 |
 |
> 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]