Gotta have a fondness for a critical, scholarly work that refers to its author-of-study by his initals. The Mark Twain Archive does a particularly good job of picking up on aspects of "MT"'s works that are of high interest in both the casual and scholarly communities. The section on Representations of Jim, for instance, gathers together illustrations of Jim over the various editions of the book, often providing side-by-sides of two illustrations by the same author. While it might have been nice to see all the illustrations side-by-side, the linear order of the discussion is clear and easy to follow.
The only quibble I have with the design of the archive as a whole is that navigation through some parts (ie, to the bibliography, or back to the home page) is controlled by two or three unlabled pictures at the bottom of the page, which are not necessarily intuitive, particularly for the more casual Twain reader. The more casual organization fit the more casual tone of the piece as a whole, though.
This is an interesting site to get lost in. The historical context for the various works included is fascinating. The layout and lack of certain navigational devices (ie, "breadcrumb" trails, continues tabs or menus) definitely leads to wandering rather than pointed searching. It seems to be an archive to be accessed by someone interested in Twain, perhaps someone researching a specific book or stage production. It has some good information on aspects of Twain's work that would be viewed as unusual today, such as the instructions to subscription sales-people, but that and other parts of the site which are buried several layers deep are sort of prizes for intrepid searchers.
Verdict: well written and witty, with what appears to be good scholarship, but the movement between items can be a bit "jumpy" and doesn't facilitate back-tracking to an earlier branching point for complex meandering. The search function itself is less prominent than one would expect [two layers deep], and it's sometimes difficult to trace quotes to their sources or find the bibliography to certain pages.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Ricardo Del Campo
When I first approached the Wikipedia assignment, I didn't have a clear idea of what I wanted to edit. I checked out the section on "Printing," and couldn't find a way to edit the main entry. I was able to add Gaskell's bibliography text to the "Further Reading." I think my difficulty trying to edit that page may have something to do with its nature as a "funnel" page, meant to lead to other articles. Or maybe I'm just unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
On my second try, I attempted to find a page that was a. much smaller, and b. obviously needing elaboration. Both of these criteria were fulfilled by Richard Fields (printer). I was particularly amused by the statement, "In Field's era, the trades of printer and publisher were to some significant degree separate activities: booksellers acted as publishers and commissioned printers to do the requisite printing. Field concentrated more on printing than publishing: of the roughly 295 books he printed in his career, he was publisher of perhaps 112, while the rest were published by other stationers.[3]This is apparently supported by a 1931 article in the Library, but the idea that -- even working with the assumption that this guy has his numbers right -- by publishing "only" 112 books this was somehow a minor part of Field's business is pretty ludicrous, even "in Field's era."
The majority of the article centers not on the actual activities of said Richard Field, but on his association with Shakespeare. All the links at the bottom of the page center around Shakespeare folios, even those of other printers. So for this project, I set about correcting one or two of the egregious errors-by-omission. To avoid having to dig up citation materials buried in my computer, I settled for inserting a few notes on Field's activities as a protestant propagandist and his Spanish publications/printings. I also corrected the mistaken "question" that Jacqueline Vautrollier, his first wife, was possibly the daughter of his former boss, and not Thomas Vautrollier's widow. Given the lack of information on this well known printer, it's not surprising that J. Vautrollier, also a printer, doesn't have her own page.
On my second try, I attempted to find a page that was a. much smaller, and b. obviously needing elaboration. Both of these criteria were fulfilled by Richard Fields (printer). I was particularly amused by the statement, "In Field's era, the trades of printer and publisher were to some significant degree separate activities: booksellers acted as publishers and commissioned printers to do the requisite printing. Field concentrated more on printing than publishing: of the roughly 295 books he printed in his career, he was publisher of perhaps 112, while the rest were published by other stationers.[3]This is apparently supported by a 1931 article in the Library, but the idea that -- even working with the assumption that this guy has his numbers right -- by publishing "only" 112 books this was somehow a minor part of Field's business is pretty ludicrous, even "in Field's era."
