A psychoanalytic theory of musical identifi cation might argue that all identifi -cations are imaginary to some extent, in that they occur through a relationship either to one’s own image or through identifi cation with, and recognition by, oth-ers.49

For its part, foreign music functioned to create a sense of unity among specifi c categories of immigrants dispersed across North America.

such as what has occurred with numerous forms of music initially associated with African Americans that later found success with white audiences.41

Genres could thus exist in a homological relation to a group of people, or they could exist in a performative relation.

If sound recording extended the possibili-ties for individuated listening and isolated identifi cations, then one of the most signifi cant eff ects of sound recording was to change the perception of how these newly individualized listeners might belong in a group

uthorship and creativity thus come to seem less an act of individual inspiration leading to a rupture of tradition, of channeling inspiration from a heavenly source, than of entering into an ongoing dialogue with other participants in a given artistic fi eld.

quoted outside of, or beyond, the initial context in which it was created,

cite

legibility, that is, how it becomes capable of being understood as participating in a genre at a given place and time.

in the course of participating in a genre, cannot help but invoke the conventions of a genre in which they participate.

table 1 Diff erent Levels of Genre, ca. 2001

Fabbri strongly suggests that musical genres become meaningful only in relation to one another, as part of a “musical system,” and cannot be identifi ed according to a list of positive terms.

rules”

Rather, such a genealogical approach seeks both to analyze the conditions that make it possible for an event to occur and, at the same time, to not occlude the current events to which an interest in the past is responding, what Foucault termed a “history of the present.”1

Simply because a musical text may not (to paraphrase Jacques Derrida) belong to a genre with any stability does not mean that it does not participate in one,

Contradiction and incon-sistency need not signal the undesirability of a critical enterprise.

musicians and consumers oft en resist requests to categorize themselves, insisting that their tastes are unclassifi able.

” yet consumers regularly traverse these bounda-ries.

Social Identity

“pedagogy that joins teachers and students in the educational enterprise [by choosing] … a machine that will separate them,”

For the teachers and administrators using Turnitin as a plagiarism detector, these features function like carbon offsetting. When asked whether their institution uses Turnitin, they can point to all the other things Turnitin can be used for — all the other things that Turnitin is not really used for.

How do you collaborate with colleges and universities rather than just pitch them?

And then he — or his Twitter account’s handler — either botched the math or stretched the truth, calculating the applause as 33 percent of the speech’s time when 24 is 32 percent of 75.

The results of the two stud-ies confirm two things: one, that a technology even implementedwith an instructional strategy may or may not be better than anon-technology solution; two, there seems to be a difference whenusing the same instructional strategy when implemented for anindividual as compared to a team.

Based on these two studies, it seems that the annotation, high-lighting, and reflection process does not have a strong impact ifcarried out by an individual. An individual could learn as muchworking with a textbook and not using the CSCL framework as pre-sented in SAM-LS. However, if a student can team up with anotherstudent or two, there is a definite effect in learning of basic com-prehension and meta-cognition as compared to students who workwith the tool alone.

Results of Study 2 show that students benefited in reading com-prehension and meta-cognition when they completed either one orboth of the tasks (annotation and/or comparison) in groups. Nosuch effect appeared for critical-thinking skills.

(IA–IC)

The findings re-vealed no significant difference on the three outcome variablesbetween the SAM-LS instructional interventions and the instruc-tion omitting the SAM-LS, indicating insufficient evidence for thenotion that SAM-LS results in superior learning outcomes. How-ever, the SAM-LS instructional methods did not have a detrimentaleffect on students learning either.

Students were asked to read the pre-testarticle (print-based) carefully, and complete the reading compre-hension, critical thinking, and meta-cognition skills instruments

For instructional method 2, students completed the same tasksgiven in instructional method 1 followed by each student viewingthe highlights and annotations of their peers.Instructional method 3 involved students completing the sametasks given in instructional method 1 followed by each studentviewing the highlights and annotations of the lead instructor.

d) highlight and annotate selected articles afterpreviewing instructor’s highlights and annotations and performinga self-reflection task (i.e., compare their own highlights and anno-tations to the instructor’s highlights and annotations but with noreview of peer input), a

These initial findings

(Anderson & Armbust-er, 1984; Bradley & Vetch, 2007; Glover, Xub, & Hardakerc, 2007;Lavagnino, 1997; Porter-O’Donnell, 2004; Simpson & Nist, 1990)

In general, wikis and blogs lack a mechanismfor engaging contributors in threaded discussions tied to specificsections of the page.

