Field Notes for 21st Century Literacies: Appendices

Appendix 1: The Mozilla Manifesto
Introduction

The Internet is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives. The Mozilla project is a global community of people who believe that openness, innovation, and opportunity are key to the continued health of the Internet. We have worked together since 1998 to ensure that the Internet is developed in a way that benefits everyone. We are best known for creating the Mozilla Firefox web browser.

The Mozilla project uses a community-based approach to create world-class open source software and to develop new types of collaborative activities. We create communities of people involved in making the Internet experience better for all of us.

As a result of these efforts, we have distilled a set of principles that we believe are critical for the Internet to continue to benefit the public good as well as commercial aspects of life. We set out these principles below.

The goals for the Manifesto are to:

● articulate a vision for the Internet that Mozilla participants want the Mozilla Foundation to pursue;
● speak to people whether or not they have a technical background;
● make Mozilla contributors proud of what we're doing and motivate us to continue; and
● provide a framework for other people to advance this vision of the Internet.

These principles will not come to life on their own. People are needed to make the Internet open and participatory—people acting as individuals, working together in groups, and leading others. The Mozilla Foundation is committed to advancing the principles set out in the Mozilla Manifesto. We invite others to join us and make the Internet an ever better place for everyone.

Principles

● The Internet is an integral part of modern life–a key component in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
● The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
● The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
● Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be treated as optional.
● Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on the Internet.
● The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.
● Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource.
● Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability, and trust.
● Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
● Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

Advancing the Mozilla Manifesto

There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and anticipate the same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in other areas of the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the Mozilla project, one basic and very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the principles of the Manifesto.

Mozilla Foundation Pledge

The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Manifesto in its activities. Specifically, we will:
● build and enable open source technologies and communities that support the Manifesto's principles;
● build and deliver great consumer products that support the Manifesto's principles;
● use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;
● promote models for creating economic value for the public benefit; and
● promote the Mozilla Manifesto principles in public discourse and within the Internet industry.

Some Foundation activities–currently the creation, delivery and promotion of consumer products–are conducted primarily through the Mozilla Foundation's wholly owned subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.

Invitation
The Mozilla Foundation invites all others who support the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto to join with us, and to find new ways to make this vision of the Internet a reality.

Appendix 2: Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike License 3.0This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

You are free:

To Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work
To Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial—You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

With the understanding that:

Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Public Domain—Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

•Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;

•The author’s moral rights;

•Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Appendix 3: (Mostly) Digital Toolkit for Open Peer Teaching and LearningThere are at least two important pedagogical motivations for open peer teaching and learning. First, open learning creates an atmosphere of mutual learning, contribution, and collaboration that not only enhances our engagement in the quality and content of the learning experience but also provides a life skill for future interactions—in the workplace, in everyday life, in the community at large. Second, open peer teaching and learning takes advantage of the affordances of digital tools available at a given moment, giving participants hands-on experience in using these tools and also a practical and theoretical lesson in the possibilities, limitations, challenges, and even potential risks of open, public, online communication and interaction. As such, open learning uses a digital toolkit and is constantly reflective about the tools, a meditation-in-action about the tools themselves and all the attendant issues the tools give rise to.

In our 21st Century Literacies class, we used an array of tools, some of them open source, some proprietary, almost all of them currently (and we stress “currently”) available to the public for free. We decided not to invest in an expensive ePortfolio system since we found available tools that worked quite brilliantly for us. We list them here because they proved useful to us and may well prove so to others. We hope you will add to the list, and indicate what digital tools best serve your own open peer teaching and learning goals. We also hope future users will update our list with whatever new comes along in future years.

Wordpress

Our entire class website was built on a Wordpress site supported by our host institution, Duke University, and housed on the Duke server. You can visit our original site here: . We chose a theme, set up the original syllabus and structuring principles for the course on the site, and then gave every class member editing privileges so new tabs, topics, and other affordances could be added over the course of the semester. We also set some settings as “public” so that anyone could learn along with us, and other settings as “private” so that only those registered in the course could see the content. Important: For public blogs, students had the choice of blogging under their own name or under a pseudonym. For FERPA rules on student privacy on public sites, please see this essential blog post: http://hastac.org/blogs/superadmin/2012/11/30/guidelines-public-student-class-blogs-ethics-legalities-ferp.

lynda.com

Wordpress is relatively easy to use but not always intuitive. lynda.com is a great online learning resource and includes many videos about how to build a Wordpress site: .

Sakai

We did not use Duke’s Sakai site very often but occasionally we did for communication purposes (it has a useful email tool) and for posting those few book chapters that were not available online from legal sources. Sakai negotiates agreements for “fair use” for limited size groups (we had only eight students in our class).

Books

Are books a “digital tool”? Good question. We had four or five books that we all read together and some of us preferred to purchase physical books, others read on Kindles or other devices. When we read McLuhan, we used a reprint of the original so that we could see the physical layout, the artistry of the text, the artifact itself. Our most technologically proficient users were also our most dedicated book-readers. Given all the digital parts of book production, it is important to remember and think about books as a “digital tool” as well.

hastac.org

The Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (HASTAC or “haystack”) is an 11,000+ network and user community that charges no dues, supports no advertising, and does not sell its data. Cathy N. Davidson is one of HASTAC’s co-founders and she is its principal administrator (with a central administering team located at Duke University). Any HASTAC network member can create a group on HASTAC for a class, a topic, or internal and external communications, and can use all the functionality of the site plus link to its large network membership. Class members created a number of Groups on the site and we will soon be sponsoring an open Group on the “History and Future of Higher Education” in which this text will be hosted as an open, free textbook that others can use and remix.

Google Drive, Google Docs

Google Docs allow for collaborative, synchronous, and asynchronous writing and editing. This entire book was written on Google Docs. Lots of them. We also took real-time notes (editing one another’s typos, adding content one person may have missed, and so forth) during class discussions, some of which became the basis for chapters. We made some of the Google Docs open for viewing by the public, some open for editing by the public, and some private, just for sharing within our group.

Qualtrics http://www.qualtrics.com/

At several points, to get the “temperature read” on the class, we created surveys using a Qualtrics site offered by Duke University. It was a quick and easy way to see ideas, differences, contributions, opinions, and attitudes.

Twitter

Using the Twitter hashtag #Duke21C, we communicated with one another and the larger public, often tweeting out updates on our discussions, requests for information, or invitations to participate. Twitter brought many visitors to our open public sites and sometimes with surprising results. For instance, the image that opens Chapter Two was shared by Giulia Forsythe.

Facebook

Although we did not create a Facebook group specifically for our course, we used this social media platform to solicit collaborators and to inform a larger public about events we were hosting, online and in real time.

Skype

We used this online telecommunications tool for real-time, face-to-face distance conversations with a number of visitors and, occasionally, with class members who could not be physically present for our meetings.

Projector

We had the luxury of being able to project from a laptop to a larger screen that all could view. We did this almost every class, including projecting the Google Doc that we would then each edit on our laptops.

Laptops

We all came to class with laptops, a luxury that not everyone can afford. It is important, given the issues of digital divide, digital inclusion, and digital exclusion, to note the cost here. For collaborative online teaching, laptops proved far more useful than iPads and other tablet devices that are configured to be far better for downloading than uploading and co-creating content. Also, one member of our group—significantly the finest programmer in the course— proudly (even lovingly) has the same PC laptop on which he learned to code in high school, and has constantly upgraded it over the years. We mention that here because it is not necessary to have the shiniest, newest, most expensive computer for open learning and teaching. What is important is to have the most open system possible.

Space

We thought we would have our class meetings in the new PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge but, at the last moment, the construction of a dedicated space for that Lab had to be cancelled for financial reasons. Again, it is important to realize that technology is social—it is not about machines, but about humans wanting to work together. We held our class in a standard, old-fashioned classroom whose one affordance was a flat-screen projector and a cabinet in which we could lock the remote and other devices for protection and safety. We could have done what we did without the flat screen, although it certainly enhanced our work together.

