Routledge, 4 Apr 2014

This book acts as a review of research by leading digital literacy scholars from around the world, and is as up to date as possible with new technology (as of 2014). The authors intend this book to be used as a reference guide, directing readers to the central issues in a cross disciplinary context, with explanations of theoretical themes throughout; it is indexed as so, to best facilitate this handbook goal. The book is primarily aimed at scholars from the following fields: ICT, library and media studies, cognitive science, educational studies (in all its forms), and linguistics. However, the authors do state their hope that graduate students in all disciplines will also find this text a help during their studies, and to this end the final section of the book contains commentary by top scholars on a selection of relevant studies. These aptly show the merit of multiple interpretations of research and the various uses that outcomes could be put to; ergo this could also be of use to administrators, course directors and institution policy makers. The book is split into six sections as follows: (1) “Methodologies” – looking at current research on new literacies in an extensive variety of areas. (2) “Knowledge and Inquiry” - where several varying perspectives are examined on how it could be best to fulfil the potential of new media in regards to knowledge acquisition. (3) “Communication” - where the latest (as of 2014) research on new communication media is examined e.g. social networking tools. The roles of language and gender are also examined in this section. (4) “Popular Culture, Community and Citizenship: Everyday Literacies” - looks at research in online worlds such as gaming and fanfiction, as well as the issues surrounding the role of digital citizenship. This section also looks at collaborative work and projects. (5) “Instructional Practices and Assessment” – looks at classroom teaching and assessment in a new literacy context from early years education through to HE. (6) This is the section that sees the reprints of articles with critical evaluation and commentary. As a large and detailed handbook, this publication is highly effective. It would be a great reference text for anyone interested in the integration of digital literacy into many aspects of research, teaching, or even day to day life.

Computers & education 76 (2014): pp.55-69

This article argues that there are two aspects of digital literacy which are crucial educational tools: the ability to search for and find good information, and the knowledge to know what makes this information good. The authors state that what makes good DL skills is “self regulated learning” (SRL) skills and “availing epistemic cognition” (EC). This study looks at how these two components of DL interact, through the use of “think aloud protocol” (TAP) with 20 UG students who were given the task of studying vitamins on the internet. There is a heavily referenced review of literature pertaining to the theoretical background of this study, including definitions of DL, self regulated learning epistemic cognition, relations between SRL and EC, measurement of SRL and EC and finally think aloud protocol. An overview of the study is given which details the aim of understanding college students’ learning gains whilst using the internet. The method of the study is subsequently detailed including information on the participants, procedure and the scoring rubric, before progressing to the data sources and the think aloud verbalisation and coding of micro level processes. The results look at how much knowledge was gained during the study. This is a highly technical analysis that would require background knowledge to fully appreciate. In conclusion, the authors state that their findings demonstrate how TAP data collection and the subsequent analysis can be “successfully applied by researchers to the study of complex learning behaviours when engaging science topics in the multimedia, hyperlinked contexts of the internet”.

Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 2010: pp.179–225

This article aims to show that although there is a widely held belief that cheap computers and internet access is narrowing the digital literacy divide in the US, that there is still (as of 2010) a gap in students’ home access to technology. The gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is even greater in regards to abilities to use technology to its full capacity. The authors of this article compare the digital revolution to that of the printing press revolution in the extent that it has transformed people’s lives and the way in which students are taught. They state that it is this importance that demands equality of access in order to allow equal opportunities of social and academic development. The main body of the article examines statistical information looking at the implications (in terms of job prospects) for those who do not have as wide an access as others do. Also looks at is how access is supported or constrained by social factors. Following this, the question of use is addresses by an analysis of the variety of levels of deployment of ‘new media’ for education, entertainment and socialisation. After this, the authors address the question of outcomes by examining statistical information on academic achievement and involvement in technology centric careers. The final section of the article looks at a case study of “disparities of involvement in computer science study” which demonstrates who the issues of outcome, use and access are interlinked. In conclusion this article uses interesting statistics on demographics, internet speed and educational attainment to illustrate that there is still work that needs to be dome in terms of equality of access to the digital world. This will aim to ensure that sections of society do not unfairly miss out on the benefits of technology. The parting words of the authors stress the future problems that may arise in the testing of DL skills if the popular standardised tests for academic potential and attainment, continue to be favoured in the US.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,54(7), 2011, pp.535–7

This short article looks at what digital literacy is and how it can be taught. The authors also briefly address how a teacher might know if their students have acquired the DL skills that they have been taught. In the section “What is Digital Literacy”, the authors examine ow DL is not simply electronic reading and writing, as well as defining what being ‘literate’ practically means in the context of DL. This involves looking at the wider DL environment such as multimodal activities, authenticity and audience perception. An example from teaching history illustrates the authors’ point by looking at how in a US History course students examining the bureaucratic process can engage with written minutes, videos of meetings, website testimonials, message boards, automated phone systems etc. Through reading and comparing these elements, DL skills are developed organically. The section on how to teach digital literacy gives a step by step activity focusing on an element that frequently occurs in DL tasks: ‘truth telling’, the activity is laid out in detail and is regarding news stories from various media outlets. It highlights the potential depth of student exploration that could be used, and the wider lesson on the subjectivity of online sources. The aim of such lessons is to realise the potential of independent and interdependent student development. The article concludes with the authors stating the importance of learning digital skills, digital citizenship and digital evaluation, rather than students just being digitally literate. Needs of students may become increasingly “squishy”, but the skills learnt will enable them to adapt more adeptly.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Web of Science, 2008

The purpose of this book is to explain to teachers how they can incorporate digital literacy into their classes to aid their students’ learning and engagement with issues such as content analysis and perspective, as well as looking at the usefulness and validity of information on the internet. The book is useful for finding examples of class case studies, plans for teachers to follow on the incorporation of digital skills (such as online source evaluation), and examples of digital citizenship teaching opportunities. There are also examples for the deployment of the exploitation of digital tools for collaborative work. The introduction of the book looks at the definitions of ‘literacy’ and ‘digital’ and examines the overlap area of the Venn diagrammatic terms. The differences between competency and fluencies are also discusses here, along with the implications this has for the teaching of DL. The author states that the book is intended as a philosophical guide, rather than a ‘how to’ manual. Overall it aims to “look at ways to use networked technology and online learning environments for critical literacy skills”. A short overview of the chapters is as follows: (1) “Media Literacy: Broadening the definition of Computer Literacy” which proposes changing current definitions by teaching though a classic rhetoric, ethos, logos and pathos filter. (2) “Civil Literacy: The Cyber Pilot’s Licence” looks at the need to teach students the history and evolution of the internet, along with digital citizenship, responsibility and netiquette. (3) “Discourse Literacy: Beyond The Chat Room” which looks at online discourse in greater detail, including how to manage student’s unhealthy cyberspace habits. (4) “Personal Literacy: Discovering Oneself Online”, is a chapter that examines online identity and the role that DL plays in this. (5) “Community Literacy: Composing Ourselves in a Virtual Community” which further develops notions of online identity by examining digital storytelling and also looking at collaborative classwork. (6) “Visual Literacy: Websites, Rhetorically Speaking” looks at the authenticity of online sources including visual sources and how to teach critical evaluation of material to students. This chapter also includes guidelines for the analysis of web documents. Global literacy is also covered here. (7) “Evaluative Literacy: Peer Reviews, Electronic Portfolios and Online Learning Records” introduces the concept of a “hypertext writing workshop” and looks at how a writing journey and the composition process of DL can be pulled together. This chapter also looks at Online Learning Records and other alternative assessment methods. (8) “Pedagogical Literacy: Plugging Into Electronic Pedagogy” looks at the need for constant evaluation and re-evaluation of pedagogical strategies for teaching DL; answering the question “how do teachers use computer technology to teach literacy skills?” Overall, this book is best examined in a linear fashion, as each chapter builds on the previous, rather than as a reference book. It is engaging and entertaining as well as insightful and practical.

Social and Behavioural Sciences Volume 154, 28 October 2014, pp.104–111

This journal article looks at the case for the incorporation of digital aspects of English for Academic purposes (EAP) into wider curriculums. This is to incorporate the skills in digital literacies into student development. The article begins by looking at some frameworks within the digital literacy field, most of which were influenced by the New London Group (NLG)’s ‘Pedagogy of Multiliteracy’. The two key frameworks examined are: ‘The Competency Framework for Teachers of English for Academic Purposes’ (focusing on the competencies of EAP teachers), and ‘The Can Do Framework’ (focusing on the competencies of PG students in HE). The main aim of the article is to argue for more inclusion of digital literacies within the pre-existing EAP curriculum, as well as the wider teaching of EAP. The authors look at the need for digital literacy across a range of student groups (traditional, mature, international etc) and how digital literacy would improve teaching and learning in HE. A summary of issues in DL follows this, such as the incorporation of new terminology, higher participation demands, multiauthor works and meaning making. The final part of the article focuses on DL in practice. Here the authors examine the central aspects of multiliteracy pedagogy and locates it in the wider EAP field. These aspects are identified as: (1) Situated practice – group collaboration with expert oversight (2) Overt instruction – traditional teaching but with a key reflective component (3) Critical framing – matching the teaching objectives with the learning objectives, and then reconciling this with the students’ objectives (4) Transformed practice – relying on the two previous elements to allow “contextualise assessment of learners and the learning process devised for them”. The authors conclude by looking at whether the teaching of DL can really be seamlessly incorporated into a EAP curriculum where the main instructor is likely to be a language specialist. Teaching students DL competencies is not likely to be assessed in the same current EAP linguistic/literary framework; and so would possibly require specialised separation for the most effective outcome.

This article is a presentation of research which investigated computer literacy levels amongst Korean UG level students. The main purpose of the study was to look at differences in digital literacy levels between humanities students, and those whose degrees expect them to have higher levels of digital skills, such as in the computer sciences. The authors start the article with a short history of the information society, and then discuss the concept of Millennials as ‘digital natives’ and how this may impact upon their learning. Following this is a brief interpretation and breakdown of digital literacy indicators including: (1) the ability to recognise and apply community communication techniques (2) the ability to recognise and apply community information sharing (3) community ethics evaluation ability. This includes copyright and social responsibility. Following this, the methodology of the study is detailed, as is a break down of the results. The conclusion of this article states the findings of the study which are as follows: humanities students spend a far greater number of hours working online and using an array of digital tools, and these students has a greater awareness of the wider issues surrounding digital literacy. This included skill in sharing information and acquiring further information for critical reflection. Whilst these students of humanities express some difficulties in grasping the technical intricacies of the digital tools they used, they appeared more than confident to integrate them into their studies. The study showed that for the computer science students of this Korean University, that the wider community implications of how they utilised digital tools, were not something that they showed either familiarity with, or appreciation for. The author makes the following suggestions for the development of the measurement of digital literacy in UGs: (1) measurement should not be weighted in favour of students studying technical subjects, as there is more to digital literacy than the mechanics of tools (2) Standardisation of ability indicators should be developed for specific digital tools (3) The ability to adapt tools for new and evolving purposes should be recognised. Overall, the author calls for more work on the development of educational policy on the teaching of Digital Literacy at UG level; and this should involve interdepartmental collaboration if at all possible.

New Media & Society, 17(10), pp.1733-1749.

This article explores the use of digital technologies among students and faculty at a Serbian University. It looks at how tensions around digital literacy levels on an institutional level can mean that technologies are not always integrated as smoothly and as extensively as would have been ideal. The authors look at these institutional tensions using the classic social theory of Max Weber, and demonstrate that the theory can be updated to now include immaterial resources, such as digital literacy skills. This empirical case study of the digital divide in Serbia’s HE shows how new technologies shape information, communications and collaboration dynamics within an educational environment; and that there is a growing divide within Serbia between the ‘haves and have nots’ of those students able to obtain digital literacy skills. The authors’ main argument is that “where students are routinely learning new technologies… professors remain reluctantly to consistently adopt”, then gaps arise that hinder teaching and learning. The main section of the article looks at the application of Weber’s theory to digital literacy skills; with emphasis being on the relationship between digital literacy and e-Learning technology. This is because, the authors argue, that these skills are more directly relevant to classroom experiences. There is also some discussion over whether the socio-economic backgrounds of the students makes a difference to their uptake of digital literacy skills during their early HE experiences. in interviews with UG students in Serbia, the authors found that many Millennials rate their own self-learnt skills very highly, but lament that the common view of their skills is that they focus too heavily on the entertainment aspects of social media, rather than constructive skills with digital tools. Almost all tutors interviewed held this view, and were dismissive of networking as a valuable educational tool. The article then illustrates the gap in teaching quality between digitally literate professors, and those who dismiss opportunities to acquire the knowledge. In conclusion, the authors state that there is a great ‘digital divide’ in HE in Serbia; and that this may be overcome through the natural progression of younger professors into positions of teaching influence. The main message that the authors appear to convey is that students in Serbia who obtain digital skills at university often do so despite of their professors, not because of them, and that these students excel in their post HE life more frequently. This article provides a useful contrast of the HE system in a country other than the UK or US, and how resistance among faculty in Serbia to embracing of digital literacy may cause difficulties for their students.

Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11., 2014

This article looks at the impact of the lag in digital literacy learning and teaching at many universities. Murray argues that “digital literacy is widely acknowledged as essential and germane in today’s highly competitive and global markets”; to the extent that she states it is a crucial life skill comparable to reading, writing and arithmetic. Murray calls for digital literacy to be “assessed, remediated and amplified” at a university level, rather than these important skills being just taken for granted or assumed to be adequate. The first section of the article examines definitions of digital literacy, before moving on to look at the evolution of models of digital literacy (including a useful diagram). Murray then looks at how the need for digital literacy has “become increasingly critical to success in any education discipline or occupation”. The adoption of structured digital literacy initiatives varies globally, but as these skills become increasing prerequisites for so many jobs, Murray states that Universities in the global West need to focus on conquering digital literacy teaching. The current state of affairs (2015) in Canada, the US, Europe and the UK is discussed before Murray sets out the methodology and results of her digital literacy assessment. This assessment was administered to fourth year undergraduates at a regional US university, and demonstrated the lack of structure in the teaching of digital literacy as well as vastly varying skill levels among students. The details of this study would be of great use for anyone seeking to conduct similar research. Murray concludes the article by reiterating the importance of digital literacy, not only to student satisfaction in terms of their employability, but also on a wider country level in terms of economic growth and competitiveness. She also emphasises the need to constantly re-evaluate what digital literacy skills are taught, as the field evolves so rapidly.

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.

English 203, Winter 2012. English Dept., University of Calgary

A module from the University of Calgary’s English Department that was taught in the Winter of 2012. It is devoted to data and critical reading within English Literature, and aims to teach students the use of digital tools, and how to use to discover new information about Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The format of the course was a humanities lab with half of the contact hours being dedicated to the hands on learning (and hopeful mastering) of digital tools. Emphasis appears to have been placed on the collaborative nature of using digital tools within an academic environment. However, the assessment breakdown shows that only 50% of the assessment was actually on the group work. Digital tools used in this module were: Wordhoard, Tapor, WordSeer, Voyeur and MONK. The module website includes details on all areas of assessment used in the module including: an encoding exercise, a twitter assignment, the two team projects, and the final (individual) paper. Grading boundaries and the course schedule are also included on this webpage, though the grade boundaries do appear to be standardised across the University of Calgary, rather than module or DH specific. There is also a link to the professor’s series of blog posts on various aspects of the course design, and a full outline of the course through Google Docs. The twitter feed of the professor is also accessible and highly interesting. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkI4dUlWaXM5QyHqQbY7W47FjNVOqumI9DMpGTjGm7A/edit?hl=en_US http://ullyot.ucalgaryblogs.ca/category/teaching/w2012-engl203/ twitter.com/ullyot

CEA Critic. 76.2(2014), pp.158-68

This article focuses on the digitisation of so-called literary texts (poetry, drama, fictions etc) treated at works of art rather than cultural documents; highlighting the fact that standards of accuracy and precision for these works of art are different from the standards used for cultural documents or texts for linguistic analysis. Questions are raised over what is lost through the digitisation process, not just in terms of accuracy, but regarding the loss of context, for example, from a papyrus or parchments. Shillingsburg has taught students where is it not physically or realistically possible for students to physically engage with primary sources, so it is important to teach them what they are losing through only engaging with digitised representations. Does the integrity of a source need to be sacrificed for ease of accessibility? How do teachers convey this to a generation who see everything digitally? These are questions that Shillingsburg states that educators need to address. He goes on to discuss what exactly he believes makes a digital archive; stating that the text, or facts, alone are not enough. Images of the texts and sources are needed to make an archive trustworthy, in his opinion. Also, he states that the sources having no weight, smell or texture mean that digitised copies are rarely suitable for the best teaching, and that is before the errors that have been included in the digital copies during transcribing. Following this, Shillingsburg details at length the errors that could occur during digitisation. The conclusion states that all the elements that are lost during digitisations could be attempted to be rectified through extensive marking up of texts to include contextual information.

CEA Critic. 76.2(2014), pp.169-90

An article centred on close digital analysis of the poetry taught in a chronological survey course of American literature, considering ‘digital humanities tools as a means to reconsider the anthologized texts of literary works’. Raabe uses the differences in the punctuation in various copies of Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” to teach that through slight variants, the message of a text can be dramatically altered; and how are we to know which of these variants was actually what the author intended? Digital facsimiles, online transcriptions, and DH research tools that permit students to visualise textual variation allow students to review alternate versions of literary works as a classroom activity, even during undergraduate survey courses. Raabe discusses how he uses this pedagogy with examples including Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” and Emily Dickinson’s poetry manuscripts. The second half of this article discusses how the teaching of such a literature survey course has changed over the generations, and whether the teaching of anthologies is any longer relevant when students, trained as consumers, have instant access to a media-rich archive of all texts ever written. Raabe argues, in conclusion, that ‘One reason to introduce digital humanities skills to students of literature is to encourage them to think critically about such commercial trends and to seek opportunities for them to engage with literary texts in a wide array of material forms.’

Literary and Linguistic Computing.

Museum Studies students, in Marsh’s experience, do not currently (2013) have a passion to engage with new DH technology, that now looks set to become the future of their chosen profession this article presents how Marsh introduced three years of her students to the merits of DH through a module on digital curation, as well as an online exhibit developed within a material culture seminar. Marsh uses Omeka, (the “free, flexible and open source web publishing platform for the display of library, museum, archives and scholarly collections and exhibitions”) with her students to demonstrate how dimly technology can meld with their current studies. The questions March put to her students during this course were as follows: (1) What does material culture look like on the web? (2) How do you curate it? (3) How does the public interact with virtual objects? (4) What is the relationship between virtual and physical museum artefacts?. The article goes on to discuss how these questions were tackled by students, including the practical examples of how the students were taught to operate Omeka. Marsh also includes an example of how she chose to challenge and stretch those students who excelled at the use of digital tools. Marsh concludes that this paper is but a mere snapshot of what she intends to be a far larger 10 year project of integrating into Museum Studies the now essential digital skills that students require. She intends to follow up with her students as they look for, an take up, graduate work in museums to ding what skills and tools are needed in real scenarios. The question then needs to be more seriously addresses, Marsh argues, is how the necessary skills and technical techniques can be integrated into academic programmes to train the professionals of the future in the best way possible.

Digital Humanities Quarterly. 1.1 (2007).

This article discusses the gaming activity and literary form known as the ‘quest’. Focusing mainly on game theory, Howard uses this article to propose ideas on how ‘quests’ can be used in literature classrooms. He examines debates between narratologists and ludologists, where narratologists analyse games as works of storytelling, and ludologists maintain that games should instead be mined for the meanings inherent in the components related to play, such as rules and simulation. It is a debate of games vs storytellers, which many in an UG classroom will be familiar with. Howard then details various types of quests and how they arise in game formats; including how this relates to literary forms such as the hero narrative. Following this, Howard suggests ways that the understanding of quest elements can allow teachers of English literature to create assignments which have students transform traditional literary narratives into ‘quests’ in a digital game format. An example of this assignment is extensively detailed, in a descriptive narrative that includes formation, classroom delivery, student perception, assignment outcome, and finally assessment. Howard believes that through an activity such as this, student will engage more with the intricacies of storytelling within well-known works of literature. Students could also benefit from being encouraged to map the world experienced in literature into a simulated geographical space: this could allow a more realistic conception of the movements of the characters during the events of the story to be realised. Howard suggests that through the design and comparison of conceptual spaces, along with ‘real world’ locations within narratives, students could better comprehend how comprehend how various works of literature were constructed. This will reinvigorate the students’ interest, as well as making them aware of the relationship between digital storytelling tools, and their subject of literature, which they may have not thought of nor experienced previously.

The Lapland Chronicles. January 7, 2012.

This s a transcript of a talk given a the 2012 MLA as part of a session entitled ‘Composing New Partnerships in the Digital Humanities’. The topic of the talk is regarding a desire to increase the level of “communication and collaboration between digital humanities and writing studies scholars”. The talk beings with a short history of both disciplines marginalisation within the tradition subjects of academia. With writing studies being viewed as just a “service wing” of English, and DH being viewed as the technology enthusiast who “inhabited a corner” in various Arts and Humanities departments. Gold then moves on to discuss tech-rhet-listser, where conversations have shown that members of the comp/rhet community tend to misunderstand the DH as merely a digitisation project. This conception misses the following key components of DH: (1) The emphasis on collaboration (2) Work on network platforms and networked open source pedagogy (3) Openness in DH in terms of open source tool building and open access scholarship (4) The ‘eternal September’ of new student keen on taking part (5) The huge interest in DH on networked pedagogy (6) Interdisciplinary and multifaceted nature of DH. Gold believes that some writing scholars are missing an opportunity to share resources with the DH. The talk concludes with a plea for more openness and collaboration to enable clearer communication for the benefit of all.

Digital Humanities Quarterly. 5.3 (2011)

Does digital pedagogy have to be electronic? This paper discusses the idea that digital pedagogy is too frequently conceived in terms of instructional technologies. Technology, at least in its electrified forms, can be a limiting factor in imagining how humanities instruction can be "digital": something to get your hands on, to deal with in dynamic units, to manipulate creatively. What might an electronically-enabled pedagogy look like if we pulled the plug? This paper surveys several examples to suggest that an unplugged digital humanities pedagogy can be just as productively disorienting as doing humanities digitally, and can potentially help students prepare for and contextualize their learning experiences with instructional technologies or in online environments. The most accessible example is of the close and distant reading of the Austin novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’. Depended on how it is counted, the term ‘pride’ appears between 6 and 9 times more frequently than ‘prejudice’. This is interesting in terms of the vocabulary choice of the author: where pride describes a character trait, prejudice is more of a relational term: changeable, situational, and more dangerous to accuse someone of. Looking at where in the novel the frequency of ‘pride’ occurs, it can be seen at three key character introduction points. At a distance, the reader can see the ‘hot spots’; moving closer, the reader can analyse their contexts; and somewhere in the middle we start to learn about the novel’s reformation of pride through Elizabeth’s perspective. Though there are criticisms of using this method to teach about a novel, there are many values. Particularly for students whose interface with digital texts and resources is driven by search engines or guided by keywords and text strings. Unplugging the search engine can help students perceive the limitations as well as the possibilities of what makes these engines run: pattern matching. A method such as this sharpens students’ attention to forms of analysis that explore the analogue and digital domains along a continuum. It helps students to interrogate the various kinds of readings they can do therein. And it reveals all of those kinds of readings as actively constituting critical interpretations. Fyfe then moves on to discuss various different teaching methods for integrating DH into a class schedule; for instance he uses an example he takes from Ramsay, Stephen. "On Building." Stephen Ramsay. 11 January 2011. Web. 13 July 2011. After working on programming on Mondays and Wednesdays, his class devotes Fridays to a theoretical text on new media or the digital humanities. But no one gets to read it in advance. Instead, on "No-Reading Fridays", the class takes turns reading, paragraph by paragraph, the text projected on the classroom’s screen. After two such Fridays grappling with Heidegger’s "The Question Concerning Technology", the class had covered only eight paragraphs, but Ramsay declares that "I truly think that this is one of most enlightening class discussions I’ve ever been a part of (either as a student or a teacher)." The format allows the seminar to flourish, and "the professor is only a very small part of what’s going on." Fyfe asks if this is different from a seminar where everyone works from the same edition of a physical book. He concluded that it is not, yet for a graduate course in digital humanities, where much of the attention is on the digital realm and on theories of new media, it is a chance for everyone to be on the same page — literally — where the page is projected on the wall. Because no one (save the professor) has read it before, the seminar reimagines real-time information processing in a very old fashioned way. This is what Fyfe terms ‘teaching naked’ as it is meant to be understood: using technology effectively, subordinating it to the pedagogical goals of the class.

Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. (Autumn/Fall 2015)

A course to be run in the first term of the 2015-2016 year at the University of Pittsburgh; open to both UG and PG students. Course requirements include regular (preferably 100%) attendance due to the nature of the digital skills building learning schedule. Participation on the course blog site, discussion boards and completion of the tests/quizzes is required by all students taking the course. The course use designed specifically to give students the knowledge and skills involved in quantitative and formal reasoning with the context of the interests and needs of students studying and working in the humanities. There is no prerequisite at this time (Summer 2015) for programming knowledge. The am of the course is to use digital tools and techniques to “identify interesting humanities research questions’. The assignments for the course are the required readings, programming ‘challenges’ or ‘problems’, response papers and a large research project (conducting in collaboration). The module site goes into detail about how these will be organised and assessed, with qualitative indicators of the level expected. The weight of each requirement is as follows: 25% homework assignments, 15% taken from the six best test scores, 10% midterm ‘take home’ exam, and 50% on the final research project During the course XML will be taught along with several meta languages (W3C Scheme, Relax NG and DTD). The formal course outcomes are described as follows: “upon successful completion of this course students will be able to 1) identify opportunities for the application of computer technology to authentic research problems in the humanities; 2) analyse the structure of texts in the humanities and develop formal representations of those structures; and 3) write original computer programs to conduct research on those texts.”