HyLighter,

A possible alternative to remedial programs is to embed withinstudents’ regular first-year college curriculum training that focuseson the development of basic reading comprehension, critical think-ing, and meta-cognitive skills.

insecond-semester Freshman English classes.

I think I can see them better when they contrast.

Participants were told to follow their normal readingand writing processes as much as possible with the exception that they were to read aloudand speak everything that passed through their minds. If participants fell silent, a researcherprompted them by asking“what are you thinking now?”

Seven students

22% were negative evaluations of the primary text, 27% were positive evaluations, and35% represented attempts to comprehend the material.

This smallparticipant pool is offset by the rich analytic detail this method allows.

How do annotations shape reading practices? What learning value do annotations offerreaders?

However, most research has evaluated annotation systems based upon thecomments that readers produced (Brush et al.2002; Wojahn et al.1998; van der Pol et al.2006) rather than examining the effect that encountering others’annotations might haveupon learners’reading practices or their perceptions of the primary text.

Thus, as the popularity of the annotation systemincreases, its primary advantage (allowing users to move effortlessly between primary textand annotation) decreases.

Aligned or marginal. Annotations are placed in a column—or“margin”—near theprimary text to which they correspond. A minimal amount of highlighting isgenerally used to help anchor the comment to the primary text.

These researchers conclude that annotation systems produce moreconstructive collaboration centered on understanding the meaning of the primary text

a context for a comment

The cognitive effort required ofreaders who have to switch their attention back and forth between two separate visual panes(primary text and commentary) can be quite considerable

the chat or discussion board interfacesgenerally used for such discussions require a visual separation of primary text andcommentary that can make it difficult to integrate the two.

Our analysis also revealed that students communicated with each other in a variety of ways that sometimes shifted the culture of a classroom from instructor centered to student centered.

with the ma-jority reporting that the tool helped them make great to moderate gains in their confidence, enthusiasm, and interest and in their understand-ing of main concepts and how they were related to each other. Using the system also encouraged them to ask questions and to participate in online discussions of the material.

In both examples students took on the role of instructor and the actual course instructor took on the role of facilitator in the learning process.

students are motivated directly by grade incentive

Students were not instructed on how many times they had to post or what kinds of com-ments they should make

students were graded on a scale of 0–3 for each NB assign-ment on the basis of effort.

13–15

(Zyto et al., 2012

NB users can read and annotate PDF documents to highlight words/terms that may be confusing, post questions on content, respond to other questions posted by peers, and engage in discus-sion about topics in a “chat” format.

a social me-dia format.

Coded student responses revealed evidence of knowledge transfer and synthesis, especially in the upper level biology course.

68%

(89 students) and upper level Cancer Biology (26 students

This finding suggests thatHyLighterplayed a mediatingrole in communication, decision making, and problem solving within studentteams.

Even though students felt comfortable withHyLighter, they did not perceivebenefits of using it. This finding suggests a need to rethink howHyLightershouldbe implemented differently to help students see potential learning benefits.

They perceived that their teammates communicatedeffectively, encouraged one another to successfully accomplish the assignment,solved problems together, and made decisions collectively.

Therefore,HyLighterwas not used as a discussion board but rather as an educational tool to facilitatestudent collaboration and to assess academic performance.

a cumulative map of multiple readers’ intellectual travelsthrough a document

In DBR, wealso measure the intermediate or bridging outcomes (e.g., student completion ofassigned activities and engagement with the text—the primary intervention inthis case) that are pre-requisites to achieving the desired results (i.e., improvedcritical thinking and related metacognitive skills).

comfortably

Using the online discussion for addressing fewer papersin more depth rather than for all the papers would reduce the amount of work.

A short summary of the online discussion at the beginning of class mighthelp cope with the different levels of on-line participation and frame an in-class discussion that builds on the onlineexperience. Explicitly acknowledging students who took part in the online discussion could encourage other studentsto participate.

identifying notes and replies that are new. Mechanisms that assist in quickly finding replies to aperson’s comments

In the interviews, some students notedthis tradeoff and suggested that more space be devoted to comment threads. When reading the document and makingcomments the document might be the focus, but these students did most reading on paper.

