1. Technology has created a society constantly in a state of transition. With each new generation comes new natives and new immigrants, those familiar and those unfamiliar. Today digital natives and digital immigrants are facing evident changes. The way we gather information is changing. The way we interact is changing. The rate at which we do things is changing. All of this is a result of technology. Digital Humanities gives us the chance to explore the implications of these changes on society as a whole.
2. The fundamentals of learning and knowledge have indeed changed and continue to evolve each day. We are not the “Dumbest Generation,” rather a generation with a new set of skills. We are not less intelligent; we simply use knowledge and learn information differently than digital immigrants are used to. Today we need collaboration not lectures; we need to learn concepts not singular facts; we need networking and socialization not isolation; we need interactive learning not sit back and listen. We need new outcome objectives not standardized tests. The immigrants ultimately need to accept this change, for the digital natives have fundamentally changed. We should harness this change and seek its full potential.
Erik Kile:
“…would the Internet as ‘the communicative backbone of real intellectual and civic change’ become a reality sooner if Digital Humanists [STUDENTS] become more vocal about their work? It’s an exciting field, there’s no denying that.” This is the question that Schlitz turned back at us on our last day of discussion. She ended the last discussion of the semester with this. That means it’s important. That means she cares about our opinions and believes that other people do, too. Natalie started us off strong and I wouldn’t change a thing about her second point, that (not-so)modern-day centralized learning is inconsistent and resistant to our collaborative internet culture: it’s exactly the sort of thing the digital immigrants need to hear from us. Allow me to try my hand at it…
1. The students in this class were born in a transitional stage: we have proved to be pretty adept in all things digital, but we were heavily influenced by the aging technology of our parents and grandparents. With the technological advancements that occur every day (and will continue to occur into the future), we can’t imagine the digital landscape that the babies of 2010 will be growing up in. Should we be worried for them? No, of course not. ”Every generation has faced new technology and thought that their children would be profoundly affected…just because they may experience childhood through a different medium, they will still experience childhood and gain crucial experiences necessary to become an adult” [quote from Katrina at the bottom of my post, "Digital Literature (and more Cute Babies)", here]. The format of a children’s book, for instance, won’t really alter the effect of a masterful storyteller. Children will still roar like the Wild Things and get lost in Seuss’ colorful landscapes regardless of how they are delivered. ”People will always crave entertainment, just in new forms, new mediums” [Natalie's comment - same post] — “And I think that no matter how technology changes, literature will go with it [Jordyn's comment - you get the idea].
- – - – - – - – - -
Grace—my favorite quote from my writings this semester…
“it provides not only access, but insight”. To me, the ever changing field of Digital Humanities is unique in that it is giving us new ways to view something that we have seen before. As we have demonstrated in our final projects, we can give easy access to classic works or subjects, but we can also present them in a new way. Also, with the vast options that the internet provides, we can supplement the works we provide with other features that can offer interactivity or a unique learning experience.
Digital Humanities is learning and accepting the digital ways of our world, and putting them to use, to form innovations so great, they can better not only the humanities, but the world.It is about learning what everyone has to offer, and using these offerings as tools to expand research possibilities. I think Digital Humanities is pertinent and is extremely necessary for molding students into citizens who can do more than survive in this digital world; they can use this digital world to create, teach, and enlighten.
I believe that teaching Digital Humanities to undergraduate students is critically important. Today’s college undergrads are part of a unique, new generation. We have been immersed in this new climate every day, surrounded by the digitization of the world, and yet most students probably know very little about the actual study of Digital Humanities. makes scholarly work more attractive. so little is being done to truly integrate technology into new teaching and learning practices. Teaching Digital Humanities to undergrads can be beneficial because it gives insight into how the onset of technology has changed our world, and how we can change with it.
Though learning Digital Humanities does not need, as a goal, to turn its students into scholars, it can prompt them to make their work a little more worthwhile. The study of humanities is truly an art form, and if this practice is not passed on to the next generation, using the new tools that we are accustomed to and can use easily, the art form will be lost.
