thinking I did about 3D environments in the book chapter onto this. What is 3D anyway?

Also have been thinking a lot about Second Life and the notion of building things in there out of "primitive" shapes. So if one is building art (rather than an object in SL) what are the primitives? This is where I get the imagingation, emotion, and intellect bits. Maybe these are the primitives, the building blocks. If they are all present, the the artwork seems whole/complete. What about if you are building education? What are the primitives? Similar possibly, could be almost the same as building art. But maybe not. Maybe we want to say the primitives are 'highly individual', 'highly social', and the 3rd might be (imagination+emotion+intellect). I've been thinking about different categorical 'grids' for some time, and how they are interchangeable and all, and now I'm seeing where this might go if I think in terms of primitives.

Second Life is 3D in an obvious sense, but it also is 3D in allowing us to see ourselves as others see us (the old desiderata made virtually real). We construct an avatar and we see it/us just as others do. When I walk around in RL now I can picture my 3D self from different camera angles. So there are these profound effects even in the most prosaic aspects of software (which is what I wrote the chapter about). Layers is a very profound concept. So is scale. So is 3D. These are big teachings embedded now in software.

I've been doing lots of thinking also about interfaces. In teaching classes the assignments are SO CRITICAL precisely because they are the interface between students and content. I want to build these interfaces with students this coming year. This would be a new element. In building interfaces, what are the primitives?

So, as usual, I am looking forward to the journey. It's still June now, so I have plenty of time to ruminate on this and hammer out some of the details. I've got some camping and hiking planned between now and then, too. I'll likely add some other posts about this as the summer cooks on.

Reflection on the winter term 2010 edition of DMA

It's time to look back and ahead as well. Lots of good things went on in the winter term of 2010. About 1/2 of the course was experimental (2/3 would be better, but would paradoxically require tighter organization than I would have been able to bring to bear on the course design this go-round).

I list some highlights below, after a quick note about the accompanying image. We started our project work in part three of the course with each person making a 6" X 6" collage on the theme of boundaries. These collages were on display in the WW3 Gallery for a few weeks. Then we messed with the boundary between one artist and another by cutting each 6" X 6" collage into four parts and recombining/remixing them into one large work. The image included here is of the remixed version.

Part of the deal here was to explore the idea that in the digital age social or co-creation is becoming a recognizable genre. In many cases artists are creating frameworks in which others can combine their creative efforts with others. The In B Flat website remains for me a significant example of this. The current generation already does much of their knowledge-work collaboratively (in this case platforms like Facebook provide the framework for others to combine forces) so the idea was in part to carry this logic over into a project. It was interesting to see how this kind of real-world or Newtonian-scale "digitization," put in place by a simple division, resulted in a powerful compression (around 70 collages got compressed into an area roughly 5'X 7') and also a powerful lesson in holographics, since most if not all of the compositions retained their DNA/logic even when reduced in size. This in addition to the aforementioned experiment in social/collaborative creative work. All in all, this ws a successful experiment.

--We used Facebook to discuss preparatory readings for the final exam. This was offered as an extra-credit option. Quite a few people took me up on the offer. Even though I described it in terms of "pairs of students" a couple of groups quickly formed up with seven or so participants each. So it kind of jumped off-grid immediately and nicely (and in a way that is typical of the kinds of teachings students give me). The conversations were amazingly good, containing as they did generative insights, reflective passages, and all the rest. This is something I will try to build on next term and see where it might go.

--In the first part of the course, the part on Liberal Arts and Fine Arts processes and overlaps, the learning got pretty good I think around issues of quantum reality (a reality of electrons being in two places at the same time, etc.) possibly being just what Marshall McLuhan was talking about with the dispersal of the nervous system (after all a matter of dispersing the material logic of electrons and electricity). This connection seemed to fall into place nicely this term.

--Also in the first part, the Katamari-style learning concept got pretty good play and traction. This was connected to Mimi Ito, Andrea Lunsford, and others who are pointing to new knowledge and skills in the current generation -- not a new species, just a new skillset-- that is dynamic/moving, nomadic, quick-to-assemble, etc. We also heard quite a bit of wonder and/or worry about this new skillset or attitude, but connected these worries to questions of new media going back to the ancient Greeks, some of whom worried about the destructive effects of the new technology of writing. Walter Ong's concept of secondary-orality fit real well into this discussion, which also wrapped around texting, IMing, Facebooking, etc.

--In the second part of the course, the part on Media Studies, I think the connections were also fairly well made. McLuhan of course was a perfect fit with the discussion of parallel universes and quantum reality --I hit on the notion of the current generation as "Generation Q" --the first group of humans to be be truly swimming in quantum effects due to growing up with the internet. Later on, in the final exam essays, I noticed that some of the Media Studies luminaries got mentioned even though this was not required. Bruce Mazlish for instance. I was delighted to see this, and it alerted me to the possibility that my "Sparks Notes" summaries of Media Studies heavy-hitters (McLuhan, Ong, Ito, and others) may have worked pretty well to get some some conceptual tools onto the table in a fairly strait-forward and usable way.

--In the third part of the course we focused on remix compositions. I picked remix because it seemed to fit well with the logic of Katamari-style learning (using the entire world as one's palette, rolling up this and that). This theme segued beautifully into the conceptual content of part three of course, which was intellectual property, copyright, and privacy. We did image, audio, and video remixes, using our own materials and/or materials that are in the public domain --including items from the Internet Archive and CCMixter.