A student who made a long or complicated reply on-line might not want to repeat itin class, even when asked to by the professor. As a result, interesting replies were not always picked up in class.

post their reviews.

Based on the survey ratings and comments, most students felt that online discussion helped the live discussion startquickly and gave it focus.

more back and forth,”

software

More difficult tomake high level comments about [the] paper, [and] discussions usually focused on sentences or paragraphs ...

We found that students wrote almost twice as much with WebAnn

Students also replied more when using WebAnn.

As we expected, the ability to anchor comments precisely led to more comments in WebAnn weeks, given thatstudents would be likely to concatenate comments in EPost threads.

raduate-level Human-Computer Interaction

e total length of each review was expected to beequivalent to two or three paragraphs,

stimulate more engaging discussion in class?

describing portions of the text asproblems, claims, evidence, theory, concepts

For a variety of reasons, including access and the granularity of thediscussion, student preference appears to slightly favor EPost. However, students contributed almost twice as muchto the discussion using WebAnn.

Especially in situations where sufficient levels ofinterdependency, trust and community have already been developed-for example incourses with abundant face-to-face contact between students-facilitating social andregulative communication might not be necessary and a more direct facilitation of theprocess of collaborative knowledge construction might be more productive

Second, an increased task-directedness in the system for anchored discussion wasaccompanied by a decreased amount of social and regulative communication.

establishing social relationships and regulating the collaborative processes in theregular forum discussion

It is important to note, however, that this increase incommunicative efficiency does not seem to lead to higher levels of mutualunderstanding, but rather seems to decrease the amount of effort that is requiredto reach this same level of mutual understanding.

urning back to the formulated research questions, several conclusions can bedrawn. First, an increased percentage of meaning-oriented discussion, a morefrequent referring to content, and a higher reported frequency of rereading relevantpassages from the article indicate an affordance for anchored discussion tostrengthen the link between discussion and study material. The cause for thisenhanced link might be that the on-screen presence of the article, as well as thetool_s specialized design, suggest to students that the discussion is to be focused onthe meaning of the article.

discussion of specificstatements and concepts, the forum discussion was found to be better suited formore general discussion.

57 words

reported to have reread the relevant section of the article

While discussions in the forum discussion more oftencontain referrals to persons,t(34) = 6.10,p< 0.001, discussions in the system foranchored discussion contain more direct referrals to actual conten

participation was voluntary, both discussion systems were frequently used,

In this, we corrected forthe length of the discussion.T-tests, with ana= 0.05, tested the differences betweenthe condition for regular forum discussion (with a score of 0) and the anchoreddiscussion condition (with a score 1).

.

This study was conducted in a Dutch first-year first trimester pedagogy course titledBGeneral Pedagogy^.1

n two ways.

Nokelainen,Miettinen, Kurhila, Flore ́ en, and Tirri (2005) found a positive relation between anindividual learner_s activity in a system for shared annotation and their studysuccess, but they also established a possible distracting effect of shared annotationas users viewed self-made highlights and comments as being more useful than thosemade by other learners.

a tool forBanchoreddiscussion^

Brich^interactions;

However, introducing additional training or elaborate instructions could increasethe already high demand of time and effort in online discussion for both studentsand teachers.

Not only does inferring the perspective of the future readerduring message formulation (Baudience design^) seem to be more difficult in many-to-many communication

or to engage much inBconstructive communication^

“Freedom of speech complicates the matter,” she says. “How do we hold freedom of speech as a first principle and ensure that the dignity of every human being is honored and recognized? Students are asking, ‘What mechanisms do we have when someone else’s speech challenges my dignity or my right to exist as a human being?’ How do we uphold freedom of speech in a democratic pluralistic society? This is a major challenge facing many colleges and universities and our society at large, as demonstrated by the current political discourse.”

By contrast, everything Dylan has done, from his vocal mannerisms to his changes of style to his notorious rearrangements of his songs hits in concert, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability, seems calculated to destroy any possibility of singing along, at least for long. His songs belong to him.

(One of the strengths of Wald’s book is that he regards Dylan as a musician first, everything else second, which his relentless touring in recent years testifies is no doubt the way Dylan sees himself.)

expert sense for how to balance novelty with familiarity.