My first semester teaching first-year composition at the University of Texas at Austin, I took my class to a swinging California party house. My students played with all manner of strange contraptions and talked to many interesting strangers. Some swam in the pool while others dunked classmates in the hot tub and drank margaritas. Some were sexually propositioned. A few made complete nuisances of themselves. All enjoyed themselves thoroughly. You would think after such a field trip that I should have been arrested for contributing to the deliquency of minors, or at least reprimanded by my department head.
But, lucky for me, my students' adventures took places in the active, text-based virtual community known as LambdaMOO, not in the flesh. Their bodies were all safely seated in one of the computer classrooms maintained by UT's Computer Writing and Research Laboratory (CWRL). We visited LambdaMOO as part of our research into definitional arguments about identity and community. Since that fall in 1997, I have returned to this and other virtual worlds with several other writing classes -- and not just for the margaritas. Like many writing teachers across the country, I have become excited by the educational potential of MOOs. Through this article, I hope to explain why MOOs -- even non-academic social and gaming MOOs -- are especially useful teaching tools for writing instructors. For instructors interested in using MOOs, but leery of make a big technological commitment, I will also offer three "case studies" of MOO assignments, complete with ready-to-use assignment sheets, that are relatively simple to put into action, even for those with no technical background.
First, a little history on MOOs themselves is in order. LambdaMOO is one of hundreds of text-based worlds known as MUDs, or Multi-User Domains or Multi-User Dungeons1. Technically, a MUD is a computer program that either resides on one server or is distributed across several, often at a university or high-tech research company, and that allows computer users from around the world to use their modems to dial in and communicate with each other in certain rule-bound ways while overseen by administrators known as "wizards." In practice, a MUD is an on-screen world where players/users define fantastic personas for themselves and interact in ways that are limited only by their imaginations and the particular parameters of the MUD. In the late 1970s, when the first MUDs appeared, most were fantasy gaming environments in which players did battle with each other and set off on quests2. MOOs are MUDs that use an object-oriented programming language that allows even non-programmers to"create" objects using some simple commands (MOO stands for "MUD-Object Oriented"). This lets players "build" things that they want in the MOO. The basic framework of a MOO is created by the initial designers, but users make additions, build houses, and furnish them using commands. All of these "objects" appear as textual description whenever other players encounter them.
Since LambdaMOO (one of the first and now most popular MOOs) was established, MOOs have tended to be less "hack and slay" than the original MUDs. MOOs are generally social environments where people gather for interaction and entertainment. Increasingly, educators from many different disciplines have tapped into the teaching potential of MOO environments. Leading the charge was M.I.T.'s Media Lab, which established MediaMOO in the early 1990s as a meeting place for media scholars3. Soon afterwards, Diversity University became the first MOO designed specifically for classroom use. The DU MOO is a virtual campus in which different "buildings" are devoted to different academic areas, and students from around the world can attend classes in virtual classrooms.
Over the past few years, English teachers have staked a claim to these text-based worlds (who better to preside over a word-world, after all?). The Composition in Cyberspace Project is devoted to the study of using MOOs and other Internet resources to teach composition. Lingua MOO, established five years ago by Cynthia Haynes and Jan Rue Holmevik, is an academic MOO established through the University of Texas at Dallas's rhetoric program. Haynes and Holmevik have been especially active in setting up resources and developing tools for teachers interested in starting up a MOO of their own. In fact, one could ask for no better introduction to educational MOOs an the challenges of setting up and maintaining one than their book High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs, a collection of essays by educational MOO pioneers.
One of the difficulties involved in using MOOs in a classroom environment is access. Instructors and students need ready access to computers with sturdy Internet connections, and they also need certain software to make their MOO experiences enjoyable and intelligible. Software programs designed to help users navigate MOOs are called clients. There are many clients from which to choose and most are free for the downloading, but they are not commonly installed on university computer systems or bundled with other popular programs, so students must frequently seek these out on their own. MOOs are accessible via Telnet, the most basic client, and Telnet is installed on most university and personal computers; however, it was not designed with MOOing in mind, and gives MOO users a jumbled and frustrating MOO experience. Text streams by continuously in a single frame where text the user types is often interrupted by comments and actions from other players. This makes keeping track of discussions very difficult. It is preferable to select one of the following: for Macintosh users, MUDDweller, MacMOOse, or Rapscallion; for Windows users, TinkeriView, MudWin, or Pueblo; and for UNIX, TinyFugue. These programs perform many functions that make MOOing easier. Most importantly, they split the text into two screens: one where users type their input and one where the MOO action takes place. These clients also allow users to customize different aspects of the interface (things like font, font size, and background color) and save logs of their sessions to their hard drives or diskettes (an important feature for students conducting research in MOOs). Once a student has loaded a client onto his computer, all he needs to access almost any MOO is the domain name and port number. The domain name is the name of the server, or computer, where the MOO program resides, and the port number is a like a key giving a user access to a certain "door" on the server that leads into the MOO. LambdaMOO's domain name, for example, is lambda.moo.mud.org and the port number for LambdaMOO is 8888. There are several MUD/MOO sites on the World Wide Web that offer searchable indexes of MOOs and MUDs and give all the relevant information (a description of the environment, the domain name and port number of each MOO). One especially useful site is Mudconnect, which allows users to search for MOOs and MUDs in several different ways.
A newer option for MOOers, and one that students may prefer, are Web-based MOO clients. Students with basic computer literacy are generally comfortable with the World Wide Web and the look and feel of standard Web pages, so these clients can be a good choice. Web-based MOO-clients offer several important benefits: they are platform-independent (that is, anyone with Web access can use them); they are less foreign to the first-time user that the clients previously discussed; and they can enrich the MOO experience by bringing in hypermedia features like graphics, audio, and video. Web-based MOO clients also make it possible for instructors to ensure some measure of consistency in the interface their students use. There are several Web-based MOO clients, including Sensemedia's WOO system (see their groundbreaking online environment The Sprawl, based on William Gibson's novel Neuromancer), BioGate (check out a BioGate interface at Diversity University), and enCore Xpress, develop by Haynes and Holmevik and used to power Lingua MOO. These are all available for download free of charge (with some restrictions). These clients offer familiar features like clickable icons and frames, and also allow users to customize some aspects of the interface. To access a Web-based MOO, users still need the domain name and port number, but they enter the information as a Web address. For example, one would access Lingua MOO by point one's browser to http://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000/. The domain name is lingua.utdallas.edu and the port number is 7000.
There are important drawbacks to Web-based clients. First, they can only be used to access MOOs that have a Web-based system installed. Older clients can access almost any MOO, but Web-based clients can only access MOOs that are set up for Web-based access. As of this writing (in 2000), the vast majority of MOOs are not set up for Web access. Another important drawback to Web-based MOOing is that the added multimedia content requires more bandwidth and slows down the speed of interaction between players. Since interaction between players is the main focus for most MOO users, this lag time can present a serious problem. To make using these clients practical, students must have high-speed Internet connections and fast computers. Even the fastest available modem may not make up for the time it takes for the screens to load and reload data. This sometimes makes them undesirable for students using a dial-up Internet service to MOO from home. Also, experienced MOO users who are already comfortable with an older client might not see the need for the added features offered by Web-based clients. One might argue that adding pictures and sound to a text-based interactive environment detracts from the quality of the interaction and changes the very nature of MOOing. This is partially true. In an important way, Web-based MOOs are no longer "word worlds." They are one step closer to the virtual reality realms envisioned by science fiction writers like Neal Stephenson and William Gibson4. This is neither good nor bad, of course, but it is important to consider the difference between strictly text-based environments and audio/video-enhanced environments when planning MOO assignments.
Most educators interested in MOOs, included Haynes and Holmevik, focus on using MOOs as a site for class discussions, scholarly gatherings, academic events, and students conferences, and treat their MOOs as virtual classrooms. They tend to spend a lot of time stressing the importance of online etiquette and suitable behavior. The utility of MOOs in distance education is undeniable, and good manners, in or out of a MOO, are always useful. However, my focus, and the focus of many of my colleagues at the CWRL, is somewhat different. Instead of moving our writing or literature class activities from the "real life" classroom to an on-screen educational MOO, we have students use MOOs themselves as research sites and media of expression and argumentation. A MOO, then, can be seen not just an online equivalent of a traditional academic setting, but as an exciting new world or challenging new expressive medium. For example, I steer my students clear of educational MOOs and ask them to conduct research on certain topics by participating in a social or gaming MOO. Free interchange with a wide variety of MOO players gives students a potent lesson in the power of written words -- a lesson that cannot be duplicated in a restrained, homogeneous academic setting. In fact, I have found no better way of explaining classical rhetorical concepts like ethos, pathos, and logos than by letting students define themselves textually and interact with other textually defined players (see Assignment One: How's Life in a MU*? for a more detailed discussion) in non-academic, relatively uncontrolled environments like LambdaMOO.
Certainly, there are some difficulties involved in asking students to participate in a non-academic MOO. There is a loss of control on the part of the instructor. It has been my experience that students initially test the limits of their discursive freedom in MOOs by behaving in ways they might feel uncomfortable with in a "real life" setting. They flirt with each other, talk provocatively, sometimes behave rudely, and sometimes even become belligerent. This can be a hair-raising experience for an instructor, who has to sit by and watch her class run wild online. However, I believe the lessons learned through this experience are well worth a temporary loss of control and decorum. Students quickly police their own actions for two main reasons. First, they realize they do not like being treated rudely by other MOO users, and that they do not like the MOO users who are rude and intrusive. They decide that they do not want to be seen by others as rude. They see that the only way other players have of knowing them is through their words, and they begin to be careful about how they present themselves. Second, experienced MOO users usually set good examples. Veterans of each MOO tend to be considerate, helpful, and polite to newcomers, and most have the respect of the other players. New MOOers (called "newbies") want and sometimes need the help of these players, and modify their behavior to get it. Another potential problem is that students may be offended or upset by something someone does on a MOO they are exploring. To some degree, this is unavoidable, but students can be prepared for the possibility. It is important to stress that MOO users can control their experiences online by using certain MOO commands (@gag, for example, will block the comments of a particularly offensive player), by leaving a room where they are being made uncomfortable, by appealing to MOO administrators for help, or by simply logging off the MOO.
My colleagues, Joanna Wolfe and David Barndollar, both assistant directors at the CWRL, take an entirely different approach to teaching with MOOs. They actually have their students construct arguments using MOO rooms and objects (see Assignment Two: Object-Oriented Arguing and Assignment Three: MOOing Through The Waste Land). Each student constructs a MOO space that, through its layout and contents, makes a literary or rhetorical claim. These MOO arguments are interactive, as students create objects and characters that visitors can manipulate or converse with. However, the focus of these assignments is not on discourse between players, but on creative, nonlinear argumentation.
When explaining our MOO assignments to others, my colleagues and I are often faced with with same question: "Why?" Why not just have students write traditional papers? Why spend so much time getting them familiar with the MOO commands? Wouldn't that time be better spent teaching them about classical argumentation? What real benefit do you get from using MOO assignments? First, none of us uses MOOs as the focal point of an entire semester. At most, we make one major MOO assignment. The benefits of this assignment are multiple. MOOs, quite simply, are natural environments for the teaching of writing and reading. They are worlds of words. Rhetoric becomes dynamic and visible in a MOO, giving students a real sense of how words work. Giving students the chance to "build" their arguments in MOO space, as Wolfe and Barndollar do, allows for a nontradtional experience of argumentation and literary interpretation that is a welcome break from the linear, classical model so many students dread. The nontraditional approach allows them to use their creativity and enjoy argumentation and interpretation as they never have. Finally, and certainly not least importantly, students like the MOO assignments. They are fun, new, and different. Students are intrigued by the many controversies surrounding MUDs and MOOs (stories of net sex, online rape, MOO marriages, etc.), and are eager to explore these environments and form their own opinions.5 The assignments keep their interest and give them a sense of technical achievement.
Teachers interested in working with MOOs do face some challenges. Wolfe, Barndollar and I -- and probably any instructors who, like us, logged our students onto a MOO without considering every possible pitfall -- have experienced our share of problems in class. Sometimes students need more hand-holding and training in MOO commands that you have allowed time for. Sometimes students get rowdy and act inappropriately. But thanks to projects like Composition in Cyberspace and Lingua MOO, resources are now readily available that make avoiding such problems much easier. Haynes and Holmevik's High Wired is filled with useful advice. And there are even some textbooks now available that cover MOOs. Two excellent ones are Haynes' and Holemevik's MOOniversity and Connections:A Guide to Online Writing, by Daniel Anderson, Bret Benjamin and Bill Paredes-Holt.
The following assignments do require access to a computer lab in which students can work on MOOs under your supervision for at least one class period. All of the classes mentioned below were computer-assisted classes, taught in CWRL facilities, so students did have ready access to computers. Two of the assignments also require MOO building privileges -- that is, your students must have permission from MOO administrators to create objects and manipulate their surroundings. If your school hosts its own MOO, this is usually not a problem. But even if your school does not have a MOO, many MOOs, like LambdaMOO, grant building privileges to any registered player.
Before even considering a MOO assignment, of course, an instructor must familiarize herself with basic commands and a few MOO environments. Several Web sites offer outstanding tutorials that cover absolutely everything a beginner needs to know. See the CWRL MOO page at www.cwrl.utexas.edu/moo/, or visit the Composition in Cyberspace page at www.du.org/places/du/cybercomp.html.
I have used the same MOO assignment in three different introductory writing classes and in a class called "Computers and Writing," a course about the impact of computers on rhetoric. I ask students to write a standard definitional argument about some aspect of MOO or MUD "society," and require them to research their claims by becoming active participants in the MOO or MUD of their choice. This assignment works well for instructors whose school does not host a MOO and for instructors who do not teach in a classroom that has computers in it.
As an introduction to the assignment, students read selections from Sherry Turkle's seminal book on MOO interaction Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet and Julian Dibbell's article "A Rape in Cyberspace," which is a thorough account of a virtual rape that occurred in LambdaMOO in 1994, and the political upheaval it caused among LambdaMOO players. This useful article brings up most of the key issues surrounding MOO interaction: the nature of virtual identity, the responsibilities of MOO citizens, the difference between on-screen and off-screen life. Turkle deals with the same incident from a sociological and psychological standpoint. Even after reading these selections, most students are dismissive of MOOs as significant social spaces. They scoff at the anger expressed by the "Rape in Cyberspace" victims and shake their head in wonderment that anyone could take a text-based world seriously. (It is worth pointing out that only one or two students in each class I have taught has ever been in a MOO or MUD before beginning this assignment.)
During the next class period, I cover basic MOO commands and etiquette (see David Barndollar's handy Guide to MOOing), then log my entire class of 20 or so students onto LambdaMOO. We visit the same "room" where the virtual rape occurred. Then I let the students wander and explore on their own for the rest of the period. This is invariably a fascinating experience for all of us. Students are eager to interact with more experienced players, and charge off looking for them. Most often, they are greeted warmly and have interesting conversations about MOOing. Sometimes, however, they are verbally accosted, teased, kicked out of the room they are in, or even disconnected from the MOO. Most are surprised at how personally they take this treatment. After their LambdaMOO adventures, they often begin to change their minds about MOO life. I use this experience to open up a discussion of Aristotle's rhetorical triangle. For some reason, my students have always had the most trouble understanding what is meant by ethos and how it works in writing. After MOOing for a little while, they begin to get the hang of it. Players in a MOO, after all, can only present themselves textually. Students form quick opinions of other players and, with a little prompting, are able to articulate what aspects of a player's textual representation cause them to form those opinions. They can then start to apply this analytical skill to conventional writing and their own essays.
Based on their reading and their LambdaMOO exploration, students write definitional paper about MOO life. They select a MUD or MOO in which they think they can adequately research this claim. There are hundreds of environments to choose from, and dozens of lists of these environments. I like to refer students to www.mudconnect.com for a thorough list grouped by category. I require students to spend at least ten hours in their chosen MUD or MOO, to log their MOO sessions (logging is a feature of MUD/MOO software), and to use their MOO logs as a source in their papers.
Reaction to this assignment is always positive. Students become actively engaged in debates about their definitional claims and almost always spend more than the required ten hours researching their papers. Tempers do sometimes flare during class discussions and the topics can get titillating (papers about MOO sex are common), but most students seem genuinely interested in the philosophical issues underlying the discussion. The biggest challenge with this assignment is helping students balance their strong opinions and learn to consider opposing points of view.
Write a five-page evaluative or definitional essay drawing on your experiences in the MU* of your choice. This assignment presents several writing and research challenges. First, you must form a hypothesis about MU* interaction, and frame this hypothesis as an evaluative or definitional question. For example: Is X-MOO a community? Is X-MOO a game? Are participants in X-MOO citizens? Are wizards of X-MOO gods/tyrants/democratic rulers? Is toading murder? Are friends made on a MU* true friends? Is spending hours every day in a MU* part of a healthy social life?
Next, you must select a MU* in which to explore your hypothesis. You may select any MU*, but select carefully: you want to choose a MU* in which you will be able to gather plenty of data regarding your hypothesis. Choose an active, established MU* that offers you appropriate opportunities to ask questions and learn about the environment. You may have to try out more than one MU* before finding the right one for you.
Research and Sources
You must spend at least ten hours interacting in the MU* of your choice. Your MU* interaction will make up the bulk of your research (so don't grumble too much). How you divide this time (ten hours all in a row or two hours a day) is pretty much up to you, but you may get a more accurate picture of the MU* environment if you visit more than once. You will be asked to save transcripts of all your MU* activities and use them as source materials.
In addition to your MU* transcripts, you will need to use two other sources (traditional or electronic) as evidence to back up your claims.
Making and Supporting Your Claim
You may change your mind about your hypothesis once you get involved in your research. Be prepared to be flexible. You must frame your claim in one of the following formats:
If definitional,
X is or is not a Y because of reasons A,B, C.
If evaluative,
X is or is not a good/suitable/healthy/productive/etc. Y because of A, B, C.
Your task when writing your essay will be to use your MU* experience and outside evidence to (1) support the criteria you have put forward for Y and (2) show how X satisfies those criteria.
Joanna Wolfe, Assistant Director of the CWRL, has used MOOs to teach writing in two lower-division courses. The first was a special topics rhetoric course she designed called "The Rhetoric of Cyborgs," which she offered in the fall of 1998 and spring of 1999. The second was "Computers and Writing," a class about the ways in which computer technology is affecting rhetoric, which she taught in the fall of 1999. In both of these classes, Wolfe led off the semester by having her students jump right into MOOing. They were not sent off to a madcap gaming environment to fend for themselves, however. Wolfe made use of the CWRL's own CheshireMOOn[LINK here to MOO client], an educational MOO with an Alice in Wonderland theme.
In their first assignment, students were asked to use MOO resources and attributes -- things like place descriptions, puppets, objects and object descriptions, and room sequence -- to make a causal argument about the effects of technology on their lives. Wolfe explains, "I wanted to do something different. Something that would bring up discussions of subjectivity and identity -- two things I wanted them to think about before we went into a later discussion of the 'Rape in Cyberspace' issue. I wanted the students to realize that arguments don't just come in essay form. They can work in other ways." She asked students to turn in an argument analysis with their work. Each project was also reviewed by peers before final versions were submitted to Wolfe.
The students' efforts are still a part of CheshireMOOn. There are many interesting and innovative project to observe, including an examination of the effect of the phonograph on gender roles and an argument about the detrimental effect of the telephone on manners. To view the work, enter CheshireMOOn (LINK) and type "walk to hall of student projects."
Reactions to the assignment by students were positive. "In fact, a couple of students each semester said this was their favorite assignment," notes Wolfe. She credits the success of the assignment to several factors: First, recognizing that this is a new technology for most students and that arguing through a MOO is a completely unfamiliar task for most people, she attached less weight to the grade on this assignment that on other more conventional writing assignments. "This really lowered the pressure on students," claims Wolfe. "And it's only fair, since in some ways the task is simpler. They don't have to think as much about organization or rebuttals." Second, Wolfe theorizes, students like MOO assignments because they can take many different approaches to the same problem, and are free to use their creativity in ways that conventional paper writing does not allow. Third, students who came into the class with no technical background liked the challenge the assignment offered. They were forced to start working with their computers in new ways, and took pride in the fact that they were programming (building in a MOO is very basic object-oriented programming).