It is therefore baffling as to why the concepts of DH are not taught at the undergraduate level. To say that the the ability of DH thrive lies in those that were born and raised in a digital age, is is foolish to wait for them to come into h as older students. To reach out to the youthfulness of undergraduate students would be like reaching into a goldmine of creativity and ideas. These ideas are often times looked as wasted upon useless online forums and social networks, even calling this generation the “dumbest”. I ask then, why do we not inform and educate ignorant minds of the ways that the internet can be used to further their own knowledge? the course would need to inform the students of what DH really is, letting them define if for themselves. It would also be important to not scare the students away with too much technical specifics. It would be best to look at this class as a introductory course that would allow a little dip into each pond of knowledge in the field of DH. Who to be more interested in the flaws of how they are learning than those that are paying money to learn.
How could Digital Humanities have evaded me after eighteen years of immersing myself in not only the humanities, but also technology? How is it that, in the era of digital communication, so few digital natives have been introduced to this field? Why is the body of work that defines digital humanities made up of pieces written by individuals who are immigrants to this age?
The whole class collaborates and interacts. EVERYONE’S opinion matters and all inquiries are valid.
If we, the digital natives, don’t want to be known as the “Dumbest Generation,” we need to harness this fundamental shift in our learning styles and knowledge. We need to show the digital immigrants that “our way” is just as good as the “old way.”DH opened my eyes to these implications of technology.This course exposed me to the effects of the digital world in my life and society in general. I learned that we are not less intelligent; we simply use knowledge and learn information differently than digital immigrants are used to. Today we need collaboration not lectures; we need to learn concepts not singular facts; we need networking and socialization not isolation; we need interactive learning not sit back and listen. We need new outcome objects not standardized tests.The immigrants ultimately need to accept this change, for the digital natives have fundamentally changed. We should harness this change and seek its full potential.
Technology can both inhibit and facilitate the learning process for kids our age. It can serve as a tool for intellectual assignments, or as a distraction, which gave us the title of “the Dumbest Generation.”
DH has changed me. It has made things real to me that I knew were out there, but I never really examined closely.
- By a professor with significant experience in the DH field – willing to bring in experts (guest speakers & lecturers are phenomenal assets) to cover the topics they are not qualified experts in
- A small classroom (NOT INTENDED FOR A MASS LECTURE SETTING) where a tight community feeling can be easily and quickly established
- Around technology and computers (clearly a necessity)
Guidelines/Restrictions:
- In my personal opinion, THIS SHOULD BE A REQUIRED COURSE FOR GRADUATION FOR EDUCATION MAJORS OF EVERY DISCIPLINE (and I will explain why later)
- Students, in some way, shape or form, should have some collective project to contribute to the developing field
- Definitions/Topics/People that need to be covered and studied: XML, TEI, Collaboration, Digital Nation, Transcribing, Transcribe Bentham, Clay Shirky, Sherry Turkle, Mark Bauerlein, John Unsworth.
- DH is a new field. It needs new ideas, new input, fresh blood – and who better to give it, than those natives who are the experts in this field, yet old enough to be mature, insightful, educated and honest – undergraduate students. Plain and simple
We can safely assume that a majority of the population does not know what DH is as well. In order for this subject to gain the support it needs, it needs to be known. People need to talk about it, be informed about it, and learn about it.Should any undergrad be able to take this class? I believe that the answer is yes. If, as in the case of our class, only honors students are allowed to take the class, a portion of the educated population will miss out on this important issue.
XML, copyright, text analysis, Google analytics, incorporation of visualizations, crowdsourcingIf DH takes a motivated person to study it and not all of the general public studying DH is motivated, then not all of the general public should study it.meet a gpa requirement (maybe a 2.5-4.0). n addition the professor must be open to changes in the syllabus.
The introduction of DH to students should be gradual. Elementary students should be using deliverables. Technology should be a component of their education. High school students should be made aware of the significance of good resources – separating things like the Perseus Project (real DH) from something akin to this (charlatan.)DH is undoubtedly deserving of study, but it cannot support itself as a department / major / occupation.The field is entirely interdisciplinary. We need to collaborate to make DH. DH can exist solely as an interdisciplinary department.The number of straight DH classes should be minimal. Maybe an introductory course like this one, some more focused seminars. Mostly, however, DH should be a component of every single department.
very important that they have a “clear-ish” idea of what the class entails so they aren’t taken by complete surprise. Digital Humanities is still developing as an undertaking and they will be helping to expand and even maybe pioneer this at the undergraduate level.Students earlier than undergraduate study should have contact with different types of digital humanities so they can start to form new ideas but they aren’t ready yet to really comprehend the subject matter.When students take DH they need to understand they will not just be using technology but trying to understand the implications of technology on our society.They have to be expected to collaborate to make projects and fully embrace everything DH has to offer.
