(REMINDER: Activities in blue are entirely of and for Phase II which is entirely about your final inquiry project. Activities in black are extensions of what we did in Phase I, but now framed in a way that should help you see connections between Phase I and Phase II.)


 

ALL WEEK: Annotating the web

This activity is one that you’ll want to work on throughout the week. It’ll take you a bit to get configured and set up with Hypothes.is (more on this below) and you’ll need to read a bit before really diving in. So, do NOT leave this until Friday. Get started on this activity as early as possible in the week. It’s a whole-class project that will benefit from all of your attention and commitment.

The basic gist of the activity is that we’re all going to read the same article and comment on it as an argument. That is, we’ll help each other see how well (or not well) the author constructed an argument. We’ll do that not by commenting in a comments section, but by actually *annotating* the article on the Web. It’ll be as if we’re all collectively and simultaneously writing notes in the margins of a page in a book. But, this is on the Web.

To annotate the Web, we’ll be using a service called Hypothes.is. I have provided you all with some instructions and tutorials on how to get set up with Hypothes.is and how to annotate the Web. If you follow the steps on that page, you should be able to get started annotating the article. Please remember to tag all of your annotations with both wonderpeople and internetunites.

Additionally, if you need help with annotating using hypothes.is, the service offers some handy tips for students

The article we’ll be annotating is called How the internet is uniting the world. (If that link doesn’t work, go directly to http://bit.ly/internetunites).

Collectively, we will deconstruct the argument the author makes by considering the following questions:

  • What is the thesis or main claim that the author is making?
  • Does the author make sub-claims? If so, which ones?
  • What kinds of evidence does the author use? (scholarly? Peer-reviewed? Secondary?)
  • Is the evidence credible? Why or why not?
  • What kinds of rhetorical strategies does the author use?
  • Does the author make a logical argument? If so, why?
  • Did you find any logical fallacies?
  • Overall, did you find the argument persuasive? Why or why not?

You don’t need to answer all of those questions directly. Your job is to add annotations where you feel moved to comment and point things out. For example, if you think you see a sentence or two that serve(s) as the thesis or main claim, highlight it and leave a note indicating that you think it is the thesis or main claim. Or, if you see a source of evidence, annotate it; leave a note with your thoughts on the particular piece of evidence (is it good, bad, otherwise?).

Keep checking back throughout the week. You can add new annotations and/or reply to annotations from your classmates. 


 

Tuesday, October 27

Nuggeting Sources: Last week, you were to find three primary sources in support of the argument you’re building for your inquiry project. This week, you’ll start working with those sources (while also continuing to find additional sources). Your work with these sources will begin with one article as you write a nugget post for it.  You’ve been doing nugget posts for the articles by the Dreamers, and now you’ll apply that same approach to an article for your inquiry project. (Remember that a nugget is a passage from the reading that grabs you in some way and make that passage as meaningful as possible. It could be a passage that puzzles you, or intrigues you, or resonates strongly with you. It could be a passage you agree with, or one you disagree with. The idea here is that the passage evokes some kind of response in you, one that makes you want to work with the passage to make it just as meaningful as possible).  Make sure you explain precisely how you think the argument from the source you selected applies to your project as you currently see it.  Make sure to link out to the source.

Tag this post with five keywords you think fit the source how you’re imagining it working in your paper (Note: These tags will eventually become standardized for all of the sources you will use for your inquiry project and will be the major topics you address in your work).

 


Wednesday, October 28 & Thursday, October 29

Connecting Nuggets: Choose a second source/article and nugget it, explaining its relationship to how you’re currently thinking of your inquiry project.  Then, discuss the relationship between this source and the source you found and nuggeted for Tuesday’s post.  Make sure to link out to the source.  Key questions: What are the major commonalities and/or distinctions between them, and how do they work together to help you better understand what you want to address in your inquiry project?  

Design this post however you see fit: be creative and thoughtful.  Tag this post five keywords you think fit the source how you’re imagining it working in your paper. (To do this, think about how the sources work together to build the conversation.)  Also tag it synthesis3.


Friday, October 30

Look to at least three of your peers’ connecting nuggets (tagged synthesis3) and reflect on the research of your inquiry project so far.  Key questions: What do you notice about how other projects are forming so far?  How do you see you project forming alongside your peers?  Link out to at least three of your peers’ posts (ideally at least one outside of your class section that you find through the thoughtvectors site)  and explain how you work so far compares/connects in any way.