Week 6 — assignments.

Roberto J.        con/discussion ldr/final paper
Laura             con
John              pro
Lauren M.         pro/discussion ldr/final paper
Jeffrey D.        con
Garlyn M.         con
Keenan R.         pro
Megan             pro

Week 5 — grading.

Well, let’s see.

A better — and very interesting, I thought — discussion this week, even though overall participation seems to have dwindled.  Fortunately, however, those that remain have improved the timeliness and the quality of their participation — including more (slightly more) use of the sharedcopy functions.

Jeff did a very good job of incorporating the important pro team positions into his summary paper.  (I would suggest, however, that spelling and grammar  become a much higher priority for everyone — maybe not so much in the comments, but certainly in the papers.)

Evidence supporting the benefits (accuracy, convenience, speed of access) of online health information seemed mostly anecdotal — and/or provided by Google spokespersons — but convincing nevertheless.  The main point of contention between the pro and con sides came down to not whether health information might be beneficially put online, but whether or not Google Health was the proper mechanism for doing so.

I note that the con side was at a severe numbers disadvantage this week:  three submitted papers in support of the resolution, only one submitted a paper arguing against it.

Nevertheless, John, the lone voice of rebuttal, held his own.  His original position paper focused heavily on Google Health implementation details, and his analysis of that implementation in his original and final paper raised serious questions regarding Google’s motives and allegiances.  His argument directed our attention to the many potential ways in which Google’s business interests may not be in parallel with the rights and needs of doctors and patients.

Just as we saw regarding the Google Book Project, there seem many potentially grand benefits of new media, but the economic context in which those benefits are provided carries with it some potentially disastrous consequences.  The Google Book project continues to be criticized because of the power and influence it awards Google’s present (and future) business interests.  These week’s critique of Google Health raised a similar set of questions and concerns.

Numbers prevailed.  +1 extra credit to the pro side this week. +.5 to John.

I look forward to a similarly energetic discussion next week regarding the very interesting and timely topic of civic journalism.  The recent Iran election coverage should provide plenty of fodder for comment.

Have a happy Fourth of July.

Week 5 – Privacy: Assignments

Resolved: Storing personal health information online (using a mechanism like Google Health) will be beneficial for doctors and patients.

Roberto J.       pro
Laura            pro
Chad P.          con
John             con/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Lauren M.        pro
Jeffrey D.       pro/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Garlyn M.        con
Keenan R.        con
Megan            pro

Note: If you can’t meet the deadline(s) for this week (and each week hereafter), better let me know in advance.

I’ve already left some supplemental links for this week through my shared Google Reader site.

Some related issues you might be interested in:

• There has been talk for some time about the advantages (and disadvantages) of having RFID implants in humans.  Yes, that goes quite a bit further than storing your medical info online with Google Health, but it’s certainly technologically possible.
• Also, currently, your DNA information is likely to be copied and stored electronically.  How does this fit into our discussion?

CMMNX236 Week 4 — midterm update

We are almost halfway through the course now.

Here’s the way the grading is falling out (roughly) each week:

10 pts. are now available each week, based on your completion of the weekly assignment as detailed on the CMMNX236 Blackboard site — and as updated and tweaked by me in my weekly blog postings.

• 6 pts. Post a position paper on your blog, on topic, on time, linked through Twitter.
• +1pts. Post a well-reasoned position paper (e.g ., one that makes sense).
• +1pts. Post a well-reasoned position paper in a proper online format with appropriate links showing evidence of having read and understood the required class readings (i. e., those linked through the class Blackboard site.)
• +1 pts. Participate in the online discussion (e.g, at minimum, leave a comment).
• +1 pts. Participate actively and *effectively* in the online discussion, including use of new media tools (such as sharedcopy), as appropriate, to articulate your position.
• +1 pts. Be a member of the “winning” side.  (This is essentially an extra credit point.)

Actually, up to now, I have been a little more lenient with the grading than the above indicates.  This leniency was to make sure that everyone had overcome all technical difficulties, was aware of the class requirements, had registered their blog, etc.   Hereafter, however, I see no reason to continue this leniency.

As you can see from the above, if you merely post a blog entry on time — and that’s all you do — you get 6/10pts.  Six out of ten points = D.  If you don’t post an entry at all, then you get less than a D.  Less than a D would be an F.

Similarly, based on the above, if you post a well-reasoned and linked position paper (6+1+1 pts.), and then do not participate in the online discussion, you get 8/10 pts.  Eight of ten points = B-.  If you should then be lucky enough to be on the winning side, you might get 8+1 pts. = 9/10 = A-.  Or you might not.

If you do nothing at all during the week, you get 0/10 pts.  If you get 0/10 points during one week, then the max score you can get for the entire course is 90/100 points.  If you get 0/10 points during two weeks, then the max score you can get for the entire course is 80/100 points.  And so forth.

You should be able to inspect your current grades within the class Blackboard site.

Week 4 – Freedom of Speech: Assignments

This week’s assignments, with discussion leaders noted…

Resolved: Freedom of speech is properly restricted by the FCC in order to insure that public broadcasting in the United States properly serves the public’s interest, convenience, and necessity.

Roberto J.      con/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Laura            pro
Chad P.          con
John             pro
Lauren M.        con
Jeffrey D.       pro
Garlyn M.        con/
Keenan R.        pro/discussion ldr -- post final essay
Megan            con
Jason            pro [without response, will drop]

For this week:  Same grading criteria as previous weeks.  Remember that you will post your initial essays on your individual blogs, with links to those blogs through the class Twitter account.

You should also be able to leave sharedcopy pages of your blog postings through the class Twitter account link — see examples from the previous week.  You will now find a sharedcopy link in the list here.

While your position paper should refer directly to the FCC’s authority over over-the-air broadcasting in the USA, you may also wish to consider the now well-known Neda video as an example of potentially objectionable content broadcast globally.  Should access to the Neda video be “properly restricted” in any way?  (Equally relevant:  liveleak.)

Note that the Neda video was initially censored by CNN — “out of respect for the family” — but that CNN’s position was subsequently reversed.  The Neda video raises broad questions as to exactly what sort of authority, if any — moral, legal, or other — should restrict either news organizations or individuals from freely distributing whatever is available to them.

CMMNX236 Week 3: Wrap-up

1. Judgement this week comes down on the “con” side.

Jeff’s summary, while it could have been more polished, picked up several important points from essays by Garlyn and Megan.

While copyright laws are currently under great pressure, Jeff argues that there is still strong and widespread support for giving artists incentives and rewards for producing works of social value.  And, even if copyright laws should eventually be modified to allow information to be exchanged and manipulated more easily in new media environments, it is unclear whether Google should be the largest (or sole) beneficiary of this change.

While John’s and Lauren’s (original) essays presented evidence that the Google Book Search Project is a worthy and valuable endeavor, the “pro” side might have subsequently benefited from a more thorough explanation of those social values associated with modifying (or eliminating) existing copyright laws.  And, of course, a greater level of participation and timeliness from all members assigned the “pro” position would have helped as well.

+1 extra credit to Jeff, Garlyn, and Megan.

***

2.  Since Lauren and Keenan voted to retain posting the weekly essays on individual blogs rather than consolidating them here on my own blog (and since no one else voted at all), we will return to our original (Week 2) posting format hereafter.  Post your essays to your individual blogs; post links to those essays through twitter.

Note that I will continue each week to occasionally introduce new media tools I would like you to try out.  Next week, for instance, though we will be returning to our previous posting format, I ask that you make use of sharedcopy in the comments section of the individual blogs.

Hopefully, everyone is familiar with our weekly routine now, and we will face fewer difficulties moving forward.

I remain available for questions and aid during my scheduled office hours, though I am unlikely to continue to provide extended online chat time unless that time is scheduled in advance.  If you would like to schedule a chat session during the week, let me know through twitter.

I also emphasize again here that it is becoming increasingly important to meet all posted deadlines for submitting essays.

Week 3 Assignment: Copyright

All Week 3 readings are listed and linked for you on the Loyola Blackboard class site.

Here’s an update on this week’s schedule:

• Monday-Tuesday: Read (and think), just like before.  I’m posting the pro/con positions early again this week; you will find those below.
• No later than Wednesday noon: Post your pro/con position paper on your blog, just like before.  And link your blog post to the class twitter account, just like before.

SOMETHING NEW: Copy/paste your blog post to MY BLOG as a comment to this post.  This week, our group discussion/comments will take place on my blog rather than scattered over several different student blogs.  Let’s see if that works better.

• Wednesday-Friday: Discussion.  Post your comments, just like before, except leave them on my blog rather than on your own.  Also, I am assigning the group discussion leaders/final essay posters early this time as well; you will find them indicated below.
• No later than Friday noon: Group discussion leaders should post summary/final essays on their own blogs, with links — as always — to class twitter account.  Final essays should be something of a TEAM effort — just like before.

***

Note that this week I will penalize late postings more severely (sort of gave you a bye on that last week).  Also, I would like to see some evidence of your ability to post a *nice-looking* blog entry, with proper spelling, paragraphs, and links.

Individual Grading (10 pts avl, just like before):  Posting on time and on topic.  Use of class readings (and other supplemental materials) through links on blog and elsewhere.  Ability to respond/defend/evolve argument.  Participation in discussion.  Clarity and forcefulness of ideas.  (I will also tend to react favorably to the use of — or reference to — any new tech/web tools we’ve discussed so far.  Try out sharedcopy, for instance.)

Suggested format for position papers: Four/five clearly distinguished paragraphs of about 100 words each. Opening/closing paragraph.  Develop two/three points in the middle paragraphs, with documentation; each point should be explained and supported in its own paragraph.  (These are suggestions only: do your own thing.)  Also, if you have a problem posting your paper by noon, post it the night before, duh.

***

Resolved: The Google Book Search Project should not be subject to existing copyright laws.

Roberto J.        pro
Laura             pro
Chad P.           pro
John              pro
Lauren M.         pro/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster
Jeffrey D.        con/discussion ldr/fnl essay poster
Garlyn M.         con
Keenan R.*        con
Megan             con
Jason*            con

*MIA.  If you are still taking this class for credit, you need to contact me.

CMMNX236 — Week 2/summary essays

Since we have so few essays submitted this week (I’m so discouraged), I’ll go ahead and select this week’s compilers/consolidators now — in bf below.

Chad P. pro
John      con

Here’s how this will work:  Each week two students, on opposites sides of the pro/con position paper assignment, will be asked to re-evaluate their essays in consideration of all other essays posted as well as all comments others have left concerning those essays.

These two students will then each submit a revised essay — posted to their respective blogs — that will incorporate (one would hope) some of the better ideas in the previously submitted essays and comments.  This revised, summary essay should be posted no later than Friday noon.

Since there are, at the moment, so few additional ideas/posts/comments available to work with (I see only my own), this may be a less involved task this week than in coming weeks when, hopefully, the kinks of working with the tools I have asked you to work with are overcome.

***

Also, please note that if the interactive component of our class remains missing in action, I may well choose to up the requirements of the non-interactive portion:  i.e., if we cannot generate a useful and active discussion on each of our weekly topics, I may require longer and more detailed individual weekly essays from each of you.

I’m so discouraged.

CMMNX236 Week 2 – assignments.

Resolved:

Wikipedia articles are produced by a structured debate that allows us to transcend the prejudices and self-interest of individuals.

Roberto J.	pro
Laura	con
Chad P.	pro
John	con
Lauren M.	pro
Jeffrey D.	con
Garlyn M.	pro
Keenan R.	con
Megan	pro
Jason	con

Normally, I will post these assignments on Monday or early Tuesday of each week.  However, since this is our first time around, I will give you some extra time to prepare.

Also, since this is our first time around, here are some ideas to prime the pump.  You are NOT required to use any of these ideas in your position paper.  However, your position paper SHOULD show evidence that you have read and understood the materials linked within the Blackboard class site.

Pro

• Wikipedia articles achieve a level of accuracy comparable to other information sources.  1
• Wikipedia’s popularity demonstrates its usefulness and validity.  1 2
• The Wikipedia editing process protects its integrity when necessary, as the recent scientology incident demonstrates.  1

Con

• Subjects of Wikipedia articles frequently question the accuracy and validity of those articles.  1
• Wikipedia content is determined by political force (convention) rather than scientific accuracy (truth).  1
• The Wikipedia editing process is no longer open to all, as the recent scientology incident demonstrates.  1

CMMNX236 Week 1 Grading

Grades for first week posted on Blackboard class site.

***

Here’s what I looked for (required):

1.  Set up twitter account; follow instructor + classmates.

2.  Set up blog; allow public (non-moderated) comments.

3.  Edit twitter/blog info into Blackboard class wiki page.

4.  Leave voicemail at drop.io.

***

Other considerations (extra credit):

Test posting on blog.

Experiment with online chatting tools:  primarily Tinychat.  (Attend Tuesday orientation session.)

Challenge assignment:  Set up feed between twitter account and blog.  (Only Chad did this; check his twitter/blog.)

***

Who to follow on twitter…

Chad (chadcarson) on Twitter

Garlyn (gmgryder) on Twitter

Jason (jvillar2) on Twitter

Jeff (jdfraler) on Twitter

John (Jdem88) on Twitter

Keenan (Drummerkmac) on Twitter

laura (laurabeat) on Twitter

Lauren (lmfedor) on Twitter

Megan (magellan) on Twitter

Roberto (BobbyAlvarez35) on Twitter

***

Oh, and I am NOT grading people who are auditing the course, btw.  Just so you’ll know.

Also, if you do not have public (non-moderated) comments enabled on your blog — this means that a comment is displayed publicly immediately after someone leaves it on your blog — then this will adversely affect your grade during later assignments.  So fix this, if you haven’t already.  Note the settings here.