In fact, I think it’s safe to say that as Digital Natives, we are unconsciously gaining skills every single day that may be utilized in the promotion of Digital Humanities. So why aren’t we? ”We want them to grow up and to blow us away…but we just don’t see it happening,” says Mr. Bauerlein in this video from the PBS special, Digital Nation. We’ve read and heard enough statistics to know that he’s not just making this up. But what exactly are we doing wrong? I’d like to argue that we haven’t done anything wrong; we’ve simply been misguided.It isn’t a question — we need a pedagogical shift. And who better to lead the charge than us?we actually do have the power to take control of a flawed system and shape the future.We’ve proven ourselves (in this class, at least) capable of being innovative, creative thinkers. We just need to be given the chance to show that in an environment that promotes it.Rather than fussing over a definition of DH, why not kick back and embrace its multifarious nature?Because it’s different for everyone. The science major approaches things differently than the literature major — this diversity is a necessity to the field of Digital Humanities. I’m thinking back to our group research project. John and I were interested in Beat Literature and chose that as our starting point. When we mentioned to Chemistry Kenneth that the Beats were wont to experiment with various drugs, he and Derek took our project somewhere that John and I never could have imagined because we just don’t have that sort of knowledge. Using a mass spectronomy spectomotron spectrometer to look for traces of drugs of the actual manuscripts? Blew my mind. The rest is history.Why not, then, split it up into a couple different classes, making the DH basics and concepts the requirements. I firmly believe that, given the opportunity, my peers at the undergraduate level could not help but find the field of Digital Humanities to be an engaging one. The tools are right in front of us every minute of every day. How can we prove our skills and creativity unless we’re given the chance to? I am by no means an expert, but my first-hand experience tells me that change needs to come quickly.
——————————————————————
**Organized in paragraphs, without the numbered list:
How could Digital Humanities have evaded me after eighteen years of immersing myself in not only the humanities, but also technology? How is it that, in the era of digital communication, so few digital natives have been introduced to this field? Why is the body of work that defines digital humanities made up of pieces written by individuals who are immigrants to this age? Technology can both inhibit and facilitate the learning process for kids our age. It can serve as a tool for intellectual assignments, or as a distraction, which gave us the title of “the Dumbest Generation.”
If we, the digital natives, don’t want to be known as the “Dumbest Generation,” we need to harness this fundamental shift in our learning styles and knowledge. We need to show the digital immigrants that “our way” is just as good as the “old way.”DH opened my eyes to these implications of technology.This course exposed me to the effects of the digital world in my life and society in general. I learned that we are not less intelligent; we simply use knowledge and learn information differently than digital immigrants are used to. Today we need collaboration not lectures; we need to learn concepts not singular facts; we need networking and socialization not isolation; we need interactive learning not sit back and listen. We need new outcome objects not standardized tests.The immigrants ultimately need to accept this change, for the digital natives have fundamentally changed. We should harness this change and seek its full potential.
Digital Humanities is learning and accepting the digital ways of our world, and putting them to use, to form innovations so great, they can better not only the humanities, but the world.It is about learning what everyone has to offer, and using these offerings as tools to expand research possibilities. I think Digital Humanities is pertinent and is extremely necessary for molding students into citizens who can do more than survive in this digital world; they can use this digital world to create, teach, and enlighten. DH has changed me. It has made things real to me that I knew were out there, but I never really examined closely.
It is therefore baffling as to why the concepts of DH are not taught at the undergraduate level. To say that the the ability of DH thrive lies in those that were born and raised in a digital age, is is foolish to wait for them to come into h as older students. To reach out to the youthfulness of undergraduate students would be like reaching into a goldmine of creativity and ideas. These ideas are often times looked as wasted upon useless online forums and social networks, even calling this generation the “dumbest”. I ask then, why do we not inform and educate ignorant minds of the ways that the internet can be used to further their own knowledge? the course would need to inform the students of what DH really is, letting them define if for themselves. It would also be important to not scare the students away with too much technical specifics. It would be best to look at this class as a introductory course that would allow a little dip into each pond of knowledge in the field of DH. Who to be more interested in the flaws of how they are learning than those that are paying money to learn.