Time

We had to fight against the university calendar to schedule the class as one three-hour weekly slot. Institutions are not yet designed for collaborative open learning. The longer period is necessary for setting up and not wasting time each session doing so. Also, because our class was made up of students from Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University, meeting once a week allowed greater convenience for those traveling half an hour or more.

Food and Refreshments

Because we met over the dinner hour and because three hours is a long time, we tried to provide refreshments (including wine sometimes, since all class members were over 21) and even a light dinner for each class. Technology is social. That also means bodies.

Appendix 4: Useful Sample Documents for Open Peer Teaching and LearningSeveral different kinds of documents proved useful in helping to shape our collaboration and this experiment in open peer teaching and learning. We offer these here as samples for you to remix for your own purposes.

Grading Contract

We ended up not using a formal contract in 21st Century Literacies, partly because it was clear from the outset the high degree of commitment each member had to the co-creation of a meaningful, important, exploratory learning experience. However, we studied a formal grading contract that Cathy Davidson used in the same semester (Spring 2013) with her undergraduate class co-taught with behavioral economist Dan Ariely, “Surprise Endings: Social Science and Literature”: http://sites.duke.edu/english390-5_01_s2013/.

In this course, every student signed a contract agreeing to complete successfully and on time a certain amount of work for the class. If a student had a busy term and wanted to do less work, he or she could contract for a C, for example, and not do two or three of the required assignments. However, if a student failed to abide by the terms of the contract (signed and co-signed by another student and by the professor), there was not just a lower grade but a penalty, lowering the grade a full level or, if the student failed in a collaborative project, two levels.

The peer-grading component came into play over what constituted “satisfactory” completion of the week’s work. Since all the work was assigned by teams of students who created the weekly lessons for the class (setting the readings and video viewings, the writing or experimental assignments and so forth), those students were also responsible for determining if their classmates had successfully met their contract for the week and had to fill out a sheet indicating “yes” or “no” for contract compliance. This method has been described here, “How to Crowdsource Grading”: http://hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/how-crowdsource-grading. On the following pages is a sample grading contract for an A in “Surprise Endings.”

Contract Grading + Peer Evaluation: Explanation and Contract

Evaluation Method
Contract grading is not for everyone. If you are uncomfortable signing a contract at the beginning of the class for your grade and offering evaluation to your peers on how well they are fulfilling their contractual obligations in the course, you should consider a different course. In contract grading, you know in advance what your workload and responsibilities will be and you know that you will receive the grade for that amount of work if you fulfill your work satisfactorily (as determined by peers and instructors). The advantage of contract grading to the student is you can plan ahead and decide on the work level you want and earn a grade commensurate with that level. The advantage of contract grading to the professor is no whining. In an ideal course graded by the contract method, every student achieves the grade for which they contracted at the beginning of the class. There is no curve. The standard is excellence.

When contracting to earn an A in English/ISIS 390 you agree to:
● Carry out all the reading, pre-class public blogging, and assignments given to you by the other students on schedule as detailed in the syllabus; and
● Complete all the team project requirements spelled out on the syllabus plus the group feedback sessions on schedule.

When contracting to earn a B in English/ISIS 390 you agree to:
● Carry out all but one of the reading, pre-class public blogging, and assignments given to you by the other students on schedule as detailed in the syllabus; and
● Complete all the team project requirements spelled out on the syllabus plus the group feedback sessions on schedule.

When contracting to earn a C in English/ISIS 390 you agree to:
● Carry out all but two of the reading, pre-class public blogging, and assignments given to you by the other students on schedule as detailed in the syllabus; and
● Complete all the team project requirements spelled out on the syllabus plus the group feedback sessions on schedule.

When contracting to earn a D in English/ISIS 390 you agree to:
● Carry out all but three of the reading, pre-class public blogging, and assignments given to you by the other students on schedule as detailed in the syllabus; and
● Complete all the team project requirements spelled out on the syllabus plus the group feedback sessions on schedule.

Two-Grade Penalty for Not Fulfilling Your Project Team Obligations
If your project team partners give you feedback that you are not meeting the expectations of the team, and you do not accept their feedback and improve your contribution to their standards, you will receive an automatic two-grade reduction (one grade deduction for failing to do the work satisfactorily and a second grade deduction for jeopardizing the success of others on your team.)

One-Grade Penalty for Not Fulfilling Your Contractual Agreements
When you contract for a certain grade, you are agreeing to fulfill the work commensurate with that grade. If you fail to fulfill the work designated by your individual contracted terms, your final grade will reflect an additional full grade penalty deduction. For example, if a student submits a contract for an A, but does all but two of the individual assignments on schedule (commensurate with a C), then that person would receive a D for their final grade.

Excused absences
In the case of an excused health absence, you must still submit all individual work as contracted within one week after the deadline. For the team project, your team will decide what constitutes a satisfactory make-up contribution to the success of the team project.

Contract

I, ____________________________________________, agree to earn a grade of ______ in English/ISIS 390.

In signing this contract, I understand and agree to perform all of the requirements stated above and outlined on the syllabus for English/ISIS 390. I further understand the penalties for failure to meet my contractual agreement.

Student’s Signature: _____________________________________________ Date:_______________

Witness Signature: _______________________________________________ Date:______________

Witness Printed Name: ____________________________________________

Professor Cathy N. Davidson: _____________________________________ Date: _____________

Peer Evaluation Surveys

At several points in the semester, we brought in websites that we were developing for the class and for each participant’s own individual work. We were motivated by a framing comment by architect and learning designer Ann Pendleton-Jullian, who visited our class: “Design has the capacity to shape contexts as frames for things to happen.” You can read more about her visit here: http://hastac.org/blogs/hilary-culbertson/2013/03/14/cathy-davidson-re-designing-learning-democracy.

In order to help us “frame” our evaluation of one another’s digital work, to see if it truly was a “frame” that enabled “things to happen,” we used the following peer evaluation forms that we then discussed as a group and passed on to the developer, in the form of an “art crit” session.

"Design has the capacity to shape contexts as frames for things to happen, framing contexts writ large on the level of multiple, time-based ecologies—social, economic, political, environmental, and cultural—from material contexts to institutions to systems of action/change and even the contexts surrounding some of our most intractable problems."

--- Ann Pendleton-Jullian

Looking at the website, what do you think are the goals of this website?

Who do you think is the intended audience? Do you feel this is for you?

How would you characterize the creator of the website? How would you characterize the work on the website?

Does the website invite you to action? If so, what action? (e.g., reading, commenting, hiring, giving money)

What are the interactive features of the website?

What social media does this website promote, support, allow, encourage?

How did you find out about the website? How would someone else find out about this website?

Digital Badges

If you ask students what they hate most in a class they will often say “group work.” No wonder! Corporations spend billions of dollars in helping their employees learn how to “play well together” but teachers often throw three or four students into a group and expect them to just somehow know how to produce significant intellectual content to which everyone contributes equally (as if that happens naturally in every academic department!). Collaboration is difficult.

One system that open source programmers came up with to reward those who contribute generously and consistently and wisely to a collaboration (often anonymous when coding over the Web) is by offering digital badges. In 2012-2013, the HASTAC/MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Competition sponsored several research and development competitions on peer badging and how they could be used for learning. To learn more about digital badges, you can visit this annotated bibliography of nearly 200 sources on badges prepared by Sheryl Grant and Kristan Swago of the HASTAC team: http://hastac.org/collections/digital-badges.

In Cathy Davidson’s undergraduate Surprise Endings courses, students awarded one another badges. Each member of a peer learning team was asked to award a badge (only one) to any member of the peer team who had contributed significantly in an area. Approximately twelve areas were defined. The members then came together and looked at who had awarded badges to whom. In some cases, the results were remarkably balanced and it was clear each member was contributing according to the jobs and tasks they had been assigned by the group (they also wrote out task descriptions for each team member, with one assistant peer leader to help for each task).

Badges were also awarded for leadership, implementation, creativity, and other characterological and management practices essential to good collaboration. The team of four assistant instructors (TAs who were also learning how to engage in peer teaching) worked with each team to help evaluate the badge systems and use that as a useful rubric to readjust collaborative practices where needed.

On the next page you will find the document we used in the first peer-badging exercise. In subsequent ones, each team worked together to compose the categories they felt were important and then followed the procedure described above.

Peer Badging 20-minute collaboration exercise

Steps:

1. 2 minutes.? No consultation please. Please write your name in the top box under “team member name” and then your three teammates, alphabetic by first name is easiest. Then go through each column and make no more than one mark/badge per category. Be generous. But you do not have to award a badge if you think no one on your team has earned one in a particular category. After 2 minutes, hand all four sheets to one person from your team.

2. 1 minute. The team recorder records all the marks/badges on one sheet. Some people might have four marks in one category, some not.

3. 5 minutes. Together review the distribution of the badges. Do you see any patterns? Do you like what you see? Do you want to make changes (indicate changes in parenthesis).

4. 12 minutes. If you don’t like the distribution of the badges and want to make changes in how you are divvying up the work so that the result is spread more evenly across all members of the group, come up with a plan for how and what you can all do, together, to fix it. Please make notes to this effect in the space below the grid. One of the Assistant Teachers will collect these sheets.

CONTRIBUTORSCristiane Sommer Damasceno
Originally from Brazil, Cristiane holds a Master of Science in Communication from North Carolina State University and is pursuing her PhD in the Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media program at NC State. Her research interest is related to communication, technology, and education and her most recent academic work is a thesis project entitled “Mind the Clash: Attention and Sociotechnical Practices in Formal Learning Settings.” Besides being a full-time student, Cristiane is also a public speaking instructor.

Omar Daouk
Omar is a recent Masters graduate of Duke University’s interdisciplinary program in Humanities. Under the mentorship of Dr. Dan Ariely, Behavioral Economics has been Omar’s area of specialty in graduate school, with particular emphasis on the creative application of the field’s fundamental principles. As a double major in Finance and International Marketing from Boston University’s School of Management, Omar has found an interesting middle ground between the managerial, creative, and academic worlds, and proceeds forward in his career with enthusiasm for bridging the gaps between these seemingly disparate fields.

Cathy N. Davidson
Recently appointed by President Obama to the National Council on the Humanities, Cathy N. Davidson has published more than twenty books, including Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn (Viking Penguin 2011) and The Future of Thinking: Learning Institutions in a Digital Age (with David Theo Goldberg, MIT Press 2010). Cathy Davidson teaches at Duke University, where she co-directs the PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge and holds two distinguished chairs (Ruth F. DeVarney Professor of English and the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies). She served as Duke’s first Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary Studies and helped to create the Program in Information Science + Information Studies and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. She is a cofounder of the global learning network HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Advanced Collaboratory), with over 10,000 members. HASTAC administers the annual $2 million HASTAC/MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Competitions and has awarded and mentored eighty-nine Connected Learning projects in over twenty countries. In October 2012, she and HASTAC cofounder David Theo Goldberg received the Educator of the Year award from the World Technology Network in recognition of their “visionary contribution to science and technology in education.” Davidson is the first educator to be invited to join the Board of Directors of Mozilla.

Christina C. Davidson
A native of Skokie, Illinois, Christina C. Davidson is a PhD graduate student in the history Department at Duke University, where she received her MA in 2013. A 2009 graduate of Yale University (BA), Christina majored in Latin American Studies and International Studies. At Duke, she specializes in modern Caribbean and Afro-Latin American history. She is particularly interested in questions of race, religion, and transnational identity. Her dissertation project will examine the dynamics of US empire building and Protestant missionization in the Spanish Caribbean at the turn of the 20th century. Beyond her studies in history, Christina is also a member of the PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge and a 2012-2013 HASTAC Scholar. Christina blogs for HASTAC and is a co-founder of the Digital History Working Group at Duke.

Jade E. Davis
…is finishing her PhD in the department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where she studies under the direction of Ken Hillis. She holds an MA from NYU’s Institute of French Studies and a BA from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her primary research centers on how digitization and social media effect how we know and understand culture and society. She is also interested in big data, ethnomining, and their effects and potential for use in critical ethnographic work in digital environments. She has been an active HASTAC scholar since 2010 and is a member of the steering committee. She’s the regional organizer for THATCamp RTP. Additionally, in the Summer of 2013 joined Microsoft Research New England as a Summer Research Intern with the Social Media Collective. She is also a member of the first inter-institutional cohort of students in the PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge at Duke University.

Patrick Thomas Morgan
Currently working toward his PhD in English at Duke University, Patrick Thomas Morgan is a former geologist and science journalist whose research focuses on theories of nature and the human—such as the relation between geology and literature—in 19th century American and transatlantic texts. As a geologist, he studied micro-fauna and climate change, presenting his research (“Late Holocene Climate Variability and Implications for the Onset of Arroyo Incision along the Little Dolores River, Western Colorado” and “Dacryoconarids and the Eifelian-Givetian Boundary (Middle Devonian) in the Marcellus Shale of Western New York State”) at Geological Society of America conferences. His journalism appears in DISCOVER magazine, EARTH magazine, and The American Gardener, in addition to DISCOVER’s in-house blogs, 80beats and Discoblog. Most recently, Patrick co-wrote alongside Priscilla Wald the March 2013 preface to American Literature’s Thoreau Symposium, tracing how “the figure of the human occasions a shift in the modes of engagement, including reading practices, through which human beings, and humanists, make sense of lived experience.” Leading science and literature critic Laura Dassow Walls has called Patrick’s scholarly work a “surprising discovery,” referring to his 2010 publication, “Aesthetic Inflections: Thoreau, Gender, and Geology” in the Concord Saunterer: A Journal of Thoreau Studies.

Barry Peddycord III
Barry holds a Master of Science in Computer Science from North Carolina State University and is pursuing his PhD at the NC State Center for Educational Informatics. Barry’s research interests lie at the intersection of technology and learning, building on an eclectic background of research projects ranging from network analysis to cybersecurity. Barry participates in educational outreach as a leader in both the Triangle and NC State Linux Users Groups as an advocate for the adoption of open source software, especially in education and government.

Elizabeth A. Pitts
As a doctoral student in NC State’s Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media program, Elizabeth Pitts studies online information design, participatory culture, and technical and scientific communication. Her research stems from a long-term interest in making higher education more accessible and affordable, especially for adult and part-time students. Before enrolling at NC State, Elizabeth spent more than a decade producing education-focused strategic communications. At the White House, she led a team of writers responsible for drafting letters and instructional materials for schoolchildren. At the US Department of Education, she developed speeches, Congressional testimony, and other documents for Secretary Margaret Spellings. Elizabeth has also served as an adjunct professor of academic and professional writing at University of Maryland University College and as a writer for The Pew Charitable Trusts. In 2013, Elizabeth was awarded a fellowship from the National Science Foundation’s IGERT program, which supports collaborative interdisciplinary research spanning science, technology, engineering, mathematics and social sciences. She also became one of the first students at NC State to join Duke University’s PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge, a community of learners dedicated to generating new forms of pedagogy and shaping novel modes of scholarship in digital environments. Elizabeth lives in Raleigh with her husband, Jonathan Janis.

Jennifer Stratton
…is an interdisciplinary researcher, artist, educator, thinker and maker. Her work is centered in biophilia/citizen science, community storytelling, experimental pedagogy, play and the ephemeral magic that happens when light meets surface. She grew up with a strong spirit of exploration as a third culture kid, constantly moving around the globe with her family. For the past several years she has worked in vfx/integrated content production, interactive design and data visualization, while concurrently, teaching documentary and animation workshops. She is interested in creative intersections between scientific research, art, and social landscapes. Her art practice and research blends visual ethnography, ephemeral performance, tactile collections, and sonic signals to explore fragmented identities and evolving estrangements between individuals, communities and the natural world. In 2012 Jennifer was awarded an Embassy Science Fellowship from DOI/the US Department of State. She is an active participant at HASTAC and the Speculative Computing (S-1) Lab, and was recently an Artist-in-Residence at the Nicholas School of the Environment’s Marine Lab. She is currently a member of the PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge at Duke University.