Melinda A. Cro is Associate Professor of French at Kansas State University. Her research areas are early modern French and Italian literature, the pastoral mode, and methods for teaching literature and culture in second language acquisition settings. She has published in a variety of journals, including
Sara K. Kearns is a Professor in the Libraries at Kansas State University and currently serves as the Academic Services Librarian for the Humanities. Her research areas are diverse while remaining rooted in information literacy and new literacies. She is co-founder of the New Literacies Alliance, a multi-institutional project that creates online, interactive, open education lessons related to information literacy. She is also co-author of the book,
This is the source
This article describes a collaboration between two tenured faculty members (one in the library and one in a department of modern languages) at a large, land-grant institution who sought to introduce a mixed undergraduate and graduate seminar in French literature to DH methods in the second-language classroom culminating in a digital mapping project. Lacking explicit previous training in DH, faculty drew on second language (L2) pedagogy, new literacies, and DH pedagogy to develop an inclusive approach to course design and implementation. The approach focused on students’ development of agency and authority as rising scholars while underscoring conceptions of labor and professional development in the humanities. There is limited scholarship addressing implementing DH in a L2 classroom. However, implementing a combined approach where one pedagogy influenced the other afforded the opportunity to critically consider the role of multilingualism and multiculturalism in a global, open DH context. We adopted this approach in concert with lessons drawn from theories of information literacy and new literacies. This transdisciplinary method encouraged careful consideration of design and implementation given that how information is processed, acquired, and communicated are key concerns in both L2 classrooms and new literacies.
Analyzes the implementation of DH theories and methods in designing and teaching a university-level second-language course
This article describes a collaborative approach by faculty from Modern Languages
and academic libraries at a public, land-grant research institution to design a
digital humanities-inflected advanced French course on seventeenth-century
French-language literature. Modern languages courses, although represented in
digital pedagogy, are not as fully described in the literature as are
disciplines like English and history. The approach to material in a Modern
Languages department is inherently different from English and history
in an anglophone context like the United States in that
all subject matter is taught in the target language and developing linguistic
proficiency in the L2 is the ultimate goal. Whether it be a language skills
course focused on composition and grammar, a culture course, or a literature
course, communicative language teaching necessitates a carefully scaffolded
approach to maximize individual learners’ linguistic development and achieve
programmatic learning outcomes. In Modern Language courses, there is a double
concern, first on the course content itself and evaluating texts from thematic,
theoretical, or cultural perspectives, and secondly on finding the means to do
so linguistically in a language that is not one’s own. For example, reading a
novel in the second language is a balancing act between developing an
understanding of what is being said in the target language and how it is
communicated. Additionally, the L2 classroom builds an immersive community of
language users where the focus is on how information (language, concepts, texts)
is processed, skills are acquired, and understanding is communicated amongst
users of the target language. The inherently collaborative and cooperative
nature of the L2 classroom, where meaning is built and evaluated in a community
setting, parallels the skills and methods valued in the DH classroom. This focus
on meaning making is consonant with approaches explored by new literacies in
examining technology as a nexus through which community and meaning converge.
