Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Pedagogy and the Archives: Engaging Students in Public Digital Humanities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Digital and Public Humanities

  • 554 Accesses

Abstract

The archive offers one of the most common arguments for digital humanities as a form of public scholarship as researchers present difficult-to-access materials in broadly accessible digital editions. While many teacher-scholars have addressed archives—physical and digital—as a way to engage students with research methodologies, primary sources, and curatorial activities, this chapter develops a framework for pedagogical partnerships with archives in the pursuit of project based learning and public scholarship. Drawing from precedents in digital humanities and library instruction, the chapter proposes an open pedagogical approach for the creation of public-facing resources from textual materials in the archive. As a model for enacting this approach the chapter reviews a course that scaffolds learning from the curation of archival materials to the publication of a digital documentary edition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball, Cheryl. 2013. “Logging On.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 17 (2) (Spring). https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/17.2/loggingon/index.html.

  • Ball, Cheryl, Tarez Samra Graban, and Michelle Sidler. 2013. “The Boutique Is Open: Data for Writing Studies.” http://ceball.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NHUK-chapter-rhetoric.io-PREPRINT.pdf.

  • Bauer, Matthias, and Angelika Zirker. 2015. “Whipping Boys Explained: Literary Annotation and Digital Humanities.” In Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology, edited by Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens. New York: Modern Language Association. https://doi.org/10.1632/lsda.2015.12.

  • Beam, Carey, and Carrie Schwier. 2018. “Learning in Place: The Teaching Archivist and Place-Based Education.” Archival Issues: The Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference 29 (1): 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannock, Jennifer, Craig Carey, and Joyce O. Inman. 2018. “Starting from the Archives: Digital Humanities Partnerships, Projects, and Pedagogies.” In Digital Humanities, Libraries, and Partnerships: A Critical Examination of Labor, Networks, and Community, edited by Robin Kear and Kate Joranson, 163–76. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, Jonathan, Tamar Chute, and Anne Fields. 2012. “Training in the Archives: Archival Research as Professional Development.” College Composition and Communication 64 (2) (December): 274–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cangialosi, Karen. 2018. “But You Can’t Do That in a STEM Course!” Hybrid Pedagogy, June 26. https://hybridpedagogy.org/do-in-a-stem-course/.

  • Clark, Ashley M. 2020. “Proposal: New Element <persPronouns> #2010.” Text Encoding Initiative Repository (GitHub), June 29. https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/2010.

  • Comer, Kathryn B., and Michael Harker. 2015. “The Pedagogy of the Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives: A Survey.” Computers and Composition 35 (March): 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conatser, Trey, Jake Beavin, Cassie Bradley, Dylan Clark, and Brianna Gill. 2019. “Coding (and) the Archive: Texts, Markup, and Open Pedagogy.” Midwest Archives Conference Newsletter 47 (1) (July): 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordell, Ryan. 2014. “On Ignoring Encoding,” May 8. https://ryancordell.org/research/dh/on-ignoring-encoding/.

  • Cordell, Ryan. 2016. “How Not to Teach Digital Humanities.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016.

  • Crawford, Cole. 2017. “Respect the Gap: From Big to Boutique Data Through Laboring-Class Poets Online.” MA thesis, Oregon State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker, Juilee. 2020. “No More ‘Dusty Archive’ Kitten Deaths: Discoverability, Incidental Learning, and Digital Humanities.” In Quick Hits for Teaching with Digital Humanities: Successful Strategies from Award-Winning Teachers, edited by Christopher J. Young, Michael Morrone, Thomas C. Wilson, and Emma Annette Wilson, 232–40. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRosa, Robin, and Rajiv Jhangiani. 2017. “Open Pedagogy.” In A Guide to Making Open Textbooks with Students, edited by Elizabeth Mays. Montreal: Rebus Community. https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/open-pedagogy/.

  • Drucker, Johanna. 2011. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 5 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html.

  • Duke, Rachel C. S., and Sarah Stanely. 2019. “‘Decoding’ with Encoding: Digital Tools in the Special Collections Classroom.” In Teaching Undergraduates with Archives, edited by Nancy Bartlett, Elizabeth Gadelha, and Cinda Nofziger, 60–70. Ann Arbor: Maize Books. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11499242.

  • Dumont, Stefan, Ingo Börner, Jonas Müller-Laackman, Dominik Leipold, and Gerlinde Schneider. 2019. “Correspondence Metadata Interchange Format (CMIF).” In Encoding Correspondence: A Manual for Encoding Letters and Postcards in TEI-XML and DTABf, edited by Stefan Dumont, Susanne Haaf, and Sabine Seifert. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. https://encoding-correspondence.bbaw.de/v1/CMIF.html.

  • Earhart, Amy E. 2012. “Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities.

  • Engel, Deena, and Marion Thain. 2015. “Textual Artifacts and Their Digital Representations: Teaching Graduate Students to Build Online Archives.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9 (1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000199/000199.html.

  • Enoch, Jessica, and Pamela VanHaitsma. 2015. “Archival Literacy: Reading the Rhetoric of Digital Archives in the Undergraduate Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 67 (2) (December): 216–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, Paul. 2011. “Digital Pedagogy Unplugged.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 5 (3). http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/3/000106/000106.html.

  • Gailey, Amanda. 2011. “A Case for Heavy Editing: The Example of Race and Children’s Literature in the Gilded Age.” In The American Literature Scholar in the Digital Age, edited by Amy E. Earhart and Andrew Jewell, 125–44. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/etlc.9362034.0001.001.

