To understand the significance of April 2, 2011, I have to go back 28 years, back to the summer of 1983.

I had just finished 10th grade, and that summer I took a trip to the hills of North India, as a part of a social work volunteer effort. I remember sleeping on the floor in this little unfurnished hut up in the hills, spending the days digging what would be the foundation of a village school. We had no electricity, no TV, the our toilet was to go out in the woods.

We did have a tiny transistor radio and we used that to listen to the Prudential Cricket World Cup, taking place in far away England. The West Indies were favored to win, the English were pretty good, and Australia and New Zeland weren’t too bad either. But India was no where in the picture, and no one really expected anything from our team. Our record, before this date had been dismal at best. But amazingly enough, India, led by Kapil Dev, this young Jat from Harayana, somehow made it to the semi-finals where we were facing England. There was little hope that we would go any further. The fact that we had made it that far was victory enough!

I remember, one late night, in this little room, with a bunch of kids my age, from different schools from around North India, crowded around the little radio, listening to the commentary of this semi-final game being played half-way across the globe. I don’t remember many of the details but two things do stand out. I remember hearing the commentator describing this young Indian batsman, Sandeep Patil, destroying the English bowling. And I remember, after the game was over, and India had won and made it to the finals, all of us, 16-17 year olds, standing up, in our pajamas, in this candle-lit room, spontaneously, beginning to sing the Indian National Anthem. Loudly, surely off key, but with gusto and pride.

A few days later I was back home in Delhi, watching the finals on our black-and-white TV. I remember West Indies destroying the Indian batting and then just as they started batting, the TV transmission died. (This was actually quite common back then.) I ran back to my radio, to keep up with the game, while keeping an eye on the TV, just in case the game came back on. I missed seeing the great catch by Kapil Dev that got rid of Viv Richards (who single handedly could decimate any opposing team). And then the West Indies wickets started to fall, and the TV came back, and I watched, what was the most amazing sight, the mighty West Indies collapse, and, wonder of wonders, India winning the world cup!

That was a defining moment for my generation and I remember it as clearly as it was yesterday. I doubt you can meet any Indian of around my age for whom this is not an unforgettable memory!

India, as a nation, had been going through a tough time. The Indira Gandhi government’s usurpation of power in 1975 (with the declaration of Emergency) was not too far from our memories. The government that had come after that had been woefully underwhelming, not even lasting a full term. Punjab was in flames, due to an insurgency that would (a few years later) consume Indira Gandhi herself. In the middle of all this was the world cup! It pulled us all, across India, together in ways that cannot be described. This victory was a turning point for all of us, a way of saying that our time had come. After this, there was little that we could no do!

Well a lot has changed in India since then. But India has never repeated that feat. India had never won another world cup.

Till today.

It took 28 years, but after a great game against Sri Lanka, in the 2011 world cup finals, India has done it again. Emphatically, and with grace India has won the world cup. Along the way India knocked out Australia (the winner of the past three competitions) and Pakistan (arguably as big a game as the final). As Joe Biden said, in a slightly different context, this is ****ing huge!

A new defining moment for a new generation.

The Drexel Learning Games Network is made up of faculty and staff at Drexel University interested in game-based learning initiatives. It was established in the School of Education in Goodwin College with the goal of supporting teaching, researching, and designing of games for learning from K- to infinity.

I had mentioned that though I am not primarily a games and learning researcher, I have done some work in the area, primarily through collaborations with colleagues and students around MSU. I had a lot of fun constructing this talk, attempting to make some connections between my TPACK work and the idea of learning from games.

I see digital games as being an important part of learning – but in a somewhat different way than merely learning by playing games. In fact I have been somewhat skeptical of how one can use games for developing disciplinary knowledge. My experience has been that there is a fundamental tension in designing educational games – where the demands of designing engaging gameplay often conflict with the broader pedagogical goal of respecting the core concepts of the discipline or content to be covered. For instance a recent dissertation on how participants were learning Chinese from playing a massively multiplayer online role playing game (Zon) showed that my concerns were justified. Most participants focused on the gameplay rather than on the tasks that were connected with learning the language. I don’t think that finding this balance between gameplay and learning content is impossible to achieve – but that it is maybe the most important challenge faced by educational game designers.

I tried, in my presentation, to make some connections to learning from games by repurposing games – i.e. seeing their pedagogical potential outside of just playing with them. I of course used the TPACK framework as guiding my talk – but also brought in issues related to trans-disciplinary learning and design.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, the entire talk is now available online as a video. You can see it in its entirety by going here: http://gcpsx.coeps.drexel.edu/videos/dgvls_ep2public/

Enjoy!

The Drexel Learning Games Network is made up of faculty and staff at Drexel University interested in game-based learning initiatives. It was established in the School of Education in Goodwin College with the goal of supporting teaching, researching, and designing of games for learning from K- to infinity.

The seminar series (titled: Digital Games: Teaching, Learning and Assessment Seminar Series) is a set of four lectures by invited faculty. Others who are speaking through the series (that started back in November 2010 and will continue till May of this year) include such luminaries such as Chris Dede,Harvard University; David Williamson Shaffer, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Eric Klopfer, MIT. What am amazing group of people to be associated with!

I am not primarily a games and learning scholar, though I have done some work in this area, usually collaboratively with people like Carrie Heeter, Brian Winn over in the college of communication arts and sciences, Ron Rosenberg in engineering, and of course, with Aroutis Foster. In this talk, I am hoping to make some connections between my TPACK work and the idea of learning from games. Let us see…

I have been told that the session will be recorded and made available on the web. I will of course post it here, when I get a chance.

Apart from the Keynote I also conducted a workshop on Creativity and Teaching with Technology. I had anticipated having around 25 people for the workshop but the room was overflowing (at least 15 more than I had anticipated). That did throw a few kinks into my routine but nothing that was unsurmountable. I am sharing below some of the things that people created during this two hour workshop.

I explained my idea of a creative idea or product as being Novel, Effective and Whole (the so called New NEW)! This led Terra Graves, Thomasina Rose and Kristina Ernest to create this acrostic poem.

New
Organic
Visual
Engaging
Longevity

Educational
Fun
Freedom
Everyone
Creativity
Teachers
Innovative
Variety
Enthusiasm

Winning
Holistic
Outside the Box
Learning
Exciting

Here are a few more from Lisa Widmer, Katie Jones, Brent Mesenburg and Robert Jackson

The first two are limericks that summarize some of the things we had talked about in the first half of the workshop.

Creativity is our goal
Make it Novel Effective and Whole
When in doubt
Turn it about
And satisfy your soul

A second, funnier, version is as follows:

Creativity is our goal
Make it Novel Effective and Whole
When in doubt
Don’t Freak out
It’s quite alright if you stole

The same team wrote another poem, synthesizing some of the ideas we played with in the second half of the workshop.

Being creative is like heaven
Mimic the great Magellan
And fear not missteps
Just use the five steps
And crank that knob to eleven

The “crank the knob to eleven” of course being a response to the (in)famous scene from This is Final Tap.

A couple of other pieces that emerged from this team (can you tell this was a prolific group) was the quote:

“Tweak it to Teach it”

Somewhat along the same lines was Patrick Whitehead who suggested the following two:

Thinking is tweaking your mind

Think better… TWEAK your mind!

Apart from this display of verbal dexterity, the participants also completed a “letter search” task where they looked for letter that spell out the word “Relax, Repose, Reteach.” I had done a similar activity with students in our MAET program a year ago in Plymouth. Essentially what I did was create a somewhat awkward problem scenario the solution to which were the words Relax, Repose, Reteach. So these were the letters students searched for… and this is what they came up with.

Now for the twist! As it turns out one of the themes of the keynote (and the workshop) were the three words “Explore, Create, Share.” Students watched each of the three videos that we had created (see them here) as well as the mashup that had inspired us to begin with (see the original and the mashup here).

What the students didn’t know was that the three words (Relax, Repose, Reteach) could be rearranged to read… (surprise, surprise) the words Create, Explore, Share!! Here is what that looks like…

I must give a shout-out to High School Freshman Bryan Jones who I “volunteered” to help me out. He had a tough job, collecting all the pictures since there were multiple cameras (from regular digital cameras to iPhones), missing cables, a mac that was running Windows (which mean iPhoto wouldn’t cooperate)… and he had to pull everything together in around 25 minutes while the workshop was still going on… And he managed it without fuss and stress. Thanks!

