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
Oh my.
For its part, foreign music functioned to create a sense of unity among specifi c categories of immigrants dispersed across North America.
Polka.
such as what has occurred with numerous forms of music initially associated with African Americans that later found success with white audiences.41
Yep, again like "gangsta rap."
Genres could thus exist in a homological relation to a group of people, or they could exist in a performative relation.
This is difficult in terms of minstrelsy, but it does point my thinking to the phenomenon of white high school students enthusiastically consuming "gangsta rap" from California.
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
We take this process for granted now - all the ways we can access music as an individual without necessarily engaging a community.
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.
There is a lot to unpack here in terms of how we understand innovation.
quoted outside of, or beyond, the initial context in which it was created,
Again, like a trap beat.
cite
It might make more sense if you think of a citation as a reference. For example, you can use a trap beat outside of hip hop and reference hip hop even if the same isn't embedded in that genre.
legibility, that is, how it becomes capable of being understood as participating in a genre at a given place and time.
Important concept. How a work is understood as participating in a genre. Let's do hip hop.
in the course of participating in a genre, cannot help but invoke the conventions of a genre in which they participate.
You think about "Old Town Road" in this context. Circle all the way back later.
table 1 Diff erent Levels of Genre, ca. 2001
Spend some time on this.
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.
Key
rules”
Let's think of examples of what "rules" (practices, actions, styles) might exist in a genre.
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
In other words, Brackett wants to understand how genre's function in their historical moments while also keeping in mind how our present view is invested in those moments.
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,
Just because a piece of music is not contained with one clear genre does not mean that it lacks pieces that connect it to genres.
Contradiction and incon-sistency need not signal the undesirability of a critical enterprise.
This is a good line. In other words, just because genres change and there is disagreement, it doesn't mean that they don't have an impact and that we shouldn't worry about that.
musicians and consumers oft en resist requests to categorize themselves, insisting that their tastes are unclassifi able.
But they are often not!
” yet consumers regularly traverse these bounda-ries.
Probably even more so today with playlist-centered listening and more crossover and plurality.
Social Identity
I'm excited to see what work students are able to engage in with Hypothesis this quarter.
“pedagogy that joins teachers and students in the educational enterprise [by choosing] … a machine that will separate them,”
This makes me think of the fact that I have only used/encountered plagiarism software in online-only courses (including as a facilitating TA). I don't know how the use situation breaks down, but the adoption in that context certainly felt related to the idea that "a machine" was already separating staff from the students.
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.
This analogy makes sense to me in a way I hadn't considered before. Many products (in edtech and beyond) have the "it does this, and this, and this!" aspect that distracts from the core use and tries to make a difference impression. Well stated!
How do you collaborate with colleges and universities rather than just pitch them?
I'm in a different context, having a support/admin position within a SLA college. However, most of my collaborations begin with a pitch. I don't think that is inherently suspect and it might be necessary. Few things in technology are self-evident, even to a savvy user. You often have to explain, offer some examples, and paint a picture to demonstrate the potential of something.
Page Note for Page one Test
Page Note for Page Two, test
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.
I am no Trump fan, but taking up writing space by quibbling with 32 versus 33 percent looks incredibly biased and petty.
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.
Totally reasonable.
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.
This reads like the core finding. Perhaps (and this is only one study), making your own digital notes is no more or less effective than paper marginalia.
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.
So essentially working together helps with comprehension and meta-cognition.
(IA–IC)
Again, some of this is based on the "techy" features of HyLighter and I think that may actually be a distraction.
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.
Cold, but the data is that data.
Students were asked to read the pre-testarticle (print-based) carefully, and complete the reading compre-hension, critical thinking, and meta-cognition skills instruments
Control baseline test for each student.
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.
In both of these, it sounds like the annotation was staggered more than collaborative. You performed your own annotation and only then did you see someone else's work.
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
This is an interesting idea but it's starting to feel dense! However, this comparative model is really part of the HyLighter design.
These initial findings
These initial findings are encouraging if they hold.
(Anderson & Armbust-er, 1984; Bradley & Vetch, 2007; Glover, Xub, & Hardakerc, 2007;Lavagnino, 1997; Porter-O’Donnell, 2004; Simpson & Nist, 1990)
This has been studied to reveal and positive effect and it makes sense that we could transfer this to online collaborative annotation.
In general, wikis and blogs lack a mechanismfor engaging contributors in threaded discussions tied to specificsections of the page.
Right, the bonus of anchored annotation.
HyLighter,
HyLighter has some slightly elevated features from a vanilla annotation program. Using color coding, it keeps track of what passages are highlighted by others, just the user, and both.
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.
Sounds great! How? Are we accomplishing this in the First-Year Seminar program?
insecond-semester Freshman English classes.
Seems like a good place for it!
I think I can see them better when they contrast.
Good point. Agreed. The article is already making its own case.
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?”
Perhaps I'm just not familiar with this research methodology but my initial reaction is "weird."
Seven students
Small, eclectic pool. I'm not sure this is helpful organizationally.
22% were negative evaluations of the primary text, 27% were positive evaluations, and35% represented attempts to comprehend the material.
Interesting breakdown bearing in mind that this was from a group of composition instructors.
This smallparticipant pool is offset by the rich analytic detail this method allows.
Hmmmm.
How do annotations shape reading practices? What learning value do annotations offerreaders?
I'm most interested in No. 1.
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.
Excellent point and assessing this next step is vital. How does this change the experience and comprehension of the text?
Thus, as the popularity of the annotation systemincreases, its primary advantage (allowing users to move effortlessly between primary textand annotation) decreases.
Good point. When is annotation too much? Does it merely shift from a task-centered, text-based discussion to a social one? Is that okay?
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.
This format includes Hypothes.is and seems to be the dominant form.
These researchers conclude that annotation systems produce moreconstructive collaboration centered on understanding the meaning of the primary text
Strong summary of the research.
a context for a comment
Right
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
Right, and sometimes you have a conceptual plane divide if you're asking students to read something, answer a prompt, then go into the LMS environment to post something. The rest of the paragraph makes this point strongly.
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.
This is a primary upgrade (to me) from using something like an online discussion forum to using an embedded annotation system.
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.
If this is true and facilitated by annotation, that is a great.
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.
Positive influence.
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.
I always say that one measure of whether you understand something is whether you can explain it to someone else.
students are motivated directly by grade incentive
This is the classic story. I am still suspicious of idealist pedagogues who believe that everything worthwhile will be intrinsically motivating without grades.
Students were not instructed on how many times they had to post or what kinds of com-ments they should make
I really appreciate all the details about how they implemented this tool as instructors. It's very practical and procedural.
students were graded on a scale of 0–3 for each NB assign-ment on the basis of effort.
My rubric draft is also very simple and uses three gradients.
13–15
That number is close to the figure I've often seen suggested for optimally sized online discussion. It hits the balance between too many and too few.
(Zyto et al., 2012
Probably worth checking out.
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.
Another 101 basics of how this tool might be used.
a social me-dia format.
or LMS.
Coded student responses revealed evidence of knowledge transfer and synthesis, especially in the upper level biology course.
Nice
68%
Not bad. As an instructor, I would take it.
(89 students) and upper level Cancer Biology (26 students
Looking forward to seeing any contrast between the two courses of contrasting size.
This finding suggests thatHyLighterplayed a mediatingrole in communication, decision making, and problem solving within studentteams.
This would be cool in Reacting to the Past style activities where student do literally have to communicate and solve problems to make decisions about actions.
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.
Good conclusion. Guidance is important. Maybe this assignment structure was not the correct one. Too many hoops?
They perceived that their teammates communicatedeffectively, encouraged one another to successfully accomplish the assignment,solved problems together, and made decisions collectively.
Cool. This is a hopeful outcome even beyond the specific, tailored use of annotation here.
Therefore,HyLighterwas not used as a discussion board but rather as an educational tool to facilitatestudent collaboration and to assess academic performance.
Interesting. Okay.
a cumulative map of multiple readers’ intellectual travelsthrough a document
I find this feature valuable - a mapping of the document, including hotspots. I'm not aware of Hypothes.is in particular having this feature.
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).
This differentiation is important. One might prove the intermediate outcomes with verifying that they achieve the desired results.
comfortably
This is basically the overview of the philosophy behind collaborative annotation.
Using the online discussion for addressing fewer papersin more depth rather than for all the papers would reduce the amount of work.
Absolutely. Annotation isn't need for everything in a college course. Be strategic.
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.
I like this idea.
identifying notes and replies that are new. Mechanisms that assist in quickly finding replies to aperson’s comments
I could see the usefulness of this in helping students manage their reading.
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.
This should no longer be a significant technical problem with programs like Hypothes.is.
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.
Interesting.
post their reviews.
Yeah, I think incorporating these lengthy reviews into the anchored discussion platform may have been a teaching mistake.
Based on the survey ratings and comments, most students felt that online discussion helped the live discussion startquickly and gave it focus.
That's another intended benefit in addition to better comprehension of the reading.
more back and forth,”
That would great, something traditional discussion boards are sincerely missing.
software
This whole preceding section makes the choice feel like a trade-off between next level, synthetic thinking and pointed, direct commentary. Probably should think of ways to bridge that.
