I’m actually less interested in the validity of Garageband discussion that I’m getting us started on and far more curious about other disciplines that may have had similar experiences. Let me reconfigure my question so as to better relate it to ThatCamp LAC: are there programs in your own disciplines that your students use to facilitate their work that perhaps aren’t as well-suited for the task as something either potentially more complicated or less familiar? And if so, how do you work around the initial hiccup “why should I learn your less-user-friendly program when my simpler version *seems* to work too?

I won’t go into too much detail here since we may have the opportunity to discuss this a bit today, but Michelle I think you’ve actually highlighted my concern: is Garageband ACTUALLY a tool for composition just because that’s how it markets itself?

Composition has been hip to technology since at least the early 90′s. I personally have only once composed a work using pencil and paper…and that was during undergrad for a notation course (ha!). So I’m not sure this is quite the same thing as “let them use technology that helps them” as much as it is “by using THIS technology, is it still composition? And if not, what is it? Musical synthesis?” I relate programs like Finale or Sibelius more easily to an accountant’s calculator, and Garageband to a chef using a boxed cake mix. But if the results are the same (at least in theory) and if people are using the program out in “the real world” (Nine Inch Nails does their music on Garageband now), does it really matter?

Of course, the process between composing from notes vs. composing from loops is quite different. Maybe that’s where we want to pay the most attention?

Hmm… I know it’s my post, but I REALLY don’t have an answer on this one.

• platforms for digital archives—suggestions:
o Omeka omeka.org/
o Be Press www.bepress.com/
o Connexions (open source publishing outlet) cnx.org/
• how to improve North Wind digital archive? (www.snc.edu/english/nwarchive.html)
o database format rather than pdfs
o change platforms—see above
• archives available but low profile on the web—make friends with archivists to find uncatalogued sources
• how to make digital archives count?—computational, public/usage momentum
o digitalarchivesthatcount.wordpress.com/
• TEI www.tei-c.org/index.xml
o tapasproject.org/—still in development
o republicofletters.stanford.edu/ project from Stanford
• NITLE www.nitle.org/
o view case studies for descriptions
• clearinghouses for DH projects? LACs are working on it

1. Connecting Course and Project
• What are the learning goals of your course? Where do they intersect with your project? (See this recent ProfHacker post by @samplereality on “Planning a Class with Backward Design”.
o to practice critical and creative reading/writing skills
o writing for a wider audience
o dev new tech skills
o collaboration
• How does this project exemplify disciplinary practice?
o reading and writing
o ID audience
o process in addition to product
o collaborative research
• What research methods does this project require?
o collaborative research
• What level of work is required for this project? For example, are these skills that an incoming
• freshman has or can develop or does it require significant prior disciplinary knowledge? Can you define tasks at various levels?
o incoming with some training in writing/reading/tech
o intro to technology

- problem – what if we don’t have the tech support to help make the scoping questions

- drafting in another technology to model the final project and to figure out what kinds of questions need to be addressed
- start with the most basic and ramp up over the course the semester (map example)
- consider using poster or some other wrap up assignment to help students both reflect on their research as “whole” even if their work has just been a short segment

As methods we might consider aligned with digital scholarship or digital humanities make their way into courses, too often they are framed as pushing out valuable content. We might consider flipping the script and encouraging more classes to hold (and give credit) for lab sessions

Basically, the chefs meet in two parallel well-stocked kitchens. Then, the host presents a central ingredient that they must base their cooking upon, and they cook–trying their best to make the best-tasting, most imaginative, and interesting uses of that ingredient. They have a set amount of time to complete their task. At the end, a panel of judges gives their impressions of the chef’s creations, and assigns it a score.

I was riffing off of this idea by suggesting we bring our “well stocked kitchens” of technical and literary knowledge to focus upon the central ingredient of teaching Tartuff.

Sadly, I don’t know that I’ll have much time to work on finding resources. Could we do that as part of our time at camp?

