Lately, quite a few people have been asking some version of the question, “What is the relationship between digital pedagogy and DH?” The most recent example that comes to mind is Alex Reid’s post “The Digital Humanities Divide.” There Reid notes that, even though some rhetoric and composition specialists have been studying how writing and writing pedagogy have evolved in the wake of digital technology since the PC arrived on the scene nearly 30 years ago, one isn’t likely to find computers and composition studies in DH journals or at DH conferences. In addition, although the panel, “Where’s the Pedagogy in Digital Pedagogy?,” that a couple of my colleagues organized for the MLA this year was included in lists of the conference’s DH sessions, I think a number of people might argue that digital pedagogy isn’t *really* DH at all. I’ve certainly seen at least one or two grant descriptions that specifically exclude “primarily pedagogical” applications from the kinds of projects that might be eligible for funding. This last may be due more to a perception that there are separate sources of funding for pedagogical projects, rather than a perception that DPed is not DH, but it has contributed to my own uncertainty regarding how the two are related.
From the way some of the other proposals are shaping up, I think we might use some of our time at THATCamp SE to reframe productively this discussion by considering the question, “Can we put DH into our DPed?” I know that a number of us are pushing the boundaries of assignment design in order to engage students in what Bruno Latour might call “compositionism,” and what I tend to think of as doing things *with* objects of study or creating our own new objects of study, alongside the more traditional (at least in the lit classroom) activity of writing *about* literature. In my own classes, I’ve had my students use Media Wiki to create a collaborative repository of community knowledge. I’ve also worked closely with a couple of colleagues to design an assignment where students used a digital learning platform that I helped build to create digital critical editions of short texts. Some of my other colleagues have given their students assignments that involved creating aesthetic or useful objects, both real and digital, and writing about them. Might we argue that DPed is related to, even if it doesn’t exactly fall under the umbrella of DH because it involves students in using digital technologies to build things?
I don’t know, but I think the question could lead to a useful, not to mention exciting, exchange of ideas. The many questions we could ask and discuss include the following: Should digital humanists be concerned with ensuring the resources they create are accessible to the average student at Small State U as well as fortunate scholars working at elite institutions? What pedagogical and ethical issues do we confront when we think about involving students in the work that goes on at DH centers and on DH projects? As Roger has asked, what place, if any, should building have in a classroom centered around humanistic inquiry? Finally, and this is my own particular hobby-horse, to what extent should intellectual property controls be relaxed to accommodate innovative educational uses of pre-existing work? In addition to Roger’s proposed session, I also think this topic complements and might be folded into or combined with the sessions that Pete, Miriam, and Michael have proposed.
#1 by Pete on February 24, 2011 - 9:06 pm
This may seem like too obvious of an assertion, but the problem Robin is raising is a digital version of a reality in the academy for years: teaching counts for peanuts up against research. Some institutions try to balance the scales, but, at larger universities anyway, profs who publish prolifically attract more raises and praises than their colleagues who spend time on critical practice of teaching. Robin’s suggestion that DH grants sometimes exclude pedagogical projects could be just an extension of this decades old institutional bias.
It raises the question: is a conscious and artful digital pedagogue better able, because of the tools she uses, to “prove” the effectiveness of her teaching? Could that challenge the status quo?
#2 by mzbaile on March 1, 2011 - 9:22 am
Relatedly, I wonder how we can start to shift the tenure process so that digital scholarship and pedagogy count for more. Can we discuss ways that we can start to push administrations collectively to put more stock in the digital humanities?
#3 by Brian Croxall on March 1, 2011 - 9:01 pm
One of my favorite attempts to define DH came last September from Chris Forster in a post on HASTAC. The thing I like so much about his post is that he suggests that DH should include cultural criticism (which Roger is asking for) and using digital pedagogy. Indeed, that’s where most of my own DH work has taken place: in trying to give students in a literature classroom some transferable skills that also allow them to think differently about what they’re reading.
As for grants and digital pedagogy, I can report that the NEH, at least, is interested in the pedagogical application of digital work. I sat on a grants review panel in December that looked at 25 or so grants that were particularly pedagogy focused. I don’t know how many of those grants will ultimately be successful (the final results have yet to be announced), but it was encouraging to see pedagogy being made part of the field in this way.
As for what mzbaile (sorry, I don’t know your given names) is suggesting: it’s not so much the administrations that we need to convince of the usefulness or “countability” of digital work as it is the tenure committees in our own departments. That’s where the real work needs to be done.
Pingback: In/Out, DH, Pedagogy, or Where it all Started | triproftri
#4 by Susannah on March 2, 2011 - 1:22 am
This looks like it is shaping up to be a great discussion. I agree with Pete that the issue here is how to get this work counted, not just “digital pedagogy” but an emphasis on good teaching in general. This is a central concern to those who work in the scholarship of teaching and learning; folks who research and publish on their own teaching practice in disciplinary journals or even in their own web sites.
There is lots of good stuff out there that connect to the idea of building as learning and providing moments of transfer and application for students. One particular resource to check out is Randy Bass’ and Bret Eynon’s 2009 report on the Visible Knowledge Project: bit.ly/lR4M
People who were related to this grant project are now in administrative positions in departments and as provosts, so I think we may be at the very, very beginning of seeing people who care about pedagogy being in a position to count it towards tenure or recognize its importance.
Finally, it’s important to put a spin on Pete’s important question and ask how do tools prove their effectiveness in helping students learn?
#5 by Katy Crowther on March 2, 2011 - 1:41 pm
This is definitely one of the conversations I want to have at THATCamp. I think it taps into our broader discussion of what the Humanities should in fact encompass, and there’s some overlap with Roger’s proposal and Pfyfe’s.
#6 by Lauren Pressley on March 2, 2011 - 9:37 pm
I think this could be a fruitful conversation, and one I’d like to participate in. I work a lot on the digital pedagogy side of the scale, and would like to also contribute more on the digital humanities side at my place of work.
#7 by Robin Wharton on March 6, 2011 - 2:21 pm
Not really sure if this is the best place to post this, but Lauren Pressley has a great write up of session notes on her blog:
laurenpressley.com/library/2011/03/thatcamp-pt-2-digital-pedagogy-digital-humanities/