Great Books tend to arise in the presence of great audiences. by [[Naomi Kanakia]]

Kanakia looks at what may have made 19th C. Russian literature great. This has potential pieces to say about how other cultures had higher than usual rates of creativity in art, literature, etc.

What commonalities did these sorts of societies have? Were they all similar or were there broad ranges of multiple factors which genetically created these sorts of great outputs?

Could it have been just statistical anomaly?

quoted section from:<br /> [au moyen âge, on lit généralement en pronançant avec les lèvres, au moins à voix basse, par conséquent en entendant les phrases que les yeux voient.] Jean Leclercq, Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du Moyen Âge, 2nd edn (Paris: Cerf, 1963), p. 72.

What connection, if any, is there to the muscle memory of movement while speaking/reading along with sound/hearing to remembering what we read? Is there research on this? Implications for orality and memory?

Nice start on a list of goals for reading

others?

How do historical method and philosophical method compare? contrast?

Were they tied to similar traditions? co-evolve? evolve separately?

Additional .pdf copy of this journal article with Hypothes.is annotations available by downloading: https://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/article/download/843/597

Recommended Resource:

I recommend adding this doctoral research article on developing open education practices (OEP) in British Columbia, Canada. The scholarly article is released by Open University, a U.K. higher education institution that promotes open education.

Paskevicius, M. & Irvine, V. (2019). Open Education and Learning Design: Open Pedagogy in Praxis. Open University, 2019(1). DOI: 10.5334/jime.51

A relevant excerpt from the article reveals the study results that show OEP enhances student learning:

"Furthermore, participants reflected on how inviting learners to work in the open increased the level of risk and/or potential reward and thereby motivated greater investment in the work. This was articulated by Patricia who suggested “the stakes might feel higher when someone is creating something that’s going to be open and accessible by a wider community” as well as Alice who stated “students will write differently, you know, if they know it’s not just going to their professor.” The practice of encouraging learners to share their work was perceived by Olivia to “add more value to their work,” by showing learners the work they do at university can “have an audience beyond their professors.”"

Perhaps there is a model for reading and note taking/writing with respect to both learning and creating new knowledge that follows an inverse mapping in a way similar to that seen in Galois theory?

Explore this a bit to see what falls out.

I've done something like this when I think a particular reference(s) can answer a question related to a train of thought. But I keep cards of unread sources at the front of my sources section so that it's easier to pull it out frequently to prioritize and decide what I should be reading or working on next. These will then have links to the open questions I've noted, so that I can go back to those sections either as I'm reading/writing or to add those ideas into the appropriate folgezettel. These sorts of small amounts of work documented briefly can add up quickly over time. Source cards with indications of multiple open questions that might be answered is sometimes a good measure of desire to read, though other factors can also be at play.

That to-read pile of bibliographic source notes (a mini antilibrary) is akin to walking into a party and surveying a room. I may be aware of some of the people I haven't met yet and the conversations we might have, but if there are interesting questions I know I want to ask of specific ones or conversations I already know I want to have, it can be more productive to visit those first.

This sort of practice has been particularly helpful for times when I want to double check someone's sources or an original context, but don't have the time to do it immediately, don't want to break another extended train of thought, have to wait on materials, or may have to make a trip to consult physical materials that are singular or rare. For quick consultative reading, this can be a boon when I know I don't want or need to read an entire work, but skimming a chapter or a few pages for a close reading of a particular passage. I'll often keep a pile of these sorts of sources at hand so that I can make a short trip to a library, pick them up, find what I need and move on without having to recreate large portions of context to get the thing done because I've already laid most of the groundwork.

How might we design better digital reading interfaces that take advantage of a wider range of modes of thinking and reading?

Certainly adding audio to the text helps to bring in benefits of orality, but what other axes are there besides the obvious spatial benefits?

If digital user interfaces and navigational difficulties inhibited reading comprehension in the modern age, what did similar interfaces do to early reading practices?

What methods do we have to tease out data of these sorts of early practices?

What about changes in modes of reading (reading out loud vs. reading quietly)?

