In his keynote address at the 2019 Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) on the eve of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations’ (ADHO) Pedagogy Special Interest Group Conference, Matthew Gold reminded us “that we cannot forget the classroom as a central space for DH work” and argued the “incorporation of DH work into your classroom matters and is, in and of itself, DH.” “In order to think through DH,” he concluded, “we need to think through our teaching. And it is in that space of possibility, when computational methods encounter human beings, that DH can reach its fullest, most radiant, most radical, and most surprising potential” (“Thinking”). These ideas resonated with me and echoed many of the voices on the topic I synthesized five years earlier in “Listening in on the Conversations,” such as Bryan Alexander, Stephen Brier, Tanya Clement, Rebecca Frost Davis, Brett Hirsch, Alan Liu, Stephen Ramsay, Geoffrey Rockwell, Tom Scheinfeldt, and Melissa Terras. In fact, I was at the conference and DHSI to think through how to design a program to support the integration of digital humanities (DH) into new and existing arts and humanities courses—a program informed by the existing scholarship on teaching strategies, curricula development, and learning outcomes.
On a campus without dedicated DH courses or programs of study and without DH “cluster hires” or targeted department hires, the arts and humanities community has increasingly been seeking ways to introduce undergraduate and graduate students to DH as a research methodology within their disciplines. After visiting several classes either to give an overview of DH in their disciplines or to teach a specific method or tool in support of a class assignment or project, my inability to scale and sustain this approach to DH instruction as the sole DH librarian quickly became apparent. Therefore, when my Associate Dean presented the idea of developing a teaching endorsement focused on DH pedagogy for our university’s teaching and learning institute in fall 2018, I found a prime opportunity to address what the community sought and to build capacity for DH instruction within the disciplines.
Finding models for pedagogy-focused workshops in DH to inform the design of my own became imperative. That summer, I enrolled in Diane Jakacki’s and Katie Faull’s DH pedagogy course at DHSI. Their workshop proved incredibly helpful for determining both what to teach—practices, strategies, methods—and how to teach it with readings, resources, demonstrations, hands‐on exercises, and open discussions. During that week, I drafted an outline of the pedagogical topics to address and the DH methods and tools to include. That summer, I also served as an instructor at the Association of Research Libraries’ Digital Scholarship Institute (ARL DSI). Through teaching the session on scholarly editions and text encoding, and observing how others taught sessions on archives and exhibitions, text mining, and geospatial and temporal mapping, I learned a great deal about meeting learners where they are—thinking through how to present these topics to those with only a vague notion of what DH is and to those who are practitioners with grant‐funded projects. From these pedagogical models, I also learned the importance of cohort building. Providing opportunities for participants to find others with similar interests working in similar disciplines or roles with whom they can brainstorm and share class project ideas, instruction strategies, and resources became an important aspect to emulate.
Following the principles of backwards design, developing the program began with defining its goals and outcomes (Bowen). As already mentioned, the ultimate goal of the program is to increase capacity for DH instruction across the arts and humanities disciplines. Offering the program through the teaching endorsement program—which aims to prepare faculty to design or redesign a course with a specific pedagogical approach—defined a second goal: to facilitate the integration of DH into course [re]design. To achieve these goals, the learning outcomes center on guiding participants through the course integration process, helping them
identify the DH approach most appropriate for integration into a new or existing graduate or undergraduate course;
develop a plan for course design or redesign that defines learning outcomes, scaffolds learning, considers access and inclusion, outlines assignment(s), and specifies form of assessment (formal, informal, peer); and
determine requirements (e.g., software, hardware, infrastructure, funding, training, resources) for implementation.
Having goals and outcomes directed towards preparing participants for course integration planning—as opposed to training in specific methods and tools—helped design the program’s instructional format, scope and select the content, and scaffold instruction.
