Jill Walker Rettberg’s Visualizing Networks of Electronic Literature maps the fragmentary and dynamic field of electronic literature by analyzing citations in 44 doctoral dissertations published between 2002 and 2013. Applying “distant reading” strategies to the ELMCIP Knowledge Base, Rettberg identifies key works in the field, shifting genres, and changing approaches to scholarship.
I. Lesson 7, Description:Have students work in pairs. Ask them to choose an object to study the parts of, the way the blind men studied the elephant. For example, if they choose a car, they may study the tires, windows, headlights, and bumpers. Have them write:A ____ is like a ______.SAY:Work with a partner. Choose an object and describe a few of its parts. Foreach one, write:
II. Developing Visual Literacy in Science: "Suppose you were to ask your students (before showing them the photograph) this thought-provoking question: “What do you think a jungle looks like to a person riding on the back of an elephant?” What might they say?" [source: Developing Visual Literacy in Science K-8 - PB279XThe term Visual Literacy is not so simple, given the shades of meanings it brings in the eyes of the beholder....by Jo Anne Vasquez]
March 22, 2012
The more scholars move their work online from where it was once ephemeral and hidden, the more they are integrating social media to their communication, the closer we are to telling what is the value that they themselves add to their content – and to blending these isolated factors to create a certain taste, a flavor.
Jason Priem, whose talk on finding an n-dimensional impact space I recently examined on our blog, and Heather Piwowar (Research Remix), who studies the behavior of shared article clusters and post-publication datasets, together with Bradley M. Hemminger, have just presented a preprint to their manuscript on Altmetrics in the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact.
“Articles cluster in ways that suggest different impact flavors,” they suggest in their work, sampling more than 20,000 articles, in search of a tool that would be complementary to traditional bibliometrics – that would measure process, instead of simply counting product, that would add a rich scale to the product, instead of simply keeping count.
From the abstract: “In growing numbers, scholars are integrating social media tools like blogs, Twitter, and Mendeley into their professional communications. The online, public nature of these tools exposes and reifies scholarly processes once hidden and ephemeral. Metrics based on this activities could inform broader, faster measures of impact, complementing traditional citation metrics. Alternative metrics,” Piwowar et al. explain later on, “or “altmetrics” build on information from social media use, and could be employed side-by-side with citations — one tracking formal, acknowledged influence, and the other tracking the unintentional and informal “scientific street cred”. The future, then, could see altmetrics and traditional bibliometrics presented together as complementary tools presenting a nuanced, multidimensional view of multiple research impacts at multiple time scales.”
Continue reading ...
like A.T.M. machines and supermarket checkout lines and tiny phones; some movie fans watch entire films in between calls. These ever-present screens have created an audience for very short moving pictures, as brief as three minutes, while cheap digital creation tools have empowered a new generation of filmmakers, who are rapidly filling up those screens. We are headed toward screen ubiquity. continue reading