I think getting agreement across campus to require certain tech skills attached to general education courses would be … interesting. Most of our faculty don’t have these skills and presumably get by without them.

And arguing for a new grammar makes me wonder about the inefficacy of teaching old grammar. Covering grammar in a course doesn’t typically make people better writers. In the same way, I wonder if learning how to use technology would actually transfer into using it well. I wouldn’t count on it, but I would agree that a lab attached to a course would be far better than a standalone course.

I would think one could use Google Docs or add notes to a .pdf as a class reading together. This would be social reading on a small scale, not like LibraryThing where you are sharing your reading history with the world and comparing your library to other people’s.

Kindle now has shared highlighting – but to be honest, I find it creepy. Also, I haven’t met too many students who are excited about reading this way. They are bothered that they can’t share the texts themselves, which are not even really owned but licensed. Funny how Kindle enables one kind of shared reading experience (I can see what other people have highlighted) but not another (I can pass a book on to a friend).

I love what you are saying here, BBoessen. This is a conversation that needs to happen. Are we really teaching writing to our students if we aren’t including how to do digital texts in a digital world?

I know that I spend an inordinate amount of time teaching my students how to use the technology–from simple “how to use a MSWord ruler” to “How to build a 3D object in Second Life.” A lot of the time I think I should be teaching a five credit course–three credits of English and two credits of technology.

I have discussed this issue with my college, and suggested that, instead of teaching a technology class that is supposed to cover all the bases (and never actually touches deeply upon ANY of them), that we, instead, teach a one credit “lab” course with each GE class.

For example, each math course would be paired with a 1 credit lab in Microsoft Excel/Graphing Calculators; each English course would be paired with a 1 credit lab in MS Word/blogging; and each Speech class would be paired with a 1 credit course in Powerpoint/Prezi/Youtube. I think it would be a lot more productive for the students to learn these programs as they need them in their “real” classes, and, as my students build skills, I can add requirements to my assignments (i.e. this week, you are required to include two hyperlinked sources and one embedded photo with caption into your writing assignment, etc.)

Well, I thought it would be fun to just bring ideas–even if you don’t want to read Tartuff! Any “teaching lit” sites, software, etc. is welcome . . . and if there is something Tartuff related, well, that would work too!

At some level, it seems you’re asking, “To what extent are simple digital networked media literacy techniques/practices, like turning dead text into a live link to somewhere, becoming part of the basic “grammar” of contemporary communication?” Is knowing how to post an update to your blog at the same level of literacy as knowing when to make a new paragraph? Or is it more like knowing how to format a bibliography? Or something else? And then, identifying that, how do we encourage our students to both understand the value of such tools and to practice them so they improve doing them?

I’m interested in talking more about this with some of you as well. (Although I do think at some level this may be a very personal question to answer, i.e., what is the amount of technique/procedure I want my students to be responsible for in this or that class?)

John: when you sent me Academic Commons a few weeks ago, I looked at it with the early plans for DHCommons in mind. There are points of intersection here that we should explore at THATCamp LAC.

John

Games are also unpopular with many students, often women (though not in every case). The CS course I’ve envisioned would focus on projects with applications to disciplinary interests, seeking to appeal to both women and men studying humanities. But I can certainly change those preliminary ideas if games or another focus would make a more helpful DH emphasis while retaining inclusivity.

I doubt we’ll ever stop having to learn technologies on our own. But strategically accelerating the process might make a huge difference. People in my field may attend sessions called ‘workshops’ and ‘tutorials’ to learn the current technological tools or practices. Such sessions typically occupy a half-day or day just before or just after a professional meeting; or, a site not connected with a conference may offer a workshop, perhaps lasting two days or more. Are there comparable models for training sessions in humanities fields? Perhaps a similar strategy could help people in DH to get a good start in some aspect of technology and how it could apply to DH scholarship and teaching.

So, my proposed topic is something like “Training and/or education in computing.” Here, I’m thinking of “training” as learning how to use technological tools and practices, and “education” as learning some disciplinary principles about computing. The latter requires some additional time and effort, but it offers deeper understanding, and greater flexibility and adaptability to new technologies as they (continually) arise. One can train without educating (or while educating very little), but it doesn’t work well to try educating without hands-on learning strategies, which could very well include training.

Faculty members may or may not have the time or interest for the deeper education in addition to their training in DH tools — I’d like to know. For students, I’m committed to try both educating and training a few through an introductory CS course with applications in DH, if I can determine what “applications in DH” may mean for them.

Will the community of DHCommons consist of humanists only? As a computer scientist interested in exploring DH collaborations, my disciplinary perspective would certainly differ from a lot of folks’ (although I hardly see myself as some kind of alien being).

I’d also like to suggest that the introductory computer science course Dick mentions could be really helpful for faculty, too. Well, something like it, anyway–would that there were more time for faculty to take courses as well as teach them!

I’m serious about that. I find myself in a boat similar to the one that Molly describes. I have some very limited technical skills, and I can teach some of these to my students–but having a stronger background myself would be useful, both for my teaching and for my own work.

Perhaps we could have some conversations around the idea of “Self-Help for the Untrained Would-Be Digital Scholar/Teacher: Figuring Out What to Learn, and How to Learn It 101.”

The address is dhcommons.org/, but it’s still in the prototyping phase and so not wholly public (though we’ll be able to kick that over before June 3). The basic idea of the site is to help link those who are running or starting DH projects with others that might be interested in helping or collaborating, and it’s very much geared towards helping those at small institutions who might not have the total support or skill set to complete projects. The site is the hub where one would go to actually search and find people or projects, but we’re currently trying to partner with a number of institutions to create a nationwide DH collaboration network. Hope that helps some.

Reminder: If you want to post as yourself after I have made you an administrator, please choose “edit” then “personal settings” and uncheck the “Always answer as ThatCampLAC.” Then click on the “use facebook as . . . (your profile name).” Then you can participate on the page just as you would on facebook and post what you want!

Dick, I love your question about how digital humanities should be evaluated for tenure and promotion.

As far as the Garage-Band challenge, I have to ask . . . how much should we be gate-keeping and requiring students to know something they can substitute with technology?

I get into a lot of conflict with my colleagues about whether or not we should be demanding pencil and paper tests to determine whether or not our students are capable of writing, or if we should be using technology and demanding our students know those tools (You can probably guess which side I am on).

This seems like the same question of Garage Band, the question of whether math students should be able to use calculators, and whether English students can use grammar and spell-check.

Do we want students to learn to use the tools we have, or use the tools that people used to have when technology didn’t exist? How much is this legitimate concern and how much of it is trying to keep our fields “elite”?

Yes, that. I’d like to propose a session entitled something along the lines of Oh Crap: I Discovered an Interest in the Digital Humanities after Grad School and Now Have No Clue How to Learn Various Digital Skills.

For instance, despite the facts that I’ve built a website and am currently revising my library’s site, my understanding of css hovers at the what-happens-if-I-change-this-bit? level. I suspect many of us are either currently learning by mucking about, or have faced the need to learn new tech skills without much support in the past. What strategies are best for developing these new skills on the job?

I’m very eager to have this conversation. I don’t know of any models for such a course, and I’m sure it will take multiple offerings to settle, but if interested folks can sit down in a room together and talk about what we all do and want to do, I’m confident we will find plenty of material for us to teach CS principles through DH examples and practices, giving humanities insights about computing and experience with some relevant tools and techniques.

I wonder if enough others are interested in this idea to consider a session…

For another example in another field altogether: In the 1970s, two mathematicians proved a famous theorem that had been an unsolved problem for about 100 years. Their method was new: they divided the problem into thousands of special cases, and used a computer to check most of those cases, leaving only a few dozen cases to check by hand. This created a disciplinary controversy at the time. Did this first computer-assisted verification of the theorem constitute a legitimate proof? Mathematicians have long since accepted computer-assisted proofs, but it was a live question at the time.

