User talk:Ahf00008

Turkle, S. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. "Always-On/Always-On-You: The Tethered Self"'Handbook of Mobile Communications and Social Change

In this article Turtle examines the way our lives have been impacted by our ability to remain perpetually online, connected and present in an online, shared space and the benefits this provides us, as well as the consequences of such a significant shift in global lifestyle over the past few decades. She aims to explore the notion of a 'second self' by looking at the ways in which we manifest alternate identities for ourselves in the virtual world, such as in life simulation games, as well as thinking about the ability that technology grants us to be 'emotionally and socially' in one physical place while in reality we are in another. She does this in providing anecdotal observations about her daughter on a trip to Paris, as well as interviewing both teenagers and adults to gain their perspective on why they pursue online realities and how it subsequently affects their real lives. The article is useful when thinking about 'Always-on culture' as it provides a detailed commentary on how a variety of online uses can impact a variety of social groups, being aware of both the advantages and disadvantages that technology has brought into our lives. The main limitation of the article, however is that there is a distinct lack of hard evidence to back up her claims and observations, while she has the upper hand in terms of one-to-one discussion which has provoked candid and in-depth responses, there are little to no statistics with which she can prop up her wider claims and conjectures. This article, while useful will not form the basis of my research due to the fact it is more of a commentary on the issues presented, and therefore may not provide a lot of material from which I can form my own arguments, however I am likely to use it as a supplementary resource.

Ahf00008 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
This is a useful annotated bibliography for an article that could be potentially useful for research as part of my collaborative essay. While it may not be the main focus of the themes I am to write about, I can see how the notion of the online activities and the psychological effects on a person's emotional and social behaviour might be included in a study of collective intelligence; as there seems to be a convergence of users to particular platforms and behaviours, such as online manners - netiquette - and inside jokes like memes.

I also find it interesting that the article includes anecdotal accounts from the author, as I find it can help inform the study with real-life examples and keeps the research from becoming purely statistical - while statistics are useful, sometimes it is more helpful to have the case study examples to illustrate the point of the study.

With that being said, it is of course necessary to counter this with the fact that the article is more anecdotal than statistical, thereby potentially limiting it on an academic level. However, the article should still be useful as a source of information and opinion that can be incorporated into an essay and contrasted with other references.

fairmanfour (discuss • contribs) 09:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I think your summation of the article you read to be quite useful. You bring up some good points about the limitations of the article- it is always difficult to use an academic study that focuses more on anecdotal data rather hard statistics or numbers. Do you think there is any way the author could have altered her article to include such data? Perhaps she could have written the article in conjunction with an experimental study or analyzed survey responses? I think the topic of the article is very interesting, and I think, like you have pointed out, having some kind of statistics tied in with it would have made it even stronger, particularly in usage with your collaborative essay. Overall, you did an excellent job with this annotated bibliography, and I think the article you have selected, despite its potential limits, will be helpful to your group! Good luck with your collaborative essay! Mom00107 (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Fail. Contributions of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 3 days registered as having logged a contrib, with all bar one exception happening on 27th and 31st March – this is not really representative of weeks’ worth of discussion and project work at this level. When you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions and reflections in terms of moving the project forward, however, this really was a case of too little, too late. 8 contribs logged for the total period which lasted for weeks is simply not enough.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * See above comment. A number were almost at 1000 words, and 2 contribs could be classed as “significant”. Had you embarked on this work much earlier, and sustained the level of reflection, this would have contributed a vast improvement to your own work, and to that of your group.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * There is some in evidence, however, these are constituted by only a handful of small contribs.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * Little evidence of this..

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * Too little evidence to make a meaningful assessment.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * Of particular note in the above grade descriptor, you do not seem to have posted most of the required material for the wiki exercises – many entries are missing. This work is at the lower end of this grade band, so there’s clearly room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

General:
 * Reading and research: Not enough material to make a valuation really – although some evidence obviously in your annotated bibliography


 * Argument and analysis: not enough material to comment upon


 * Presentation: as above.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)