Welcome to the Digital CrossRhodes — the intersection of Vincent Rhodes' academic, artistic & professional lives.

PhD Qualifying Exam Question 4

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Note: A draft of my questions for my PhD qualifying exam is due 09/24/10 for feedback from my Dissertation Seminar professor and peers. I will then submit them to my dissertation chair  for more critique before submitting my final questions10/01/10 . I’ll be writing answers to these questions 10/15/10 – 10/18/10. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome as I continue to polish, rewrite, panic… Well, you get the point. Please feel free to comment.

Question 4: Methodology

For as long as there have been speakers and audiences, there has been backchannel communication — whether as a whispered aside or, later, a passed note. However, the rapid development of increasingly sophisticated digital tools and widespread availability of wireless internet access has afforded the creation of larger, virtual backchannel spaces. Yardi (2006) argues that digital backchannel “offers a unique communication medium, a novel toolkit through which students can create, identify, and filter new modes of learning.” But, not all speakers and teachers agree. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of digital backchannel and discuss how and whether this virtual space could be more effectively integrated into classroom or presentation settings. [revised 09/27/10]

Share

PhD Qualifying Exam Question 3

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Note: A draft of my questions for my PhD qualifying exam is due 09/24/10 for feedback from my Dissertation Seminar professor and peers. I will then submit them to my dissertation chair  for more critique before submitting my final questions10/01/10 . I’ll be writing answers to these questions 10/15/10 – 10/18/10. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome as I continue to polish, rewrite, panic… Well, you get the point. Please feel free to comment.

Question 3: Area of Specialization (Digital Backchannel)

For as long as there have been speakers and audiences, there has been backchannel communication — whether as a whispered aside or, later, a passed note. However, the rapid development of increasingly sophisticated digital tools and widespread availability of wireless internet access has afforded the creation of larger, virtual backchannel spaces. Yardi (2006) argues that digital backchannel “offers a unique communication medium, a novel toolkit through which students can create, identify, and filter new modes of learning.” But, not all speakers and teachers agree. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of digital backchannel and discuss how and whether this virtual space could be more effectively integrated into classroom or presentation settings. [revised 09/27/10]

Share

Moderation or Presentation? Using Twitter Backchannel for More Effective Conference Presentations

Friday, May 21st, 2010

CW 2010 Presentation (West Lafayette, IN) | May 22, 2010 • 10:15-11:30 a.m. | Panel F6

Presenter:

Old Dominion University

Abstract:

Ubiquitous Wi-Fi access via portable computers and mobile devices has given rise to Twitter conference revolts. One casualty: the “sage on the stage” presentation model. C&W 2009 digital backchannel participants witnessed this during the #cw09happening. Analyzing this keynote address via Actor-Network Theory reveals critical considerations for better engaging audience members.

Share

Tweetagogy: Building Community in 140 Characters or Less

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

ATTW 2010 Presentation (Louisville, KY) | March 17, 2010 • 4-5:15 p.m.

Presenters:

Old Dominion UniversityCeME Lab • #CeME

Abstract:

The concept of online classroom community has become more important as universities begin to deal with concerns regarding distance learning students’ potential experience of isolation and disconnectedness. This case study seeks to empirically validate the existence of such an online community in the Summer Doctoral Institute at Old Dominion University and determine whether Twitter functions as an effective facilitator of that community.

Share

All A-Twitter

Saturday, September 26th, 2009
Susan C. Herring, Professor of Information Science at Indiana University Bloomington

Susan C. Herring, Professor of Information Science at Indiana University Bloomington

In Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter, Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan C. Herring examine how Twitter is used (particularly English-language tweets) and conjecture about the potential of using Twitter for collaborative endeavors. They seek to answer five research questions:

  1. What is the breakdown of the language of tweets across time periods, and to what extent is the @ sign used in tweets in different languages?
  2. How do instances of the @ sign function in English tweets?
  3. What do people twitter about, and does it vary for tweets with and without the @sign?
  4. To what extent do English @ messages that are directed to others receive responses, either with or without @ signs?
  5. How long, and how coherent, are interactive exchanges , and to what extent do they make use of the @ sign?

Author Background

Herring received her MA and PhD in Linguistics from UC Berkley and has served as a past editor of the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication and as current editor of Language@Internet. She is a Professor of Information Science at Indiana University Bloomington and has published extensively. In case you are interested in following her, Herring has a Twitter account.

Courtenay Honeycutt received her MA in Speech Communication from Penn State and is a PhD candidate at Indiana University Bloomington. Honeycutt also has published several articles. (Note: Honeycutt did not include a photo on her bio page or CV. The only image I found of her is a “social” snapshot so I elected not to post it.)

(more…)

Share