Finally, we all watched the new Steven Johnson video “Where good ideas come from” and created demotivational posters based on what they heard and saw. Below is the video (just in case you haven’t seen it already) and below that the posters the students created.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Choose Wisely Patrick Whitehead Tim Hart	Innovation Karen Decker Terry Ector	Don’t Worry Michael C. Gregory
This is a hunch Thomasina Rose Kristina Ernest Terra Graves	Ideas Brandi Mizner Beth Pearson Holly Marich Laurie Koelliker Gary Eisnor	Creativity? Roger Mayo Matt Keener

As you can imagine this was a hectic workshop for all of us. We covered a lot of ground and the participants also created some interesting artifacts that can have a life beyond the immediate workshop. What fun!

• The first instance is something Judi Harris, Matt and I used at the 2007 NTLS meeting at Washington DC. You can find out more about it here.
• Second, is a submission by Karen Richardson from Virginia, written up in the February 09 TPACK newsletter.
• And earlier this year, I had blogged about a game developed by the Littleton School District in Colorado.

Finally, Matt Koehler has mocked up a version of the game online. He created it for the EPET Hybrid PhD program he was teaching this summer. Though he isn’t sure the game is really ready for “prime-time” he does have it available on his website. Check it out: The TPACK Game, Matt Koehler version. The instructions are simple:

In the TPACK Game, you consider how Technology (T), Pedagogy (P), and Content (C) work together by randomly choosing two of the three (C, P, and T), and thinking deeply to find the third that makes them all work together in a pedagogically sound way to teach the content.

Enjoy.

Over the past few years I have been thinking quite hard about the idea that creative people are not creative in just one area but rather tend to play within and across multiple disciplines or areas. Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein have in their book Sparks of Genius often talked about how the most creative scientists are polymaths, often having artistic and other interests that go beyond their immediate professional interests. In fact they argue, and I would tend to agree with them, that creativity cannot be forced into one box or domain. Creative individuals are curious about everything and often engage in creative activities in multiple areas, though they may specialize in just one area (usually the domain they are most known for).

This is true for the most creative people I know. For instance, consider Douglas Hofstadter (best known for his book Godel, Escher & Back and is work in Artificial Intelligence) dabbles in everything from mathematics to music, wordplay to art. Similarly Scott Kim (best know as a puzzle game designer) creates ambigrams and composes music, plays the drums and teaches mathematics using dance!

In my own way I have tried to do the same. Everything I do, from creating ambigrams to teaching, from photography to developing keynote presentations, from being a parent to advising students on their research, seems to me to be connected and inter-woven. I think my success as a researcher and scholar (to whatever extent I have been successful) derives from this “dabbling” across disciplines.

What is sad, however, is how much such “dabbling” is frowned upon. Through high-school and college, through graduate school and even as a faculty member, I have been advised, always by by well-meaning people, to focus, to find my niche, to become an expert on one thing. I have resisted it, mainly because knowing just one thing, seems, at least to me, such an impoverished way of being.

And I understand why I have received the advice I have. We live in a specialized world. A world where expertise is valued.  And an expert, after all, is someone who knows more and more about less and less. There is no space for dabbling in this world of.

But I wonder about that. I have a friend who is a successful professor of civil engineering. Turns out, that as he was growing up, what he really wanted to be, was a chef! I haven’t had a chance to talk to him about this but I wonder how his vision of being a chef influences what he does as a researcher and a teacher? Does it contribute (in some subconscious manner) to his work? Or has he suppressed it completely?

Either way I see it as a tragedy, in the first case because we haven’t developed a way of speaking of these influences, and in the second case because a possible, fruitful career was nipped in the bud.

The sad thing is that I am seeing school do the same thing to my kids, in fact to most kids I know. NCLB has not helped either. Don’t get me wrong. This is not an argument for some form of dilletantism (dabbling for the sake of dabbling). Not at all. What I am recommending (thanks to the Roob-Bernstein’s for this term) is polymathy. One of my students, Danah Henriksen, is currently working on a dissertation on looking for polymathy in teachers. As she says:

“Polymathy” may be thought of as an informed enthusiasm for more than one field of knowledge or expertise, or excellence in several realms that might seem distant from each other.  It has been suggested that what makes polymaths so successful and fluidly creative is an ability to cross-pollinate ideas and information.  People who open their minds to, and who learn from, multiple knowledge areas can apply new information and unique ways of thinking from one discipline into another.