DH workshops and intensive learning programs have taken many forms over the years. While some have been hour-long to full-day workshops, others have been multiple days. Some have been synchronous; others, asynchronous. Given the outcomes defined and the time constraints most faculty and graduate students face, a workshop series with a “blended” approach—synchronous sessions and asynchronous exploration modules—proved an effective format. Whether in-person or virtual, the synchronous sessions provide a forum for presenting and discussing pedagogical topics and encourage the formation of a cohort or community of practice through sharing and group tasks—an important component of the series that would be lost if the entire workshop was asynchronous and these sessions were recorded. The efficacies of blended learning (e.g., Wong et al. and Kintu et al.) and the cohort model (e.g., Reynolds and Hebert; Fenning) have been established by higher education scholarship for some time. Several have written on the effectiveness of the cohort or communities of practice model specifically in DH courses and training (e.g., Green, Siemens, Morello, Rasmussen et al. and Benatti et al.). The campus learning management system proved useful in delivering the content supporting the synchronous sessions and the asynchronous modules, and in collecting the participants’ submissions. In addition to these sessions, the second cohort benefitted from an individual consultation session added in response to feedback from the first cohort. Like the DH consultations I regularly have with faculty and students, these consultations are akin to a librarian’s reference interview or research consultation and to an instructor’s or tutor’s writing conference, involving listening, questioning, parsing, and planning (Bonds, “Preparing”). While the consultations are time‐intensive, they really helped participants develop their ideas and determine the best tools, strategies, and assignments, and afforded me an opportunity to share even more resources with them specifically related to what they have in mind. Overwhelmingly, the second cohort rated the consultations as the most helpful component of the workshop series.
Centering the focus on DH determined the scaffolding and the order of the synchronous sessions, the asynchronous exploration modules, and the consultation session. The two-hour primary synchronous sessions Introductions (week one) and Course Integration (week five) bookend the exploration modules (weeks two through four) to provide a foundation in DH praxis before and in pedagogical practice after the asynchronous modules. The concluding sharing session (week six) gives participants the opportunity to share their course integration ideas or plans (in any stage) in a lightning-round fashion, providing both opportunities to generate ideas from one another and to foster connections beyond the workshop for co-learning, co-designing, and co-teaching. This structure has proven adaptable to both in-person and virtual instruction, using the active learning strategies each affords (e.g. small groups, breakout rooms).
Rather than define digital humanities or attempt to position it within arts and humanities disciplines, Introductions is modeled after Brandon Locke’s 2019 ARL DSI opening session which he based on Lisa Spiro’s article “This is Why We Fight: Defining the Values of Digital Humanities” and Kristen Mapes’s presentation “Teaching Values, Not Definitions: Experiences and Research in the Introductory Digital Humanities Course.” Framing this session with values proved helpful to introduce DH as a practice and research approach, review different DH research methods, and prompt thinking about integrating these research methods into their courses. For preparation for the first session, the core readings include the chapters on “Designing Syllabi” and “Creating Digital Assignments” from Claire Battershill’s and Shawna Ross’s Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom, Ryan Cordell’s “How Not to Teach the Digital Humanities,” and Diane Jakacki’s and Katie Faull’s “Doing DH in the Classroom.” A range of additional readings provide further context, approaches, strategies, practices, and considerations like the FemTechNet Critical Race & Ethnic Studies Pedagogy Workbook, Jessica DeSpain’s “A Feminist Digital Humanities Pedagogy beyond The Classroom,” Spencer Keralis’s “Disrupting Labor in Digital Humanities; or, The Classroom Is Not Your Crowd,” Miriam Posner’s “How Did They Make That?,” and Roopika Risam’s New Digital Worlds. Similarly, links to resources like “A Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights” (Di Pressi et al.), Reviews in Digital Humanities (Guiliano and Risam), Lisa Spiro’s Digital Humanities Education Zotero group, “Fair Use Fundamentals,” Inclusive Pedagogy Toolkit (Centre for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship), and Ethics for Digital Projects and Research (Digital Humanities Research Institute) provide further considerations important to course [re]design.
Following the Introductions session, three weeks are allotted for participants to choose three modules to explore. These modules include a variety of methods most often integrated into disciplinary classes: collections and exhibits, multimodal publishing, geospatial humanities, network analysis, data analysis, temporal analysis, text analysis, digital scholarly editing and text encoding, and visualization. An additional module focuses on an introduction to DH either as an overview of DH in a specific discipline or an analysis of DH projects. Each module provides content to both explain the method and provide a pedagogical lens to help generate ideas for course integration: core readings to lay a foundation; additional readings to delve deeper; resources for reference and related information; tools (privileging open source); tutorials for common tools; and sample assignments, lesson plans, syllabi, and projects built by students in courses when available. For each module a participant selects, they are asked to complete a brainstorming response to record ideas for possible learning outcomes, reading(s), instruction, assignment(s), and grading criteria. Reviewing these responses—as brief or as detailed as the participant wishes—provides insight into what course they are focusing on and what method(s) they are considering, and better enables me to prepare for the individual consultation.