While there are inherent parallels between these approaches, pedagogical texts
that focus on integrating the digital humanities in, for example, the
second-language context are few and far between
Steeped in a methodology that values collaboration, creativity, and digital
literacy, DH is perhaps most successful in helping students to consider
critically the potential for interdisciplinary, cooperative, and generative
approaches to cultural and literary studies. This approach seems particularly
apt for the L2 classroom. Indeed, both DH and Modern Languages may be
characterized as inter- or transdisciplinary in nature with practitioners who
draw from the realms of various subject areas like history, literature, art,
philosophy, technology, design, etc. participatory, collaborative, and
distributed, and less
nature of new literacies published,
less author‐centric,
and less
individual
We introduced students to DH methods and tools that informed their ability to
design and create a digital research project. The project, however, presented
challenges for the professors. Firstly, at the time of the course, neither of us
had any formal training in DH and, given the lack of institutional resources for
the same, we undertook a plucky
tinker-centric
approach also calls for
experimentation and freedom to play in the digital classroom. The challenge that
had to be considered in design was that students had varying degrees of digital
readiness. While technically in the generation commonly called digital
natives
, students were not, in fact, fluent in all technologies, as has
been noted by others
Despite these challenges, the course was successful in that students not only
participated in and reflected upon processes for textual analysis and
experimentation but examined ways for designing future projects. This
necessitated also considering what their status as students at an institution of
higher education afforded them in terms of access, and how they might continue
and modify their approaches upon graduation in a professional context. The
result was an inclusive and productive experience that underscored collaboration
and equitable teamwork in the confines of the classroom to model future work in
the field. It should be noted, however, that the output did not necessarily
succeed in a traditional sense. Students designed a project that ultimately did
not correspond to their expectations, but that moment of flux allowed for
productive reflection on project design. Our approach mimicked what Croxall and
Warnick have identified as Failure as Epistemology
While there has been an increase in the attention given to DH pedagogy, termed
digital pedagogy
by many practitioners, the number of resources
dealing specifically with DH in the L2 context are scarce.DH
pedagogy
and digital pedagogy
as the latter tends to elide with
technological approaches to teaching that recall significant work already
completed in the field of L2 pedagogy (González-Lloret 2016, Blake
2008).
critical DHML approach; that is, a
hybrid Modern Languages and Digital Humanities framework(para. 33) that capitalizes on the shared transdisciplinary nature of the two disciplines to examine how DH practices are inflected linguistically and culturally in a global context.
In addition to the lack of scholarship addressing combined approaches to DH and
L2 pedagogy, many practitioners come to DH without the training and support
offered in large DH centers in R1 academic institutions. DIY and individual
ingenuity often guide approaches to integrating DH in the humanities kludges
, workarounds, and the potential for failure;
it is rarely an orderly process
We asked students to map an aspect of seventeenth-century Francophone literature,
using existing tools like spreadsheets and programs with mapping capabilities.
Thus, they worked towards
New literacies and academic literacies formed an important theoretical frame as
we navigated the pedagogical and social implications of introducing students to
DH within the context of literary analysis. Both theories emphasize the social
aspect of literacy practices: the ways in which communities develop particular
ways of reading, writing, and communicating, and the ways in which power,
authority, and identity impact how individuals encounter and engage with those
practices
In drawing out the social implications of DH, we emphasized the collaborative
nature of the discipline through project design. We were influenced by movements
such as the UVA Scholars Lab Charter (2016) and UCLA’s Student Collaborators
Bill of Rights
This was a hybrid course designed for two populations: advanced undergraduate French majors and graduate students at the master’s level who needed a general, survey-like overview of the literary production of the seventeenth-century in the French-speaking context. The course,
Important in the course design was the institutional reality in which we teach. Ours is a large, land-grant university that plays a crucial role in extension activities across the state, related primarily to agriculture. The public nature of DH work is particularly beneficial as it coincides well with the primacy of public accessibility to research in our institution. Both of us believe strongly in the need to prepare students as engaged scholars and citizens who are ready to participate in a range of contexts upon graduation. With this in mind, an important aspect of this course was to explicate not only the ways in which public, digital databases facilitate access to early modern materials, but how digital archival methods are imperative to maintaining the same, and the professional opportunities that exist for those with this type of skill set. We wanted our students to see the type of research they started in this class as feasible outside the academy. Many students in the humanities will find jobs in K-12 schools, museums, libraries, small companies, and other organizations without access to the databases and software made available to them at a large public university. Digital humanities projects that leverage free or publicly accessible tools provide students with resources and skills that they can apply in a range of professional contexts. Additionally, many free or basic tools (like spreadsheets) serve as the foundation for more advanced digital tools that they may choose to explore at a later date.
The learning goals for the course reflected at once the subject matter objectives as well as the desired linguistic proficiency outcomes for this level of language learner. They were: (1) describe the works examined, their historical context and the importance of said works in relation to the themes, principle figures and events of the seventeenth century; (2) conduct literary analysis of and research into the works studied across a variety of genres (novel, drama, poetry, letter-writing, travel literature, etc.); (3) identify what are the digital humanities, describe the criteria of a DH project and create a digital map of one aspect of the course as designed and selected by the students; (4) demonstrate advanced spoken and written French skills (ex: compose a research paper, present one’s research findings professionally, contribute to course discussions in a professional and respectful manner, etc.). These goals parallel the student learning outcomes of our Modern Languages department and of the field as a whole, reflecting characteristics of advanced- and superior-level proficiency in all skill areas (reading, writing, speaking, listening) as defined by ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) as well as enhanced cultural analysis and awareness. Through carefully scaffolded assignments, students achieved these outcomes. Each reading and project was organized along process-oriented lines; that is, the focus was to learn how to go about participating in the educo-professional goals of the course. Daily work included brief interactive presentations and sharing preliminary research on readings assigned, addressing questions raised by students regarding the texts, analysis of primary and secondary sources, drawing parallels between texts, and performative/creative activities (including imitating the writing style of authors, performing dramatic readings, or role-playing scenarios inspired by the readings). Given the lab setting of the course, we often made use of the Google office suite to share analyses, data collection, or creative endeavors.
One of the primary challenges we faced was the question of language. As an
advanced French seminar, it was imperative that students work on developing
proficiency in the target language. However, we had trouble identifying
readily-available DH tools in the target language (Voyant Tools being a notable
exception) because many DH tools are natively developed in English and the
library sessions needed to be in English.
Throughout the course we walked through strategies for collecting data as well as
designing and conducting research, focusing on scaffolding these complex
processes and explaining the rationale for each of these steps. Students
experience technology on a spectrum; what is inconsequential to one student can
become an impassable barrier to other students, but some barriers can be reduced
if instructors explicitly discuss them with students
Building on our discussion of labor and accessibility, we considered whether our students would have access to selected tools and resources after they completed their degrees and left the university setting. Rather than selecting software or programs that required subscriptions, we chose tools that were free, but did not have all of the features available from purchased software. This decision allowed us to focus on fundamentals that could be transferred across fields, rather than teaching the specific features of a particular application. We decided to focus on open access to tools and readings early in the course design. This foresight proved opportune as we found ourselves balancing the benefits of free and open access against hidden or unanticipated trade-offs. The course readings and all software were free and open access, with the exception of some databases and books available through the university library (e.g. MLA International Bibliography). Our commitment to public scholarship and open access often meant an increased labor burden for the faculty, either in preparing for the course or supporting the DH tools during the semester. Had we not begun planning the course months in advance, the reality of the time investment necessitated could have derailed our course goals. We discussed in class the ability to access materials regularly throughout the semester, a reality that surprised students as they had not considered the ramifications of researching outside an institutional context.
Despite a university subscription to the citation management system RefWorks, we decided to use
Zotero which offers a free,
basic account and supports multiple users collaborating in shared group
libraries. These features supported our goal of introducing students to tools
for public scholarship. A RefWorks subscription includes technical support, but
Zotero does not. Our library only supported RefWorks at that time due to budget
constraints. This meant that we assumed all troubleshooting for Zotero and
students contacted us directly, without the option of using our library support
services; this ad hoc support is common to DH endeavors free
. In the classroom, while the introductory
day highlighted a range of reactions, from highly confident to somewhat
tentative, students began using Zotero for this and other classes within days
and reported finding the program both useful and easy to use.
Another risk of using free or open access tools is that they are reliant upon a
person or institution providing continued access to and support of the tool. The
stability of a tool is affected by continued grant funding or institutional
support turned
down
as of December 2019 and that maps and other programs using it
would no longer function turns down
Sheets in the future. Creation and
maintenance of a DH project necessitates ongoing access to appropriate tools.
Whether that means paying an annual subscription or identifying, as we did, the
most portable and common file type as your baseline for data sharing, depends on
the resources available to the individual project managers.