I believe that teaching Digital Humanities to undergraduate students is critically important. Today’s college undergrads are part of a unique, new generation. We have been immersed in this new climate every day, surrounded by the digitization of the world, and yet most students probably know very little about the actual study of Digital Humanities. makes scholarly work more attractive. so little is being done to truly integrate technology into new teaching and learning practices. Teaching Digital Humanities to undergrads can be beneficial because it gives insight into how the onset of technology has changed our world, and how we can change with it. Though learning Digital Humanities does not need, as a goal, to turn its students into scholars, it can prompt them to make their work a little more worthwhile. The whole class collaborates and interacts. EVERYONE’S opinion matters and all inquiries are valid. The study of humanities is truly an art form, and if this practice is not passed on to the next generation, using the new tools that we are accustomed to and can use easily, the art form will be lost.
CONCLUSION:
As we said before, Digital Humanities is about not only learning and accepting the digital ways of our world, but also about how to apply these strategies to our education. From our DH class, we found that DH isn’t just one thing. It’s not a fact or a definition one can memorize. It’s not something that can be understood in 5 minutes- or even 5 weeks. It’s something that is on a completely different level than any other subject or idea. It’s real. It’s relatable. It’s understandable. It’s intellectual. It’s sophisticated. It’s essential. If we could take all of these thoughts and ideas from a course we were so unsure of in the beginning, imagine what college students in the future could glean from Digital Humanities.
Our full story is chronicled on our class blog (stephanieschlitz.com/dh) for all to see. Hopefully, this poses an example for other universities to integrate a course such as this one into their cirriculum.
<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:”Trebuchet MS”; panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} –>
We are a group of fourteen undergraduate students at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, enrolled in an Honors course – Introduction to Digital Humanities. As our final, in fitting with the themes that we have studied, we have been inspired (and, thankfully, allowed) to draft, for the 4Humanities project, a manifesto.
Undergraduates should be learning about DH. Digital Humanities is learning and accepting the digital ways of our world, and putting them to use, to form innovations so great, they can better not only the humanities, but the world.
How could Digital Humanities have evaded us after two decades of immersing ourselves in not only the humanities, but also technology? How is it that, in the era of digital communication, so few digital natives have been introduced to this field? Why is the body of work that defines digital humanities made up of pieces written by individuals who are immigrants to this age? We appreciate and respect immigrants’ contributions, but natives have the perspective – we need to take over. “We want them to grow up and to blow us away […] but we just don’t see it happening,” says Mr. Bauerlein in this video from the PBS special, Digital Nation. We’ve read and heard enough statistics to know that he’s not just making this up. But what exactly are we doing wrong? We’d like to argue that we haven’t done anything wrong; we’ve simply been misguided.
Technology can both inhibit and facilitate the learning process for kids our age. It can serve as a tool for intellectual assignments, or as a distraction, which gave us the title of “Dumbest Generation.” If we, the digital natives, don’t want to be known as this, we need to harness this fundamental shift in our learning styles and knowledge. We need to show the digital immigrants that “our way” is just as good as the “old way.” DH opened our eyes to these implications of technology. This course exposed us to the effects of the digital world in my life and society in general. We learned that we are not less intelligent; we simply use knowledge and learn information differently than digital immigrants are used to. Today we need collaboration not lectures; we need to learn concepts not singular facts; we need networking and socialization not isolation; we need interactive learning not sit back and listen. We need new outcome objects not standardized tests. The immigrants ultimately need to accept this change, for the digital natives have fundamentally changed. We should harness this change and seek its full potential.
DH is about learning what everyone has to offer, and using these offerings as tools to expand research possibilities. We feel Digital Humanities is pertinent and is extremely necessary for molding students into citizens who can do more than survive in this digital world; they can use this digital world to create, teach, and enlighten. DH has changed us. It has made things real to us that we knew were out there, but never really examined closely.
