In Spring 2022, Kristen Mapes and Matt Handelman ran the course DH 861: Digital Humanities Pedagogy for the first time at Michigan State University. This class was designed with graduate students in mind to fulfill the pedagogy requirement, as part of the Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate. Throughout the semester, students in this course read and discussed a number of texts on topics ranging from computational thinking, to postcolonial digital humanities (DH), to reframing failure; and they were subsequently asked to begin thinking through how these topics might be incorporated into their own teaching philosophies. This culminated in the final project, for which students had to “create pedagogical materials designed to be used in a professional setting of [their] choice, inside and/or outside of the university” (Handelman and Mapes). These projects were developed and revised throughout the semester and then presented in class during the final weeks of the course.

Although graduate students are often expected to teach as part of their funding package, pedagogy is not necessarily at the forefront of their training. As Stephen Brier argues in “Where’s the Pedagogy?” the pedagogy of DH is often an “afterthought,” as a focus on research results in “minimizing and often obscuring the larger implications of DH for how we teach in universities and colleges and how we prepare the next generation of graduate students for careers inside and outside of the academy.” DH 861 was designed to address this lack by prioritizing opportunities for graduate students to develop their own pedagogical practices specific to their own fields, explore the through lines from goals and objectives to activities and assessments, and engage with a larger network of DH teacher-scholars who provide first-hand insights into incorporating DH pedagogy in a variety of undergraduate classrooms. By participating in a semester of DH 861, graduate students at MSU have the opportunity to develop a pedagogical practice that centres DH and develop materials that they can take not only into their own classrooms at MSU as scholars, instructors, and DH communicators, but also utilize in their future careers.

As a graduate student in this course, I decided to use the final project of DH 861 to create a general education humanities course that, while not technically a digital humanities class, incorporated digital humanities tools, methods, and values into the curriculum. I launched the course “Redefining Renaissance: From the Early Modern through the COVID-19 Era” in summer term 2022, a mere two weeks following the end of my time in DH 861 and the redevelopment of the syllabus and assignments for my final project. In this class, students completed small exercises rooted in DH pedagogy and developed final projects in the forms of websites, multimedia posters, or podcasts, accompanied by a reflection paper. Teaching this course provided an opportunity to implement what I learned in the pedagogy course immediately and under continued mentorship while reflecting on the process of meaningfully incorporating DH into the undergraduate classroom, even if DH was not the focus of course content.

Engaging with DH Pedagogy as a Graduate Student in DH 861

There are several options for graduate students who hope to concretize their commitment to pedagogy while pursuing their degree at Michigan State University. The first is via the Certification in College Teaching, which requires graduate students to complete work to fulfill the “incorporating technology in your teaching” competency but does not prioritize digital pedagogy (“Certification”). Another option for graduate students is the Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate, through which one can now enrol in DH 861. The Certificate is run through DH@MSU, which is comprised of an active community of faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students. In addition to being responsible for DH-centred events, spaces, and projects on campus, DH@MSU oversees the curriculum for both the Minor in Digital Humanities and the Graduate Certificate. While this certificate is not fully teaching-centred, one of the three required areas in completing the certification is through a pedagogy component.

DH 861 is framed as a space where graduate students both learn about the tools, methods, and theories related to digital pedagogy and create materials that they could then take from the course into their own classrooms and beyond. The course is primarily discussion-based, although guest speakers often visited to present on their experience as instructors who use DH pedagogy in their own classrooms, including scholars Ashley Sanders, Brandon Walsh, and Paige Morgan. For spring semester 2022, class was held in MSU’s Digital Scholarship Lab, which is located in the library and consistently showcases digital instruction in action. Mapes and Handelman led graduate students through various activities, such as writing teaching philosophy statements to better centre DH in building a pedagogical practice. For each class discussion and activity, values were at the forefront, and this influenced the trajectory of the course as graduate students were asked to identify what these DH values meant to them. Encouraged by Lisa Spiro’s essay “This Is Why We Fight” we spent the semester attempting to determine the role of DH in our approaches to pedagogy by attempting to “participate in a frank discussion about what connects us and what values we hold in common,” and instead of spending time trying to define the field we “focus[ed] on a community that comes together around values such as openness and collaboration” (16). Throughout DH 861, our discussions revolved around the values we uphold in our own classrooms before imagining the ways digital tools and methods could then be incorporated to support them.