More difficult tomake high level comments about [the] paper, [and] discussions usually focused on sentences or paragraphs ...
That's a good point. How do you use an anchored annotation system in a way that opens students to making larger connections and general conceptual points about the reading?
We found that students wrote almost twice as much with WebAnn
Huh, perhaps the anchored discussion was more engaging?
Students also replied more when using WebAnn.
Good to read.
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.
Similar to other studies that I've read. The annotation system seems to gain more usage than traditional discussion.
raduate-level Human-Computer Interaction
Again with the potentially biasing pool of students! That seems common in the anchored discussion articles I've read so far.
e total length of each review was expected to beequivalent to two or three paragraphs,
Having students read the papers then read multiple three paragraph reviews feels like a fatiguing amount of reading engagement to me.
stimulate more engaging discussion in class?
This is the feature of this study that interests me. How does it translate to class?
describing portions of the text asproblems, claims, evidence, theory, concepts
A specific guided annotation technique.
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.
Interesting. I wonder why and assume we'll hear more.
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
I annotated too soon. Exactly, we are on the same page.
Second, an increased task-directedness in the system for anchored discussion wasaccompanied by a decreased amount of social and regulative communication.
If anchored discussion is being used in support of a F2F classroom, it seems like this is even less of an issue. The sociality occurs in person during class and reinforces the more text directed work in discussion. If a primary learning goal is increased comprehension of the text, that seems like a fine tradeoff.
establishing social relationships and regulating the collaborative processes in theregular forum discussion
Based on my experience with online discussion forums, I would be curious to know whether these are actually establishing more of a social relationship or whether it more the structure of social interaction being presented.
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.
I wonder if this could be remedied (if remedying is needed) by instruction and pedagogical practice.
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.
Good!
discussion of specificstatements and concepts, the forum discussion was found to be better suited formore general discussion.
What exactly does this mean? In this context, what is "general discussion?"
57 words
Interesting. That's very short for a typical discussion forum. It shows the limited structure provided to the students.
reported to have reread the relevant section of the article
Good. I like it.
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
Anchored discussion more strongly focuses conversation on the material than each other.
participation was voluntary, both discussion systems were frequently used,
Gotcha. Again, I think you have some self-selection from pedagogy students. I don't know if this would work the same with POLS 101 or ARTX 250.
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).
The teacher in me would like to know more about how discussion was actually guided. From an earlier section of the text, it sounds like they discussed some of the value of doing this then compensated students with an exemption on a quiz. Was their further rubrics provided for the nature of a post or was that mostly open-ended?
.
Full disclosure, I am getting a little lost in the variables and coding here.
This study was conducted in a Dutch first-year first trimester pedagogy course titledBGeneral Pedagogy^.1
Researchers might get a higher level of response and engagement using this tool in a course of "pedagogy students." They're inclined to embrace and experiment with something like this.
n two ways.
Both of these two ways are key and the heart of the value.
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.
Interesting finding. In a way, I'm not sure that's a big problem if students are benefiting mostly from their own annotation with collaboration as a bonus. Collaboration might happen more at certain "hot spots" in the text.
a tool forBanchoreddiscussion^
One can tweak the pedagogy in different ways, but a core use of something like Hypothes.is would be "anchored discussion."
Brich^interactions;
This could also be linked to quality versus quantity, where many rubrics (ex. 1 post, 2 replies, 200 words each) demand quantity as the benchmark of participation.
However, introducing additional training or elaborate instructions could increasethe already high demand of time and effort in online discussion for both studentsand teachers.
In other words, don't impose more and more structure that make it more and more of a drag.
Not only does inferring the perspective of the future readerduring message formulation (Baudience design^) seem to be more difficult in many-to-many communication
Who am I talking to? Where is this person coming from? Why should I care?
or to engage much inBconstructive communication^
A classic problem in online discussion forums is that students don't really read each other's work or process it in a meaningful way that creates knowledge and opens up new ideas. These forums, unlike another medium (say, a charged Facebook thread), are really intrinsically motivating.
“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.”
This is a vital issue framed very well by President Wilson-Oyelaran.
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.
Another important and accurate take on Dylan's artistry.
(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.)
This point cannot be stressed about Dylan enough. Takes that refer to him principally as a "songwriter" are incomplete to the point of being misleading. So much of Dylan's career, from his musical arrangement choices to delivering his songs in his voice, have been about sound and performance. Anyone who listens to Dylan and the Hawks play "Tell Me, Momma" from the 1966 tour should leave informed that Dylan-as-musician is as important as Dylan-as-songwriter.
expert sense for how to balance novelty with familiarity.
Theodor Adorno's standardization and pseudo-individualisation at work. Still an excellent pop strategy.