The fact that many of the primary texts for the course were old enough to be out
of copyright and in the public domain allowed us to assign free digital texts
available through sites like Gallica, limiting expenses for students. One
challenge to using texts in the public domain is the orthographic differences
between early modern and contemporary printing practices. Where a critical
edition will standardize spelling and grammar, there may be more variability in
an earlier edition, adding complexity to the act of reading. This led to a
consideration of the benefit of accessibility and cost-effectiveness for public
domain texts against losing the critical apparatus, such as biographies,
cultural contexts, and annotations, available in scholarly editions. Opting for
the free texts inspired a productive discussion with students regarding the
nature of the edition — the benefits and limitations of freely-accessible
materials, the question of copyright, and the ways in which scholars put
together a critical, annotated edition. However, this also meant that
significant time was spent preparing introductions, designing activities that
asked students to complete preliminary research prior to reading, and discussing
strategies for interacting with texts (including identifying the types of things
one might look for while reading that would be annotated in a critical edition).
Counter to DH conversations of new ways digital texts can inform our
understanding of a primary source
Flexibility was key in our conception of the DH project in order to facilitate a low-barrier of entry to students and reduce the affective filter. This practice ensured that there was always room for student ownership over the project. Because it was treated as a lab experience, students could call upon the group and the instructor to facilitate work and respond to questions. The value of this type of experiential, hands-on, skills-oriented approach was that it capitalized on active, engaged and reflective practices to promote careful consideration of DH implementation. For example, rather than front-loading the DH activities, creating a DH module, or otherwise focusing only on technologies, we paced the introduction of technologies to coincide with specific points in the research process. We introduced the concept of metadata early in the semester while learning to use Zotero, particularly the tag function, in preparation for creating annotated bibliographies. We revisited metadata when studying digitized maps and saving the maps’ details to Zotero, this time focusing on the unique data points needed to cite across media and generate a database. Later in the semester, we focused more fully on metadata in order to create maps using Google Fusion Tables and for our final project of mapping relationships in the targeted corpus.
Moreover, while copyright in relation to the primary materials used in class was
not in question, significant time was devoted to the discussion of copyright and
ownership of critical and individual scholarship as part of the library lessons
and class discussions. Students, through DH, came to identify themselves as both
content users who needed to acknowledge and cite sources and content creators
contributing to scholarship. We explored copyright and authorship in a variety
of ways, starting with a series of online lessons from the New Literacies
Alliance (NLA)
Throughout the semester, we focused on the nature of authority and authorship. Because the NLA lessons could be embedded in a course management system, we assigned them as homework to be completed prior to specific class periods when we would be introducing either related technology or research practices. Requiring the lessons as homework established a leveling platform whereby all students in the class were exposed to the same concepts and activities. They also had time to reflect on these concepts prior to in-class discussions about research as an ongoing process in which they could participate. Throughout the course, students were identified as content creators with the authority to participate in a larger conversation due to their adherence to scholarly practices in literature. Students gained familiarity with the research process and increased their confidence in their own voice. Because this course was designed to prepare students to conduct original research and analysis in seventeenth-century French studies while learning about diverse professional opportunities in the field, the NLA lessons were particularly effective in exploring how authority was constructed in various discourses. They offered an opportunity to bridge classroom activities with professional practices. We underscored a range of post-graduate experiences, from teaching to editorial to archival work in diverse cultural institutions. Additionally, we pointed to the transferability of the skills students acquired in the course to a variety of professional contexts across a range of disciplines.