This for me is the biggest reason for supporting such playing around in multiple areas. These experiences at the fringes (so to speak) of our professional lives, provide us with newer ways of being in the world. They allow us to see the world in new ways. They allow us to question things the field may have taken for granted. Just as Tufte says at the end of the piece, my goal, is to “make people see a little differently.” Turns out one of the best and easiest ways of doing so is by seeing through different disciplinary eyes.

We need to provide better opportunities for our students to do the same.

• “Why Don’t Students Like School?” Well, Duhhhh…
• Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education

For the record, here are a couple of his papers as PDF downloads (I recommend the first, though it may be a bit academic at first glance).

• Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence
• Nature’s Powerful Tutors: The Educative Functions of Free Play and Exploration

And finally here is a video of a presentation he made at the Evolutionary Studies Program at Binghamton University.

Peter Gray: The Human Ancestral Environment for Education, and Its Relevance for Education Today from EvoS on Vimeo.

Ken wrote that he actually sees examples of unconscious competence everywhere. He went on to say (quoted with permission)

Where we see them most frequently is in any form of practice that operates at an intense pace. Athletes are a good case — especially any sport that operates in dyad or team competition such as fencing, martial arts, or soccer. This is always the case for martial practices, such as swordmanship in ancient Japan. Any samurai who stopped to think through his moves would be dead. You can also see this in swift-paced activities, ranging from surgery or stock trading to debating or legal argument.

In many cases, though, the truly competent are able to surface and examine their choices, describing and analyzing them through reflection and inquiry. In the reflective analysis, you will see why they are masters. You also see this level of mastery when a coach works with a learner — if you observe a master swordsman coach and younger swordsman, you will often hear comments that only grow from mastery … “You lost the match back there when placed your left foot at such an angle.”

You can also see it in the way that masters discuss and consider the art of their profession — there are two great scenes in which gunfighters describe their success. John Wayne as John Bernard Books in the Shootist teaches a youngster about shooting, to explain that it is not speed, but accuracy and the will to engage in combat that distinguishes the successful shootist.

In another memorable scene, Gene Hackman as Little Bill Daggett in Unforgiven tells a journalist much the same thing, explaining that accuracy and a cool head are the difference between his success as a gunman-turned-sheriff and those whom he has defeated. The journalist asks him, “What if they are faster on the draw than you are and still accurate?” “Well,” answers Little Bill, “then I guess I’d be dead.”

If you read The Book of Five Rings, you’ll see how Miyamato Musashi talks about martial arts. This is unconscious competence surfacing in reflection.

If I were to say it another way, one of the ways that the cycle works is that we learn the how and why of what we do as we move through conscious incompetence to conscious competence. It is the perpetual engagement with practice that brings us to mastery, freeing us to find the rhythm that is sometimes called “flow.” But to flow, we must be able to work at the unconscious level, focusing on everything other than ourselves. This is why our competence must be unconscious to constitute mastery.

Saying this, of course, I would be willing to substitute some term for unconscious that indicates an ability to bring to the conscious foreground the elements that we enact without thinking about them.

In another email he added the following thoughts

You might find it very interesting to read a book by Dave Lowry. The title is Autumn Lightning. Lowry describes his education in the martial arts, and talks about the Yagyu lineage of swordsmanship. If you find the story of the battle during the Osaka summer campaign when Munenori Yagyu single-handedly cut down seven warriors attacking the shogun, you’ll see what I mean. The fight was over before any of the shogun’s bodyguards even had time to react to the attack.

Lowry gives a marvelous account of the four stages, though he does not use the vocabulary.

In a sense, this is also what Malcolm Gladwell’s new book Outliers is about, and that’s the basis of the 10,000-hour rule.

Just a couple of quick thoughts (since doing justice to Ken’s words will take more time than I have at present).