It is therefore baffling as to why the concepts of DH are not taught at the undergraduate level. To say that the ability of DH to thrive lies in those that were born and raised in a digital age, it is foolish to wait for them to come into DH as older students. To reach out to the youthfulness of undergraduate students would be like reaching into a goldmine of creativity and ideas. These ideas are often times looked as wasted upon useless online forums and social networks, even calling this generation the “Dumbest”. A question then: why do we not inform and educate ignorant minds of the ways that the Internet can be used to further their own knowledge?
The course would need to inform the students of what DH really is, letting them define if for themselves. It would also be important to not scare the students away with too many technical specifics. It would be best to look at this class as an introductory course that would allow a little dip into each pond of knowledge in the field of DH. Who to be more interested in the flaws of how they are learning than those that are paying money to learn.
We believe that teaching Digital Humanities to undergraduate students is critically important. Today’s college undergrads are part of a unique, new generation. We have been immersed in this new climate every day, surrounded by the digitization of the world, and yet most students probably know very little about the actual study of Digital Humanities. It makes scholarly work more attractive. So little is being done to truly integrate technology into new teaching and learning practices. Teaching Digital Humanities to undergrads can be beneficial because it gives insight into how the onset of technology has changed our world, and how we can change with it. Though learning Digital Humanities does not need, as a goal, to turn its students into scholars, it can prompt them to make their work a little more worthwhile. The whole class collaborates and interacts. EVERYONE’S opinion matters and all inquiries are valid. The study of humanities is truly an art form, and if this practice is not passed on to the next generation, using the new tools that we are accustomed to and can use easily, the art form will be lost.
As we said before, Digital Humanities is about not only learning and accepting the digital ways of our world, but also about how to apply these strategies to our education. From our DH class, we found that DH isn’t just one thing. It’s not a fact or a definition one can memorize. It’s not something that can be understood in 5 minutes- or even 5 weeks. It’s something that is on a completely different level than any other subject or idea. It’s real. It’s relatable. It’s understandable. It’s intellectual. It’s sophisticated. It’s essential. If we could take all of these thoughts and ideas from a course we were so unsure of in the beginning, imagine what college students in the future could glean from Digital Humanities.
Our full story is chronicled on our class blog (stephanieschlitz.com/dh) for all to see. Hopefully, this poses an example for other universities to integrate a course such as this one into their curriculum. Pictures of our collaboration process can be found here. The password is BUhonorsDH
I’m not really sure what my two insights would be, but I’ve been thinking about all of us maybe sharing our opinions about a topic within DH. I feel like a large post with all of us discussing different things in the broad category of DH could be confusing and jumbled. I feel like if we all were to discuss our opinions about a specific problem involving DH, the post would be more uniform and more professional. For example, we could all share our opinions about Books vs. The Internet, or new education, or what makes a website DH, things we’ve had to discuss in this class. I feel like if we did something like this, the post would be more connected and more valuable to those who would read it to get our opinions on important issues within the field. What do you guys think?
I feel like that would be detrimental to our range of ideas. The examples you gave were all great discussions (both in class and here on the blog) and limiting our contributions to just a couple of them would take away our chance to display our understanding and insights on all of the topics we hit in class. After all, we need to come up with fourteen points. I mean, there will more than likely be multiple points on the same topic (because some are so broad), but why limit ourselves?
You do not need to develop fourteen points, though your collaboration should reflect the fact that there are fourteen contributors.
If you observe Katrina’s suggestion, you might develop some very interesting discussion unified by a single theme. For instance: DH is not widely taught at the undergraduate level in the US. I wonder: Do you think DH should be taught to undergraduates? I suspect, given your experience this semester, y’all would be well-qualified to comment on undergraduate-level DH, whatever your position is and whatever your rationale. And precisely because DH isn’t widely taught to undergrads, you may be among the first to offer a non-faculty / non-graduate student perspective.
(see The Edge for an example of how many authors respond to a single question, resulting in a highly intriguing dialogue; we read two from the “How is the Internet Changing the Way you Think” question, Shirky and Dawkins)
Just something to think about… I’m striving not to weigh in, as I trust your (i.e. y’all’s ) judgment.
If we follow Erik’s suggestion, would it be best to come up with new key points not thought of earlier or should we find key points we made earlier and repost them?
