Christy Desmet

The Course and Pedagogy

Collaborative Campus was designed as a class centered around science and technology as its central topic. Thus, subject matter and classroom method enjoyed a natural connection. The Collaborative Campus class used both synchronous and asynchronous communication and encouraged students to do both individual and group analysis. The classes had weekly homework postings, in which students posed and responded to questions raised by their reading using Web Crossing, the asynchronous bulletin board system chosen by the developers at Georgia Tech. There were also collaborative projects, in which students developed a proposal for a web site based on a central question related to class work and provided an annotated bibliography of sources. Finally, each cross-campus group developed one of these projects into a full-scale web site, a final project that represented a variable but substantial part of each student's course grade. For these collaborations, which took place both during and outside class time, students used TechLINC, a beautiful version of The Palace, also developed at Georgia Tech by Greg VanHoosier-Carey and Lissa Attaway-Holloway. (TechLINC won the technology prize for the "individual" category at the Computers and Writing 2000 conference in Fort Worth.) The hyper-real, sometimes surreal, rooms and gardens in TechLINC made for an imaginative meeting space and the witty and malleable avatars injected a note of pure fun into the proceedings. Dreamweaver was the software used for web site construction.

Pedagogical Examples

• Individual Effort: Homework Postings
  • Instructions for Homework Postings: The homework postings on WebX, like many class bulletin boards, function collectively as an on-line journal. Notice that the instructions include an expressivist emphasis on the writer's authentic voice. Since homework postings contribute ideas not only for class discussion within individual campuses but also ideas for collaborative projects, the homework postings aim to be more interactive than a traditional journal. The general instructions for Homework Postings also emphasize critical thinking, encouraging students to construct questions that ask for analysis rather than just a response (as the question "Was Frankenstein a good father" would ask for response rather than analysis).
  • Frankenstein example: The first posting on Frankenstein does several things well. It supports its general assertions with quotations from the text and creates an analogy between the monster and children in elementary school. The analogy, however, is somewhat facile; the posting never quite gets around to answering its own question; and the final side comparison between Victor Frankenstein and Einstein is promising, but takes the writer off in a wholly new direction. In many ways, this posting is an example of writer-based prose. The second posting is more satisfactory for several reasons. First, it answers directly one of the sample oppositions offered in the teachers' prompt. Second, it offers reader-based prose, giving the reader an outline of Lacan's pattern for psychological development, then applying that pattern to the novel Frankenstein. The posting uses readings from class–an excerpt from Lacan was on the syllabus–and picks up on class discussion about "imagination versus science." In other words, this posting does a good job of synthesizing class work and of applying abstract ideas to the concrete events of Shelley's novel. The idea that Victor remained attached to his mother and that he acts as a nurturing mother when creating the monster shows an ability to do the kind of thinking typical of feminist criticism. Notice that all of the postings contain diction, spelling, and mechanical problems, showing that the postings allow students to concentrate on ideas rather than the prose surface. In other words, they are prevented from editing their work prematurely.
  
  
  
• Collaborative Work
  • General Instructions for Collaborative Projects: As the general instructions for Collaborative Projects indicate, students are asked to recognize important issues based on their reading and on class discussion, to generate a research question, and to begin answering that question with outside research. The instructions do not privilege either library or on-line research, although in fact, the students emphasized on-line research. The outside meetings in TechLINC and collaborative writing are discussed by both Laura McGrath and Angela Mitchell in their papers.
  • Project #2 Directions: As in the general instructions, students are asked to keep permanent records of their discussions, whether conducted electronically or via e-mail. They could refer back to these discussions for their larger projects. Teachers could also use the logs to adjudicate any interpersonal problems among students. Notice as well that the directions are fairly explicit and directive, which is important in a class where much of the discussion is "virtual."
  • Chat Logs for Collaborative Projects: Group 1A: Chat logs always sound dreadfully befuddled and this one is no exception. The group seems confused about the assignment at first, but DOH helps to focus the discussion to a specific topic. The students then mingle practical discussion about task allocation, some silliness, and concern over which group members are missing. Pete summarizes the group's plan at the end. A chat log lets one see the best and worst of group interaction!
  • Collaborative Project #2: Analysis/Bibliography: Here you can see the final effort of Group 1A for the collaborative project that they have been discussing in the chat log. Group 1A's second collaborative project proves to be successful. They resort to the cliche "all throughout history" and there are grammatical infelicities, but the annotations are substantial and the introduction, although sometimes prone to other cliches, connects the readings with the movie The Matrix and refers successfully to issues raised by the items in the bibliography, most of which are on-line sources. Note as well the polished persona of the group; they regard their interactions as successful, at least for the benefit of the teacher. Bibliographical citation format is variable and the proofreading is not good!
  
  
  
• Final Collaborative Projects
  • Group 2A: Group 2A's project is less well focused than that of Group 8A, in both a technical and intellectual sense. It lacks an overall site map, and much information must be found by following right-branching links on individual pages. Furthermore, there are relatively few intertextual links within any given page. Finally, subsidiary pages often broaden rather focus the topic. For instance, the page on Charles Darwin begins with the place and date of his birth, which is not related to the stated topic of paradigm shifts. There are also other problems with navigation, such as a lack of "back" buttons, which can leave the reader in a virtual cul de sac. In an intellectual sense, the example from The Scarlet Letter is weak. Pictures are apropos, but not explicitly tied to the content of the web site. This web site bears the signs of a collaborative style described earlier by Group 1A, in which each individual makes a contribution and one person puts all the pieces together. To a certain degree, it lacks the coherence that comes from close collaboration.
  • Group 8A: Group 8A's project is more pleasing in both the technical and intellectual sense. The tripartite division of the material into "past, present, and future" is clean and simple, and makes sense. Subdivisions are also clean and comprehensive. It is quite easy to navigate around the site; in a web site, clear navigational structure is the equivalent of good organization, topic sentences, and transitions in a traditional paper. The pictures are both aesthetic and amusing. The web site also makes good reference to one of the class readings, Sherry Ortner's "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?", to The Matrix and to Frankenstein. Finally, this site shows better editing than the previous one.