The first thing I would like to point out is just how this email is classic Ken Friedman. Clear, lucid, thought-provoking, packed with knowledge and last but surely not the least, great examples. Where else can you find a Yagyu lineage of swordsmanship rubbing shoulders with John Wayne and Malcolm Gladwell! I know Ken virtually (having never met face to face) from his participation in the PhD Design listserv. Though his postings have reduced in number lately (becoming a Dean has something to do with it I think) they always have this extended erudite quality. I have to say that possibly the only reason I am on that list is to read his contributions. I have learned a lot from him over the years and it is great to engage in this conversation with him. BTW, he is a most interesting person, scholar, new-media artist, and design researcher, among lots of other things. Check out his wikipedia page to find out more. Truly a renaissance man born outside his time

Second, I am not really sure that Ken and I disagree here. I do not deny the importance of mastery and the need for it to be unconscious. The old joke about the millipede becoming unable to walk when they start thinking of their how they manage their feet, comes to mind. So automaticity requires processes to become unconscious. This automaticity happens in the actual doing of an activity – swordfighting or teaching. Neither can happen well if we are always second-guessing or reflecting on our choices. (Just a side note, the 10,000 hours that Gladwell talks about was noted in an earlier post by me here).

The only concern I have is that the use of the word unconscious may mislead us into thinking that mastery is just that and nothing more. Mastery to me requires an acute level of self-awareness. This reflection on action (or or Schon said reflection in action) is what I was trying to get at in my post, and if I read Ken correctly, at the end of the first email he essentially sympathizes with my view.

Note: This discussion or practice and automaticity reminds me of a great NYTimes piece on the foot movement of Roger Federer, the tennis player. The article starts as follows:

This is how Roger Federer transcends tennis before taking a single swing. He moves with feet that whisper when most squeak, guided by instincts more sixth sense than court sense, his head held still, as if balancing a book on top.

However, this doesn’t come easy. Federer’s trainer, Paganini,

designed drills specific to the tennis court… He made footwork fun for Federer again. Paganini also built three training blocks into Federer’s schedule each season during which the focus was on fitness and footwork instead of forehands.

. And when Federer is off his training it shows.

When Federer struggled in 2008, he had missed three of his usual training sessions in Dubai because of mononucleosis, the Beijing Olympics and a bad back.

[Read the entire article here and a lovely accompanying multimedia piece here.]

I had written earlier about the idea of Jugaad, the quintessential Indian idea of situational creativity. One of the masters at this is Arvind Gupta. Check out his website for tons of wonderful science toys and experiments that can be made from stuff we typically throw away. Very cool and a critical part of the kind of repurposing of artifacts we need for creative teaching.

Throwaway Technology, playful Pedagogy and powerful Content… who says TPACK needs hi-tech!

Via Major Fun (aka Bernie DeKoven) comes Arvind Gupta, winner of the Defender of the Playful Award.

I think she says it best:

It’s important for me to express myself creatively every day. I have all of these fun ideas in my head and if I don’t get them out I’m pretty sure my mind would explode. Realistically, I’d probably just get frustrated and fall asleep. But explosion or no explosion, doing something creative acts as a form of therapy for me. I feel better after taking photographs, making street art, painting, or making wall sized collages. The messier and more sweatier I get, the better I feel.

How cool is that!

Some cool stuff here. For instance check out Demolition City

Much to my relief, after weeks of discussion and thinking, we finally have a video for the word share. I am including all three videos here, in sequence, so that you can see just how these three videos work together. All three videos have original music composed by my cousin, Sonny Mishra.

7 tools… one big job: Explore

Click here to view the embedded video.

Emergence: Create

Click here to view the embedded video.

… and finally,
A helping hand: Share

Click here to view the embedded video.

(Other videos created by us can be seen here.)

As a part of the workshop participants worked in groups to “see” letterforms in the world around them (the alphabits activity above). Since there were 9 groups Mike and I selected the 9-letter word “Discovery” and each group was given one letter to look for (though we were careful not to let the groups know that the letters they were looking for would end up becoming a word!). These are three images made from the letters the groups came up with. Pretty creative, don’t you think?

You can see another version of this activity, looking for the alphabet in cracks here: Alphabet on Crack and more…

The PDF of my keynote presentation does not include the movies that I showed. The ones created by me and the kids can be found here. The Teach/Learn ambigram can be found by following the links from this page.

Enjoy.

I am involved with four different papers at this conference (details below) well as a few other meetings. I will try keep the blog up to date with the happenings. For now here are the titles and abstracts of the four paper accepted for presentation.

Disciplinary Knowledge Construction while Playing a Simulation Strategy Game Aroutis Foster & Punya Mishra

Abstract: Game-based learning has proliferated as a result of the claims people make about games and learning. Using a mixed-methods methodology, this study assesses the motivational valuing of the disciplinary knowledge and gameplay, the disciplinary knowledge gained by learners and whether the learners could transfer this knowledge into other contexts. Children with a range of game playing experience played a commercially available simulation strategy game for an average of 24 hours over seven weeks. They were given pre and post assessments for knowledge and motivation, a log sheet to document their progress of play through the game, and interviewed after each playing session. Analysis indicates that participants valued the disciplinary knowledge, learned disciplinary knowledge and skills, and were able to transfer the knowledge.

Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through Course Experiences Tae Shin, Matthew Koehler, Punya Mishra, Denise Schmidt, Evrim Baran & Ann Thompson

Abstract: Teachers’ understanding of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is critical in accomplishing successful technology integration in teaching. This study investigated how in-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching and technology changed as a result of a set of educational technology summer courses, conducted both face to face and online. A single-group pretest-posttest design was used to examine how in-service teachers’ understanding of the relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy changed over the semester. Twenty-three graduate students completed both the pre-test survey and post-test survey on teachers’ knowledge of teaching and technology. The results of dependent t-tests on each of the twelve sub-scales suggested that students gained deeper and more complex understanding of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Download Paper | Presentation

Examining Preservice Teachers’ Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in an Introductory Instructional Technology Course Denise Schmidt, Evrim Baran, Ann Thompson, Matthew Koehler, Mishra Punya, & Tae Shin

Abstract: Grounded in Schulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (1986), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has emerged as a useful frame for describing and understanding the goals for technology use in preservice teacher education. The TPACK framework acknowledges the complex nature of technology integration for teachers and the need to embed technology experiences in teacher education with regards to specific content areas. This paper describes a study that was conducted to assess how elementary education and early childhood education preservice teachers develop TPACK in an introductory course that used TPACK as a theoretical frame. A TPACK survey was administered to nearly 100 preservice teachers enrolled in a required introductory instructional technology course using a pre-test/post-test design. Results indicated statistically significant gains in all seven TPACK components with the largest growth in the areas of technology knowledge (TK), technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK). [Download the Paper]

Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for Discussions in an Online Course Enhance Perceived Social Presence and Student Interaction? Michael DeSchryver, Punya Mishra, Matthew Koehler, & Andrea Francis

Abstract:In this study, we investigated the effect of using the social network site Facebook for discussions in an online course. Data were collected from concurrent offerings of an introductory educational psychology course, one using Facebook discussion boards and the other Moodle forums. We measured student perceptions of social presence and the frequency and length of their discussion interactions. Evaluation of this data indicated that there were no differences in our measures. We discuss why the potential benefits of Facebook for online teaching may not have emerged in this study and provide suggestions for further research in this area.

I stumbled upon a piece (Lotus Blossom) by Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries the other day… and it was like nothing else I had ever seen. At some superficial level it looked like kinetic typography, but both simpler and more complex at the same time. For a while I didn’t know what was going on, but, slowly and surely, I got caught up in the flow of the music and the text, the resonances and dissonances. This was something quite different, and new with a creative and yet uncompromising aesthetic sensibility. Murakami (see here and here) came to mind, for some reason.

Their wikipedia page describes them as being a “Seoul-based Web art group consisting of Marc Voge (U.S.A.) and Young-Hae Chang (Korea).”

In an interview Y-HCHI describe what they do in this manner:

We combine text with jazz to create Flash pieces. It’s a simple technique that shuns interactivity, graphics, photos, illustrations, banners, colors, and all but the Monaco font, and at the same time cuts across the lines separating digital animation, motion graphics, experimental video, i-movies, and e-poetry. To us, though, it’s Web art.

Wow.

Check out Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries!!