Well, I think that you should be able use what you want. If you need some inspiration I think going back to our old posts would work great. If you have something new you would like to share, then go for it. A good theme would be defining DH. Since Dr. Schlitz noted that we are one of a select few undergrad DH’s courses I think that our idea of what DH could be something that would get some notice. We are after all more digitally native than anyone in a graduate course.
I like this, Keenan.
The depth at which would we need to delve into two points about two point of our own is not supported by a blog post. If each point was a paragraph, we would have 28 paragraphs on one single blog post. One paragraph is probably not enoughto explain our brilliant insights anyway. We are not writing a paper, we’re writing something people would actually want to read. If we work together on one singletheme we will have a unified post that is truly collaborative, not just one post with 28 points. If we are truly going to collaborate, we must select a topic and work with each other to do it. If we select a topic that has multiple opinions, we can work together in groups that are for or against the topic and develop well thought out and united opinions to share with the Dh community. If we take Dr. Shlitz’s suggestion and look at the question of “should dh be taught at the undergraduate level,” we could split into two groups, one to develop negatives and one for positives. If we all agree, we can split up a variety of points on why, post them here, then make a cleary, unified post during the finals period. I really feel like this is the best way to get our opinions and level of learning across to the dh community.
Another possible idea if we wanted is we could combine the two ideas in a way. Instead of focusing on a new question, we could go back to our very first question, “What is Digital Humanities?”. Even though all of us made many points trying to answer this, we could go back or come up with one or two points a piece that we personally feel must be included in the definition of DH. We would all be answering one question but at the same time coming up with separate points showing how undergraduate students understand the term “Digital Humanities”.
Right, but when I think of answering either “Should DH be taught to undergrads” or “What is DH,” I’m thinking back on everything we’ve covered in the class. And to quote my original post on this whole thing, the finished product wouldn’t be those 28 points (or even 14 for that matter) — we would look over everyone’s thoughts, “combining similar ones to make them stronger” and probably tossing out a few that aren’t cohesive. Of course we want the end result to be something short because we know that on the whole, attention spans have gotten shorter. That said, if anyone has made it this far into this massive paragraph, I just want to point out that brevity doesn’t mean minimal work. I spend days writing pages and pages of material for stories that end up being one page long, because I know that the only way the reader is going to get anything out of them is if I have every detail worked out and my ideas are coherent.
Personally, I agree with Katrina. Collaboration is deciding one idea and then working together to develop something out of it. We can’t have 28 different ideas- sure they relate to each other in some way, but not closely enough to make sense to someone. We need to pick a topic that is somewhat broad- like “What is DH?” or “Should DH be taught at an undergraduate level?” Since we have already answered the first one, I think looking at the second question would be better. Also, we can back up our answers of this question with things we have learned recently in class- like Digital Nation, Screen Time, and the Future of Learning piece. Since we are just talking about this over the blog I’m not so sure where to start. I strongly recommend that we talk about this as a class on Friday and definitely decide what we are doing. If we are going to take this risk and publish a piece on a website that people will definitely read, then we need to do this right. I want to collaborate as a class, it’s a great idea! I’m anxious and extremely nervous about this because it is MONDAY at 8 AM!!! and we haven’t really started anything yet or have decided what we are doing. That needs to be done first. Can’t wait to start!!
I think that everyone should answer two points….first what is DH….and second why should it be taught at the undergraduate level. We can then combine these points to make a uniform blog post with the beginning combining the definitions and having it end on why it should be taught. This will solve the problem of an extremely long blog post and allow for everyone’s opinions on the subject to be heard. I think this will allow for a risk in defining a field of study that does not have a concrete definition and also give reasons why it should be taught. I feel that this can be very insightful and we will be able to see a range of opinions. It should start out with everyone posting something like this:
Sarah Gorr
What is DH?
ANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWER
Why should it be taught at the undergraduate level?
ANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWERANSWER
Then after everyone has contributed we can work on combining it into a cohesive blog post. what do you think?
Here’s what I think about all this: we had quite a spirited discussion about changing education last week, but here we are with free range on our final and the first thing we do is try to restrict ourselves with parameters. Were we simply vomiting back rhetoric from the Davidson & Goldberg piece? Apparently. I’d be glad to stand by this point in class tomorrow; see you all there.
“Collaboration is deciding [on] one idea and then working together to develop something out of it.”
