Robertson, Wendy (Gwen). Transforming Familiar Assignments for the Web, or Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks. Appendix A.

Appendix A: Webliography Assignment

Contemporary Art Scandals
Webliography Assignment:
Topic Area: decided 9/1
Final Project: due 9/15

Harnessing the Power of the Web:

Research, writing, and thinking will be a major portion of this class. From the beginning, everyone needs top-flight skills finding and evaluating information. Since many of the topics we will explore are relatively recent, we will undoubtedly find that the Web is a major research source.

All Websites, however, are not created equal. Therefore, we need to develop basic criteria for evaluating Web-based information. This assignment is designed to hone your Web-crawling skills and to develop your critical criteria. As a side benefit, you will also become "experts" on a potentially "scandalous" topic in the arts.

What is a "Webliography"?

A Webliography is a revision of a basic tool called an "annotated bibliography." In an annotated bibliography, you list (in bibliography style) the print resources available on a given topic and provide a one to two paragraph analysis of the source (strengths, weaknesses, flaws, advantages, etc.). A Webliography does the same thing--only for Web resources!

Selecting a Topic:

The topics for our Webliography will be drawn from our textbook Dialogues in Public Art. Everyone should read through the topics (and articles, at least briefly) and identify THREE topics you would be interested in researching. On Week 2, I will help you form groups of 4-6 around each topic.

The topics available are:

• Bronx Bronzes
• San Diego "Tourist Plantation/intentional interventions"
• Alien Intervention/immigration-based art
• Phoenix Solid Waste Management Facility/"sewage art"
• M. L. Ukeles Sanitation Art/"dump art"
• Project Row Houses/housing-based art
• Paulo Freire, Modes Dialogue in Public Art
• Mel Chin, Revival Field/environmental reclamation art
• AIDS Ribbon
• Percent for Art Education Campaign

Group Project:

Preliminary Research: Begin preliminary research on your assigned topic. This may take the form of "Google" searches or other search engines, bibliographic sites, etc. Identify what you believe are the major issues of your topic.

Group Design: Organize your findings into categories (of your choice). At least one category should relate directly to your topic as described in the book (other categories can address related issues). Identify at least FIVE different categories/heading areas. Each topic will have different elements and therefore each Webliography will be organized differently. Remember that not all topics will have the same amount of information and not all information will be created equal--nor will all Websites be equally effective.

Annotated Bibliography: Now that you have your categories within your topic, now you can identify which are the very best Websites available - and you can tell us why. The annotations for your entries should critically evaluate what information is available on the site and should explain it. Elements like information architecture (how a site is navigated, how information flows) should also be included. This is where you explain why we should go to this site and why you think it has valid information. (Do the sites have bibliographies? Who is the author? Where does the information come from? Is it reputable? How can you prove this? Etc.)

Presentation: On 9/15 we will present (in brief) your findings and will then mount them on a common site for everyone to share. At this time we will also discuss our findings on the ins and outs of Website evaluation. Each group should select one person to be their "presenter" in front of the class. Each presentation will be approximately five minutes.

Grading: Webliographies will be graded on the following criteria: scope of research (coverage of the topic, breadth of selected Websites), quality of annotations (each should show a developed analysis of the site qualities rather than simple description), creativity of headings (thoughtful linking, reasonable relationship to topic), quality of writing in annotation (grammar, voice, information, clarity), quality of presentation (work as a group to prepare your presenter--confidence, grasp of information, etc.), overall presentation of final project (typed, clean, etc.).

Posted February 10, 2005.

All material appearing in this journal is subject to applicable copyright laws.
Publication in this journal in no way indicates the endorsement of the content by the California State University, the Institute for Teaching and Learning, or the Exchanges Editorial Board.
©2005 by Wendy (Gwen) Robertson.