Overview

Inpsiration for the assignment goes to Dr. Jon Heggestad’s “Digital Artifact Analysis” assignment.

Objective

This assignment asks you to act as both historian and contemporary critic. You will visit the campus Archives to analyze primary source materials (e.g., articles, memos, photos) documenting the introduction of early computers and the internet on our campus.

You will use these historical findings to conduct a comparative analysis, drawing direct, evidenced parallels between that historical shift and the current integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into our college community.

Your goal is to move beyond a simple review of history and instead offer an analysis that uncovers non-obvious insights about the technological change itself. You are answering the question: What can the past of technology on campus teach us about the present and future of technology on campus?

Part 1: Archival Research

Your first task is to visit the campus Archives and locate 3-5 specific primary sources that document the arrival and adoption of early computing or the internet on campus. These might include (subject to availability):

You must cite these primary sources in your final analysis using either APA or MLA formatting.

Part 2: The Comparative Analysis (The Core of the Assignment)

Your analysis will be structured using the following perspectives: history & remediation, affordances, users, power . For each section, you must first analyze your archival findings and then draw a direct parallel to the current arrival of AI.

Your final product should be a single, cohesive analysis, not just answers to questions.

History & Remediation

Historical Analysis: Based on your archival sources, what is the history of the specified technology? What were the non-digital precursors to this technology (e.g., card catalogs, typewriters, campus mail)? How did the new technology “remediate” older forms of campus life, research, or communication? What problems did the community believe it would solve? What new problems did it create?

AI Parallel: Now, apply this to AI. What are the “precursors” that AI is remediating today (e.g., traditional research methods, essay writing, coding practices, registration)? What problems is AI pitched as solving on campus, and what new problems (e.g., academic integrity, data privacy) is it creating?

Affordances

Historical Analysis: What were the “affordances” of the first computers/internet on campus? Beyond their intended use (e.g., “for scientific calculation”), how did the technology encourage, discourage, or refuse certain activities? For example, did it encourage new forms of collaboration, or did it discourage face-to-face interaction?

AI Parallel: What are the affordances of generative AI on campus today? Beyond its intended use (e.g., “as a study aid”), how does it request, demand, encourage, or discourage certain ways of thinking? How do these affordances intersect with dynamics on campus? E.g., a study aid may be viewed as beneficial by some students or cheating as other students.

Users

Historical Analysis: Every technology has an idealized, “typical” user. Based on your sources, who were the typical users of early campus technology (e.g., a computational faculty member, a computer-science student)? How did the technology implicitly cater to a certain kind of user? How did it fail to accommodate extreme users cases, such as music or lab-science faculty, staff members, or students with disabilities?

AI Parallel: Who is the “typical” user of AI on campus today? Who are the extreme users (e.g., students for whom English is a second language, visual arts students concerned with data scraping, faculty trying to design “AI-proof” assignments)? How does the college’s AI policy accommodate (or fail to accommodate) these “stress cases”?

Part 3: The Shape of the Analysis

Your analysis will be a blog post on Medium (either published or as a draft). This means, along with taking a polished but informal tone, you should:

Final Deliverables

Grading: Grading will be based on the writing rubric, which differs from the design doc rubric.