US12B - Computer Games as Art, Culture, and Technology
Discussions, Winter 2008

Section 1: Wednesday 9am - 9:50am
Section 2: Wednesday 10am - 10:50am
Section 3: Wednesday 11am - 11:50am
Section 4: Wednesday 12pm - 12:50pm

Garnet Hertz
Email: ghertz[[a]]uci.edu
Office Hours: Wednesday 8:00am - 9:00am or by appointment
Office: CalIT2, Room 4300.82
(Building 325 on the map, next to Engineering Gateway)

Overview of this website

This website is built to help students in discussion and lab sections 1 and 4 of US12B keep track of relevant course materials, including due dates, discussion handouts and URLs. This isn't meant as a substitute for the official course syllabus at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~frost/US12B/syllabus.html - please take a look at it for the most recent information about this course.

Course Syllabus

Tips

Discussion Notes

Week 1 Discussion - Wednesday Jan 9th 2008




Week 2 Discussion: What is an artist?
Jan 16th 2008


Week 3 Discussion - Wednesday, Jan. 23rd 2008


Week 4 Discussion - Wednesday, Jan. 30th 2008


Week 5 Discussion - Wednesday, Feb. 6th 2008


Week 6 Discussion - Wednesday, Feb. 13th 2008




Week 7 Discussion - Peer Editing Paper #4

Work in pairs, with someone you haven't worked with yet this quarter. As you read and comment on each other's work, keep in mind the purpose of the assignment: to investigate some specific aspect of a specific experimental computer game, emphasizing theoretical models from literature.

Have the editor take a piece of paper and construct an outline from their partner's paper. Select the thesis and topic sentences. It should resemble the following:

The editor can mark-up the paper, and will also write comments on the back of this page. Editors, make sure to write "Edited by" and your name at the top of both. Each author must turn in the editor's written comments and the draft along with the final version of the paper.

Procedure for Editors:

  1. Read the summary through once, trying to understand the overall structure and tone.
    1. Are you able to easily follow the flow of the argument? Does the paper have an introductory paragraph or two which tell the reader what lies ahead, and a conclusion which wraps everything up and restates the major points?
    2. Does the author's topic seem to be the right size for a 1,000 word paper? Is it narrow enough to be fully developed, but broad enough to be interesting?
  2. Now carefully reread the full paper and write answers to these questions:
    1. Is the paper's tone formal, business-like, rational, and convincing?
    2. Does the paper compare and assess two models or typologies? Is each one well-summarized?
    3. Look at the paragraphs as individual units. Do they have unity, coherence, and generally support and develop a single idea each?
    4. Are there any mechanical errors (spelling, punctuation, grammar) that interfered with your reading of the paper?
    5. Are the references and citations adequate? Does the paper's references section follow the correct format?
    6. Has the author succeeded in "digging deeply enough to find underlying truths?" If not, where do you suggest further spadework?
  3. Review your comments with the author (and vice versa)

Week 8 Discussion - Wednesday Feb 27th 2008


Week 9 Discussion - Wednesday March 5th 2008


Week 10 Discussion - Wednesday March 12th 2008