Exercise 4

Exer­cise 4: Sen­sory Expe­ri­ence Quan­ti­fied & Unclas­si­fi­able

  • 10 points; 2 parts, me­dia re­quired for both 
  • due 09-Apr; on your blog as en­try or page (or in D2L if pre­ferred)
  • Tutorial/Overview Video (with ex­am­ples & fur­ther ex­pla­na­tion of Prompt 1)


» Objec­tive: in this two-part exer­cise, ex­plore the range and lim­its of “mak­ing mean­ing” from expe­ri­ence, by artic­u­lat­ing as infor­ma­tion (if not nec­es­sar­ily knowl­edge).

For­mat: mul­ti­me­dia is re­quired, for both parts (at least one in­stance each).
You might also com­pose the en­tire en­try, parts 1 and/or 2, us­ing me­dia: for exam­ple, Part 1 as video.
 

» Part 1 prompt:

Choose a spe­cific sen­sory expe­ri­ence, di­rectly encountered/engaged (not medi­ated, cul­tural, nar­ra­tive, intel­lec­tual, etc).
“Cat­a­log” descrip­tively to the great­est ex­tent that you can, us­ing as many angles/categories as pos­si­ble (as “thought ex­per­i­ment”).
Think of this doc­u­ment less as a typ­i­cal writ­ten genre (sum­mary, nar­ra­tive, mem­ory, dis­cus­sion, argu­ment, etc.) —
rather, more like an en­try for ency­clo­pe­dia or data­base, en­coded as infor­ma­tion and “leg­i­ble” in its quan­ti­ta­tive and objec­tive prop­er­ties.

    → con­sider Drucker’s term capta (Ret­tberg Chap­ter 5): cap­ture the sen­sory expe­ri­ence and com­pose
    data­base en­try in place of sub­jec­tive mem­ory — one that is “leg­i­ble,” both quan­ti­fied and lin­guis­tic descrip­tion, for algo­rithms (like search en­gine or rec­om­men­da­tion sys­tem, A.I. / “ma­chine learn­ing”). 

* Be sure to con­sider and “tran­scribe” from sev­eral per­spec­tives; to “cap­ture” the numer­ous prop­er­ties, all empir­i­cal qual­i­ties, of the sen­sory expe­ri­ence as infor­ma­tion.
(note: this might not nec­es­sar­ily rep­re­sent the expe­ri­ence, espe­cially visu­ally, in any con­ven­tional way)
Con­sider the fol­low­ing an­gles, as well as any other “sys­tems of mean­ing” you use:

    Vis­i­ble, as well as per­cep­ti­ble with any/all other senses
    Phys­i­cal, mate­r­ial, chem­i­cal, bi­o­log­i­cal
    Numer­i­cal, mea­sure­ments, “ana­lyt­ics” or “met­rics”
    Data cap­tured by devices/applications (“ma­chine vi­sion” view), ac­tual or imag­ined
    Tax­on­omy, cat­e­gory, ref­er­ence; lin­guis­tic, non-verbal
     
    *omit­ting mean­ings or val­ues so­cial, cul­tural, moral, com­par­a­tive, his­tor­i­cal
    — in fa­vor of strictly objec­tive ob­ser­va­tions.



» Part 2 (200300 words):

Reflect­ing upon your “capta en­try,” what is left out? Dis­cuss any/all as­pects, par­tic­u­larly sub­jec­tive and qual­i­ta­tive dimen­sions, of the sen­sory expe­ri­ence that are not able to be doc­u­mented as infor­ma­tion — in quantified/empirical ways, as well as lin­guis­tic or rep­re­sen­ta­tional forms. (i.e. what can’t be made vis­i­ble or even put into words, pos­si­bly?)
Demon­strat­ing ad­vanced con­tent knowl­edge and engage­ment, use at least one term/concept or quote from Ret­tberg or Knight read­ings.

In en­tire dis­cus­sion, be spe­cific, even while spec­u­lat­ing, and avoid gen­er­al­iza­tions or sim­ple comparison/contrast. Think of this as a sep­a­rate prompt, ask­ing you to con­tem­plate and con­vey “the expe­ri­ence” (mo­ment) in it­self — in ways not “leg­i­ble” (espe­cially to database/algorithm) as infor­ma­tion or per­haps even express­ible in lan­guage.
→ Us­ing a me­dia form to ex­press or con­vey the sub­jec­tive dimen­sion is a good strat­egy (par­tic­u­larly as prac­tice for Project 3).

» The en­tire re­sponse should present in­sights about “the Expe­ri­ence Par­a­digm” through thought­ful dis­cus­sion about this par­tic­u­lar in­stance, dis­cussed con­cisely and pre­cisely.
 


Assess­ment Cri­te­ria (from syl­labus):
Posted to per­sonal blog (or D2L), these infor­mal com­po­si­tions illus­trate atten­tive read­ing of as­signed mate­ri­als, progress to­ward project, and engage­ment with class top­ics rel­a­tive to sched­ule.
Credit is as­signed for (1) sub­mit­ting on-time, with re­quired length and me­dia (if as­signed);
(2) demon­strat­ing atten­tion to class top­ics, con­tent knowl­edge, and crit­i­cal think­ing, par­tic­u­larly by describ­ing in­sights and con­nec­tions;
(3) pro­vid­ing thought­ful and rel­e­vant re­sponses to prompts, through spe­cial­ized dis­course;
(4) with spe­cific exam­ples from per­sonal knowl­edge and/or respec­tive read­ings,
(5) while extend­ing rhetor­i­cal knowl­edge and mas­tery of writ­ing con­ven­tions, prac­tic­ing effi­cient prose (i.e. min­i­miz­ing /avoiding sum­mary, rep­e­ti­tion, digres­sion, and unnec­es­sary dis­cus­sion).






» Video Notes

» WeV­ideo — Screen Recorder op­tion



» other op­tions:

SnagIt (Chrome exten­sion = free, plus unlim­ited stor­age in Drive with CU Lo­gin) 
Tuto­r­ial video
also: Screncast-o-Matic , Jing / Screen​cast​.com , or EZVid (up­load to YouTube)