This resonates so strongly with me - that sense of being made more acute, online, and even amplifying (both good and bad) when teaching interfaces with online. In our previous "jam" on chapter 1 Sean and I were discussing the binaries (or lack thereof) between "online" and "not-online" teaching and learning, and hybridity. Hybridity amplifies and makes more acute certain practices and policies, as well as modes of engagement and lifelong learning, that we have largely been complacent about in "traditional" teaching (whatever that means). This was perhaps the biggest shock to me as an instructor who started teaching in seminar rooms and now teach fully online courses.

Here is an important thesis, one that TLTS, rethinq, COLTT, DigPed Lab, and others are trying to tease out and render into practice.

I continue to come back to this thesis, attempting to unpack the levels of hybridity that now condition the experience of learning (both the learning itself and the construction of the environments in which it is engaged) - Hybridity plumbs the depths of our institutions at this stage, and necessitates a rejection of the old binaries between online / not-online

As one of those folks still working in MOOCs, it has been fascinating to watch the ups and downs, and the twists and turns, that perceptions of this vehicle have taken. I wonder how much the narrative of "life and death" of edtech tools or strategies distorts the nature of how we use them? MOOCs are still proving to be powerful triggers and invitations for faculty at Boulder to think more mindfully and intentionally about their teaching practices. Isn't that a form of life as well?

I wonder about the tension inherent in this ecosystem? How free-form will this be? Should there be limits or parameters?

Major claim statement - yet relies on an interpretive binary construction. Perhaps Pokemon GO just captures an inherent potential suppressed by fears of "disengagement"?

Excited for this! What can we expect?

Really looking forward to this session!

Is it ironic that there are no annotations on the Ed Inst page? :)

I've taught several lit classes where I begin by having students read a CYOA book. It is very effective at getting us thinking about structure, format, and readerly experience.

This is in part what makes hypertext art so alluring, it articulates our desires and fears within the terms of our changing sensory and cognitive experiences.

This is a compelling idea I have been grappling with myself as I think about digital pedagogy and the future of the humanities. Finding continuities in history as opposed to just disruptions can really help but technological shifts in context.

this is what I am constantly drawn to - the interface. the moment of encounter between poem and reader, embedded within all sorts of constructed architectures of code and expectation. so much potential.

this is critical. the format, presentation, and interface of dig lit is what invites us into the content (or intentionally doesn't).

This is the kind of thinking that turns us back to format and context, uncovering what is truly radical about how we interface digital literature.

This is how participatory culture changes the nature of networked production. Now, with our comments, this webpage is not the same as it was before we annotated it. Our contributions help shape the reality of the web. This is profoundly empowering, if not outright terrifying!

Another critical distinction - in this very course, we are participating in shaping what falls under the term "electronic literature" - these conversations are now part of the critical field in a way that would have been impossible before Web2.0.

This is such an interesting approach to hunting definitions. In the academy the use of terms is so specific to context and time, and to track these words across time really captures the urgency of emerging fields.

The concept of emergence is useful here. "Emergence" can be understood to be new formations of knowledge or new and unexpected effects that come out of the workings of complex systems. Emergent effects are unanticipated, responsive, and surprising. In this way, e-lit is vital both as a mode of artistic production AND as a subject of scholarship (pushing and pulling traditional scholarship outside of its comfort zone) because it surprises us and teaches us about possibilities we never knew existed.

This is the critical piece, it seem to me. E-lit is thus about communication/community, the capacity to share works in new ways and to watch them inhabit spaces of constant movement rather than the stable archives of libraries, museums, etc.