Ideally, the individual consultation sessions are scheduled in weeks four and five. How far the participant is in the planning process typically determines the length of the consultation session; most only last thirty minutes. Typically, the participant shares information about the course they are [re]designing, the modules they selected to explore, and the ideas they have for assignments or projects. In turn, they receive feedback, additional resources, tool recommendations, information about training opportunities, etc. Occasionally, participants schedule follow-up consultations after the series concludes to review their syllabus, assignment, or rubric; to get help with a tutorial or using a specific tool; or to consult with specialists in mapping or visualization. As mentioned, feedback from participants both motivated and validated the addition of the consultation session which will continue to be a key component of the series.
In week five, the Course Integration session focuses on specific aspects of curriculum development with a backwards design approach: writing course goals and learning outcomes, scaffolding instruction, practicing inclusive pedagogy, and assessing learning. To prepare for the session, participants read Sean Michael Morris’s “A Call for Critical Instructional Design” and review Future Focused Learning’s “Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy Verbs.” Reviewing the guidelines for articulating course goals and learning outcomes developed by the university’s teaching and learning institute opens the session, followed by a quick scan of two versions of Bloom’s taxonomy—the original and the adapted “digital” version—for appropriate active verbs to use when writing outcomes (Michael V. Drake Institute; Center for Teaching; Future Focused). The key concepts of instructional scaffolding covered next encourage participants to focus specifically on teaching students to apply a DH method or tool to their research project: determining the steps in the task or process, demonstrating the steps and verbalizing the process(es), practicing in small groups or independently, and coaching (IRIS Center). Participants are then tasked with working in small breakout groups to examine different syllabi shared with the DH community to assess the goals and outcomes by the criteria included in the teaching and learning institute’s guidelines and to discern how the learning is scaffolded. After participants share their findings with the rest of the cohort, the session continues with a discussion of developing assignments and assessment measures that support the course goal(s) and outcome(s), looking at a few assignments and rubrics shared with the DH community as examples. The concluding discussion of inclusive practices draws on the Inclusive Pedagogy Pre-Conference Workshop at ACH 2019 and Georgetown’s Center for New Designs in Learning & Scholarship’s Inclusive Pedagogy Toolkit and offers several practices in DH pedagogy for consideration—many of which have been integral to the community all along, including
giving students autonomy in making decisions about their projects and allowing them to choose among assignment options when possible;
keeping in mind their differing skillsets, their access to technology (WiFi, computers, software), the costs of hosting, and the limitations of “free” versions of tools and platforms;
creating an environment conducive to experimentation, play, and learning from failure;
being transparent about assessment criteria and how they relate to learning goals and outcomes;
taking “an asset‐based approach” and encouraging students to apply their skills, strengths, and experiences to the work; and
learning the method or tool with and from them.
Because several courses and workshops regularly offered on our campus concentrate on assessment and inclusive teaching, the discussions of these topics aim to prompt thinking in the context of DH rather than provide comprehensive training.
The final session in week six provides participants the opportunity to share a brief, five-minute presentation of their plans to integrate DH in their course. Most participants—particularly in the second cohort—had clear plans for integrating a project assignment or using tools like Voyant for active learning during class. These plans double as material for drafting sections of the teaching and learning institute’s instructional redesign portfolio—a requirement for the teaching endorsement.
From the outset, this workshop series has relied on input and feedback from fellow practitioners and participants to ensure it meets the community’s needs. During the series, informal assessment strategies helped me gauge understanding of and engagement with the session topics in order to modify instruction and content accordingly. Many participants in both workshop cohorts remarked they found the amount of material shared overwhelming, and I reminded them to think of these as options: they should not aim for comprehensive coverage of the material but use it to generate ideas or as models for what they can do. Afterwards, a post-workshop survey asked participants to rate the program’s support of learning outcomes, design, content, and usefulness to course design. As an informal assessment measure of participants’ overall progress, the final sessions demonstrated an increased understanding of DH and of how it can be integrated into new or existing courses. Similarly, the anonymously submitted survey data indicated that participants found the workshop series succeeded in meeting their expectations, introducing them to DH methods and tools, and guiding their thinking about integrating DH methods and tools into courses. Overall, they felt the series supported the learning outcomes and provided them with a wealth of resources for reference as they continue to design their curricula and instruction. Those identifying as new to DH suggested providing more extensive overviews of the methods and descriptions of the tools and platforms—the perennial challenge of meeting participants where they are. All of this welcomed input and feedback will be used to revise and update the course content to support the participants’ achievement of the goals and outcomes.
