digitalpedagogy.mla.hcommons.orgDigital Pedagogy in the Humanities | MLA Commons

Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities | Concepts, Models, and Experiments| s Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities Concepts, Models, and Experiments Search for: Log in Next page Welcome Site Home Page Title Page General Comments All Comments Comments by Commenter Blog Blog Archive Minimise Header Welcome Angela Gibson July 2, 2015 ¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Please visit the final version of Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities , where you can read the revised keywords and create your own collections of artifacts. ¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The official reviewing period for this project has ended, and commenting is closed. ¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Welcome to the open peer-review site for Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: Concepts, Models, and Experiments , a curated collection of reusable and remixable pedagogical artifacts for humanities scholars in development by the Modern Language Association. ¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Each keyword entry that you see on the right column of this site is curated by an experienced practitioner of digital pedagogy, who briefly contextualizes a pedagogical concept and then provides ten supporting artifacts, such as syllabi, prompts, exercises, lesson plans, and student work drawn from courses, classrooms, and projects across the humanities. These artifacts are annotated and accompanied by lists of related materials for further reading. The collection is published under a Creative Commons BY-NC license to encourage circulation, editing, and repurposing by other practitioners. ¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 Eventually, fifty keywords will compose the project, which is currently undergoing public peer review. New keywords will be added in batches throughout 2016. We invite you to read through and respond to each of these entries, and we welcome feedback from a wide range of practitioners at all levels of experience. When commenting on keywords, please consider the following: ¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Clarity of curator’s statement: Is the curator’s rationale clear? Do the artifacts below it fulfill the promises of the curatorial statement? Selection and presentation of artifacts: Does the keyword provide a broad range of sample artifacts? Are those artifacts annotated well? Are there any major gaps that should be addressed? Applicability: Does the keyword provide a wide range of starting points for a scholar interested in engaging in digital pedagogy work? ¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 While anyone may comment, we hope you’ll join the MLA and become part of the Commons community. ¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Thank you in advance for your feedback. Please visit our how to comment page if you have further questions about the process. Page 1 Contents Comments Activity Comments Comments are closed 2 Comments on the whole Page israelmuse January 8, 2019 at 3:02 am Comment awaiting moderation Lynda Cain March 13, 2020 at 1:12 am Comment awaiting moderation 0 Comments on paragraph 1 0 Comments on paragraph 2 0 Comments on paragraph 3 0 Comments on paragraph 4 1 Comment on paragraph 5 Vimala Pasupathi August 8, 2017 at 10:36 am Comment awaiting moderation 0 Comments on paragraph 6 0 Comments on paragraph 7 0 Comments on paragraph 8 Table of Contents Welcome Description How to Comment Keywords Access (George H. Williams) Affect (Elizabeth Losh) Annotation (Paul Schacht) Archive (Lauren Coats and Gabrielle Dean) Assessment (J. Elizabeth Clark) Authorship (Augusta Rohrbach) Blogging (Diane K. Jakacki) Classroom (Joyce R. Walker) Code (Lauren Klein) Collaboration (Amanda Licastro, Katina Rogers, and Danica Savonick) Community (Bridget Draxler) Community College (Anne B. McGrail, Dominique Zino, Jaime Cardenas, and Bethany Holmstrom) Curation (Julia Flanders) Design (Jennifer Sheppard and Kristin L. Arola) Diaspora (Jessica Marie Johnson) Digital Divides (Annemarie Perez) Disability (Melanie Yergeau) ePortfolio (Kathleen Blake Yancey) Failure (Brian Croxall and Quinn Warnick) Fiction (Chris Forster) Fieldwork (Colette Colligan and Michelle Levy) Future(s) (André Carrington) Gaming (Amanda Phillips) Gender (Anne Cong-Huyen) Hacking (William J. Turkel) Hashtag (Marisa Parham) History (Shawn Graham) Hybrid (Jesse Stommel) Indigenous (David Gaertner, Karyn Recollet, Elizabeth LaPensée) Information (Tanya E. Clement and Daniel Carter) Interface (Kathi Inman Berens) Intersectionality (Roopika Risam) Iteration (Annette Vee) Labor (Spencer D.C. Keralis) Language Learning (Ana Oskoz) Makerspaces (David M. Rieder and Jessica Elam-Handloff) Mapping (Diana S. Sinton) Multimodal (Virginia Kuhn) Network (Maha Bali and Mia Zamora) Online (Amy Collier) Open (Michael Roy) Play (Mark Sample) Poetry (Chuck Rybak) Praxis (Bethany Nowviskie, Jeremy Boggs, and J. K. Purdom Lindblad) Professionalization (Jennifer Guiliano) Project Management (Lynne Siemens) Prototype (Stan Ruecker, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Piotr Michura, and Gerry Derksen) Public (Jeffrey W. McClurken) Queer (Edmond Y. Chang) Race (Adeline Koh) Reading (Rachel Sagner Buurma) Remix (Kim Middleton) Rhetoric (Douglas Eyman) Sexuality (Alexis Lothian) Social Justice (Toniesha Taylor) Sound (Steph Ceraso) Storytelling (Bryan Alexander) Text Analysis (Natalie M. Houston) Video (Daniel Anderson and Jason Loan) Visualization (Stéfan Sinclair and Geoffrey Rockwell) Activity Recent Comments in this Document Jessica Hautsch October 8, 2017 at 9:12 pm I have to agree that I have a much harder time annotating digital texts than interacting on the margins of a physical copy. See in context Polina Vinogradova February 8, 2017 at 12:24 pm Ana, when you write reject a negative identity,” do you mean negative self-view or view of themselves? It might be useful to clarify this as some identity scholars argue that we don’t have multiple identities, but rather multiple layers and aspects of our identities. See in context Philippe Seminet February 7, 2017 at 6:53 pm One further artifact that might fit the bill nicely with what you have provided below, even though it has been around for a decade or more, is the use of Second Life for language learning purposes, as this short piece in Omniglot attests: http://www.omniglot.com/language/articles/secondlife.php See in context Polina Vinogradova February 7, 2017 at 6:51 pm Ana, you certainly make a clear connection between communicative competence and the availability of digital tools for language learning in paragraph 6. But I am wondering if it might be useful to redefine communicative competence here adding multiliteracies component (the ability to critically interpret and convey multimodal messages). There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here right now between the definition of communicative competence that language learning relies on and further discussion of resourcefulness and usefulness of digital tools. I think it would strengthen the argument. See in context Philippe Seminet February 7, 2017 at 6:49 pm While I agree on the whole with the move beyond linguistic elements given the awesome technology available (great artifacts provided in this piece!), I do find problematic the notion that language-learning is not about grammar. While true for L1, I don’t see why you’d avoid explaining past tenses in L2 without referring to how it’s done in L1. Why not use that resource? Yes, the goal is communication, but grammar provides the shorthand whereby you can more readily communicate the desired meaning. See in context Kathryn Tomasek February 7, 2017 at 3:45 pm Hi Julia, Thank you for including us as an example. Beyond that, I appreciate the variety of examples offered here, since they offer an idea of the range of possibilities with regard to disciplines and tools that might be used in curation assignments. I also appreciate the range of educational levels covered in the examples. See in context John Martin February 7, 2017 at 3:39 pm I could see this being taught...