This is worth 50 points (although there are 55 points available). You will be working in groups of 3 and one group of 2; you should use all the tools you have available to you, especially each other! Each group will receive one grade - yeah, I know, I used to hate it when teachers did that too, but remember, I'm more than willing to see everyone get perfect scores!
This quiz also takes the place of all required journal entries for the week of Feb. 5, though I hope the excellent ongoing discussion will continue.
You may begin at any time; you will have 70 minutes in class on Thursday to work on it; "final" (i.e. "gradeable") webs are due via URL to Karen by Friday at 5:00 p.m.
You have two tasks: build a web based on some issues we have been discussing in class (this is a collaborative taske) and then write a critical commentary of one of the other webs built in class (each individual in the group should do this, due Monday 2/12 at 5:00 p.m.) ...
You are assigned a task, just like in a real newsroom. There shouldn't be any "trading" of assignments or group-swapping. Take the assignment, do it, turn it in ... but, like any good newsie, you should also look for ways to "expand" the story, to make it more interesting and creative, and visually appealing. A newsie always wants to be on the front page; a newswebber, I suspect, would similarly want to give surfers every reason to stay a while!
All of these webs will be linked to the class syllaweb for later use -- by us and by other classes!
Group 1:
Bettuchi, Deorsey, Pellegrini
Build a website which responds to the Lunsford et al web in Kairos
This means you should react to content, presentation, argument, accessibility,
etc. You may assume that your audience is another group of college students
who have read the Lunsford Web (though occasional stabs at summary would not
hurt!) - either another section of this class next semester or another
similar class on line right now. You may also assume that the co-authors
of "What Matters?" will see your response to it!
Group 2:
Brennan, Finan, Vredenburg
Build a web regarding the various issues surrounding the use of graphics and
other multimedia in Webspace. This should not be a "how-to" page, but a
"why?" and "should?" page. Can we separate the terms "graphics" and "text,"
and if so, when is it (in)appropriate to do so? What decisions do webwriters face when incorporating multimedia? How should they go about making them?
What are good/bad examples? Define your own audience, but make the definition as specific as you can.
Group 3:
Burdick, Jablonski, Wade
Build a website which responds to the Kaplan web. This means you should
react to content, presentation, argument, accessibility, etc. You may assume that your audience is another group of college students who have read the
Kaplan Web - either another section of this class next semester or another similar class on line right now. Kaplan makes a great many arguments of
different kinds - what is the focus of your response? You may also assume
that Kaplan will see your response to it!
Group 4:
Crewell, Draper, Mitchell
Explain the concepts of ethos, pathos and logos; what do they mean? What
are some examples? Why should webreaders and webwriters bother with terms
like these? How do these terms relate to the concept of "credibility" on the
WWW? You may assume that your audience is another group of college students
who are learning these terms, either another section of this class next
semester or another simiilar class on line right now.
Group 5:
Kotmel, Morales
Address the issue of copyright as it relates to writing to the WWW, both
as a larger issue and as it relates specifically to students in classes
like ours. Are the issues different? Be sure to define your terms carefully
and to give explicit examples. Feel free to offer predictions if they seem
warranted. You may assume that your audience is another group of college students who are addressing these issues, either another section of this
class next semester or another simiilar class on line right now.
Group 6:
Herr, Phoenix, Weidt
Respond to Dr. Bush's article "As We May Think." Critique it from an
historical, philosophical and technological perspective. ALSO, comment
on the place of this article on the web - is the website where it sits
really "hypertextual"? Would Bush think so? What about this whole issue of taking linear print texts and "hypertexting them"? Should "hypertext" be a
verb like that? You may assume that your audience is another group of
college students who are addressing these issues, either another section of
this class next semester or another simiilar class on line right now.
Group 7:
Lavertue, Mardirosian, Rooney
Build a web reviewing Allan Liu's "Voice of the Shuttle." (This is linked
to our syllaweb calendar.) What is Liu's audience? How do you know? How
well does his site serve that audience? After you have identified and
specifically described that audience, you may assume that it is also the
audience for your webbed review.
Group 8:
Malloy, Spencer, Westmorland
We are all now well-versed in the meanings of "relevance, usability and
control." Build a web discussing these concepts, with positive and negative examples of the various axes and how they intersect. Why should we use language like this? Your audience: a group of advanced high school students
(juniors and seniors) interested in learning about building websites.
20 points on reliability. You will be penalized for major errors like: stale links, visible code, incorrect code leading to format problems, failure to address the assignment, failure to properly address the defined audience, lack of style sense in what you wear to class. (Okay, kidding on the last one - just wanted to see if you were paying attention.) Your appropriate use of grammar, spelling and mechanics, and solid prose in explaining your purpose in various parts of the web will also be factored into this portion of the grade. Remember this class is writing to the web. Take care of your text, too!
10 points on accessibility. Each of the eight groups will be evaluating one of the other eight groups and evaluating it. You will not be assigning these 10 points to each other; you will be earning the points based on how reasonable and well-written your critiques are, so don't be afraid to be honest! Group 1, review Group 2 and so on; Group 8 review Group 1.
Again, this adds up to 55 points, so you can score well over 100% ... questions?