Collaboration, actually, is working together. From the OED, “United labour, co-operation; esp. in literary, artistic, or scientific work.”
That, however, is not what’s happening here. A whole of six or seven people have posted in this discussion. I’m willing to bet some of others aren’t even aware that this is here. I’m willing to bet some of them don’t care. Nevertheless, this is our FINAL EXAM, which is, I’ll remind you, twenty percent of our grades. We need to work together and draft something.
I think a “What is DH?” post would be almost useless. Just because we or DH scholars can’t put it into words doesn’t mean they don’t know what it is. There must be some level of unconscious knowledge of the definition for it to even be a field. We don’t need to reiterate Unsworth’s ideas, because, really, let’s face it, that’s what we’d end up posting.
DH being taught to undergrads is a better idea, but I think it misses the mark. The better question is “When should we start teaching students about DH?” I say elementary school. I don’t expect a third grader to get Alan Liu, but there’s no reason they can’t be introduced to at least the products of DH projects. Teach them with visualizations, include videos in the curriculum, have them make a Barney wiki. I don’t care, just make sure they have some idea of what the world’s turning into.
What happened to all that education reform talk from last week? We have a chance to do something crazy, something rare. We don’t have to take a final exam. We can write a single essay and post it to a website none of us have ever heard of before and never have to worry about again. We are the digital natives, the ones who are going to change everything. But we’re not going to change a damn thing if we just post a dumbass paraphrase of Schlitz’ lectures.
I think it’s a really bad idea to post as the anon here. As you said this is our final and that’s when everything (and I really do mean everything) gets stepped up in one way or another. Since this is your idea of a good question to investigate, I would hope you step up and take partial leadership for answering it if we do so. If you don’t want to do that and stay as the anon then I can’t stop you.
Collaboration is necessary in a group final (hence the term group), but I can’t say whether or not the collaboration comes from having one single group post or following one question. Having everyone give their insight is a single idea. It just so happens that the big idea gets split into smaller ideas which is where problems could occur. That’s not to say that following one question wouldn’t lead to problems either. We’re human and starting problems is what we do best.
I don’t know what it would take to get the others involved. I’ve already given my idea and it’s been shot down. I feel both points are valid to follow and the class needs to talk about it as a whole. There’s 14 of us and only one post. If we each would only give a sentence or two then that’s 14 to 28 sentences, not too bad. We need everyone to take this seriously and we’ll get something awesome.
I’m sorry if you felt this was a waste a time to read and you got nothing out of it. My point was to reemphasis that we need to be more concise and get group involvement. We have to consider all of our options and if we can’t find something to make every single one of us happy then we’ll have to suck it up and just go for something. We don’t have enough time to debate much longer and it’s our final grade at stake here.
I agree that the “what is DH” post would be useless, because the scholars we want to reach already know this stuff. We dont want to echo their own ideas and provide nothing new. Then it seems like we are just a bunch of kids with easily manipulated opinions and that we have been taught to accept the views of our teachers and not actually THINK for ourselves. But we DO have our own opinions and we should represent those, rather than quoting everything we’ve read. I think that as many of you have stated, this will not turn into a ridiculously long essay, it will be a blog post, with character. I do not think we have to worry about length if we stay organized. If everyone picks two main insights from their blogs and we collaborate them as erik said, then we will have more content to choose from. It won’t be a jumble of random opinions because we’re honors kids, we can organize thoughts for a blog post, we’ve done enough of them.
First of all, I’m sorry I have not been a part of this discussion/collaboration/argument.
Secondly, to dive into some of the discussion, I do not think we have the time to ‘argue’ about the topic of our article any longer. As someone else mentioned, this final is on Monday. I have plenty of other studying to do this weekend, but I would be willing to set aside time for this if we actually started sharing ideas and formulating our article. I think both ‘sides’ of this discussion are reasonable. Some are afraid of setting parameters, and simply reiterating what we have been told in this class. Some are worried we are going to have a disorganized mess of ideas, and we need to consolidate our ideas into a defined topic range.
