This week’s readings is a great addition to last’ weeks discussion regarding our digital lives and younger generations take on ‘the digital’. Looking at how students aren’t inherently drawn to DH, may find to be more knowledgeable of the digital than teachers, and are accustomed to digital tools more so than older generations of students and teachers brought a piece to the conversation that we began to discuss last week. In discussing what’s in and out of DH and what DH actually is, it was refreshing to read Ryan Cordell’s take on how not to teach DH. Although, theories and definitions are important, in any discipline, speaking of the not so fond memory of undergrad studies, it is hard to draw connections between lengthy and complex definitions and meaningful present research and projects. A huge point in the reading was engagement, which essentially draws to the essence of DH in collaborative work. Teaching should emphasize hands-on projects and critical engagement with DH methods that naturally integrate digital tools, allowing students to see DH’s relevance without extensive theoretical framing. This importance of teaching is highlighted in the piece “What We Teach When We Teach DH” (Brian Croxall and Diane K. Jakacki), how teachers of DH should encourage students to see themselves as active participants in knowledge production. To Cordell’s point to be active and engaged, not to see how well they know DH history and definitions. Both pieces touch on a flexible approach to teaching, Cordell with scaffolding and integrating, and Croxall and Jakacki with a collaborative approach. A flexible approach, Cordell argues helps demystify digital tools and encourages students to apply DH methods within their field of study organically, bringing them back to the foundational principles, definitions, and theories.

#teaching #pedagogy #collaborative #handson #engagement #students