The majority of the article centers not on the actual activities of said Richard Field, but on his association with Shakespeare. All the links at the bottom of the page center around Shakespeare folios, even those of other printers. So for this project, I set about correcting one or two of the egregious errors-by-omission. To avoid having to dig up citation materials buried in my computer, I settled for inserting a few notes on Field's activities as a protestant propagandist and his Spanish publications/printings. I also corrected the mistaken "question" that Jacqueline Vautrollier, his first wife, was possibly the daughter of his former boss, and not Thomas Vautrollier's widow. Given the lack of information on this well known printer, it's not surprising that J. Vautrollier, also a printer, doesn't have her own page.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Online Pedagogy
A pencil is a tool. It can be used for good (taking notes, doodling in your margins, shading in all the o's in a handout) or evil (stabbing your classmate.... Don't laugh, this happened to a student in one of my mom's 4th grade classes).
Online and computer-oriented pedagogical tools are tools as well. They are as good or evil as the pedagogy and thought put behind their use. Admittedly, it's harder to stab your classmate in a sensitive region with a power-point slide, but their use to convey information is limited mainly by the imagination and time of the slide-show creator.
I'll admit to being vaguely annoyed by what I see as the technological bias of power-point. Most of the preset backgrounds are vaguely techy looking. This annoyance is largely because my main use for powerpoint comes in classes titled things like "The Manuscript Book" and "Travel Narratives of the Renaissance." There are few preset background and color-combinations that truly evoke manuscript books, with the possible exception of the marble-background and the one which somewhat awkwardly resembles a wooden desk. Since I mainly tend to use this software to display comparative images of pages (as in "here you may see f.21r and f.21v, with the show-through of the verdigris pigment..."), what I need is a software that allows me to put two images side by side in a temporal sequence, and honestly, PowerPoint does that quite well. I think Edward Tufte's objections should not necessarily rest soley on the shoulders of PowerPoint, but on all the instructors and employers who threw the neophyte in the ocean and said, "I want a PowerPoint by Friday. Go." Without instruction, the unimaginative, rushed, and just plain bad PowerPoint Presentation is to be expected. At some point in the educational process, it would behoove us to tell students how to use this tool, just like at some point in our ancient past someone told us how to hold a pencil.
Distance or Online instruction, likewise, constitutes a set of tools which can be used well or ill, depending on teh pedagogy behind the tool. Some tools are useful for providing a basic background understanding to a range of users. My current favorite example is the Moma's What is a Print flash animation. It conveys a fairly simple definition of several artistic techniques in a way which is moderately interactive. It will not teach you to make beautiful etchings on your own, but this is not it's purpose. And this, I suppose, is the real annoyance David Noble is trying to get at -- by comparing Online classes to oldfashioned mail-order diploma mills -- that these online tools are misrepresenting themselves as the equivalent of an in-person education with a dedicated instructor.
Because without the directed pedagogy of an instructor, these tools cannot be as responsive to student needs as a class run by a competent pedagogue. Standardized content cannot adjust to the pace of the student. It cannot slow down when a class "isn't getting it." It cannot speed up when things are going smoothly. Standardization can't jive with responsiveness, the two qualities are antithetical. This doesn't mean that online classwork cannot supplement learning at a distance.
I recently found a really neat class website for an interdisciplinary class at the University of Texas. I found this tool through a google search, while I was looking for a basic definition of "sublime poetry." This tool, however, provides a greater context that I had anticipated for this term, and I like the juxtaposition of genres and disciplines it proposes. I might find a way to incorporate this into my own pedagogy at some point in the future. Do I think I get the same experience from exploring this website as someone who has taken Dr. Lisa L. Moore's class? No. But I do think it adds to my understanding of the period from 1700 to 1832 that it covers, and thus is educational for me.