In designing this program, I practiced the curriculum design approach and the instructional design strategies and considerations I suggest during the workshop sessions: the goals and outcomes determine the program’s overall design and content, the support needed to achieve the outcomes determines the session topics and instructional scaffolding, and the choice of exploration modules (methods and tools) provides participants a level of autonomy and an opportunity to build upon their own disciplinary and pedagogical training. While the content may require occasional updates or tweaks, the program’s existing framework will continue to provide an environment conducive to exploring DH’s many pedagogical possibilities.
To those interested in developing a similar participant‐centered program in DH pedagogy to address their community’s needs and to build capacity for DH instruction across their campus, I offer three tips.
Designing this workshop was tremendously helped by the collection of resources I have amassed over eight years, and building the workshop site provided an opportunity to begin curating those specifically related to pedagogy. Soon after creating the DH pedagogy course site, I built a LibGuide to organize the remaining collected content for specific methods and best practices, significantly expanding the number of resources for both praxis and pedagogy shared in the course (“Digital Humanities”). Two other “meta resources”—Digital Humanities Pedagogy at CCNY and LibGuides Community (a searchable index of LibGuides)—prove useful for both building and maintaining resource collections, and Humanities Commons CORE has quickly become an invaluable resource for syllabi, assignments, articles, and course projects as more members upload and share their materials. Of course, the fragility of links necessitates regular maintenance to confirm the material in these collections remains accessible and often results in the loss of material over time. Linking to persistent URLs when possible and printing or downloading content when not helps tremendously. Likewise, promoting the importance of using stable, open repositories for sharing pedagogical and scholarly work to our community will both expand the amount of material readily available and significantly improve long-term sustainability.
Observing how others approach teaching DH pedagogy informed (and continues to improve) this program’s design, content, and instructional strategies. In addition to the DHSI workshop mentioned earlier, other pedagogy‐focused workshops like DHSI’s Critical Pedagogy and Digital Praxis in the Humanities (Friend) or Pedagogy of the Digitally Oppressed (Morford et al.), and presentations about DH (or digital scholarship) pedagogy training programs like the one Emily Sherwood gave in the Coalition for Networked Information’s Digital Scholarship Planning Webinar Series can serve as models for how to approach DH pedagogy instruction and program development.
Without question, designing the program and selecting content for a range of knowledge and skill levels presents a challenge. The key is to make the time worthwhile for each participant and to help them determine what is within scope for their knowledge and skills. Just as the participants must prepare to do in the classroom, meeting workshop participants where they are, offering additional time for individual meetings, and recommending alternate resources will help each meet the program’s goal(s) and outcome(s). Additionally, offering post‐workshop support and encouraging the cohort to form groups for co-learning, co-designing, and co-teaching will assist [re]design course and foster continued engagement with DH.
As the number of centers, colleges, departments, and libraries taking the charge of supporting the integration of DH instruction in courses increases, the conversations in our community about developing pedagogy-focused programs—and the design and content decisions made during their development—must also increase. May this serve as both a contribution to that conversation and a model for others to consult, adapt, or expand when developing their own programs.
Alexander, Bryan, and Rebecca Frost Davis. “Should Liberal Arts Campuses Do Digital Humanities? Gold, Debates in the Digital Humanities, Chapter 21.
Association of Research Libraries. “Fair Use Fundamentals.” Fair Use Week, Feb. 2015, www.fairuseweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ARL-FUW-Infographic-r4.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Battershill, Claire, and Shawna Ross, editors. Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom: A Practical Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers and Students. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
Benatti, Francesca, Paul Gooding, and Matthew Sillence. “Learning Digital Humanities in a Community of Practice: the DEAR Model of Postgraduate Research Training.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021, digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/15/3/000570/000570.html.
Bonds, E. Leigh. “Digital Humanities: Selected Resources for Digital Humanities Praxis and Pedagogy,” Ohio State University Libraries, guides.osu.edu/DH/digitalhumanities.
Bonds, E. Leigh. “Listening in on the Conversations: An Overview of Digital Humanities Pedagogy.” CEA Critic, vol. 76, no. 2, 2014, pp. 147–157. Knowledge Bank, hdl.handle.net/1811/84568.
Bonds, E. Leigh. “Preparing, Facilitating, Assessing: A Reflection on Digital Humanities Consultations.” International Information & Library Review, vol. 50, no. 3, 2018, pp. 244–250. Knowledge Bank, hdl.handle.net/1811/87191.
Bowen, Ryan S. “Understanding by Design.” Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University, 2017, cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-design/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Brier, Stephen. “Where’s the Pedagogy? The Role of Teaching and Learning in the Digital Humanities.” Gold, Debates in the Digital Humanities, Chapter 22.
Center for New Designs in Learning & Scholarship. “Inclusive Pedagogy Toolkit,” Georgetown University, 2021, cndls.georgetown.edu/inclusive-pedagogy/ip-toolkit/introduction. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Center for Teaching and Learning. “Writing Measurable Course Objectives.” The Center for Teaching and Learning, University of North Carolina Charlotte, teaching.uncc.edu/teaching-guides/course-design/writing-measurable-course-objectives. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Clement, Tanya. “Multiliteracies in the Undergraduate Digital Humanities Curriculum: Skills, Principles, and Habits of Mind.” Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles, and Politics, edited by Brett D. Hirsch, Open Book Publishers, 2012, doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vjtt3.
Cong-Huyen, Anne, et al. FemTechNet Critical Race & Ethnic Studies Pedagogy Workbook, scalar.usc.edu/works/ftn-ethnic-studies-pedagogy-workbook-/index. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Cordell, Ryan. “How Not to Teach the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Klein, U of Minnesota P, 2016, Chapter 36. dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/31326090-9c70-4c0a-b2b7-74361582977e#ch36.
Crompton, Constance, Richard J. Lane, and Ray Siemens, editors. Doing Digital Humanities: Practice, Training, Research. Routledge, 2016.
DeSpain, Jessica. “A Feminist Digital Humanities Pedagogy beyond the Classroom.” Transformations, vol. 26, no. 1, 2016, pp. 65–73, doi.org/10.5325/trajincschped.26.1.0065.
“Digital Humanities Pedagogy at CCNY.” Division of Humanities & the Arts, City College of New York, dhccny.commons.gc.cuny.edu. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Digital Humanities Research Institute. “Ethics for Digital Projects and Research,” 15 May 2019, github.com/dhsouthbend/ethics. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Di Pressi, Hayley Di, Stephanie Gorman, Miriam Posner, Raphael Sasayama, and Tori Schmitt. “A Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights.” Center for Digital Humanities – UCLA, humtech.ucla.edu/news/a-student-collaborators-bill-of-rights/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Fenning, Kristine. “Cohort Based Learning: Application to Learning Organizations and Student Academic Success.” College Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 1, 2004, collegequarterly.ca/2004-vol07-num01-winter/fenning.html.
Friend, Chris. “Critical Pedagogy and Digital Praxis in the Humanities.” Digital Humanities Summer Institute, University of Victoria, 5–9 June 2023. Workshop.
Future Focused Learning. “Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy Verbs.” Future Focused Learning, 21 Sept. 2021, blog.futurefocusedlearning.net/download-blooms-digital-taxonomy-verbs-poster. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Gold, Matthew K., editor. Debates in the Digital Humanities. U of Minnesota P, 2012, doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754.
Gold, Matthew. “Thinking Through DH: Proposals for Digital Humanities Pedagogy.” Digital Humanities Summer Institute, 7 June 2019, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Keynote Address, blog.mkgold.net/2019/06/07/thinking-through-dh-proposals-for-digital-humanities-pedagogy/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Green, Harriet E. “Facilitating Communities of Practice in Digital Humanities: Librarian Collaborations for Research and Training in Text Encoding.” Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, vol. 84, no. 2, 2014, pp. 219–234, doi.org/10.1086/675332.
Guiliano, Jennifer, and Roopika Risam, editors. Reviews in Digital Humanities. reviewsindh.pubpub.org/.
Inclusive Pedagogy Pre-Conference Workshop, Association for Computers and the Humanities Conference, 23 July 2019, ach2019.ach.org/full-day-inclusive-pedagogy-pre-conference-free. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
IRIS Center. “Providing Instructional Supports: Perspectives & Resources.” Iris Center Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/sca/cresource/q1/p01/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Jakacki, Diane, and Katie Faull. “Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Integration in the Curriculum.” Digital Humanities Summer Institute. University of Victoria, 10–14 June 2019. Workshop.
Jakacki, Diane, and Katie Faull. “Doing DH in the Classroom: Transforming the Humanities Curriculum through Digital Engagement.” Crompton, Lane, and Siemens, pp. 358–372.
Keralis, Spencer. “Disrupting Labor in Digital Humanities; or, The Classroom Is Not Your Crowd.” Disrupting the Digital Humanities, edited by Dorothy Kim and Jesse Stommel, Punctum Books, 2018, pp. 273–294, punctumbooks.com/titles/disrupting-the-digital-humanities/.
Kintu, Mugenyi Justice, et al. “Blended Learning Effectiveness: The Relationship between Student Characteristics, Design Features and Outcomes.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 7, 2017, pp. 1–20. doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4.
LibGuides Community. Springshare, community.libguides.com. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Liu, Alan. “Digital Humanities and Academic Change.” English Language Notes, vol. 47, no. 1, 2009, pp. 17–35, doi.org/10.1215/00138282-47.1.17.
Locke, Brandon. “Introduction to Digital Scholarship.” Association of Research Libraries Digital Scholarship Institute, 29 July 2019, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Plenary Presentation.
Mapes, Kristen. “Teaching Values, Not Definitions: Experiences and Research in the Introductory Digital Humanities Course.” Digital Humanities and the Undergraduate Experience, 21 Apr. 2019, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, resentation, kristenmapes.com/siue2019/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Michael V. Drake Institute for Teaching and Learning. “Articulate Course Goals and Learning Outcomes.” Ohio State University, drakeinstitute.osu.edu/instructor-support/assessment-plan-development/articulate-course-goals-and-learning-objectives. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Morello, Stefano. "Digital Humanities at CUNY: Building Communities of Practice in the Public University." América Crítica, vol. 4, no. 2, 2020, pp. 113–122, academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/444/.
Morford, Ashley Caranto, Kush Patel, and Arun Jacob. “Pedagogy of the Digitally Oppressed: Anti-Colonial DH Critiques & Praxis.” Digital Humanities Summer Institute, University of Victoria, 5–9 June 2023. Workshop.
Morris, Sean Michael. "A Call for Critical Instructional Design." Sean Michael Morris, 27 Oct. 2017, seanmichaelmorris.com/a-call-for-critical-instructional-design/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Posner, Miriam. “How Did They Make That?” Miriam Posner’s Blog, 17 Apr. 2014, miriamposner.com/blog/how-did-they-make-that/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Ramsay, Stephen. “On Building.” Terras, Nyhan, and Vanhoutte, pp. 243–245.
Rasmussen, Hannah, et al. “Exploring How and Why Digital Humanities Is Taught in Libraries.” A Splendid Torch: Learning and Teaching in Today’s Academic Libraries, edited by Jodi Reeves Eyre, et al., Council on Library and Information Resources, 2017, pp. 69–88. www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/10/pub174.pdf.
Reynolds, Katherine C., and F. Ted Hebert. “Learning Achievements of Students in Cohort Groups.” Journal of Continuing Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 3, 1998, pp. 34–42. doi.org/10.1080/07377366.1998.10400354. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Risam, Roopika. New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy. Northwestern UP, 2018.
Rockwell, Geoffrey. “Inclusion in the Digital Humanities.” Terras, Nyhan, and Vanhoutte, pp. 247–253.
Scheinfeldt, Tom. “Theory, Method, and Digital Humanities.” Hacking the Academy, edited by Daniel J. Cohen and Tom Scheinfeldt, U of Michigan P, 2013, pp. 55–59.
Sherwood, Emily. “Beyond Tech: A Pedagogical Approach to Incorporating Digital Projects in the Classroom.” Initiatives in Teaching & Learning, Coalition for Networked Information Digital Scholarship Planning Series, 29 Sep. 2020, Webinar, Vimeo, vimeo.com/463228667. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Siemens, Ray. “Communities of Practice, the Methodological Commons, and Digital Self-Determination in the Humanities.” Crompton, Lane, and Siemens, pp. xxi–xxx.
Spiro, Lisa. “Digital Humanities Education.” Zotero, 8 June 2021, www.zotero.org/groups/25016/digital_humanities_education. Accessed 24 Sept. 2022.
Spiro, Lisa. “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities.” Gold, Debates in the Digital Humanities, Chapter 3.
Terras, Melissa. “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing.’” Terras, Nyhan, and Vanhoutte, pp. 67–96.
Terras, Melissa, Julianne Nyhan, and Edward Vanhoutte, editors. Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader. Ashgate, 2013.
Wong, Lily, et al. “A Framework for Investigating Blended Learning Effectiveness.” Education + Training, vol. 56, no. 2/3, 2014, pp. 233–251, doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0049.