I'm reminded of this as a hyperbolic answer, but still the root question may be an apt one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

• https://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/member/alessio-antonini
• https://www.open.ac.uk/people/apa224
• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3639-3622

Dr Alessio Antonini is a Research Associate at the Knowledge Media Institute (KMi), Open University, and a member of KMi's Intelligent Systems and Data Science group. Before joining KMi, he was a post-doc researcher in Urban Computing at the University of Turin, Italy. His research is on Human-Data Interaction (HDI) in applicative context of Civic Technologies, Smart City and Digital Humanities (DH) applications, in which contributed with more than 30 peer-reviewed papers. Transdisciplinary problems emerging from real-life scenarios are the focus of his research, approached through interdisciplinary collaborations, ranging from urban planning, philosophy, law, humanities, history and geography. He has extensive experience in EU and national projects, leading activities and work-packages in 14 projects. With more than ten years of professional practice, he as broad experience in leading R&D projects.

Select bibliography:

• Antonini, A., Benatti, F., Watson, N., King, E. and Gibson, J. (2021) Death and Transmediations: Manuscripts in the Age of Hypertext, HT '21: Proceedings of the 32th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Virtual Event USA
• Vignale, F., Antonini, A. and Gravier, G. (2020) The Reading Experience Ontology (REO): Reusing and Extending CIDOC CRM, Digital Humanities Conference 2020, Ottawa
• Antonini, A. and Brooker, S. (2020) Mediation as Calibration: A Framework for Evaluating the Author/Reader Relation, Proceedings of the 31st ACM HyperText, Orlando, Florida, USA
• Antonini, A. and Benatti, F. (2020) *ing the Written Word: Digital Humanities Methods for Book History, SHARP 2020: Power of the Written Word, Amsterdam
• Antonini, A., (2020) Understanding the phenomenology of reading through modelling Understanding the phenomenology of reading through modelling, pp. (Early Access)
• Vignale, F., Benatti, F. and Antonini, A. (2019) Reading in Europe - Challenge and Case Studies of READ-IT Project, DH2019, Utrecht, Netherland
• Antonini, A., Vignale, F., Guillaume, G. and Brigitte, O. (2019) The Model of Reading: Modelling principles, Definitions, Schema, Alignments

Discovered via Nate

I was a bit surprised to see how many entries there were for #DoOO in the collaborative Opening Knowledge Practices bibliography. You could probably do worse than to start with the first two entries, A brief history parts 1&2 by Jess Reingold et al: https://t.co/CkhgaHgb0E

— Nate Angell (@xolotl) March 8, 2022

https://dancohen.org/2019/07/23/engagement-is-the-enemy-of-serendipity/

Dan Cohen talks about a design change in the New York Times app that actively discourages exploration and discovery by serendipity.

This is similar to pulling out digital copies of books you're looking for instead of going to the library, tracking down the book on the shelf and in the process seeing and experiencing the books on the shelf which are nearby, or even the book that catches your eye across the aisle, wasn't in your sphere of search or interest, but you pick it up anyway.

How can we bring this sort of design back to digital experiences?

It's not just the algorithmic feeds which are narrowing our interests and exposure, but the design of our digital spaces as well.

"The Guide to Social Science Data Preparation and Archiving is aimed at those engaged in the cycle of research, from applying for a research grant, through the data collection phase, and ultimately to preparation of the data for deposit in a public archive: " from tweet

Evans, T. R., Branney, P., Clements, A., & Hatton, E. (2021). Preregistration of Applied Research for Evidence-Based Practice [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/snj2d

Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. (2020) The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol 18(7): e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

I still wonder to what degree open educational practices are necessarily or always tied to copyright. That is, can OEP be implemented on copyrighted texts?

Giving learners more autonomy in their learning is a great pedagogical principle, and in the context of the article focusing on learning design, I can see how this fits with "open" as it does require that the course design needs to be more "open" as in flexible to allow for this kind of learner autonomy. There is overlap here between authentic learning and open pedagogy.

In fact, Rory McGreal adamantly argues that CC-BY-NC material is too restrictive to be called “OER”. We had a short exchange about this. In Quebec’s Cégep system, NC was the rule for reasons which are probably easy to understand. So the focus is on licenses, in this scene, not on practices. Hence the whole thing about Open Textbooks. Often made me wonder if any of these people had compared textbook-based teaching to any of the other modalities. In my teaching, textbooks are a problem, even when they’re open. Sure, some of those problems can be solved when you have access to the code and can produce your own textbook from that. That’s the typical solution offered in the GitHub sphere:

Just Fork It!

But the core problem remains: if you’re teaching with a textbook, you may not really be building knowledge with learners.

(Should probably move this here.)