JiTP: The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. 4 (2013)

This article is an investigation into the effects of digitally encoding literature texts on the teaching of close reading in an English Literature class. Singer argues that using digital tools and having students engage with their own encoding of texts should be a method of close reading, and work in addition to compliment the traditional practice of hard copy annotation. Singer then discusses the differences between teaching with HTML and TEI, for which examples are included. The main section of the article lays out the benefits that occur through having UG students engage in encoding as a close reading exercise. These include: digital highlighting which encourages sharing, refocusing reading, coming to terms with unfamiliar technical language and practices, discovery of unseen links, familiarity with a text due to the number of hours spent with it, and forced formal choices on categorisation. The remainder of the article discusses how working with TEI impacted upon Singer’s students’ learning experience. This includes analysis on how to successfully categorise and tag phenomenon in ‘experimental’ poetry that does not follow the format of other more traditional forms of poetry. Also, how to transfer classical terms in literature analysis effectively to TEI. Singer concludes that “as [her students] tagged and then colour coded their readings, [they] gained the editorial prowess and creativity to develop interpretive language beyond note or prescriptive terminology”; something that she decrees is perhaps more useful than what is gained from only a hard copy and ink highlighter pen.

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.

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

This chapter explored what it is that should be taught under the heading of ‘Digital Humanities’. Here is presented five case studies, the experience of organising/teaching of which, means that the author argues for a focus on teaching new methodological approaches to humanities problems and issues, rather than just giving students technical skills. Students should be trained in collaboration and professional cooperation: an issue that has been facing educators for some time, and whilst may be linked to a rise in digital literacy, it has not arisen because of it. Social networking could be used to teach this, though this may require further exploration before being successfully and formally integrated into a curriculum. There also need to be an awareness of how Millennials have grown up: “the Google search has become ‘research’ and thus they need to be taught how to go beyond the ‘point and click’ that they have come to accept as the norm. The chapter then goes into detail of the case studies of the course delivered by The Department of Digital Humanities at KCL, which are as follows: (1) One day training in XML and TEI – targeted at academics engaged in collaborative research (2) One week intensive training on Medieval Manuscripts – aimed at PhDs and includes theoretical classes as well as practical application of digital tools (3) An UG course ‘Introduction to the Digital Humanities’ – takes students from a wide range of disciplines, often who lack motivation for truly engaging with technologies involving the use of angle brackets, with some taking the class just to fulfil credit requirements (4) An UG module on ‘Texts in the Digital Humanities’ – following on from the previous course, with students taking it to “modernise” their degree, or out of a genuine interest in the technology (5) A PG module on ‘Advanced Text Technologies’ – taken by students on the MA in Digital Humanities and also the MA in Digital Culture and Society; not usually taken by other PGs, but most of the students are far more motivated to take in the same material as the UG modules. There is also more emphasis on modelling and analysis than just technical skills. The author concludes that there is a requirement to teach research methodology using DH, not just skills. It also needs to be relevant to the students and grounded in their own research/study area interests in order to retain their attention. The chapter ends with the hope that the wider arts and humanities will embrace the usefulness of DH and the DH approach once they see how successfully it can help those who engage with it.

CEA Critic. 76.2(2014), pp221-4.

This article explores the ways in which the DG exposes the limits of existing disciplinary methods and pedagogical tools. Through the power of digital tools, manuscripts and texts can be reanimated and explored in new ways to allow students to see more of the text, yet at the same time, examine it closer. Ives explored this paradox in detail and then goes on to look at the ways in which students who do not fully understand the underlying assumptions about textual structures within HTML and XML might be frustrated by digital teaching, rather than having doors opened to them. Whilst it may be interpreted that it is the goal of all technology to erase limits, there must be a continued awareness that DH pedagogy is most productive when it provokes teachers and students to wrestle with the gap between what is available, what could become available or doable, and what is the best way to force interaction between the old and the new. The example Ives uses here, is from Sarah Ficke’s students who saw their technology fail when they were asked to use OCR on nineteenth century texts; they had to come up with another method to achieve the aim. Ives emphasises that ‘hitting a wall’ is not necessarily a bad thing for students or for their teachers. That it is from the possibility of things falling apart, that the most valuable teaching, learning and invention can arise.

