> Leslie D. Harris stated in his abstract for "The Shakespeare Multimedia
Project"
> that students who collaborate on a hypertextually annotated passage
"learn by
> doing."   How does this hypertextual interpretation of the text substitue
for,
> or expand upon, a dramatic performance?  Performing the passage (or at
least
> observing a performance) would seem to be the most intuitive way to
"learn by
> doing."
 
I thought I'd respond to Dennis Jerz's question above about hypertext
annotation versus performance.  I think dramatic performance is a very
effective way to help students "learn by doing," and I use scene
performances in my Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama classes.  However, I
think what students learn from performance is different from what they
learn by annotating a passage.
 
In both activities, students do struggle with the meanings of the text.  If
they are going to read the text dramatically, or if they are going to
"explain" it to others (through helpful annotation), they need to know very
clearly what the words mean.
 
In dramatic performance, I think students fill in the emotional context of
the lines.  They realize the characters' purpose in speaking the lines, the
emotions being expressed, the conflicts occurring, and so on.  With
annotation, however, students learn other, equally significant contexts.
 Since the New Historicists and cultural critics have gained more
influence, I think we've all become more aware that a Renaissance dramatic
text existed in a strong political and social context.  Even since
Tillyard's _Elizabethan World Picture_, we realize that the cultural
presuppositions of a period express themselves in literature.  By
annotating a passage, I have students explore those relevant contexts.
 They're basically supposed to answer the question: what about the social,
political, historical, and economic contexts of the work can help your
reader understand the text?  One group (annotating a witches' speech from
_The Scottish Play_) talked at length about witches and fairies.  Another
group (annotating Claudio's public rejection of Hero in _Much Ado_) talked
about Renaissance views of chastity.  What students "learn by doing" in
annotating the passage is as much of the history and culture of the period
that is relevant to their play.
 
Now onto your next questions:
 
> In group
> situations, do the students with more computing skills tend to overshadow
the
> rest?  Or do the groups divide the work, so that the most
computer-literate
> spend the least time in traditional critical analysis?
 
In the groups that worked well, students used a "divide and conquer"
strategy.  The computer experts did most of the work that required their
expertise (editing images, adding buttons, capturing video clips, scanning
pictures, etc.)   They had *lots* of help from a staff person who is
supposed to assist faculty and students using information technology in
their classes.  Other students did more of the research, depending on their
interest.  It's hard for me to know exactly who worked on what, since it
was a collaborative project, with one final "product."  Still, group work
is crucial to functioning in the world (and in business environments), so I
accept the fact that people will be learning different things while doing
the project.  They all do learn the final content of the project, even if
some of them did more of the research than others.
 
Thanks for your excellent questions.
 
Leslie Harris
[log in to unmask]