User talk:MichaelGldbrg1

My name is Michael Goldberg. I am using this user discussion page as part of a class project. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Annotated Bibliography Citation
[http://Dafoe,%20A.%20(2015).%20On%20Technological%20Determinism:%20A%20Typology,%20Scope%20Conditions,%20and%20a%20Mechanism.%20Science,%20Technology,%20&%20Human%20Values,%20Vol%2040,%20Issue%206,%20pp.%201047%20–%201076.%20https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0162243915579283 Dafoe, A. (2015). On Technological Determinism: A Typology, Scope Conditions, and a Mechanism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol 40, Issue 6, pp. 1047 – 1076. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0162243915579283]

In this article, Dafoe explores the issue of technological determinism and questions who – if anyone – is at the core of driving technological change. The author conducts an in-depth literature review of sources relating to technological determinism in order to establish gaps that allow him to justify his contributions to the field. The research relies on a varied range of academic sources to establish a consensus on the meaning of technological determinism – the scope is reasonably vast. The article is useful in relation to the topic of determinism as it dissects how the idea is defined and understood by a number of academics and is up to date. A possible limitation of the article is the frequent bolstering of the author’s own theories and concepts that are somewhat unsupported by other sources, such as the notion of ‘military-economic adaptation-ism’. The author concludes that these various definitions and contexts can indeed exist alongside one another and help towards understanding this complex and multifaceted topic. This article would not be sufficient enough to form the basis of my research; however, it is useful as it succinctly analyses the various interpretations of technological determinism. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2: Comments
Please leave peer-review comments here if you wish to. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC) This article seems very beneficial when looking at Determinism, the fact the article references a wide variety of academics in order to provide a definition for determinism is particularly useful as many theorists have their own varying definitions. Bringing together so many different approaches to Determinism as well as Dafoe putting across his own views provides a wide variety of information on the subject to compare and refer to. There will almost certainly be information on Determinism that would prove useful to my own research due to the scope of the article and the relevant theorists referenced. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Hey Mike! I would agree that the definitions given for determinism are very important when reflecting on the subject. Namely that it can be difficult to "lock down" a meaning on some fallacies. I would perhaps look more into the theorists presented in this text in order to better understand academic discourse that refers to deterministic thinking and how we perceive it in a scholarly sense. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3: Collaborative Research Exercise
Hey! I agree that the various definitions of technological determinism are an important consideration to make when exploring the subject. Since we're both working on this area for our essay, how would you concisely define/ understand technological determinism? I think this would be a relevant and useful topic of discussion for the collaborative research wiki exercise! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be tempted to say that possibly the best explanation I can give is that technological determinism is a consequentialist idea that revolves around the notion that technologies (and mediums) are central driving factors concerning our culture, regardless of the fact that we create and control them. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's brilliantly put. I think that the link between the technologies we develop and use and how they might advance, progress and guide our everyday lives is a fascinating idea. What is your position on the issue then? Are you convinced by it? Personally, I am tempted to agree that technology and media are such vital aspects of our culture that they may in fact unconsciously guide how we live. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, wondering if you could give me a hand with something - not too sure how to insert references/citations into the bibliography section of the collaborative essay disscussion page - is it just following the usual APA referencing style? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, for the one reference I provided, I just used APA in there. Should be okay! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, such a great variety of sources on this subject - hopefully the final reference list will be pretty substantial. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's considered fairly controversial so we shouldn't have to worry too much about finding some good content! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Throughout the collaborative essay assessment, the development process involved utilising both the online wikibooks interface and more traditional face-to-face group discussions. Wikibooks is an ‘open-knowledge’ platform, meaning that we as contributors can use, reuse, develop and alter each other’s knowledge and information. This made for a unique and thought-provoking way to write an essay and work as a group. This is the only time I have worked on an essay in this manner and has also proven to be a highly productive and innovative way to go about group work. Collaborative group work has frequently been a challenge in my academic studies as working as an individual feels more natural and reliable. Despite this, Wikibooks assists greatly in collaborative research as ideas can be discussed, reasoned and challenged in real-time over a digital medium. Wikibooks makes it easy for a group member to make additions or amendments to another group member’s work by building upon their work and notifying them of new information they might not have previously considered. In other words, the platform effectively lends itself to knowledge-building and the development of the collaborative essay felt more natural and comprehensive than I had anticipated as we learned new information from one another, adding to the sense of a shared community. Wikibooks acted as a reliable place to ask questions and receive feedback. Even getting to grips with the Wikibooks interface itself and learning the formatting techniques was made easier by the ability to ask other Wikipedians how things are done.

