Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 0 publications
Founded on the philosophy of the constructivist and collaborative pursuit and production of new knowledge, pedagogy is at the very heart of Digital Humanities (DH). However, among the challenges for the institutionalisation of DH pedagogy, particularly in literature departments, is a dearth of sufficient literature on DH pedagogy—a concern echoed in “Where’s the Pedagogy?” by Stephen Brier (2012) among other scholar-practitioners of DH. As Hirsch (2012a) points out, the focus of the literature is predominantly “on the theories, principles, and research practices associated with the Digital Humanities—past and present—and not on issues of pedagogy”. Teaching is often “bracketed off” as an afterthought in the discussion on DH, which is a reflection of the practical realities of DH studies, particularly in literature departments. Hirsch argues that the bracketing off or complete exclusion of pedagogy in critical discussions of the Digital Humanities, as is often the case, reflects, and reinforces, the conflicting contrast between teaching and research of DH in academia. The chapter highlights the discrepancy between traditional pedagogical approaches prevalent in literature departments, especially in India, and the collaborative, hands-on methods intrinsic to DH practice. Traditional approaches often focus on the delivery of content from teacher to student, whereas DH emphasises inquiry-based learning, experimentation, and collaboration among peers and instructors. In the context of DH, a “pedagogy of digital experimentation” involves students actively engaging in making and doing, mirroring the work of DH professionals. This approach encourages collaborative exploration and discovery, aligning with the core tenets of DH, such as practice, discovery, and community. However, many literature departments are not prepared to embrace this approach, which involves what Ramsay (2010/2014) terms “screwing around” or “surfing and stumbling” as part of the research methodology. Shifting towards a pedagogy of active experimentation requires a significant paradigm shift, challenging traditional notions of teaching and learning. This shift may lead to discomfort or uncertainty for both teachers and students as they navigate unfamiliar territories. Bonds (2014) suggests that this discomfort arises from the need to co-produce knowledge in a constructivist manner, rather than passively receiving it. To bridge the gap between traditional pedagogy and DH practices, there needs to be a re-evaluation of entrenched ideas about teaching and scholarship. This re-evaluation should challenge limited perceptions of the teacher’s role and the connection between teaching and scholarship. Without this re-evaluation, Digital Humanities risks being confined to superficial applications like computer-assisted text analysis, rather than realising its full potential in higher education. Bringing pedagogy to the forefront of Digital Humanities in literature programs requires a fundamental reconsideration of educational practices and the roles of teachers and students. Embracing collaborative, experimental approaches can pave the way for the integration of DH into mainstream educational frameworks, fostering innovation and deeper engagement with humanities disciplines.
Founded on the philosophy of the constructivist and collaborative pursuit and production of new knowledge, pedagogy is at the very heart of Digital Humanities (DH). However, among the challenges for the institutionalisation of DH pedagogy, particularly in literature departments, is a dearth of sufficient literature on DH pedagogy—a concern echoed in “Where’s the Pedagogy?” by Stephen Brier (2012) among other scholar-practitioners of DH. As Hirsch (2012a) points out, the focus of the literature is predominantly “on the theories, principles, and research practices associated with the Digital Humanities—past and present—and not on issues of pedagogy”. Teaching is often “bracketed off” as an afterthought in the discussion on DH, which is a reflection of the practical realities of DH studies, particularly in literature departments. Hirsch argues that the bracketing off or complete exclusion of pedagogy in critical discussions of the Digital Humanities, as is often the case, reflects, and reinforces, the conflicting contrast between teaching and research of DH in academia. The chapter highlights the discrepancy between traditional pedagogical approaches prevalent in literature departments, especially in India, and the collaborative, hands-on methods intrinsic to DH practice. Traditional approaches often focus on the delivery of content from teacher to student, whereas DH emphasises inquiry-based learning, experimentation, and collaboration among peers and instructors. In the context of DH, a “pedagogy of digital experimentation” involves students actively engaging in making and doing, mirroring the work of DH professionals. This approach encourages collaborative exploration and discovery, aligning with the core tenets of DH, such as practice, discovery, and community. However, many literature departments are not prepared to embrace this approach, which involves what Ramsay (2010/2014) terms “screwing around” or “surfing and stumbling” as part of the research methodology. Shifting towards a pedagogy of active experimentation requires a significant paradigm shift, challenging traditional notions of teaching and learning. This shift may lead to discomfort or uncertainty for both teachers and students as they navigate unfamiliar territories. Bonds (2014) suggests that this discomfort arises from the need to co-produce knowledge in a constructivist manner, rather than passively receiving it. To bridge the gap between traditional pedagogy and DH practices, there needs to be a re-evaluation of entrenched ideas about teaching and scholarship. This re-evaluation should challenge limited perceptions of the teacher’s role and the connection between teaching and scholarship. Without this re-evaluation, Digital Humanities risks being confined to superficial applications like computer-assisted text analysis, rather than realising its full potential in higher education. Bringing pedagogy to the forefront of Digital Humanities in literature programs requires a fundamental reconsideration of educational practices and the roles of teachers and students. Embracing collaborative, experimental approaches can pave the way for the integration of DH into mainstream educational frameworks, fostering innovation and deeper engagement with humanities disciplines.
The topics of conversation among digital humanists-or "DHers"-over the last two years have been as broad as the scope of the digital humanities (DH) taxonomy and as varied as the definitions posed by its practitioners. 1 Some conversations focus "on building," some on "hack," some on "yack," and others on "alt-ac" (Ramsay, "On Building" 243-45; Nowviskie; Croxall). Fortunately, for those interested in introducing students to DH, other conversations address pedagogical concerns-teaching strategies, curricula development, and learning outcomes. (Unfortunately, there is no "-ack" synonymous with pedagogy to maintain the Suessian effect.) Such conversations would have proved helpful in the summer of 2012 as I prepped an undergraduate course in which I planned to introduce students to digital scholarly editing and encoding (TEI). As many do, I turned to the literature and found very few discussions of DH pedagogy-a fact validated by Stephen Brier's "Where's the Pedagogy?"-and even less on how to teach DH to undergraduates or within the English classroom. Without clear, practical guidelines, I managed to engage two classes in some semblance DH work-for which I found absolution in conversations about "digital experimentation," "screwing around," and "co-developing" (Fyfe 85; Ramsay, "The Hermeneutics" 7; Liu, "Digital" 20). From that point on, I have been listening in on the conversations about DH pedagogy in print, e-journals, tweets, blog posts, discussion forums, etc. What follows is an overview of select conversations "listened in on" with an analysis of how those conversations echo effective pedagogical practices. 2 The benefits most often cited for incorporating instruction in DH tools and practices in undergraduate and graduate courses tend to fall into two general categories. The first centers on the institution, viewing the incorporation of the "digital" into undergraduate and graduate courses as a means to "save the humanities," to ensure funding, and to give value to digital scholarship. "The digital humanities has the potential to revitalize what we do," William Pannapacker writes, "and to justify continuing support from institutions, foundations, academic administrations, the government, and the general public" ("Stop"). Teaching DH, Claire Warwick explains, "gives the subject a sense of stability in institutional terms" and "helps establish our credibility with academic colleagues in other disciplines" while "also provid[ing] a firmer financial basis for the future than research
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
