I wonder, though, how well it will scale with the metadata (specifically the controlled tags) being used. Will they provide enough granularity to actually sort through a resource which could grow exponentially in a short period of time? I’m not suggesting students should exhaustively catalog using Library of Congress Subject Headings or anything, I just think there needs to be a balance between what will increase findability and use and what will be manageable in the context of (dispersed) classroom teaching and learning projects.

And to address Patrick’s comment, I agree entirely with the idea that items/objects can be filtered/represented through multiple curated “events” (whether that is through an “exhibit” or some other mechanism) and don’t think that puts you in the “more is more” category at all (by “more is more” I am referring to the idea that quantity = quality in digitization/digital projects). Since we just started this, we haven’t seen any overlapping exhibits on the same topic, but that’s something to think about. My personal (OCD Librarian) inclination would be to either merge or clearly differentiate them for the sake of maintaining some sense that the site is a controlled resource. On the other hand, there is no reason intellectually why we shouldn’t present multiple accounts of the same topic. That might actually provide a different kind of value, but it would also change the nature of the site (not necessarily a bad thing).

I’m very grateful for all the feedback and comments here. This is going to be a really interesting discussion.

I s’pose that puts me in the “more is more” camp. I’m comfortable with that, since when it comes to the curation end I’m all over the idea of the same digital object having many representations — curation might come in the form of creating and providing filters (some the user sees, some perhaps not necessarily?) on those objects. Anyone done two completely different Omeka exhibits, drawing on exactly the same set of items in a collection?

Looking forward to this one!

I suspect that agency, expertise, and publishing are also connected. Wikipedia is bustling with unpaid contributors. Presumably one of the reasons they write is for the satisfaction of seeing their work appear instantaneously in digital print, available to billions. Another likely reason is that they get to display their knowledge and feel like an expert. And because they have reached critical mass with this massive online publishing venture, Wikipedia has become tremendously useful for people across the globe. If students have to wait months for their digital history contributions to appear online, does that mean they will feel cheated? If students are not allowed to select their own topics for digital history projects, will they feel less invested in the process and outcome? If students feel like they are being asked to research, write, and publish on what they perceive to be obscure topics, will put less effort into the digital history project because they assume almost no one will read their work?

I am curious to know how people would compare and contrast their own digital history projects for students with the History Engine. Has the History Engine taken the “more is more” approach? Do the students who write for the History Engine feel like they have made a solid contribution, but have little hope that readers who need or want the information in their contribution will ever find it? Do the students who write for the History Engine respond positively when given the latitude to select their own topics, but wonder afterwards how all of the various student contributions will fit together into some meaningful whole or larger pattern? Do the students who contribute to the History Engine find some satisfaction in becoming experts, but are left wondering whether their contribution counts as a publication?

That is also a good point. We’ve also thought about having students improve upon the exhibits created by previous classes, but have yet to really come to terms with what that means. Obviously, one of the benefits of digital publishing is the ability to revise and improve upon resources as needed, but there are certainly a number of questions raised when asking students to build on the work of others. How do you evenly and fairly divide that work (some existing projects require more/less modification than others)? How do you measure the amount of work completed or the amount of actual learning when much of the content is preexisting and many of the most important decisions have already been made? What does it mean to go back and edit or improve student work (does this constitute a misrepresentation of what students actually produce on their own. we wouldn’t be comfortable editing and re-publishing their research papers)?

Unfortunately, instructors have typically chosen the tools to use, but I am very interested in how you have fared in giving students that choice. I think that’s an important competency, but one that we have not really addressed in our Public History courses. (an explicitly Digital course might have an easier time fitting this in).

Also, I realized another issue which I meant to raise in my initial post. That is, the difference between collecting and curating. Librarians and archivists seem to already do a pretty good good job of collecting, but they are less involved in providing interpretation and context for those items/collections and tend to take a “more is more” approach to digital projects (i.e. “we need to make everything available”). One thing that we have emphasized in our course work is that it is preferable to present a small number of exceptional (or representative) items and provide a more in-depth study. I think this is a big tension, especially between librarians and historians, who have different views about what constitutes a teaching/learning resource, what qualifies as scholarship, etc. Curating, I think, is a core skill that could be explored more thoroughly and, again, clearly distinguished from what librarians do. Library standards and practices definitely have a role in digital humanities projects, but there needs to be a balance and understanding about what that means.

Certainly there’s some overlap with this topics with the thread started by Amanda French, but given the robust response to that post I suspect there’s room for at least two sessions on what we have students working on and the strategies for undergraduate/graduate involvement in digital humanities projects.

As for how students are reacting? Generally, it seems that they enjoy the work, though they do get frustrated with the heavy emphasis on details like metadata and exhibit organization (not to mention some of the common challenges of using unfamiliar technology). It’s hard to gauge their overall learning from where I stand (as support staff for the course instructor), but from watching some of their in-class presentations, I gather that this really pushed them to find and analyze more archival items (mostly images and clippings) than they would have in writing a conventional paper. I think having an outlet for their findings actually encouraged them to be more thorough in their research. On the other hand, I’m not sure they entirely appreciate the educational value of “taking it online.”

I agree that setting some additional standards via rubrics/models/templates would go a long way to improve both their experience and the final results.