  • Gold, Matthew K. 2012. “The Digital Humanities Moment.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities.

  • Goldstone, Andrew. 2019. “Teaching Quantitative Methods: What Makes It Hard (in Literary Studies).” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2019.

  • Golumbia, David. 2009. The Cultural Logic of Computation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hankins, Gabriel. 2015. “Correspondence: Theory, Practice, and Horizons.” In Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology, edited by Kenneth M. Price and Ray Siemens. New York: Modern Language Association. https://doi.org/10.1632/lsda.2015.13.

  • Hanstedt, Paul. 2020. “Might This Be the Beginning of Education?” Inside Higher Ed, April 28. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/04/28/how-pandemic-might-create-better-educational-opportunities-opinion.

  • Hayden, Wendy. 2017. “And Gladly Teach: The Archival Turn’s Pedagogical Turn.” College English 80 (2) (November): 133–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Brett D. 2012. “</Parenthesis>: Digital Humanities and the Place of Pedagogy.” In Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics, edited by Brett D. Hirsch, 3–30. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huitfeldt, Claus. 2014. “Markup Technology and Textual Scholarship.” In Digital Critical Editions, edited by Daniel Apollon and Claire Belisle, 157–78. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ide, Nancy M., and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen. 1995. “The TEI: History, Goals, Future.” Computers and the Humanities 29 (1): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01830313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, Manu. 2016. “Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning.” Educational Psychologist 51 (2): 289–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschenbaum, Matthew. 2009. “Hello Worlds: Why Humanities Students Should Learn to Program.” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23. https://www.chronicle.com/article/hello-worlds/.

  • Kirschenbaum, Matthew. 2012. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities.

  • Manoff, Marlene. 2004. “Theories of the Archive Across the Disciplines.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 4 (1) (January): 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarl, Clayton. 2018. “Editing the Eartha M.M. White Collection: An Experiment in Engaging Students in Archival Research and Editorial Practice.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44 (4) (July): 527–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.02.011.

  • McCarty, Willard. 2005. Humanities Computing. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGrail, Anne B. 2016. “The ‘Whole Game’: Digital Humanities at Community Colleges.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016.

  • Pierazzo, Elena. 2011. “A Rationale of Digital Documentary Editions.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 26 (4) (December): 463–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqr033.

  • Pichler, Alois, and Tone Merete Bruvik. 2014. “Digital Critical Editing: Separating Encoding from Presentation.” In Digital Critical Editions, edited by Daniel Apollon and Claire Belisle, 179–99. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Jenny, and Jeff Rice. 2015. “Pop-Up Archives.” In Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities, edited by Jim Ridolfo and William Hart-Davidson, 245–54. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Bertrand, Paulo Blikstein, and Roy Pea. 2013. “The Flipped, Flipped Classroom.” The Stanford Daily, August 5. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/08/05/the-flipped-flipped-classroom/.

  • Schwartz, Daniel L., and John D. Bransford. 1998. “A Time for Telling.” Cognition and Instruction 16 (4): 475–522. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233709.

  • Seraphin, Sally B., J. Alex Grizzell, Anastasia KerrGerman, Marjorie A. Perkins, Patrick R. Grzanka, and Erin E. Hardin. 2019. “A Conceptual Framework for Non-Disposable Assignments: Inspiring Implementation, Innovation, and Research.” Psychology Learning and Teaching 18 (1): 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718811711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperberg-McQueen, C. M. 2019. “Playing for Keeps: The Role of Modeling in the Humanities.” In The Shape of Data in Digital Humanities: Modeling Texts and Text-Based Resources, edited by Julia Flanders and Fortis Jannidis, 283–310. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, Peter, Marcel Illetschko, and Sabine Seifert. 2016. “Towards a Model for Encoding Correspondence in the TEI: Developing and Implementing <correspDesc>.” Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative 9 (Sep. 2016–Dec. 2017). https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.1433.

  • Stommel, Jesse. 2018. “The Public Digital Humanities.” In Disrupting the Digital Humanities, edited by Dorothy Kim and Jesse Stommel, 79–90. Goleta, CA: Punctum Books.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, Kurtis, Daniel Abosso, Krystal Appiah, Katie Atkins, Peter Barr, Arantza Barrutia-Wood, Shatha Baydoun, et al. 2021. Teaching with Primary Sources: Looking at the Support Needs of Instructors. New York: Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.314912.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Theimer, Kate. 2012. “Archives in Context and as Context.” Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (2) (Spring). http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-2/archives-in-context-and-as-context-by-kate-theimer/.

  • Underwood, Ted. 2018. “A Broader Purpose.” Accessed May 2, 2021. https://tedunderwood.com/2018/01/04/a-broader-purpose/.

  • Uskoković, Vuc. 2018. “Flipping the Flipped: The Co-Creational Classroom.” Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0077-9.

  • Villarroela, Verónica, Susan Bloxham, Daniela Bruna, Carola Bruna, and Constanza Herrera-Seda. 2018. “Authentic Assessment: Creating a Blueprint for Course Design.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 840–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vong, Silvia. 2016. “A Constructivist Approach for Introducing Undergraduate Students to Special Collections and Archival Research.” RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage 17 (2): 148–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, Grant. 1990. “The Case for Authentic Assessment.” Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Trey Conatser

Authors
  1. Trey Conatser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trey Conatser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Creative Industries, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

    Anne Schwan

  2. School of Arts and Creative Industries, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

    Tara Thomson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Conatser, T. (2022). Open Pedagogy and the Archives: Engaging Students in Public Digital Humanities. In: Schwan, A., Thomson, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Digital and Public Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11886-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation