M/C Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4 (2015)

This article discusses the new generation of digital curation tools such as scoop.it, and the implications these have on ensuring that HE graduates are equipped with the appropriate metacognitive skills so that they can successfully function in an increasingly digital workplace. The authors define digital curation as “the art and science of searching, analysing, selecting, and organising content” and state that by teaching it to HE students, it allows students to develop skills in the evaluation of web-based sources. The majority of the article examines a case study where first year UG ICT students use scoop.it to “curate an annotated collection of resources pertaining to a particular topic”. Scoop.it requires users to critically evaluate material as it is collected, rather than just amassing it as other tools which claim to be for digital curation do; such as Pinterest. The method of the study is then detailed, including information on the two parts of the assignment; a traditional essay about an aspect of new technology, and an annotated bibliography. Students were asked to create a Scoop.it presentation on their chosen new technology and then curate content to assist the writing of their essay. Following the task, students completed an online survey regarding their experiences. These included demographic questions, qualitative answers and multiple choice answers – there were specifically on whether or not the task aided their digital skill development. The answers to each of the multiple choice questions are analysed by the authors in detail; but overall the picture presented is that most of the students believed that the task encouraged them to critically evaluate non-peer reviewed digital sources. However, the students were not necessarily confident in their ability to differentiate accurately between good and poor content. The authors use the results of this study to state that there is a strong indication of the “benefits of combining digital curation tools with formal content evaluation instruction.”

CEA Critic, Volume 76, number 3 pp.336-342

Lenhardt discusses her experience of incorporating digital literacy (mainly requiring students to work with digital image collections), during her time teaching at a small private University, where the library did not have many resources. She has found that many students know the difficulties in obtaining digital images, and if they are required to do so for an assignment, will often begin research for their projects far in advance. This tended to be with second year students onwards, who had found that the process had been left too late in the first year. Lehardt addresses the merits of this failure and a learning experience, but also considers the fact that more teaching and learning could have occurred in the students’ first year, had they been introduced and guided through the difficulties at the start of their time at University. There were some instances where students were more digitally literate and savvy than their teachers, yet did not know the proper academic procedure for digital research; and it is these media-consumed, millennials that need their teachers to engage with this technique gap, so that all involved can overcome it. The remainder of the article discusses the ways in which students should be introduced to digital resources as early as possible, so that they could access them effectively for present and future projects; as well as opening their minds to the idea that working in research need not be solitary work in a dust achieve. She wanted to use her assignments to influence her students’ perception on the new direction that DH research is going, though Lehardt did come across many difficulties in the assessment design for her courses.

This is a section of her assignment details (it is a Shakespeare related project):

The assignment asked the students to meet the following objectives: (1) to use the Folger Shakespeare Library’s Digital Image Collection, the National Portrait Gallery, or the Tate Britain so that they could gain more experience working with digital archives and researching how actors and/or artists have interpreted Shakespeare in different time periods. (2) To practice researching and writing about primary and secondary sources. (3) To write a five-to-six page research paper on an image(s) found in the Folger Shakespeare Library’s Digital Image Collection (or another approved site, such as the Tate Britain or the National Portrait Gallery). Students could choose to write on no more than two to three images or artifacts due to the short length of the paper. The Folger Shakespeare Digital Image Collection, the Tate Collections, and the National Portrait Gallery’s Collections are massive and daunting to sift through if one is a novice researcher. She therefore tested searches out beforehand and talked with the librarian about narrowing the scope of the assignment so that students did not get overwhelmed with the number of choices and images. Lehardt concluded that extensive scaffolding is needed to conduct such an assignment for most first year students, and that this could be gradually brought down by the time that a similar project was to be given to final year students.

Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics. Brett D. Hirsch, ed. Cambridge: UK, OpenBook Publishers, 2012

Part of the NYU Public History Programme, these authors discuss how digital technology has fundamentally altered the archival, public history and editing landscapes through the use of new media and digitisation of analogue resources. Thus students need to be educated in the methods, skills and tactics to manage digital resources and integrate new media into existing industries that employ historians. The article continues to discuss, at length, the need to alter the way in which students need preparing for careers in archiving, public history, museum professions and historical editing. The emphasis is on the importance of incorporating digital skills into degrees, not only in theory, nor only at post-graduate level but with practical experience throughout their course. The chapter details the NYU archives and public history program’s experiences in reconfiguring a long-standing program and integrating digital skills throughout its curriculum. A detailed discussion follows on what type of course should be made core, and what type should be electives, before suggesting how internships could follow on from these classes, to utilise the skills in a ‘real world’ setting. There is a fascinating section entitled ‘Capstone Projects’ that discusses the assessment of digital projects and the challenges of integrating new technologies; rather than having a separate DH faculty, they work in a silos structure which they acknowledge has some weaknesses. The final part of the chapter is a discussion on student feedback about the curriculum changes, highlighting the generally positive response to the course, as well as concerns about a possible overemphasis on digital material and a shortage of possible historical content in the course – students were mainly worried that the digital aspect would overwhelm the other important aspects of learning how to work in archives and the like – mainly this was addressed with making sure the accreditation was balanced, through constant evaluation of the students’ needs.