Beyond buttonology: Digital humanities, digital pedagogy, and the ACRL Framework

Abstract

There is a danger with digital humanities instruction of falling into the trap of buttonology. By buttonology, we do not mean the study of buttons, nor do we intend the derision of August Strindberg, who, in his story "The Isle of the Blessed," coined the word buttonology to mock scholarly pedantry.Buttonology is, in its simplest terms, software training that surveys different features of an interface in an introductory manner. In a library one-shot, teaching the library discovery system or showing how to perform an advanced search in a database would be buttonology. Knowing how to upload texts into a tool like Voyant does not help researchers think about what texts should be uploaded, how selecting data relates to a research question, or even what constitutes an effective research question. This type of teaching does not encourage critical thinking, yet digital humanities instruction, in our experience, is frequently focused on showing how to use software rather than reflect on the broader context.There is a growing body of literature on digital humanities instruction in libraries that extends back at least to 2013.1 Until recently, this literature mostly sidestepped information literacy, focusing on the nature of librarian-faculty classroom collaborations or on teaching digital humanities tools. However, works by Andrea Baer and Krista White have begun to trace connections to ACRL's "Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education," opening a line of inquiry that helps connect digital humanities work to the instructional mission of our profession and encourages librarians to reconceptualize their approach to teaching by incorporating digital pedagogy. 2 Digital pedagogyDigital pedagogy is quickly becoming commonplace among faculty and across disciplines and is often referred to as critical pedagogical perspective. Stewart Varner defines digital pedagogy as the act of "creatively and critically incorporat [ing] technology into assignments in ways that truly enhance student engagement and encourage them to confront how technology impacts the work they do." 3 For all of the literature on digital humanities and libraries, librarians have only just begun exploring their teaching role in the digital humanities. Since this teaching role is often tutorial-based, the literature is mostly practical with a focus on how best to present digital tools. However, there are a few John E. Russell is digital humanities librarian and associate director for

Experiential Learning in the Archives: Case Studies in Digital Humanities Pedagogy for Undergraduate Research

“…Archives and special collections are natural laboratories to facilitate "high-impact educational practices, such as undergraduate research and experiential learning for college and university students" (Grimm, 2017, p. 293). Experiential and active learning techniques can support a variety of pedagogical goals and focus on discovery in the learning process and not solely a transfer of knowledge from faculty to students (Russell & Hensley, 2017;Reed et al, 2017).…”

“…The author further argues that "it is prudent for us, as a field, to start thinking critically not only about what we teach under the banner of 'digital humanities' and how we teach it, but also to consider the broader institutional implications and political consequences, of doing so" (p.13). Russell & Hensley (2017) contend that "for all the literature on digital humanities and libraries, librarians have only just begun exploring their teaching role in the digital humanities" (p. 588). The authors explain that DH instruction is "often tutorial-based […] with a focus on how best to present digital tools" (2017, p. 588).…”

“…6). Russell & Hensley (2017) argue for a "more information-literate approach to digital humanities instruction" to move towards critical engagement with humanities sources (p. 589).…”

From Passive Participants to Active Learners

“…Framework. Open pedagogy intersects with IL because it allows librarians to move beyond "a skillsbased approach to a more conceptual form of teaching," and encourages students to critically engage with information to organize, create, and present new information, as others have convincingly argued about the relationship of digital pedagogy, digital humanities, and IL (Russell & Hensley, 2017;White, 2017). Open pedagogy is a conduit for other literacies because it requires students to learn digital tools, intellectual property, and discipline-specific knowledge.…”

Mapping Concepts to Locate Learning Opportunities: Aligning the ACRL Framework to the GIS&T Body of Knowledge

“…Finally, a notable challenge in GIS instruction is striking the right balance between time spent on hands-on skills training and time spent on teaching conceptual foundations (Powell and Kong 2017), especially in the short time frames often characteristic of library-based instruction (Gross, Latham, and Julien 2018). Because of this, there can sometimes be a tendency towards emphasizing "buttonology" (i.e., introductory training focused on the interface and use of particular software programs) or utilizing a "cookbook" method (i.e., following step-by-step instructions to complete particular tasks without requiring a deeper understanding), approaches discussed, and cautioned against, in both the library and information science (Jablonski 2004;Russell and Hensley 2017) and geospatial education literature (Bearman et al 2016;Kedron et al 2016). The connections between information literacy and geospatial education highlighted through this study will hopefully aid instructors in resisting this tendency and provide support for building learning opportunities that pair relevant information literacy concepts with the acquisition and application of GIS&T skills.…”