External to the course planning was the serendipity of the community that developed among the students over the semester. Many of the students in the course had worked with us in prior courses. At least two students were in the prior DH-infused course referenced above. However, in this course, the students developed a back-channel communication method using an app where they could privately discuss the course itself. This turned out to be an immensely positive outcome as it afforded them a private space to discuss questions related to the course and express concern, frustration, or excitement and enthusiasm regarding the course content without the faculty involved. This was an organic development stemming from student initiative with the positive effect of creating and supporting the developing community. It also enhanced teamwork because the students became accustomed to discussing the class itself and the content in a less-formal setting and advocating for each other. For example, if a student had a concern but was nervous about emailing the professor, another student would volunteer and reach out to clarify the question and then report back. Another unexpected effect was increased enthusiasm regarding the materials studied; students were so keen on the material, particularly Corneille’s
Given the focus on cartography and its potential for encouraging considerations
of space, authority, and representation, mapping was explored as both a form of
visualization and a theme of study in the course. As the class read through the
works, we made constant reference to maps, both contemporary and of the period,
to render concrete the geography in play in the literary works. We also
discussed the act of mapmaking and how modern advances in technology have deeply
changed generative practices in the field of cartography. We curated and
presented several DH mapping projects that the students explored in-class and we
explored how to read different types of maps across varying mediums. As with the
primary source texts discussed above, cartographic techniques in the seventeenth
century compared to contemporary maps required learning new textual and visual
cues. By focusing on digital maps and visualization techniques, students
encountered not just new artefacts (maps) but artefacts that they could
manipulate to change how they understood a culture or a primary text. Digital
maps, such as ones we explored through the David Rumsey Map Collection,
allowed zooming and panning which in turn facilitated close
readings in
geospatial contexts. The DH maps we explored contained features like timelines,
connections between individuals, or notes imparting cultural context, and
examined how these transform our interpretation of a text or map.
In order to provide a sample of the potential for mapmaking, the professor and the librarian prepared a tabular datasheet of Jean Chardin’s voyages to and from Persia as the students were reading selections from his travel memoirs,
The map, depicted in figure 2, included several data points, including locations where Chardin visited and his arrival and departure dates. Students noted that the map allowed them to conceptualize the expanse traveled by Chardin in a way they did not experience when reading the text.
While we designed the class around mapping, we purposely stepped back from
dictating what would be mapped and how. Cartography, and acts of mapping in
particular, are potent opportunities to consider questions of authority and the
influence that said authority can have. Maps have long served as defining
documents that determine sociopolitical boundaries and impose the same on
populations in a commanding fashion and without always permitting a plurality of
perspectives on the question. Such concerns parallel those surrounding global DH
practices. If one presents and practices solely in an Anglocentric vein, one is
ignoring the import and the richness of a multilingual, multicultural approach
to DH. With this reality in mind and paired with our own personal pedagogies
related to student agency, we sought to avoid imposing an interpretation and
instead encouraged students to assert their own perspective. New literacies
affirms that new members to a community transform that community’s practices,
sometimes with a nudge, sometimes with a shove failure
was just the first in a number of iterations that would be
important for developing and strengthening their project and, ultimately, their
research and project management skills. Striking this balance between scaffolded
support and freedom of creation was imperative because we both believed that
this course and the DH project served as a steppingstone into careers. We
explicitly discussed their agency in the DH project and how that could relate to
future endeavors. As professionals and scholars, the students would be expected
to demonstrate initiative and problem-solving.
Interestingly, when it came to designing their own mapping project, students conceived of mapping in a far more abstract way than the rather concrete examples we had illustrated and catalogued. Our conception of mapping was highly geographic whereas the students’ was ultimately more a visualization of the text. In a subsequent class period, we asked students to break into small groups and propose their own ideas for a mapping project, largely construed. They had three questions to discuss: (1) What is the scope and objectives for the project? (2) What texts should be included and why? (3) What information will we need to begin the project? Students were encouraged to think widely and each of the three small groups proposed vastly different conceptions: one group proposed creating a map that connected both the tangible (physical locations) with the intangible (themes, concepts) in a range of works studied; another group proposed elaborating the Chardin map we had begun; another proposed exploring the writing of Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné, a writer known for her extensive correspondence. These projects referenced tenets implicit in global DH by exploring multiplicity of perspective and voice, ranging from intimate women’s accounts to public conceptualizations of nation and identity in a broader Francophone context. These ideas were outlined on a shared Google Doc. Students then presented their ideas to the class and were asked to think about it overnight. In the following class period, students shared their views on pros and cons for each project proposal and ultimately decided on a more “intimate” project — rather than attempting to map the texts from the course as a whole, they wanted to explore the epistolary network of Madame de Sévigné and tease out whether there was a connection between place and theme reflected in the social networks.
The students made an independent and practical design decision conditioned by
their own interests. Additionally, where we had conceived of geography in terms
of demonstrating a larger physical reality, students were intrigued by what
could be termed the
Students raised these and more questions as they grappled with the reality of
transforming these observations into more precise data points that could
ultimately be mapped and visualized digitally. We discussed translating
their questions and answers into tabular form. This was a particularly
productive moment because it touched on design and project scope while helping
students to clarify and isolate data that was truly necessary for their primary
objectives from information which might serve as secondary considerations later
in the project. It should be noted that this was the culmination of our
introduction to digital tools and methods and occurred in the latter third of
the semester. Because we purposely scaffolded pieces of this process into
earlier assignments (i.e. methods for data collection, the importance of
metadata and appropriate categorizing of information, etc.) students were able
to draw upon and then recycle those methods independently. Students quickly
recognized that the initial scope of their project, given Sévigné’s prolific
letter-writing habit, was imposing and pondered how they could efficiently
extract the data points from the thousands of pages of letters. This opened the
window to return to the question of editions raised earlier in the semester
during discussions of manuscripts and printing practices. We brought in the
critical edition of Sévigné’s correspondence by the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade
to discuss the paratextual material made available through the preparation of
the critical edition itself. Importantly, this included an appendix that indexed
the letters by correspondent, date, and location. With this appendix, students
discovered many of the data points that they had previously discussed and
encountered additional data points that arise in letter writing that they had
not considered.
Students then embarked on the final DH activity, entering the data points into a spreadsheet and mapping the data. We created the columns and headings in advance to maximize in-class time, using categories discussed in the prior class, and during the class we reviewed the role of metadata (in this case the column headings) in the mapping process as well as modified the spreadsheet as necessary. Due to the collaborative features of Google Sheet, each small group entered unique data points while observing how their colleagues entered the material (see figure 3 below).
At one point, work came to a halt when one student raised the issue of how data points like correspondents’ names and days of the week were being entered. The class briefly discussed abbreviations and entering French terms rather than English, or vice versa, because they realized common data points would not be mapped appropriately if they were not uniformly entered. We did not participate in this conversation, making space for the students to independently resolve the issue, which they did, admirably. This moment encapsulated many of our learning goals, particularly in observing the students interact as professional colleagues interrogating their methods for meaningful data collection and the implications of collaborative research design.
Once students established their controlled vocabulary and entered a few dozen data points, we shifted to Google Fusion Tables and selected the locations from the letters for mapping. At this point, the whole room deflated when everyone realized that the only locations on many of the letters compiled into the spreadsheet were Sévigné’s two residences. We loaded the csv file into Stanford’s Palladio and explored how the relationships could alternatively be mapped (see figure 4 below), reinforcing the importance of identifying tools and methods that support the research question.
While the class did not culminate with a glorious map, we nonetheless observed
the students’ transition from a class of, well, students, to a community of
scholars. This started as early as the first month of classes, when students
could see each other’s Zotero folders and began recommending sources to each
other. Their back-channel communication resembled the ways colleagues manage
workplace issues, including advocating for each other. The DH aspect of the
course opened the whole class to a greater breadth of research in modern
languages. While independent research projects can result in one student
learning the value of critical editions or using a visual medium to interrogate
a text, this often occurs within a bubble comprised of the student and the
professor. There is little opportunity to delve into nuances or to test the
implications from several perspectives. The DH project shifted students from
solo practitioners experimenting in discipline-specific practices into a
community of scholars debating, critiquing, and building upon those practices in
collaborative and engaged ways. This communal model of research in the DH
classroom echoes the
Through our interactions with the students during and after the course as well as through student evaluations and feedback, we noted a range of outcomes that paralleled our own goals for the course: (1) the skills students learned were highly transferable, not only to future professional contexts (which are intangible to many students) but immediately, to other class projects (i.e. the final research essay, research they were conducting in other disciplines from the social to the hard sciences); (2) students became comfortable with and conversant about the critical apparatus surrounding course topics; (3) several students chose to continue and pursue more advanced research topics in the discipline (for example, one student worked with the ML professor on a more advanced topic the following semester, resulting in a published paper); (4) students developed a more profound understanding of what labor and work in the humanities encompass (i.e. teaching, research, and service; research across humanities disciplines, particularly in literary criticism; and what work looks like in various settings, be they institutions of higher learning, museums or public archives, or academic or commercial presses); (5) students in the class formed an engaged community of scholars who assumed roles as active project designers and researchers. These outcomes underscore the vast potential a global, multilingual DH-inflected approach informed by new literacies represents.