I do wonder what we should make of the fine-print on the website, from a pedagogical point of view: "This site was created by Lisa L. Moore, Associate Professor of English and Women's and Gender Studies at The University of Texas at Austin . It is for use by University of Texas students and scholars and is password-protected. Please do not reproduce material from this site without permission." I feel ok posting the link to it here on this blog, as I am a "scholar," albeit one no longer associated with UT (does being an alumna count?) and I'm not, technically, reproducing any of the material. I can't for the life of me figure out what she means by "password protected" as I can see most of the site without problems... I think there's one or two dead links. Is this just a covering-the-butt-note? How much does one expose oneself legally when one is pedagogical online?
Online and computer-oriented pedagogical tools are tools as well. They are as good or evil as the pedagogy and thought put behind their use. Admittedly, it's harder to stab your classmate in a sensitive region with a power-point slide, but their use to convey information is limited mainly by the imagination and time of the slide-show creator.
I'll admit to being vaguely annoyed by what I see as the technological bias of power-point. Most of the preset backgrounds are vaguely techy looking. This annoyance is largely because my main use for powerpoint comes in classes titled things like "The Manuscript Book" and "Travel Narratives of the Renaissance." There are few preset background and color-combinations that truly evoke manuscript books, with the possible exception of the marble-background and the one which somewhat awkwardly resembles a wooden desk. Since I mainly tend to use this software to display comparative images of pages (as in "here you may see f.21r and f.21v, with the show-through of the verdigris pigment..."), what I need is a software that allows me to put two images side by side in a temporal sequence, and honestly, PowerPoint does that quite well. I think Edward Tufte's objections should not necessarily rest soley on the shoulders of PowerPoint, but on all the instructors and employers who threw the neophyte in the ocean and said, "I want a PowerPoint by Friday. Go." Without instruction, the unimaginative, rushed, and just plain bad PowerPoint Presentation is to be expected. At some point in the educational process, it would behoove us to tell students how to use this tool, just like at some point in our ancient past someone told us how to hold a pencil.
Distance or Online instruction, likewise, constitutes a set of tools which can be used well or ill, depending on teh pedagogy behind the tool. Some tools are useful for providing a basic background understanding to a range of users. My current favorite example is the Moma's What is a Print flash animation. It conveys a fairly simple definition of several artistic techniques in a way which is moderately interactive. It will not teach you to make beautiful etchings on your own, but this is not it's purpose. And this, I suppose, is the real annoyance David Noble is trying to get at -- by comparing Online classes to oldfashioned mail-order diploma mills -- that these online tools are misrepresenting themselves as the equivalent of an in-person education with a dedicated instructor.
Because without the directed pedagogy of an instructor, these tools cannot be as responsive to student needs as a class run by a competent pedagogue. Standardized content cannot adjust to the pace of the student. It cannot slow down when a class "isn't getting it." It cannot speed up when things are going smoothly. Standardization can't jive with responsiveness, the two qualities are antithetical. This doesn't mean that online classwork cannot supplement learning at a distance.
I recently found a really neat class website for an interdisciplinary class at the University of Texas. I found this tool through a google search, while I was looking for a basic definition of "sublime poetry." This tool, however, provides a greater context that I had anticipated for this term, and I like the juxtaposition of genres and disciplines it proposes. I might find a way to incorporate this into my own pedagogy at some point in the future. Do I think I get the same experience from exploring this website as someone who has taken Dr. Lisa L. Moore's class? No. But I do think it adds to my understanding of the period from 1700 to 1832 that it covers, and thus is educational for me.
I do wonder what we should make of the fine-print on the website, from a pedagogical point of view: "This site was created by Lisa L. Moore, Associate Professor of English and Women's and Gender Studies at The University of Texas at Austin . It is for use by University of Texas students and scholars and is password-protected. Please do not reproduce material from this site without permission." I feel ok posting the link to it here on this blog, as I am a "scholar," albeit one no longer associated with UT (does being an alumna count?) and I'm not, technically, reproducing any of the material. I can't for the life of me figure out what she means by "password protected" as I can see most of the site without problems... I think there's one or two dead links. Is this just a covering-the-butt-note? How much does one expose oneself legally when one is pedagogical online?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)