DMA identity

The Digital Media course has developed a stable, mercurial identity as a Liberal Arts course in the field of Media Studies with a decided focus on the Fine Arts/creative-uses of digital media. 1/3 of the course features developing the creative skills of the Liberal Artist (talking/communication skills mainly, but also reading, writing, and thinking skills), 1/3 involves applying those skills to a cadre of Media Studies luminaries (Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, Lev Manovich, Mimi Ito, et al) and issues (privacy, copyright, etc.), and 1/3 involves composition-studies (hands-on projects including a website composition, and image, audio, and video remix compositions). The current website for the course is located at: http://sites.google.com/site/dma20092110/ I also maintain a separate website for the Liberal Arts content of the course at: http://sites.google.com/site/mediastudiesnow/ And a separate site as well for the Media Studies content at: http://sites.google.com/site/dma0910/ All of the quizzes, gradebook stuff, and copyright-protected content are contained in Blackboard sites, one for each section.

The 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 structure or cadence in some ways mirrors the progression of Web 1.0 (the read-only, passive, or lonely web), Web 2.0 (the social-active web), and Web 3.0 (the knowledge-contruction web). The phases of the course also of course include significant overlap. We use plenty of media in the first the second thirds of the course, and we continue to talk about issues in part three.

At this point in time, the course seems to strike a pretty good campus-wide balance for a required first-year offering. Students who may typically shy away from technology may find even the entry-level introduction to technical-skills they get in the Digital Media course to be challenging to learn. On the other hand, students who might typically shy away from interpretative skills and theory may find even the entry-level introduction to the Liberal Arts and to the field of Media Studies to be challenging to learn! That's the nature of a first-year required course, or at least that's how I see it.

In any case, on the technical-side, the Digital Media course provides an entry level, art-focused set of technical skills for students to work on. They learn to work with Google Sites and Docs, Photoshop Elements, Audacity, and Movie Maker, and an array of other tools including screen-capture utilities for still and moving images.

My perception is that the need for advanced or more detailed technical-skills instruction varies pretty wildly in degree and kind, and timing, across the various Schools. My favored approach to delivering highly specific technical skills-training (if students need more or advanced work on Photoshop, more or advanced work in audio-editing, etc.) is to develop suites of online screen-movie tutorials (of the sort I use fairly extensively and produce via Jing or Camtasia). If study of online tutorials is combined with tests that require students to sit at at a computer in a classroom in the instructor's presence and execute the skills the tutorials address, this can work very well. I guess this is to say that DMA is not a tech or computer-skills course, yet it includes such things in context, and if I felt more of such things were needed I would not necessarily put them in a face-to-face framework anyway.

I am reminded of a webmaster job interview I once had. The interview consisted of a short verbal Q and A session with a Human Resources person, then I was handed a sheet or paper with a list of things to do, which included the address of a website I was to critique. I was then given access to a computer where I had to create a website, including a page on the site to enter my critique of the website they had given me the address to. Afterward I felt that this organization got a pretty accurate picture of applicants' skills (including their thinking skills and aesthetic-critiquing skills) by using this methodology. If students who needed advanced skills-training were to use online tutorials to acquire and practice the skills, and were then tested face-to-face, they could be given course-credits for their work, analogous to a job applicant getting into the next round of interviews or getting a job offer.

If face-to-face courses in advanced-skills are the only way to go --in other words if an online tutorials + face-to-face testing model would not work for one reason or another-- then multiple courses would likely be needed at UNCSA, at very least one per each School. Therein lies the next-level design-problem; namely there are not enough teachers, and there is not enough time, to do this. So this, too, makes me think courses may not be the best design-solution for advanced technical skills training.

Rollin' the Katamari ball forward

This term is off to a delightful start. The discussions about Macomber-related materials --the skills of the Liberal Artist, the life of the mind, Katamari-style learning, etc.-- have gained reasonable traction in all three sections.

I sort of vowed I wouldn't change things this term, but I'm beginning to think something different might happen in part three of the course this term. Part one is still all about the skills of the Liberal Artist. Part two is still all about applying those skills to the field of Media Studies. But in part three I'm kind of intrigued to see whether we might spin hands-on media-skills assignments out of the discussions we're having, perhaps organized around whatever concepts and so forth seem to be gathering energy. For example a group of interested folks might pursue a study of quantum mechanics that includes responding in text, image, audio, and video to the key concepts. Another group might pick a different concept or area to explore. It's possible that these groups could cut across section lines. The group work would involve research, website construction, image, audio, and video. We'll see.

I guess what I'm trying to address with this is a different kind of integration of part three into the course. In most iterations of the course thus far, part three has stood somewhat apart from parts one and two. It has tended to feature student-generated topics and projects. These have always been integrated in some ways. For example, last term the digital stories done in part three were interrelated closely with the structural content of parts one and two of the course in the sense that digital stories were used in parts one and two --in particular the introduction of Liberal Arts skills via the Meeting Macomber digital story. What I'm contemplating here and now is more of an extension into part three that is keyed to the conceptual rather than structural content of the earlier parts of the course. For example, we have talked about Katamari-style learning in part one, and we could practice it in part three if we did research --particularly research with a social/group dimension.

Another new element this term was the inclusion of a student who was in NY temporarily in a class session via the use of Skype. This worked really well even with only a very minor bit of setup. I basically used my laptop built-in webcam and microphone and we got good video exchange and audio interaction. The student in NY heard and participated in the class discussion just fine. A cool NY-style touch was provided by the student attending class while having breakfast at a McDonalds in Brooklyn that had good wifi connectivity :)