I’d like to gently explain that I don’t see a problem with posing a question, or defining a ‘topic’ for our article. If you feel like this would cause us to simply rephrase what other scholars have said, or provide useless ideas that DH scholars already know, but can’t put into words, I think you should try to look at it differently. We have learned the importance of crowdsourcing in this class. So even if we define our article by a distinct topic, who says we are going to present ideas that other scholars already know or talked about? They will be our ideas. Haven’t we learned that all of our opinions matter, and that our opinions and insights really can influence the digital humanities field? I believe there are plenty of ideas we have come up with that scholars have not thought of before. We are a new generation, this is a new class at Bloomsburg University, and I guarantee we are going to have new ideas, no matter what topic we decide to write about.
I’d also like to point out that an article usually has a topic. A topic being a main point or idea that the author is trying to get across. Therefore, I don’t think setting a flexible topic idea should be looked at as being a rigid parameter. I think it should be looked at as a way of presenting all of our unique, new-found ideas in a clear, organized way so others can understand and benefit. I think organization is key to writing an effective article. It doesn’t mean we can’t have free range to expand and create new ideas. It means we are collaborating and combining 14 different insights in the most organized way possible, so we can actually write a solid, influential article.
Therefore, instead of continuing to argue, I think we should compromise and truly make a decision. I, personally, am more than willing to compromise, and I will cooperate with whatever decision our group decides on. I have no hard feelings. My main fear is that this argument is delaying our writing process, and I believe we are wasting valuable time. I want to put my name on something I am proud of, not something we haphazardly put together in two hours during the final exam. So if we can’t reach a conclusion tonight or tomorrow, I don’t think it will be possible to complete this collaborative exam.
I agree with Emily…we all need to stop arguing and come to a conclusion soon or we will not be able to complete this post successfully.
Given that everyone is both excited and frightened by this, I believe the above argument was a necessity. It’s far from petty YouTube banter and I was glad to see that it didn’t dissolve into that. Anyway, two people have now contributed above the comment section of this page and I suggest others do the same, ASAP, in whatever form you so choose. Dawkins suggested in his article that the Internet works like an ecosystem, with all sorts of things growing/stemming from other things (mega-paraphrase), so why not see what this final grows into? Eh? Just go with the flow.
I completely agree. This is what I was trying to say earlier.
I agree with Sarah in saying that it would be a risk in trying to define the field which, to this point, has no concrete definition. Personally I favor the idea of discussing our ideas of what DH is. I enjoyed to post of our insights into DH. While I don’t think we should all put paragraphs, I think other users will be interested in what we have to say. It does seem to be important we have cohesiveness to truly bring together our collaboration. I vote that we hash out some of these idea differences tomorrow when we meet so that we can actually get down to the business of putting our ideas together…
I’ve looked things over several times and I don’t believe anyone called for paragraphs. In my “Approach to the Collaborative Final” post, however, I used the word pithy, meaning concise and forcefully expressive. So I ended up with a paragraph in the body of this page. If you read it, however, you’ll notice that it’s a paragraph built entirely from equal parts of my own paraphrased post (from October) and our classmates’ comments on that same post.
I agree with Sarah in saying that it would be a risk in trying to define the field which, to this point, has no concrete definition.
Personally I favor the idea of discussing our ideas of what DH is.
What’s the difference?
Well… I don’t know that I was trying to make them different. I was just trying to show that I would like to bring the class full circle so that we could show what we have learned… and maybe see the difference in our opinions from the beginning of the semester to the end. In talking about the risk I meant to explain that I felt we would be making an important statement to the scholars of the field. And Erik, I mentioned the paragraph because Katrina shared her fears over making the post too long. Just forget about that, I suppose I was just having trouble sifting through what everyone said. I think that your example of a uniform post comprised of different quotes and paraphrases works really well, should we be using a lot of quotes from posts (edited to make sense) or should we be creating new insights based on our posts, do you think?
should we be using a lot of quotes from posts (edited to make sense) or should we be creating new insights based on our posts, do you think?
The way I see it playing out isn’t fully one or the other. Old ideas and posts could spark news ideas that we either missed or didn’t have enough info to come up with at the time. Yes, mine was comprised of quotes/paraphrases, but I’m really hoping someone points out something wonderful that I’m sure I missed along the way. The more ideas we have to work with in the actual body of this page, the better. Paragraphs, sentences, bullet-points—who really cares? I think that as we add ideas, the big picture will come into focus soon enough.