I am now wrapping up my graduate class on “Introduction to the Digital Humanities,” which I taught for the first time. Judging from the conversations and presentations we had, in and out of class, and the quality of student work that is just beginning to come in, I thought the class went well and I would like to teach it again. I know that I learned a tremendous amount.
We met once a week, and each class was divided between discussion of readings; reviews of existing web projects; and a lab (the syllabus is here). When teaching it again, I would think about making a few modifications:
- The readings were a bit heavy. Most weeks, we had to squeeze in time to discuss the readings, as we ended up spending most of our time on project presentations and labs. At the same time, the readings each week were more organically drawn into the conversations, especially about web projects – the web sites that we examined were, in any case, almost always mentioned in the readings so there was a connection. For example, we might read an article that deals with argumentation in digital history that mentions Scalar and Black Quotidian; examine Black Quotidian; and then do a lab in Scalar. In the future, I might try to scale back the readings to make these connections even more tightly, and perhaps explicitly categorize other readings as recommended rather than required.
- We experimented early with students taking responsibility for and presenting the assigned web sites in class. They really enjoyed this (as did I) and so we continued. Each class we aimed for three 20 minute presentations/discussions about the web sites. I will more explicitly build this into the course. At the same time, I will be more explicit about the nature of these presentations. Something along the lines of:
- Before class, everyone will look closely at all of the assigned web sites, and annotate them using hypothes.is. [I originally wanted to use hypothes.is for student annotations on readings, but as the semester progressed I thought that it worked better for annotating web sites. We used a private group that I created just for this purpose (although there was occasional confusion about groups when people actually posted)].
- If you are assigned a project to present, plan on taking about ten minutes to present it, with the goal of about ten minutes of discussion to follow. Your presentation should focus on the topic with which we are dealing with that class. In the class on “Data Modeling,” for example, focus on how the project models their data. You should also touch on: (1) the goal of the project; (2) to what extent the project accomplishes, or has promise to accomplish, its goal; (3) the data used by the project; (4) what tools or methodology are applied to the data; (5) what you liked most about the project; (6) your most significant suggestion for improvement.
- The labs, usually conducted by the staff of the Center for Digital Scholarship at Brown, were great but ended up being a bit lecture-heavy. Moving forward, I would want to give more explicit directions to students about which tool(s) they should look at in advance; which tutorials they should complete (there are many excellent ones online, especially at The Programming Historian). Then labs would be more hands-on, with exercises to complete.
- Project presentation. In this course, I had left the final project requirement a bit vague. I now have a clearer sense of what would work, which I can make more explicit from the beginning of the course. About two-thirds of the way through the course, each student presents their project in a workshop format. The “project” here means the full vision of the project. What do you want to accomplish and why is this format the best way to accomplish it? What data will you use and how will you acquire and model it? What tools will you use for analysis? How will you present and preserve it? What is the workflow? Are there relevant ethical issues? These presentations, which have to be relatively short, will be discussed in class.
- By the last day of class, each student will have developed a working prototype or “proof of concept” digital project that we will share and discuss in the class. We might use hypothes.is to offer feedback. After this discussion, though, I do not expect any more work to be done on the prototype.
- The final, written assignment. It is due during Finals Week. These are the guidelines I used for this class:
Your final project is a written document that takes the rough form of a grant proposal. Think of it as a road map that you use to think through the various sticky issues – theoretical and practical – of your project and to convince a reader that you have. It should be single-spaced in 12 point font, and will probably be 7-10 pages. We’ve been over the components of such a document in class, and as you put yours together largely follow the NEH guidelines. Specifically, and to repeat, it should include:
1. An explanation of your research question and/or public history goals, what you want to create to answer to it, and why a digital project in this form is the best way to meet your goals. This should be no more than a page and refer to relevant scholarship (use in-line references).
2. An “environmental scan”. What digital sites, projects, and tools are most relevant for your work, and why? Any models for what you want to do? Embed the links. This should be about a page.
3. Data. What is your data and where are you getting it from? Are there special features of your data that, for example, make it hard to work with? Is it already in digital form or do you need to digitize it, and if so, what is the plan? This might be up to a page.
4. Data modeling. For your project, what will the data look like? Why did you pick that way to model your data and not another? What are the pros and cons of your choices? This will probably be about two paragraphs.
5. Analysis and Dissemination. What platform, tool, or tools will your final project use? Why that platform? Are there any challenges that you still need to overcome to use it? About a page.
6. Workflow. You already have tested workflows for your prototypes. Outline, with specific target dates and tasks, what needs to be done to accomplish the goal (which may, at this phase, still be short of the final vision). Try to be realistic and highlight tasks that you anticipate being potentially problematic. This should be about 2 pages and is in many ways the heart of the proposal.
7. Data preservation. Each of you is creating new digital data. You never know how it could be useful to others! How will you preserve it and make it accessible? What metadata will you use and how will you use it? This is just a paragraph or two.
8. Legal and ethical issues. Are there any legal or ethical issues that you need to address?
9. Budget with justification. This is optional, but you might want to try your hand at it. Budget also means accounting for time – what do you need, in terms of time, money, and other resources, to realize your vision? How much time will each phase take? Look online to see how you can get the approximate figures you need.
10. Bibliography. All written and online references.
This has been, obviously, a very strange semester. After we were evicted from campus, we had one Zoom meeting for the project presentations and then went asynchronously. For the last class (devoted to presenting the prototypes), students recorded and posted 15 minute presentations (they mainly used Panopto), each into their own discussion forum. The rest of the class was then invited (a soft requirement) to comment on the presentations of their classmates. I also watched all of them, went to the sites they created, and sent feedback. It worked well and gave students experience with remote and recorded presentations, which, unfortunately, looks to be a skill that will be increasingly necessary in times ahead.