At the onset, Mapes and Handelman emphasized the structure of the class to encourage the graduate students to think about the format of their own courses. Learning goals and outcomes were a key point of discussion, and the objectives for the course were placed prominently on the home page of the class website—an archived version of which can be viewed on archive.org. Students started analyzing and practising developing strong learning goals and objectives before ever attempting to incorporate digital tools into lesson plans. During the first week, the reading included the introduction “Curating Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities” (Frost Davis et al.), which includes a series of prompts to help develop learning goals for digital pedagogy. These prompts guided conversations about the purpose of assignments, the audience of their projects, assessment practices, and how goals for individual assignments connect to larger learning goals for the course (Frost Davis et al.). Each following week featured readings and discussions around a certain theme that we tied back to these prompts. Some units were more broadly applicable to pedagogy in the university context, such as the weeks on “The Active Classroom” and “Assignments, Activities, and Evaluation.” However, the majority of classes were focused on DH-specific topics such as “Postcolonial DH,” “DH in the Disciplines,” or “Libraries and Archives as DH Pedagogy.”

Each graduate student led one class session, with the option of attempting to instruct on a digital tool or method alongside the discussion of the assigned readings for that week. For example, the week A. L. McMichael visited to talk to us about her piece “Evaluating Digital Scholarship for Critical Thinking in the Undergraduate Classroom,” one of my peers asked us to evaluate a series of digital projects based on an assignment McMichael developed to teach students how to review a digital project that she discusses in this article. This experience led to me asking my students to complete this activity in an undergraduate course of my own design. Throughout DH 861, we participated in a number of activities that demonstrated the execution of different pedagogical practices and were asked to imagine what each of these topics might look like in our own classrooms.

Because of the way experimenting with DH pedagogy often necessitates building in room for failure, we frequently discussed our concerns on assessing student work and how to separate “failing” at a new digital tool or method from a failing grade. We tackled this head on in the unit “When Things Go Wrong/Failure.” This unit included a variety of articles and essays from DH instructors sharing how they tried to work through failure with their students, how they faced their own failures as instructors, and how different kinds of failure might be categorized and better understood. A major influence in this discussion was Claire Battershill and Shawna Ross’s book Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom, which includes ideas about how to make students more comfortable when working through these potential failures (although there was much debate as to whether that term should be used at all). We talked about the pressures already placed on our students, and how the negative connotations they might already have with the world “failure” might exacerbate existing fears related to their grades, and the subsequent associated consequences. At first, we imagined reframing these new experiences with more positive language, but we ultimately felt that this was still not adequate in assuaging student concerns when these activities would still be tied to course assessment.

A possible solution to these assessment concerns is outlined in the introduction to Battershill and Ross’s book, where they argue that reflection is important: “because frustration is a common feeling attendant on digital humanities experiments…you can productively turn the conversation to diagnosing the sources of that failure, using it to find new ways to solve the problem, whether by identifying a technological solution or by approaching the problem through other humanistic skill sets” (5). Based on this, we decided that the best way to combat student fears of failure would be to ask them to articulate their processes and to emphasize that their experiences interacting with new digital tools and methods were just as critical, if not more so, than any specific result or output from their attempts. After this discussion, I decided that the reflection paper was an ideal format for my courses to allow students to have these conversations about failure. Since I work with undergraduate students from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds who were at different stages of their college education, I believe that the reflection is a useful tool that helps make the assessment of digital assignments more equitable. Ellen Moll, the director of the Integrative Arts and Humanities at MSU, visited during “The Active Classroom” unit and discussed the reflection prompts she often uses with her own students and how we might adapt these prompts to address this. I completed and submitted my own reflection alongside my final project for DH 861 so I could better understand what I would be asking from my own students through this process.

The exploration of these topics helped to scaffold the most significant component of the course: the final project. By the middle of the term, each student developed a project proposal and checked in with the instructors to discuss drafts. Project draft presentations occurred during the final two weeks of the class, with final versions submitted by the end of finals week. My project focused on redesigning the syllabus for a summer class I had taught the year prior. During presentations, graduate students could solicit feedback from their peers, a tactic that invited further discussion of earlier course topics in the context of specific pedagogical applications to a variety of topics crossing multiple disciplines.

For my presentation, I highlighted some of the challenges I faced with the online, asynchronous format of MSU’s summer general education humanities courses to my peers. In these asynchronous courses, students often enrol from time zones all over the world, and as such there can be no required activities that involve scheduled virtual face-to-face time with the instructor or their peers. I brainstormed how to encourage active and engaged participation in the weekly activities and final project despite students not being required to interact with the instructor or their peers, especially following the intense, wide-spread burnout of being online and isolated for class during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gonzalez-Ramirez et al.). I wanted to develop activities that allow students to feel as if they are part of a learning community even in this online, asynchronous environment, while addressing the concerns students already have regarding access when having no alternative to participating in an online course for any reason.

Through the process of peer evaluation, I refined my learning goals (which needed to be adapted to a truncated summer schedule), finalized the weekly activities I would add to the class, and determined to what extent I needed to incorporate demonstrations and tutorials into my pre-recorded lectures. Perhaps the most interesting question that arose from feedback during the final presentations is whether or not undergraduate students need to know when they are engaging with DH pedagogy. This thread continued through each graduate student’s presentation, and the collective conclusion was, ultimately, “no.” Coming from a group of graduate students who, while invested in DH for their own research purposes, are very aware this specific label might open up further opportunities for them on the job market, we were surprised at this (at first) reluctantly unanimous decision. The reasoning behind this was that in some cases, like a course that is a general education university requirement, it most likely would be confusing for students rather than clarifying. If the values of our DH pedagogy are still infused in our syllabi, activities, and assessments, then in many ways the terminology is irrelevant to what we want our students to take with them from the course. Therefore, in developing the final draft of my project, I created a syllabus that asked students to thoughtfully engage with digital humanities tools and methods without ever explicitly telling them they were doing so.

Understanding the University Context: Integrative Arts and Humanities

As mentioned, for my project I reimagined the final assignment from a course I designed previously. The course was a part of MSU’s Integrative Arts and Humanities, a prerequisite that students most often take in their first or second year. This is a non-specialized course for students who are not in arts or humanities majors and covers a range of diverse topics. IAH 207 courses are united under the theme “Lit, Cultures, Identities,” but the aim of my section of the course was to explore the conceptual meaning of the term “renaissance” and how it has shaped literary and cultural history. In this iteration of the class, content began in “the Renaissance,” as known in the Western canonical imaginary, then moved on thematically to Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer Plus) literature to examine through each both the importance and limitations of thinking about these artistic outputs through the lens of various “renaissance” periods. Required readings included works by authors such as Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, N. Scott Momaday, Leslie Marmon Silko, Gloria Anzaldúa, Tony Kushner, and William Shakespeare. The syllabus also incorporated articles, projects, new media, and podcasts. Finally, I included materials that questioned an expectation that the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to another renaissance period, similar to the plague years in early modern Europe.

IAH is a university requirement for MSU undergraduates and fulfills students’ humanities requirement and their diversity requirement. IAH 207 is specifically designated as “International,” which is one of three options for the university’s diversity requirement. The mission of IAH is “to empower students to more deeply reflect on, understand, inquire about, and transform the world around them, and to invite all students into lifelong engagement with the arts and humanities” (“Mission & Goals”). All summer IAH courses are online asynchronous, and up to 35 students can enrol in a single section—although in my experience, I often end up with closer to ten or fifteen. The summer semester lasts for only seven weeks but carries the same credit load as a full semester four-credit class, often resulting in students feeling overwhelmed by the pacing of course content and assignments. For some students, IAH is their sole point of contact with the arts and humanities throughout their entire college career, making it an invaluable resource in developing critical thinking and exposure to other cultures and modes of thought.

In the original version of the “Redefining Renaissance” syllabus, course outputs were primarily text based, which is common in IAH courses. Although there was variation in what each short paper was asking for, the structure of the course relied heavily on the essay format in a way that was reminiscent of English courses. I asked students to write a series of papers throughout the semester, including a reflection paper, a compare and contrast paper, and a play review. For their final project in the original version, students had the option to choose a different medium for their final project (the syllabus listed podcasts, creative writing, and digital storytelling as examples of what they might do). Most students chose to write another paper, likely because it is all they had learned to do via the previous assignments for the class. Through DH 861, I hoped to redesign this class in a way that incorporated digital humanities methods and moved away from more traditional written assignments with the goal of running the class in its new iteration in the summer of 2022.

Course content primarily remained the same in the redesign, but I wanted to encourage my students to produce a digital project that might have relevance to them outside of the course–either through the content or medium of their project. The redesign involved rebuilding the syllabus, assignments, and assessments with a focus on DH pedagogy while still making sure the course aligned with the mission, values, and goals of IAH more generally. I used DH 861 as a model and developed a new version of the syllabus that incorporated weekly activities to scaffold toward the final project. Steps of the final project included a proposal, draft, and peer review that were due throughout the semester and replaced the unconnected papers from the first run of the course.

While the redesign of the IAH 207 syllabus retained the objectives focused on the arts and humanities through the theme of renaissance, I developed two additional learning goals to better contextualize the role of DH pedagogy within the class. The first new learning goal was for students to be able to draw connections between course texts and articulate their thoughts via a digital scholarly project with a clear thesis and well-developed argument. The second was for students to thoughtfully engage with a variety of digital projects and tools as both producers and consumers. These goals were inspired in part by Roopika Risam’s call to action at the end of her monograph New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy. She writes that in the digital cultural record: “the participatory nature of the internet gives us opportunities to look beyond ourselves and our institutions, to partner with our local communities, to engage the shift in media consumption from consumer to producer for positive change, to create spaces in which we can make legible the stories that go untold and the voices that go unheard” (Risam 142–143).

My hope was that these revised goals encouraged students to engage with digital resources in responsible and ethical ways and feel empowered to be the “producer[s] for positive change” in online spaces (Risam 143). Discussion in “Redefining Renaissance” often centred on the inequalities that often arise in the framing of renaissance periods, so it seemed like a logical next step to discuss this in terms of the digital. These learning goals required that the class include deliberately structured scaffolding for students to become more aware digital citizens rather than just requiring them to complete a single digital output. To do this, each week’s readings took the form of different media so students would be exposed to formats other than written texts. All original assignments from the first iteration of IAH 207 were replaced with activities intended to align with these new goals.

A DH-Centred Redesign

The revised version of IAH 207 incorporates small activities each week that help students work toward their final project. These activities include a mix of exercises designed around more general skills, such as conducting humanities research, and ones specifically created to introduce students to digital methods and digital projects. These weekly activities do not take much time to complete and do not have a lot of points associated with them individually. Rather, they are designed to help students take steps toward completing their final projects by introducing them to skills they may not be familiar with and encouraging them to work on the project throughout the semester. Scaffolding seemed crucial in this context, as students enrolled in this class may not only need support in learning how to do humanities research, but also to learn how to use digital tools in a way that reduces stress about working in this new medium while helping to combat some of the complications of online learning (Tracy and Hoiem).

One example of a new assignment that helped scaffold toward the final project was designed to help students become familiar with a variety of ways to ethically and legally source media. They had to find materials on OpenVerse related to their project topic and identify the Creative Commons licence associated with that material. In this short activity, after finding an image or media clip related to their project topic, students were asked to cite what they found, define the Creative Commons licence used, and reflect on their use of the tool to compare it to how they normally find media for use in class projects. Most students admitted they were unfamiliar with Creative Commons licenses and the best practices around locating and using non-text sources. Not only did this activity help students learn to properly credit the media they use in their projects, but it also facilitated a new understanding of how they might share their own work publicly and have more control over how their work is used.

I ended up having my students use the questions from A.L. McMichael’s handout on how to evaluate digital projects, which I had used as a student myself in DH 861, to analyze Amardeep Singh’s project “Claude McKay’s Early Poetry (1911–1922): A Digital Collection” for Week 2 of the course and Play Observatory’s “Play in the Pandemic” for Week 6 to see how their understanding of how to interact with digital projects might change throughout the semester. This activity aligns with the second learning goal I added to the course, as McMichael argues that by working through this assignment, “[t]he process also reminds students that they are valuable interlocutors alongside creators of sophisticated research available online”. This assignment encouraged students to interact with existing digital projects so they would better understand how to evaluate their peers’ work and perhaps imagine new possibilities for their own.

The final project of IAH 207 ended up mirroring the structure of the project for DH 861. Students submitted a proposal at mid-semester that included a description of their topic, a plan for the digital medium, a short annotated bibliography, and a timeline. Towards the end of the course, they submitted a draft and provided each other feedback through peer evaluations. Since it was an online asynchronous course, peer evaluations occurred through small discussion board groups rather than a presentation to the whole class. While the proposal and peer evaluation components would feel familiar to some undergraduate students, many of them were developing a digital project for the first time. They had the option of choosing between creating a multimedia poster, a podcast, or a website, and students could select their own topic as long as it connected to the class theme of renaissance.

Course readings incorporated tutorials for and examples of each of these project types, and lectures demonstrated how to interact with and create this kind of project. The weekly activities and assignments did as much as possible to try and prepare students for this potentially unfamiliar territory of designing their own digital project, but my main concern with the course was that students would feel like a large portion of their grade depended on creating something they were not comfortable with. Inspired by the discussions around failure and students’ discomfort with things going wrong, I ­­­­­decided to incorporate a reflection paper into the final assignment to better facilitate assessment of the digital projects. I met with Ellen Moll individually before the start of my course to follow up on the discussion from DH 861. I ended up adapting the questions she uses to fit my course, which resulted in a prompt that asked students to consider how the process of working on the project changed their understanding of the topic and how it related to course content, what struggles they may have had while completing their project, and whether they learned any new skills (Moll). This final adjustment tied together my objectives for incorporating DH pedagogy into my course.

Reflection & Revision

Overall, I would argue that this new version of IAH 207 was a success. My end of the semester reviews were fairly positive, and most of my students created a strong final project. There was an even mix between podcasts, multimedia posters, and websites. The incorporation of the reflection assignment proved to be crucial in my assessment of students, as they were able to address the “frustration [that] is a common feeling attendant on digital humanities experiments” while using what they learned in class to reflect on any problems through other humanistic methods (Battershill and Ross 5). I only had ten students, so I was able to provide individualized support for those who chose to attend office hours in a way I may not have been able to in a full class of thirty-five. The weakest point of the restructuring was the peer evaluation assignment. Not every single student submitted their draft on time, and the quality of the feedback varied more widely than I would have hoped. Since it appeared in a similar format on the course site as the weekly activities, I fear students may have treated it like a low-point value assignment rather than something worth 10% of their grade. As such, I plan to clarify the peer evaluation instructions in the course’s assignment sheet. Previously, students were just asked for a single paragraph of feedback detailing one thing they liked, one thing that they thought might be improved before the final draft is due, and their general impression of the project. Going forward, when requiring students participate in peer reviews I will ask them to write three brief paragraphs of detailed feedback for their peers: one about the reviewer’s first impressions of the project, one about what the reviewer thinks the project does well, and one about what the reviewer thinks could be improved on in the final draft.

Although I will most likely not teach this specific course again during my time at MSU, I adapted the project and weekly assignments for another online, asynchronous IAH course that I taught in summer 2023. In addition to the Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate, I am also working toward MSU’s Certification in College Teaching (“Certification”). This program requires graduate students to participate in a mentored teaching experience, and Kristen Mapes agreed to be my mentor as I fine-tuned the project and activities I developed as part of DH 861. The theme of this new course is “Self, Society, and Technology,” and the section I taught was “Text & Tech: How Literature Shaped Technology, and How Technology Shaped the Way we Read.” Already, this course takes a more direct approach to the integration of technology due to the nature of the subject matter. In addition to revising the instructions for the peer evaluation exercise, I reordered the weekly activities to place foundational activities, like “Evaluating an Argument,” earlier in the term before building to other activities, such “Understanding Copyright and Licenses,” that are more useful to students as they are actively working on their projects. My first foray into incorporating digital pedagogy into the classroom was extremely generative, and what I learned in DH 861 continues to shape my pedagogy as I develop my professional identity as an instructor.

The topic of “Text & Tech” proved to be much more popular than “Redefining Renaissance,” and the maximum possible 35 students registered for the course. This perhaps skewed any reflection on how the assignments worked compared to the previous class of ten, but overall, the implementation of the assignments and digital project from IAH 207 was a success. I added a new weekly assignment to address the topic of using ChatGPT in the creation of student work. Through this assignment, students had the option to engage with an AI chatbot themselves or to work from a provided example. I incorporated this activity to align with the second learning goal I developed as part of DH 861, hoping that students would imagine themselves as both producers and consumers when engaging with this technology to better understand its new and often controversial presence in higher education. I also implemented the new guidelines for the peer evaluations of project drafts to lead students to generate more specific and detailed feedback.

Other than altering the weekly assignments to better fit the course theme and revising the peer evaluation guidelines, the biggest adjustment I made to the class structure was to change the timeline for scaffolding the final project. I shifted each step of the assignment prior to the final draft up a week to provide students with more time to make adjustments based on the feedback they received from their draft. The seven-week timeline for an online asynchronous IAH course continues to be a challenge, and students had concerns about the timing of the assignment due dates for both IAH courses. Regardless of timing, students were able to complete impressive digital projects, and their reflection papers revealed a willingness to experiment and take a risk to find new ways to share their research and express their ideas.

My experiences in DH 861 proved to be incredibly beneficial in developing my identity as a teacher-scholar. The most critical elements of my pedagogical practice are now centred on values, learning outcomes, and engaging with students in discussions around their process in developing work for my courses. I have stopped trying to find ways to insert digital tools and methods into my classes just for the sake of adding DH, but instead I have found that they are easily incorporated in a more organic way due to my clearer understanding of what I want my students to take away from my courses. In being less focused on having my students just “do DH,” the pedagogy course has helped me redefine my own relationship with the digital humanities and helped me articulate why I feel it is important for my students to engage with digital tools and methods to become more involved digital citizens.

Works Cited

Battershill, Claire, and Shawna Ross. Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom a Practical Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers, and Students. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.

Brier, Stephen. “Where’s the Pedagogy? The Role of Teaching and Learning in the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2016, https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/8cc161e1-897e-48b3-947e-eaf7c2f6b0cc#ch22.

“Certification for College Training”. The Graduate School, Michigan State University, https://grad.msu.edu/feature/certification-college-teaching#:~:text=The%20certification%20is%20designed%20so,strategies%3B%20creating%20effective%20learning%20environments%3B. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

Frost Davis, Rebecca, et al. “Curating Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities.” Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: Concepts, Models, and Experiments, edited by Rebecca Frost Davis, Matthew K. Gold, Katherine D. Harris, and Jeremy Sayers, Modern Language Association, 2020, https://www.digitalpedagogy.hcommons.org/introduction/.

Gonzalez-Ramirez, Jimena, et al. “Emergency Online Learning: College Students’ Perceptions during the COVID-19 Crisis.” College Student Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, Mar. 2021, pp. 29–46.

Handelman, Matt and Kristen Mapes. “Home.” Digital Humanities Pedagogy, Jan. 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20221219191345/https://dhpedagogy.commons.msu.edu/.

McMichael, A.L. “Evaluating Digital Scholarship for Critical Thinking in the Undergraduate Classroom.” The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, 4 Jan. 2022, https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/evaluating-digital-scholarship-for-critical-thinking-in-the-undergraduate-classroom/.

“Mission & Goals.” Center for Integrative Studies in the Arts & Humanities, Michigan State University, https://cisah.msu.edu/mission-goals/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023.

Moll, Ellen. “Sample reflection papers for assignments.” DH 861: Digital Humanities Pedagogy, 21 Feb. 2022, Michigan State University. Class handout.

“Play in the Pandemic—Virtual Exhibition.” The Play Observatory, Mar. 2022, https://playinthepandemic.play-observatory.com/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

Risam, Roopika. New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy. Northwestern University Press, 2019.

Singh, Amardeep. “Claude McKay’s Early Poetry (1911–1922).” Claude McKay’s Early Poetry (1911-1922): A Digital Collection, 2015, https://scalar.lehigh.edu/mckay/index.

Spiro, Lisa. “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2012, https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/9e014167-c688-43ab-8b12-0f6746095335#ch03.

Tracy, Daniel G., and Elizabeth Massa Hoiem. “Scaffolding and Play Approaches to Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Assessment and Iteration in Topically-Driven Courses.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, 2017, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/4/000358/000358.html.