There were some pitfalls, however. Wolfe notes that her "Computers and English" class drew many technically oriented students who were so thrilled to be working on the MOO that they tended to lose track of the rhetoric requirements of the assignment. She also points out that procrastinators are especially likely to get burned by this assignment. Getting up to speed on a MOO takes time. She also admitted that a small number of students really did not like the nontraditional approach to argumentation, and resisted the project. Wolfe's suggestions for overcoming these difficulties include scheduling plenty of class time for MOO tutorials and project work. She also suggests requiring library research, to improve the quality of the arguments.
History of Communications Technologies
MOO presentation of a causal argument
One of the major themes of this class is to discuss how information can be represented in multiple formats. For this project, I would like you to construct a MOO space presenting a causal argument showing a social effect(s) of a communications technology developed before 1950.
You will be asked to build at least one room (most students find it easier to present their arguments if they create several rooms) populated with objects in the Hall of Student Projects on Cheshire MOOn. In addition, you should turn in a 1-2 page argument analysis of your project. We will be covering how to use the MOO in class and some class time will be dedicated to independent work on your projects.
Possible technologies you might research: Writing, Printing Press, Telegraph, Telephone, Photography.
Social effects you might explore: Gender, Social Class, Family, Government, Law, Education, Religion, Economics, Recreation.
You may work with a partner on this project. Projects that are co-authored do not have to be twice as long as individual projects, but they should be substantially more thorough and should discuss the topic in substantial depth.
Dates:
Thursday, Sept 9. Post a brief description of your thesis to the project message forum at
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~wolfe/critical_tools/e309m_fall_1999/discussion/project1/
Thursday, Sept 16: Rough draft due. Bring in two paper copies of the argument analysis accompanying your project and a list of works referenced.
Thursday, Sept 23: Final draft due. Bring in one paper copy of the argument analysis accompanying your project and a list of works referenced.
Project Goals:
Example:
Below is an excerpt from a previous student's project describing how television has made people superficial and less connected with their history and cultural traditions. The student achieves this effect through the contrast in his descriptions of two homes.
Holton's
As you walk in the room, you notice the vaulted ceilings and the numerous volumes of books filling shelves which line every wall of the room. The floor is a soft forest-green rug and the walls are a dark glossy wood. The opposing wall contains large windows bordered with cream-colored cotton curtains stitched with an ivy design that mimics the color of the rug. An older couple sitting at each opposing corner of the room with a soft yellow reading light warming their shoulders calmly flip through book pages. A Leather Couch is here.
You see a fireplace, an antique table, a stack of newspapers, and a Stack of Books here. Obvious exits: Coat Room...
Madison's
The floor of the room is a glossy imitation wood paneling. As you look down you can see your melancholy face in the reflection. The walls are painted white with no immediate features. Two windows camouflaged in the wall do not shed any light due to the closed shutter blinds. In the corner you see a simple potted tree-plant, and you notice that it is fake due to the plastic bright green leaves. On the opposing wall of the couch, is an enormous 54-inch projection television that fills half of the wall and demands the attention of the room as it spoon-feeds images to the room's occupants. You can hear every minute squeak or sound of the sitcom on the television, for it is accompanied with surround sound system with speakers dangerously jutting out from each corners of the wall. A middle-aged couple, hypnotized by the screen, lay as if paralyzed on a vinyl couch. A couch is here.
You see a Fireplace, an Ottoman, and a Magazines here.
Obvious exits: Coat Room...
Possible Readings:
Writing (Literacy) & Printing Press:
Telegraph:
Telephone:
Photography:
David Barndollar, Assistant Director of the CWRL, uses the CWRL's CheshireMOOn in a uniquely creative way in his Poesis: The Making of Literature, an English department class on poetry and criticism. Barndollar requires students to research and interpret section of T.S. Eliot's notoriously allusive, challenging The Waste Land. They then have to construct MOO spaces that enact their interpretations. This assignment is difficult for some students and requires plenty of MOO training and support from Barndollar, but the results are impressive. Student projects are still available on CheshireMOOn. Enter the MOO [link] and type "walk to poesis," which will get you to Barndollar's Waste Land hub.
To prepare his classes for this assignment, Barndollar has them start using the MOO frequently for class discussions from the beginning of the semester. This allows them to become familiar with the environment. He also give them some free time in class to ask him questions and do a little unstructured exploring. Barndollar's assignment sheet provides links to various MOO tutorials, and he provides his own Guide to MOOing.
Barndollar warns, "The hardest thing is explaining to students what the MOO is and how to conceptualize the annotation assignment. I try to draw analogies for them to printed annotated editions of the poem, and then try to get them to explore the possibilities that the medium of the MOO offers." Grading the projects is not as tricky as one might imagine. "One thing I'll do to make the process of grading easier this semester is to have students provide me a transcript of their own movements through their spaces so that I can see what the experience is supposed to look like before trying to figure it out for myself."
Some students do find the learning curve a bit steep, but most enjoy the project and learn a great deal about the poem through this exercise. Once they get up to speed on the MOO commands and have time to research and analyze their section of The Waste Land, students often produce remarkably creative, insightful projects. "The best ones," notes Barndollar, "managed to give the flavor of the poem's setting and tone while making best use of the MOO's features to instantiate elements in the poem worthy of explanation. The Tarot card sections, for instance, lend themselves well to this kind of thing since the poem contains concrete objects and characters that can all take descriptions. Other sections, such as the journey to Emmaus, also work well since the MOO's spatial orientation makes the transformation into hypertext particularly fruitful. But even fairly static sections of the poem (the burnished throne on Canto 2, for example) have been done well by students who have paid attention to detail, both in the poem and in the MOO."
Instructors who want to try this assignment should be prepared to sell it, since few students have any experience with this kind of work. Providing plenty of support and enthusiasm and giving students models of the kinds of things that are possible in a MOO are important. Says Barndollar, "Students will respond by coming up with some pretty innovative things corresponding with their own research and learning."
Creating The Waste Land in CheshireMOOn
For this assignment, you will become an expert on a section of T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, and then, in the MOO, build spaces and/or objects that describe the research you have done.
In order to do this, you will need to become familiar with navigating and creating places and objects in the MOO. The CWRL has materials online to help you do this. A really helpful guide for new MOO users can be found at Pueblo MOO (the parent MOO of Cheshire MOOn). You may also want to check out The Lost Library of MOO, another helpful page of links and information on MOOs. Also, I have posted guides to performing certain operations in MOO-space. Make use of all these resources!
You will also need to carry out fairly extensive research on the poem. In particular, you are trying to illuminate the numerous allusions and references, direct and indirect, that Eliot makes in his poem. To this end, you should make use of the notes Eliot provides, as well as the notes in other editions of the poem (such as the footnotes from the Norton Anthology of English Literature) and in critical treatments of the work. Since there will be many people trying to find the same materials from the library, the relevant texts will be held on same-day reserve at the PCL.
The kinds of "annotations" you create in the MOO will need to be extensive. That is, it won't be enough to say (for example) that the epigram to the poem is taken from Petronius's Satyricon. In addition, you might need to know about the context of the quote within that other work, and about the relationship of the themes of that text and those of Eliot's, as well as possibly other appearances of that relationship in The Waste Land. To express these, you might wish to create a note (a kind of MOO entity) for people to read that describes these things. You might instead want to create an object that will enact these things. Or you might want to create places that will take the reader through a series of stages in a progression of meanings and references. The possibilities are pretty numerous; you will spend some time on the MOO looking at things other people have created to get ideas for your own project.
You will write a brief (200-word) topic proposal for your project to be turned in by 12:00 noon on Friday, April 2, 1999 via email to your instructor (there is no class meeting that day). The purpose of this proposal is to demonstrate that you have explored the MOO sufficiently to understand what kinds of things are possible in it, and that you have thought about and researched the poem sufficiently to have an idea of what you would like to do with your section for the project. If you would like to work collaboratively on the project, that will be okay with me. The only thing I ask that all members of your group meet with me once all together before turning in a topic proposal to discuss my group evaluation procedures.
The project will be due, in final form, on April 16, 1999, at class time. This means that you will have to work on the project either in the CWRL labs during open hours, or through an external connection from another machine. If you work from a non-CWRL machine, you will need to download a copy of Rapscallion (for Macs), or TinkeriView or Pueblo (for PCs), or some other MUD client of your choosing.
The evaluation criteria for this assignment are: