We are inside a traditional
storing house of information.
All the memories of the world,
all the records of our culture,
have been arranged
in orderly fashion.
As consumers of knowledge,
we have the privilege
of entering the past,
selecting a portion
which we may think useful.
We remain anonymous in the
face of this vast accumulation.
Our consumption has a
pleasing passivity to it.
Of course, no storage
mechanism is perfect.
We face a very simple problem:
the decline of literacy.
Which anyone can see in
the latest test scores.
Students who are ill at ease
with language, or just plain
scared of poetry.
They realize it's a particular
and specialized form
of discourse.
The irony is that
it may be the best
way to help them
sharpen their skills.
But you can't coerce them.
We have other problems
of our own, of course.
It's not simply the
student's problem.
We're short on
resources and manpower.
We cannot give students the
individual attention that might
help them over this
difficult spot.
And we also have not been
really good at inventing
new techniques in
the classroom that
might make poetry
more attractive
to the timid student.
At Brown we're
trying a new solution
using a system developed by a
computer scientist, Andy van
Dam which can take
poetic materials
and other associated
things and store it
in a cross-referenced manner,
which will enable students
to have access to a poem
itself, to background
materials, other
poems related, poems
from the tradition of
poetry, critical materials.
Things that will
help the student
to see the poem
in a full context
and understand it in its
roots and its ramification.
Using this system
we hope that we
can take some of the fear of
poetry out of the student,
and also that we can solve
some of our own problems
of communication, and
innovation in the classroom.
That we'll be able to
put students in contact
with one another
through the system
about the poetic materials.
And that instructors
and students
will also achieve a higher
level of communication
and a greater understanding
of the materials involved.
In preparing for the
computer-based course,
the first step is to gather
the raw materials: the primary
and secondary texts.
The instructor selects
manuscripts and portions
of manuscripts that relate
best to the central themes
of the course.
Then the material is organized,
given an initial structure.
The poetry course
material is broken
into 12 units, each
of which concentrates
on a particular poem.
The students will have three
sessions with each unit.
At the first session they
will view only the poem
which is central to the unit.
At the second session
they will view material
to place the poem in context.
This material
includes biographical
and genre information, other
poems by the same poet,
and poems by other poets
which influence or have been
influenced by the central poem.
At the third session, secondary
source material will be added.
After reading some or all of
the material in each session,
the student will add
his or her comments
to the information available
at the next session.
The instructors and
students will all
have an opportunity to
add comments and questions
to evaluate and critique
each other's work.
Each new arrangement
of a text provides
the opportunity for
something greater than simple
transmission.
If various texts can be
interestingly rearranged,
juxtaposed, fitted
with each other,
and play off against each other,
the process of reading the text
can be made concrete.
And the text itself may no
longer be isolated, pristine,
and inviolate, but
manifold and pluralistic.
This web of interrelated
texts is called a hypertext.
The computer system we use to
create and manipulate hypertext
is called FRESS.
FRESS, which is the computer
system being used in the poetry
course, takes no
particular training
in order to operate it
beyond an ability to type.
And we use the keyboard
to specify commands
to the system, which
set up questions,
insert comments, and browse
through the system in a manner
to set up dialogues.
A dialogue not only with poetry,
but also with professors,
and with other
students in the course.
This dialogue feature can
be used as little or as much
as possible at the
student's own behest.
And he can use initials of
himself or of other students
to browse selectively through
a particular set of comments,
or a particular
set of questions.
And furthermore, what
is really exciting
is he can blaze a new trail
by looking at themes or images
in a set of poems and
entering his thoughts
into the hypertext for others.
This kind of selective
browsing and adding
to the creative graffiti,
you might call it,
we hope to use to develop a
different kind of community
with professors and students
working together to develop
a true process of learning.
Using the system is a
straightforward procedure.
A student identifies
himself and types
in the session name
and the unit number.
And then lets the computer
subdivide the screen
into up to four sections,
which we call windows.
The main poem then appears
in one of the windows,
and it is as if
were on a scroll.
The reader can
cause the computer
to move the text in
through the window.
Now, when he comes to a
spot in reading where there
is a reference to
secondary material,
a special marker appears,
and a little teaser
next to the marker which
explains what would be
seen if that option were taken.
The instructor can
control how many of those
options actually
appear on the screen,
but the student has the
choice of which to follow
and which not.
Now it's a little bit like
choosing a good Chinese meal.
A student can stick
to the tried and true,
but we, of course,
encourage him to be
as adventurous as possible.
In the same manner
that he does browsing
he can also use the light
pen and the keyboard
to enter in a response
or ask a question.
We're aware that some
students might actually
revel in the gymnastics
of a sophisticated writing
and retrieval system like this.
Now, we don't want to
subordinate material
to the system.
Nor is the system merely being
used to provide an alternative
to a classroom experience.
What we are striving for is
to make a flexible system
with lots of
interesting materials
so that we may serve the needs
of a genuinely contemporary
student.
Now notice that an equal
burden falls to the system,
and to the student.
The student cannot be passive.
The system responds to
student, and after awhile,
the technical
machinations do disappear.
But for the system to
function, to really function,
it needs animating
human presence.
I don't know how
you feel about it,
but being an English major, or
a humanities major of any sort
I guess, I have, I
guess, some prejudices
about using a computer and
using all the scientific jargon
and all that.
I think the technical
aspects of it
introduce-- it's
fun in a lot of ways
to do all the little stuff
that has no relation to poetry.
And I've also come
to think since I've
completed the course, that
there is something aesthetically
pleasing about those
little green lights
on the screen don't you think?
We started out thinking of the
hypertext system, the FRESS
system, as a way of organizing
materials for the student that
might be more efficient than
a combination of textbooks
and library reserve book rooms
and all that kind of thing.
We discovered as we
were using the system
that what we had here
was a communications
instrument of extraordinary
richness and subtlety.
Something that changed the
whole dynamic of the course.
That was one of the
questions I had about poetry.
I didn't see how they could
get a course that I thought
was emotional and
sensitive, and combine it
with a computer, which
I thought was so cold.
You said something
about that before,
and we've talked
about it in class,
about how you read it
out loud when you can.
Yeah, I started doing that.
Did you?
Did you find it helped?
Yeah.
A lot.
It sounded pretty good
One of the things
that we accomplished
that I think is so rarely
accomplished in poetry courses
that it's almost
an embarrassment,
was that we, I
think, in most cases,
freed the students
of fear of poetry.
Their gains in confidence
which show in the way
they wrote about poetry, and the
way they talked about poetry,
were extraordinary.
And this confidence
is a direct result
of all of that
intercommunication.
Well, there wouldn't
be so much response,
and response to your
response from the instructor,
kind of thing.
Individual attention?
Yeah.
It kind of puts you in a
position where you definitely
have to sit down
and say, now what
do I think about this poem?
Well, in another situation you
might be given the assignment
to prepare it for class
and be ready to discuss it,
or write one paper, let's
say, for the week on this.
And here, you really develop
and have to think it over,
and over again.
I found that pretty helpful.
I think one thing that really
makes this course great
is the fact that you don't
have to go to the library
and dig out all types
of research materials
and reference books, and
one thing and another.
It's right there.
Make your little jump
up and you're all set.
I liked that.
The amount of material
in there is staggering.
When you think about all
the sessions that we've had,
and all the junk
that are in there.
It's more than you could
ever even think of using
and I don't know, it amazes me.
We've been getting
more work from students
than they normally would perform
in comparable courses, I think.
And I doubt seriously
if it's possible to get
more work from students without
faculty putting in more work
to meet that.
Because the students
have written so much,
we have had to read so much
and write so much in response
to the students.
If our comments
on their responses
had fallen short at any
point, or had been inadequate,
or seemed perfunctory,
I doubt if the caliber
of their responses
would've continued
to improve as it has over
the course of the semester.
The course in that respect,
demands a good deal of time.
What we save on
classroom time we
put back in in response
time on the system.
I also find that I read
much more quickly when
I am on the using the
hypertext because I just
know that I have to get to
a certain amount of material
in two hours, and I really force
myself to concentrate on it
and pace myself.
Of course, given the
kind of system we had,
we know who used what,
and how much they used it,
and what kind of use
they made out of it.
We also know what
kind of comments
all the instructors
involved made
in responding to the students.
We just know much
more about what
happened than we
ever know of what
happens in any ordinary course.
And I have a feeling
that if we knew
what happens in some
courses that weren't taught
on this system that
we would be appalled
at the actual result
of those courses.
My whole attitude towards
poetry has changed quite a bit.
It used to fight me
to look at poetry
and I'd never know
where to begin.
And I always felt it
was above my head.
But now when I read poems
I have a general process
about how to begin.
And I think of the sessions and
questions that were brought up,
and I feel much
more sure about it.
And I really love it.
We can expect to
teach much better
and to produce students who
are better readers of poetry
and feel more
confident about poetry.
I think that's a
sufficient justification
for what we've done.