This issue of whether to accept technology-assisted methods has concrete implications when it comes to scholarly evaluation, as you indicate. I’m in no position to say how to count things in music composition. But we all need to think carefully about how to advise and evaluate digital humanists (and digital artists) for tenure and promotion, especially in the light of this issue.

I urge another element in this discussion, especially in the context of young faculty: academic recognition. Learning new technologies and finding effective ways to integrate them in scholarship and teaching will likely involve large investments of time and energy, leaving less of each for traditional (and well-understood) disciplinary work. All young digital humanists, including those who can build on prior investment in these technologies (perhaps made during graduate school), will stand for evaluation by tenure and promotion panels that include persons without personal exposure to these new methods. Even those senior faculty who support the digital humanities movement (which might not be everyone) need a well-founded context for making those evaluations. We need to insure that quality work in digital humanities receives appropriate recognition, and that young faculty members who pursue these new approaches receive the thoughtful advice they need as they make progress in their academic careers at their institutions.

I want to raise awareness, not an alarm. These issues can be addressed by pro-active action, such as updating disciplinary statements of criteria for tenure and promotion, and through effective faculty mentoring. But I think a discussion by our group would be timely.

Using Social Media in the Classroom: I’m personally overwhelmed by media, so I’ve been slow to adopt social media. (Thinking about joining Twitter for this unconference…) On the other hand, I am using more and more interactive technologies (mostly web forms) in my teaching, and I find them very effective. I’d like to listen in on this conversation, hoping to see how it relates to things that have been working for me.

What Happened to “Humanities” in Digital Humanities? I’m a computer scientist interested in collaborating with humanists. I am actively seeking projects in which humanities professors and their students team with computer science professors and their students, to produce useful computational tools for exploring questions those humanists care about, with everyone contributing from their own areas of expertise. Having a professor or student with expertise in both fields obviously facilitates this kind of collaborative project, but I aim to show this isn’t a necessity.

Using ePortfolios in the Classroom: I’d like to hear what the state of the art in ePortfolios may be — what features they offer, what makes them effective, how flexible they may be. (We plan to use them primarily for program assessment at this point.)

I’ll be very interested in talking with you about that introductory course. I’m in the process of designing an “Intro to DH” course for St. Norbert, and one of my challenges is figuring out how to convey the necessary technical skills to my students. I have some technical abilities, but not enough to encompass the range of possible approaches my students might take in the course. In other words, I’m going to have to rely on either students’ prior knowledge, or on what they can pick up independently and quickly. A collaboration with computer science would make sense, but none of our small CS faculty are particularly interested in the digital humanities (I hope they’re only not *yet* interested). I’d love to talk about how CS faculty and humanities faculty can collaborate to create such courses.

(A) Where does computer science fit in the digital humanities conversation? My field is more about designing computation than using standard software or media; but when I talk to a colleague in another field, we can usually identify at least one computation to design relevant to that colleague’s research interests that may extend beyond what was formerly feasible. Might this be a useful niche for computer science in digital humanities?

My twisted take on question (B) and some followup comments: How might an introductory computer science course help prepare students for digital humanities? We plan to pilot such a course in the Fall, and I’m naturally hoping to collect examples THATCamp for inclusion in our course. But as computer scientists, we especially want to help students learn creative ways to think about computation, and how to design and create computations of their own for answering questions in humanities disciplines. Are there particular software systems or forms of media that have sufficiently wide usage among digital humanists that we should seek to include them in our course?

Sally, I too am interested in learning about digitizing written materials, beyond just capturing images.

I should clarify that my approach would lend itself more to designing new computations for supporting particular research investigations than to using either standard software systems or various forms of media.