learning outcomes


“High Impact Practices” (AAC&U)

Students as “Learners” (Warlick): a conversation ensued about re-appropriating “student” (OED Student definition)

“Chapter X. The Hermeneutics of Screwing Around, Or What You Do with a Million Books” (Ramsay)

“Tinker-Centric Pedagogy in Literature and Language Classrooms” (Sayers)

Active Verbs for learning outcomes (Verschelden)

Learning goals vs. learning outcomes: each institution has a variation on this; check for an Office of Assessment; we concluded that outcomes are measurable (a promise) but goals are abstract “hope to”; downside: outcomes rest solely on the instructor instead of a collaborative learning relationship between faculty and student/learner

Doing the Risky Thing with your students (Harris)

Commit to Playfulness (Harris)

Document Failure (Harris)

Crowd-sourced notes from Day 1 of the seminar




Based on Steve Ramsay’s work



Digital Humanities can be Digital Pedagogy

3 Levels of DH-inflected Courses (see NITLE post): A Single day (bloom & fade), Single assignment(s), Entire course (scaffolded)

DH-Inflected Courses & Digital Pedagogy need: Collaboration, Playfulness/Tinkering/Screwing Around, Process, Building



With a particular course or workshop in mind, articulate what “digital literacy” implies to you. Consider accounting for related literacies: media, information, technical, procedural, and design literacies (for example).



Example 1

What resources available for research
-how to use them
-assessing academic integrity

Communicating and interacting through digital tools and with them
-disseminating information effectively

Knowing how much and when to apply technologies in the classroom, and linking them to learning outcomes
-what and how much technical knowledge makes one ‘literate’?


Example 2

Critical thinking about what does it mean to be digital in the creation, critical evaluation of, and application to, humanities scholarship.

Further notes on the four-points-in-one statement:
Critical thinking stressed in regard to student use of resources (like Wikipedia or other sources – just because it is online doesn’t mean it is sourced/reviewed)
Critical thinking in regard to the use of different software/technology and the impacts that those might have on the information
Critical thinking regarding use rights and copyright when creating materials
Critical thinking in terms of whether or not these activities are making a contribution to humanities scholarship


Example 3

How do we re-evaluate our assumptions about students’ technological literacy? Do we have to learn to do EVERYTHING ourselves? Or expect our students to be able to do it all THEMSELVES? If not, what are possible models for collaboration within DH? How do we ensure digital/technological sustainability and longevity within universities?


Example 4

Three (*big tent*) ideas our cluster identifies as defining or related to digital literacy within the classroom: Identity within spaces, moving from linear to lateral thinking, and moving from consumption to production


Example 5

Digital Literacy involves:

Applications: Developing a critical perspective that penetrates one layer deeper than what the tool is intended for. How does use of digital tools affect them in their personal life? Academic life?

Information Access: not only search, but the information access to which they are privileged and how this might change depending on institutional affiliation or lack thereof. (open access!)

Consequences: understanding how their participation with these tools will affect both themselves and others. Also, understand the persistence and duration of these digital documents.


Example 6

Digital Literacy could/should:

build on traditional literacies;

empower students to see more substantive use for digital tools and to mine for valuable information; and

lead to helping students learn how to conceive of, plan, create, and evaluate a digital product and work toward the goal of becoming not just digitally literate, but digitally fluent.


Example 7

Developed by Michael Rozendal, Greta Vollmer and Christopher Gleason: Digital literacy addresses the classical goals of literacy (research, analysis, persuasion) but with an expanded, contemporary sense of genre where the tools are means for extending participation. For pedagogy, digital literacy is much more than simply applying new tools to deliver old material—it is hopefully liberating and transformative. At an institutional level, digital literacy tactically brings together many different types of interests to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and discussion.


Example 8

Paratexts of digital production

history, material production, considering the book as technology (historically), technology as rooted in exploitative industrial production, implications and consequences of this

digital paratexts across disciplines and interdisciplinarity along with attendant tools / developments / projects – assessment of this; socially and economically located digital literacy

assessment for students – a new kind of critical reading / close reading – socializing the text with different signifiers, being able to read commercial aspects and agendas, interests in funding interests and mechanisms


Example 9

Digital literacy is about facilitating student ability to use technologies. How do we teach them to use technology in a manner that is productive? And how do we help them gain technical know-how about the technologies.

Digital literacy is about learning and teaching the cultural aspects of technological production, e.g. how does the production of technologies implicate power, for example along lines of race gender and class? How do corporate and legal structures implicate the ways in which technology is produced and taught?

Digital literacy is about knowing how to teach students to be engaged with technologies. How do we encourage play with technologies? How do we move from a consumer-centric model to a more collaborative one?

Digital literacy is about considering access to technologies among students. How do we ensure equal access to technologies and a level playing field for the classroom?


PART I (be the instructor)

Discuss: how and to what degree do you want to alter your existing courses? one assignment? a sequence of assignments? an exercise? an entirely new course? linking to other institutions?

Choose 1 type of assignment: bloom & fade or single assignment

Craft 3 goals for that assignment: Content proficiency? Interaction with future assignments? Place in course overall? Technical proficiency? Why?

PART II (act like the student)

Don’t worry about the actual assignment (ignore description if included)

Read group learning outcomes right below yours

Assess the learning outcomes: 1) specificity, 2) coherence, 3) clarity



Example 1

Learning Outcomes:

Demonstrate technical proficiency with the chosen digital tools;

Employ digital tools in rhetorical analysis; and

Critically analyzing the usefulness of digital tools in the context of contemporary rhetorical criticism.


Example 2

The scope and duration of the assignment were unclear from the goals, so we guessed a bit.

Demonstrate ability to ___________ using ____________; Define the proficiency so you have something to evaluate. e.g., Use advanced search to find an article in Academic Search.

Define the tools to be used and the nature of the object – Image, text, multi-modal artifact – to be analyzed.

Evaluate how well the tool worked “in the context of [something more specific than] contemporary rhetorical criticism.”If #1 is “use the tool,” #2 could be “use the tool to do X task,” and #3 could be “was there a benefit to using the tool to do X.” [reflect/assess]


Example 3

single assignment: pick an oral and listen to it, read the transcription seperate

Three Goals for the Assignment

1. explore how does the media affect their experience and understanding of the material?

2. learn to search oral histories and access online audio and transcripts

3. gain a deeper understanding of archival genres in order to inform their own practice

content proficiency: critical listening and interviewing skills

interaction with future assignments: scaffolding for future assignments

place in course overall: second class

technical proficiency: searching


Example 4

Adding a hands-on assignment to an existing course “Old Norse Gods and Heroes.”

Enable students to discover how to use mind mapping as visual tool for brain storming and organizing information to use as a discovery tool and/or study guide.

– mind mapping assignment

– single assignment

– group assignment


1. perform a search on the internet to identify the appropriate tool for creating a mind map

2. complete a basic mind map to depict a single figure from Norse mythology

3. discuss the pros and cons of mind mapping


Example 5

Reflection Log on Archiving Ethnomusicology (Cumulative blogging assignment)


Students will be required to complete course readings and listening assignment, discover weekly musical artifacts and reflect on their findings in blog form.

Students will operate within a collegial social media exchange in order to develop an understanding of online communication etiquette.

Students will research, share, and reflect on local music artifacts in order to demonstrate an independent critical discovery process.

Students will respond to each other’s findings in order to create a critical dialogue.

Students will articulate the connection of artifacts to course themes in order to situate their findings within the course parameters.


Example 6

Assignment – Dead technology; the archaeology of tech – the evolutionary trajectory, the missing links of the laptop, for example; Identify and analyze the archaeology of a particular product/technology – Presented as video

Learning outcomes:

Students will recognize material, sociopolitical, economic, evolutionary pressures on development of technology.

Students will acquire new analytical skills that will allow them to deconstruct technology into its constituent parts.

Students will practice those skills by publishing their analysis in a non-textual format