image of quizThis semester I’m using Anders Fagerjord’s brand new textbook Web-medier with our web design and web aesthetics students. For yesterday’s lecture I made a quiz for the students based on the first two chapters, which introduce a lot of concepts and ideas. It worked wonderfully – I gave students ten minutes to work through it individually, then about ten minutes to discuss it with their neighbours. After that we had nearly an hour of plenary discussion, which I really enjoyed. No grading or anything: the point was to get them to think through central concepts and apply them and discuss them. There are about fifty students in the class, so the standard strategy would be to lecture at them and leave discussion and student activity for the tutorials – but apart from all the excellent pedagogical reasons for engaging students in active learning rather than trying to pour one’s own knowledge into them as though they were empty vessels, I’ve discovered I really don’t like lecturing. When I think of my teaching as lecturing, I resent it and feel drained by it – all that preparation just to talk to a bunch of bored-looking students and get no feedback or input? Pah. Fortunately, active discussions with enthusiastic students leave me energised and flying back to my office remembering that I love my job.

The students had lots of good input in the discussion – out of nearly fifty students, I think at least 15-20 spoke, which is really good for such a large group. I asked them how they liked it at the end, of course, and they said it was great, and yeah, let’s do this again. As for me: I far prefer organising a class through a structured discussion than by me lecturing. Working with the questions individually and then in pairs got the students talking, and it was easy to spend nearly an hour simply going through the ten questions in the quiz and discussing them. And although it’s never easy to know what the students who don’t talk really think, they appeared to be alert and attentive, and I figure that at least they got to talk in the first part of class, with their neighbour. Oh, I snuck in fifteen minutes lecturing about Online Caroline too. I like lecturing for short bursts about things I’m really keen on 😉

Anyway. Here’s the quiz as an .rtf file – feel free to use it or adapt it if you’re teaching with Anders’s book. If I make more for the other chapters I’ll put them online too. Oh, there’s no answer sheet – I used it as a starting point for discussion, not for grading. (The file displays in my webbrowser with no images; if you right-click/apple-click the link to download it instead you’ll get a file you can edit in a word processor, with images.)


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] Puzzling over how to explain students who’ve never tried it how to write a textual analysis I remembered how they loved the quizzes we did earlier this semester. So here’s a worksheet I made for Hanne-Lovise Skartveit’s Take the F train, which is one of the works they can choose to analyse. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.