13 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. Teaching with Web 2.0 Technologies: Benefits, Barriers and Lessons Learned

      In this article, the author defines Web 2.0 technology and use for Web 2.0 in higher education. Through a small study of educators, discovery includes advantages, obstacles, and general guidance for implementation of web 2.0 tools. The author supports use of Web 2.0 to supplement learning, not as a substitute for the educator. Technologies must be implemented strategically and purposefully. 7/10

    1. Using wikis for collaborative learning: Assessing collaboration through contribution

      Through a study of freshman students, the author aimed to determine the success of the Wiki for collaboration. Results revealed variances in learner responses and use of the tool. Lack of use was explained by individual barriers (family, social, work) and system barriers (wiki design). The authors conclude that for the Wiki to be an effective, collaborative tool, additional resources must be provided to the learner, and the Wiki must be meaningful in its design to foster that participation. 7/10

  2. Nov 2019
  3. Jul 2019
    1. Myth: Refugees are all Muslim.

      Do people actually think that? That is ridiculous and so ignorant. People shouldn't stereotype like that. Does the general public really believe that all refugees are from the middle east and are Muslim? I wonder if they know that there are thousands of Christians in the middle east."Christians now make up approximately 5% of the Middle Eastern population, down from 20% in the early 20th century" That's part of the problem. It's a war on freedom. Religious freedom, basic human rights, and personal desires. Sheesh!

  4. Nov 2018
  5. May 2018
    1. prosum-ers

      A person who influences the purchase of a product; they don't only consume it, they convince others to buy it by consuming it themselves. e.g. a you-tuber who is sent clothing, wears that clothing in a video, and then links it in their video as a product for purchase and gets money for it.

  6. Jul 2016
    1. But the passage from de man does disservice to the discussion of close reading in one important respect. It makes it sound as though all you need is a negative disci-pline, a refusal to leap to the kind of paraphrases one has been led to expect, so that effective close reading requires no technique or training, only an avoidance of bad or dubious training. The suggestion seems to be that if one strips away these bad habits and simply encounters the text, without preconceptions, close reading will occur. If, as de man puts it, you are “attentive” and “honest,” close reading “cannot fail to respond to structures of language” that most literary education strives “to keep hidden.” atten-tion is important but not, alas, enough. Readers can always fail to respond—though then de man might not want to dignify the practice with the name of reading.

      Discussion of the methodological difficulties involved in close reading: i.e. there is no such thing as "just reading."

    2. Culler, Jonathan. 2010. “The Closeness of Close Reading.” ADE Bulletin, 20–25. doi:10.1632/ade.149.20.

    3. Distant Reading: Performance, Readership, and Consumption in Contempo-rary Poetry, Peter middleton calls close reading “our contemporary term for a hetero-geneous and largely unorganized set of practices and assumptions”

      Discussion of the methodology of close reading: middleton, Peter. Distant Reading: Performance, Readership, and Consumption in Contemporary Poetry. Tuscaloosa: U of alabama P, 2005. Print.

  7. Jun 2016
    1. This paper examines the role played by Beckett's Texts for Nothing in the theoretical controversy concerning authorship that arose during the late 1960s. The implications of Foucault's quotation of Text 3 in his "What Is an Author?" create a canonical position for Beckett in a literature of anti-authorship, whilst the inclusion of Barthes's "The Death of the Author" alongside a recording of Text 8 in the avant-garde box magazine Aspen 5+6 facilitates a parallel reading which serves to underline certain submerged structures in Barthes's article, suggesting that the Barthesian author remains very much al

      abstract

    2. WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING/' SOMEONE SAID, "WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING": Beckett, Foucault, Barthes Alastair Hir

      Hird, Alastair. 2010. “‘WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING,’ SOMEONE SAID, ‘WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING’: Beckett, Foucault, Barthes.” Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd’hui 22: 289–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25781931.

      Picks up point that Beckett features very strongly in both Barthe's Death of an Author and Foucault's "What is an Author."

    1. What to do when your coauthor doesn’t return your calls.

      Stemwedel, Janet D. 2016. “What to Do When Your Coauthor Doesn’t Return Your Calls.” Adventures in Ethics and Science. Accessed June 16. http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2010/02/14/what-to-do-when-your-coauthor/.

      Discusses what to do when your collaborators don't sign off on a paper and can't be contacted.