In terms of my own group, after an initial group meet up in person in which we got to know one another and discuss options for an essay question, subsequent group correspondence took place mostly on our Wikibook discussion pages. We finalised a question and assigned a section for everyone to focus on. Once initial drafts of each section had been uploaded, we were able to read each other’s work and give clear and direct feedback. Working together to structure the discussion page itself and make it an organised and cohesive place to map out the essay was also an important consideration. This, alongside the collaborative building of sources in the bibliography, made the group feel like a functional community. Furthering this, the entire Wikibook platform acted as a vast knowledge-building community as we were free to collaborate and discuss with other groups. It may be argued that this collaborative research represents a ‘digital commons’ to some extent. Online collaboration involves individual knowledge combining to expand the broader understanding of a subject and assist the knowledge-building of individuals. This idea of communal ownership and constant building of information on a free and easily accessible platform relates directly to the collaborative essay assessment. Wiki platforms offer a sense of release and liberation from traditional, hierarchical means of gathering information as they are under the complete control of the contributors and are subject to constant refinement. Those putting forward new knowledge and information are contributing to and learning from the shared collection of information as opposed to a traditional teacher – student form of communication and knowledge-building. Working on the collaborative essay has been a worthwhile learning experience. As a direct result of the digital nature of the project, discussions over the wiki felt more appropriate and efficient than simply discussing the progress of the essay in person. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)  Character Count – 3,026''' '''

Wiki Exercise #4: Comments
Hi

This is a very good reflection and shows how you made sense of the website and what you have learnt from it. It seems like you have found it easy and effective to gain knowledge about something new in this collaborative essay assessment format. Even though the whole concept of Wikibooks was new to you, you managed with the help of your group to get a hold of it and get the most potential out of the platform. Furthermore it seems like you understood the whole concept and idea behind the Wiki platform, what it is used for, what it shows, etc. All in all it seems like you enjoyed having to do group work in this way and managed well, maybe with a few bumps and questions here and there that fellow students and Wikipedians could help you with.

For me it was fairly difficult in the beginning, especially due to the cancelled labs, to get a hold of the wiki platform. But with a little help from fellow students and a bit trial and error it worked out after some time. For the rest of my group it was similar which is why in the beginning it took quite some time to manage our discussion page, but it worked out in the end.

I believe this concept of the collaborative essay assessment with the Wikibooks format is a very good and efficient way of doing a group work, if everyone is eager and motivated to engage with it. This is because, as for you, group work has been challenging at times in my academic studies so far. The problems, that most of the time arose, were issues with meeting up and everything connected to it. But with this collaborative assessment this is not as much an issue because everybody can communicate and directly answer to ideas and questions online.

Wikibooks is not only good for this kind of assessment but also in general. It offers the possibility of engagement with content and the opportunity to offer further suggestions, ideas or corrections. Therefore contributing to a knowledge-building community. However, I think this potential of the website can become a disadvantage or risk. Users should be vary about the accuracy about this kind of content because in fact everyone can edit the texts.

I agree with the conclusion that you draw that because of the digital nature of the project discussing it in person felt less efficient. My group met up for the first time so that everyone could get to know each other and start to discuss topics etc., every meeting that followed after that were less productive than the discussion online.

I hope this assessment and module was a good experience for you and helped you with your academic studies. Good luck for any further assignments if you still have any and good luck with the results!

Katielsg (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 15 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:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory contributions may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse) and will have little justification for ideas offered on Discussion Pages. The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

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


 * You have managed to create an evidence trail for sustained, meaningful engagement over a period of time. Although by no means every day, certainly for a significant percentage of the duration of the project.

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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters. A small number classed as “substantial”.

•	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 evidence of peer-assistance, peer-review, and sharing of your knowledge in collaborative with others.

•	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


 * You seem to be the architect of much of the discussion page organisation, formatting and so on. This was one of the better examples of this across the project this year. This includes organisation and direction of discussion, which you were central to in this group.

•	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.


 * Very well conducted.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 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.

Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band. You have made an effort to engage with the wiki exercises, although as a general recommendation, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors more carefully and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. Making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. However, there is plenty of evidence here and there throughout your posts that you are attempting to engage fellow users, and with the community at large.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, sometimes a little brief, but on the whole you address the exercise briefs. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion.

General:
 * Reading and research: a fair amount of evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. However, I do think that a little more could have been done to make this evidence more visible throughout your body of work.


 * Argument and analysis: some well-articulated and well-supported arguments; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections) in some of your posts; evidence of independent critical ability is quite clear most of the time – probably your strongest asset throughout the project period.


 * Presentation: good organisational skills, more use of markup would have made a difference.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)