CEA Critic, 76.2 (2014), pp.191-99

This article discusses the use of DH in the teaching of English Literature, and specifically the pedagogical value of the digital tool Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). The merits and pitfalls of teaching with TEI are explored at length; not just the practical hurdles but the theoretical ones also. Negatives include, for example, convincing students that the time consuming and labour intensive task is worth it, even though it can be frustrating to beginners. Also that it requires relatable take home computers and a classroom licence for software that may be difficult to obtain for teachers who are the first in their department or institution to use this teaching/learning method. She then goes on to discuss the pedagogical benefits of attentive reading in that it offers a rigorous, systematic and somewhat flexible way for students to inscribe a view of the text onto the text itself. The students would often come across the difficulties of encoding during the process of the task itself, and as long as they were made aware in advance that they could account for them, and overcome them, then they tackled these difficulties well. Gailey also found that by letting students (or groups of students) chose their own aspect of a text to investigate, that they then could bring an individual focus to the text that might not have been widely explored before. Being forced to write a rational explanation for the focus of their project and what kind of critical lens inform it, adds to any assessment that could be made on the encoding itself, and including the development of customised tags, and methods for quality control. Asking students both to think about texts from a material or representational perspective and to contribute creatively to cultural knowledge is the hallmark of many digital humanities classes. Gailey concludes that rigorous digital editing in the humanities is currently based on TEI and whilst this may not always be so it is important as the market gives rise to new technologies and digitally inclined researchers develop competing standards.

For a great summary of Amanda Gailey’s experience of teaching close textual analysis, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEXXS4V76y8 for a sixty minute talk that she gave at the University of Kansas in 2014.

Heather Froehlich blog. 29 January 2014.

This is a blog post on the author’s involvement in an interdisciplinary DH course called ‘Textlab’ at the University of Strathclyde (near Glasgow, UK) where the departments of English and Computer Science collaborate. The learning aim is to teach English students digital skills, and to give Computer Science students experience in aping their skills practically to a ‘real’ scholarly scenario. Froehlich uses this detailed and accessible blog post to explore the learning curve of the English students during the course, as well as what she learned and changed as a teacher of this course. The first step was in teaching English students computer coding, so that they had some understanding of the mechanics of the wider project. The English students struggled with this as they generally had very little coding experience. Froehlich describes how she dealt with the confidence issues of these students, and how practically she found it best to approach problems that arose when a student has no comprehension of how to engage with the computers. Froehlich sees her role as helping her students to understand not only what they are doing, but why. Her further experiences of this course would be interesting to follow further.

JiTP: The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. 4(2013). With Valerie Cruz, Dylan Grozdanich, Randy Holaday, Amanda Kolstad, Alexander James Papoulias, Ilyssa Russ, Genevieve Sanvictores, Erik White

This article is an extensively detailed picture of the work done on BeardStair: a project conducted by several MA students at a large public US university. It also provides a reflective history of the wider DH and the role that such projects can play in HE teaching. The research agenda of the project was to produce a scholarly digital edition of several rare books which had been anonymously donated to the San Jose State University Library. Those involved in the project believe that it yielded “unique implications for administrators, faculty, and students who are interested in building DH projects and fostering collaborative digital pedagogies”. The majority of this article is a narrative account of the foundation, initiation and continuation of the BeardStair project. This includes the difficulties that occurred with funding (including Kickstarter), development of legitimacy (defining what they were attempted to do and why it was important), retention of participants, and issues over proving accuracy. This account of the project is illustrated with screen grabs and digital images. These images enable a visualisation of the progression of the project from the initial discovery of the texts, through the ‘brainstorming on a whiteboard’ phase, to the development of a user interface on the webpage and final publication, so that others can share in the projects findings. The article concludes with a summary of what the students who participated in the project gained through their involvement. Not only in terms of DH skills, but also in the intricacies of project management and collaboration. These skills are transferable outside of academic, and demonstrated the intrinsic value of such projects to students.