The shift I've made: I've made the transition from looking at SMS spaces and Emoji's to focusing on how such technologies can
help our CLASP students. Through this course I have learned that a common misconception of DH is the view that technology must be the central focus. We've learned about this through our readings within the
Debates in the Digital Humanities anthology with Steven Ramsay's argument that Digital Humanists must "do" or "create". However, as Tom Scheinfeldt and others have mentioned, we don't necessarily have to "do" to be digital humanist.
What's important is that we are critical in our use of technology, consistently critiquing and examining the effect it has on us as humans. It is important to remember that the technology is second to the critical thinking and engagement students must participate in as users of technology.
The What:
What I've turned to as a theoretical base: In focusing on the first year writing class, I've found
Olin Bjork's article "Digital Humanities and the First Year Writing Course" to be exceptionally helpful as I begin to consider what it means to be literate in the 21st century, and how technology and its use plays a critical role in shaping our understanding of literacy. I found a plethora of materials in the
Digital Humanities Pedagogy collection to be valuable as I consider the pedagogical applications of using Emoji's in the composition classroom. K
uhn and Callahan's Undergraduate Digital Literacy article in Hacking the Academy has also helped to shape my perception of the ethical obligations we have towards infusing technology and the critique of such technology in ways that allow students to make meanings.
Jason Farman's Mobile Interface Theory has helped me to understand the relationship between material and virtual, situating the body as an interchangeable device to which it cannot exist outside of the actual or the virtual and what this means to different cultural use of emoji and inherent racism in software development.
The How: