I had fun in class today. It’s such luxury having a small group of active, engaged, smart students! And I love that they write each single week. It makes good discussions flow so easily.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“OK, everyone who’s interested in discussing games, definitions and narratives, over to that side of the room. Everyone interested in discussing Turkle’s 1984 article over to this side.” All the boys went to the structuralist definition side. All the girls (only four out of fourteen students) went to the Turkle side. Usually I’ve tried to do a kind of summary of the small group discussions in plenary at the end of the class, but today I remembered what I was told at my university pedagogy course when I complained that I found the plenary summary difficult: “Are you sure that you need it? Perhaps you’re only doing the plenary because you need to feel there’s a result, and not because it helps the students learn?” There aren’t enough computers in the room for each student to blog in class, so I asked them to jot down quick notes about what they would personally take from the class discussions and this week’s readings. And please blog it after class. Everyone was still writing when I left the room.

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “class

  1. Mattias

    This might look like gender something… I think not.

    All the girls (except one) already sat on that side of the room. The one that changed side did so because she has worked with the Juul article many times before and felt quite bored about his article. Also friends stick together on most discussions, unless they are divided.

    But funny anyway.

  2. Jill

    Oh, alright then, I’ll accept that 😉 And great to see you’ve been blogging!

  3. Solveig

    Well, I can’t say that I’m bored with Juuls paper (I like it a lot), but I’ve done nothing but discussing games and definitions this year:)

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]