Creating flexibility for student-driven decisions and troubleshooting capitalizes
on characteristics of digital pedagogy that correlate nicely with L2 pedagogy,
but we did not fully embrace one aspect of digital pedagogy: the exhortation to
reach a larger public. While in a previous course the focus was to share results
publicly and openly, a key component to DH public
. We propose that, particularly within a
pedagogical context, DH project work might be conceived as
We believe that exploring DH in the L2 classroom allows a productive space to examine notions related to linguistic and cultural power-dynamics. The more diverse the approaches to DH, the more diverse DH itself becomes. Moreover, exploring digital tools as cultural products with their attending sociocultural contexts in terms of language, costs, and access, challenges the inherent monolingualism of the field and diversifies approaches to and perspectives on DH, DH tools, and DH methodologies. In the L2 classroom, even students for whom English is their first language, the language of technology can be as new and unfamiliar as a second language. Exploring the digital humanities from a scaffolded perspective that calls attention to the nature of cultural power dynamics and the ways in which information is transmitted and interpreted enriches the field immeasurably. For example, students in this course engaged in the participatory nature of new literacies, DH, and L2 practices that emphasized taking advantage of interactive tools to reconsider primary source texts while elaborating that work within a global context. Taking a micro approach to community capitalizing on the iterative, reflective, project-oriented practices inherent in L2 pedagogy and new literacies theories resulted in a course design that drew attention to larger theoretical concerns within DH such as definitions of public and open-access in various contexts, the import of productive failure, and the potential and importance of collaborative practices with shared authorship among all participants.
In terms of community building, students formed their own scholarly community
through both in-class interactions and private social messaging apps, creating
forums to discuss the academic literacies they encountered within the context of
a specific class. These interactions promoted students’ agency and
reconceptualized their roles in scholarly endeavors, enabling students to
recognize their own potential as authoritative voices. This student-to-student
tutelage reflected the triangular
learning and social constructivism
observed in other DH projects in L2 environments
In addition to students developing their own authority and confidence, we worked
to broaden their notions of success. We sought to help students understand more
fully the “nuts and bolts” of research design and project management,
particularly in terms of defining scope and setting realistic timelines. The
average semester-long course can promote false notions that research projects
can be begun and completed within three to four months. Additionally, not every
research endeavor ends in a neatly packaged product. The reality, as researchers
in the humanities know, is vastly different. This project helped to promote
patience, in terms of design and results, and with themselves as researchers.
Students began to understand that they could (1) participate in multiple
projects, such as traditional papers and DH explorations, simultaneously and (2)
that not all projects may be defined and designed in the same way. Throughout,
we emphasized the importance of process over product, giving the students space
to design and conceptualize without the pressure of needing to have a predefined
deliverable ready by end of term. This approach diverged from facile notions of
success in terms of completion, focusing instead on the potential for failure as
a productive practice
Furthermore, re-defining success permitted constructive discussions regarding
labor and the division of the same, both in DH research initiatives and in terms
of designing such a course. Boyles, et. al. (2018) note the precarity of digital
humanities in academia, both in terms of those who support DH initiatives (often
contingent labor from across various departments in the institution or
faculty/staff whose work flow differs substantially from the teaching faculty)
as well as the students who are participating therein utopist
ideals of collaborative
teamwork and inclusive practices have been variously espoused and critiqued in
DH scholarship very little deals with students as
collaborators or active participants in the projects whose success
depends, to a great degree, on their labor
Alongside varying expectations for success, we also promoted building a community
that recognized at once the multiplicity of voices in the room and reflected on
the impact of discipline-specific practices in a global, multicultural context.
In our approach to instruction, we capitalized on the benefits of zones of
proximal development prepare a linguistically competent and culturally aware citizenry poised to
live and work in an increasingly global and diverse society, in accordance
with Kansas State University's land grant mission
(Dept. of Modern
Languages n.d.). These values, namely the ability to advocate and participate
equally in a multicultural and multilingual environment, are at the base of
global DH. Adopting this type of approach, however, is not without consequences;
namely, that of the time involved. We worked to ensure that integrating a
global DH approach into the seminar would not overwhelm students and that the
project itself would not exceed the limits of obligation for any one member of
the team. This ensured a balanced approach to student labor that ultimately
corresponded to our course goals and expectations.
One aspect of labor that must also be considered is that of the faculty members
involved. Designing and implementing this scaffolded approach was a
time-consuming process. We met and corresponded regularly outside of class both
prior to and during the semester to consult on design, reflect on student
progress, and modify where necessary. A nimble approach to DH projects demands
that faculty prepare for multiple research scenarios depending on student
interest and design. This involved investigating more tools and resources than
were ever introduced or used in class. Our own level of collaboration increased
over the course of the project as we progressed from initial conversations about
a specific DH project and became more invested in a DH-inflected course. As
others have noted
It is true that this approach requires time and patience, two commodities that
are not easy to come by, particularly as one reflects on one’s institutional
profile and the inherent requirements of faculty therein. However, there are
concrete benefits to a DH approach informed by L2 practices and new literacies,
both in terms of student learning and faculty development. We found that the
student learning theories and practices that already informed our
discipline-specific work with students (such as best practices in second
language acquisition and new literacies perspectives) remained highly relevant
to our implementation of DH pedagogy. Rather than supplanting or overshadowing
disciplinary-specific discursive practices, we found that DH methodologies put
those practices into greater relief, forcing students and faculty to more
consciously explore processes that can become unconscious or habitual. Moreover,
this type of experimentation and collaboration is immensely beneficial,
particularly if made part of faculty’s research, teaching, and service agendas.
While larger institutional attitudes regarding expectations for tenure remain
challenging to modify, we who are tenured faculty can shape our scholarship
practices to record our own work in collaborative pedagogical endeavors, thereby
lending credence to initiatives to widen what counts as scholarship
.
This project, conceived as an introduction to research methodologies in the digital humanities, is a collaborative work among participants in the course. The objectives are the following:
For this project, we will use Google Maps and Fusion Tables.
In order to prepare this project, we will need to:
We will work in class each day over the next month. At the end of that period, we will analyse what we can learn from our visual conceptualization and determine whether this work has helped us to conceive of the texts and/or period differently than before.
You will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. Collaborative Work in Class (25 points)
You work in a productive and positive manner, contributing fully to the shared work. You respect your classmates and propose ideas in order to enrich and improve the work and project as a whole. You share the group work proportionately with your peers and contribute concretely to the success of the project. You help the team to achieve their goals. You add information to the spreadsheet, observing the criteria established by the team and your contributions conform to team expectations.
2. Conception of the project (25 points, shared grade)
The team works together to (1) establish criteria and project goals; (2) select the form and data to include in each citation/entry; (3) decide on the form of the project. The conception is realistic according to the time we have to work on it and conforms to the expectations of a research project at this level.
3. Result: Final Project (30 points, shared grade)
This project will not necessarily be completed during this class. However, you will prepare a database that could be elaborated by students in a future class in order to map a conception the team has chosen. The final project is usable and useful, conforms to the conception and criteria established by the team, and will be accessible to a larger public beyond the classroom. The project is well-organized and clearly presented, compelling, and convincing in design. There are no grammar or spelling errors. You will share the results of your work during the final class period for this course.
New AgeScholarship: The Work of Criticism in the Age of Digital Reproduction
Academic LiteraciesModel: Theory and Applications
This Is Why We Fight: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities