With the semester coming to a close, my Saving Susiana digital project is off to a great start. While I began the semester with grand idealism, practical constraints relating both to my associated qualifying paper and issues of audience of the project forced me time and time again to shift gears and re-evaluate what I wanted and needed to do with this project both short-term and long-term as this project will be a component of my PhD dissertation. 

I did accomplish (some) of my initial goals, albeit these were ultimately pared down significantly from what I had hoped to accomplish early in the project. The catalog aspect was shortened to only that of the British museum, and more specifically objects relating to the time from prehistory to the end of Darius I, who died in 522 B.C. This is largely because my current iteration of the project, as part of my departmental qualifying paper, focuses exclusively on the objects that Darius would have likely had access to during his reign. The majority of the finds from the British museum turned out to be coins from a much later period, and not relevant for this current project. Of course all finds will eventually be recorded in the Omeka site, and broken down by object type and period. With this cataloging system, I also seriously debated and researched the type of information I wanted to be included in order to choose the best metadata organization tools. I debated for some time between using Darwin Core, used largely for the sciences, and Dublin Core which is used for the humanities. Because my project is so interdisciplinary, both metadata organization types have their benefits. My goal in the future is to find some happy medium, since the project ultimately involves both the technical data as well as the humanistic and social scientific analysis of the objects, individuals, art and architecture of Susa.

As far as the model building goes, there have been some interesting developments. I utilized my maps to build the floor plan of the palace and attached Apadana. In researching, and discussing with my advisor how to proceed, the realization came that little is known about the remains of the site since the published archaeological reports are inconsistent and fragmentary. The current models reveal roman influence, rather than something either Darius or his Elamite predecessors would have erected. To accurately reconstruct the building it is therefore necessary to do more research into both Elamite, Neo-Elamite architecture, neither subject of which I have any experience or knowledge with. I certainly hope this is resolved so that I can implement a realistic 3D model and mapping elements to my project, as it would not only enhance my project, but ultimately lead to the audience, or audiences since it appears now I will have to negotiate a broader range since less was known about Susa and the happenings there than I had initially anticipated. Something I could not have known until I presented the research and Qualifying paper to my advisor and committee.

I had a really great experience working on this project and discussing the project direction with my supervisors in the Studio, and cannot thank them enough for all their help and support. They were not just helpful in choosing programs for my project, and working with me to figure out what I needed to make this a successful project, but they were great non-expert soundboards in relation to how to potentially convey my thoughts, ideas, and research to different audiences. I would really recommend that anyone working on a digital project of any sort work with the Studio. They are incredibly kind and really know how to make the best use out of not only our currently available programs and platforms here at Iowa, but about their specific specialties in general which go beyond what we have here to make for well-rounded projects and more accessible digital projects. 

-Rachael Maxon

Google Docs and Microsoft Office365 offer a variety of tools and features for collaborative writing and revision. However, my experience with them has felt lacking. I’ve found they fall short of the goal of inviting robust conversation around a piece of writing, where multiple reviewers can interact with the text, the writer, and each other. An in-person writing conference engages all three elements. So does an activity following the Workshop model. If the major online word processors don’t offer the engagement I want, are there digital tools that do?

Most digital tools I found in my research were geared towards assessing writing. Tools like Peerceptive, Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), and Turnitin all have response elements, but focus more on a summative response at the “final draft” stage of writing. I was interested in earlier interventions, in helping student-writers refine and revise writing over time. These programs were not what I was looking for. So I did some research, had some conversations, and found four tools that seemed viable to allow for all three conversations to happen: Slack, Github, Quip, and Eli Review.

Each tool was reviewed under four guiding questions:

1. How does this tool make communicating between reviewers, authors, and text easier or more robust than Office465 or Google Docs?
2. What is the learning curve? Would instructors need to spend significant time teaching their students to use the tool?
3. What features stand out as exceptionally useful, different, better or worse than other tools?
4. Is it worth the cost? Is there “bang for your buck?”

The Outsiders

Slack and Github are not necessarily designed for revision of documents. Github is designed to work on coding, but has developed a system for multiple users to edit and comment on a single code. Slack calls itself a “collaboration software” and operates primarily as a workflow organizer and team communication center. Both products, however, hold potential in the sort of revision and response I desire.

 

Github

The strength of Github, as related to my needs, is in version control. Users can track nearly every edit made to an original document, revert back to the original, or start new branches of revision from nearly anywhere in the timeline. Version control is important in revision, allowing for the author to have final authority over changes and seeing the progress across time. While there’s no direct conversation tool within Github to allow persons to talk, conversations of a sort can happen within the text mark-up.

Because Github is built for coding, there are certain elements that have a steep learning curve. Figuring out how to adapt elements such as the text box and standard comment features to address blocks of text rather than code is my foremost concern. The instructor would have to spend significant time setting up procedures to translate Github’s interface into a useful one for peer review, and spend another chunk of time teaching those procedures to her students. Given the other shortcomings, I am unconvinced that this would be a worthy expenditure of time. However, the price is right. The free version of Github is perfectly usable in the classroom context.

Overall, Github could have use as a tool for response to writing. However, because it’s not built for that kind of work, the amount of effort an instructor would put forth shaping the tool to the purpose makes Github an unlikely choice.

 

Slack

Like Github, Slack is a tool that would have to be repurposed to do the kind of response I’m hoping for. Its strength is in communication between users, and flexibility to build from their base platform. Slack users have the ability to incorporate multiple apps, including Office365 or Google Docs, which allows for a very flexible set of uses. However, Slack itself is primarily a communication and task-assignment tool. Any text editing or revisions would happen through the app in Office365 or Google Docs.

Using the Slack communication interface is relatively simple, but the process of integrating apps and crafting response can become complicated as multiple windows and tools pop up. An instructor can set up the apps for students, then create and teach the procedure. However, in my use, the app interfaces were glitchy, at times unresponsive. I don’t know that Slack adds anything essential to Office365 or Google Docs in terms of responding to writing. While the free version is robust, the limited amount of communications and apps likely limits use to one project per month.

While Slack provides a good platform for communication across working groups, any communication with the text demands a second platform. Because of this, I am unconvinced that Slack adds anything to the response process.

 

The Contenders

Quip and Eli Review are two tools created for document revision. Though primarily a “productivity tool,” Quip has document integration tools. Eli Review was built expressly as a tool for teaching writing. With some steep prices, the primary question for both products is: are they worth it?

 

Quip

Quip can be a useful platform for engaging with a text and a team of reviewers. There are comments, tools to draw attention to certain parts, and a tracker of changes made. The markup tools in Quip are very similar to most word processing software, and the additional commentary sidebar is a useful way for both reviewers and the original author to see the whole conversation around the text.

The main drawback is a lack of version control. While there’s an easily accessible Document History to see various versions, and changes can be tracked in the commentary sidebar, there’s no easy way to compare across versions or maintain an unblemished original. Further, Quip is expensive. A full classroom, divided into teams of no more than five, would cost at least $120 per month. This is a steep price tag for a document editor. Were it to be used for more tasks, the price may be worth it. However, there are few tasks in a classroom for which Quip would be useful.

As a productivity tool in a workplace environment, Quip is undoubtedly powerful. As a tool for responding to writing, Quip has a lot to offer. It’s easy to use and provides avenues to talk to the text and the reviewers. However, the price makes it difficult to advocate for in a classroom environment.

 

Eli Review

Eli Review is designed by and for educators as a platform for responding to and revising text as well as giving opportunities for peer review. Purpose built for the task, Eli Review is full of useful tools. The steepest learning curve is for instructors, who have to carefully design many implements of an assignment. Instructors can align writing tasks to each step of review, give instructions to writers and reviewers, and track progress of drafts as well as how much a reviewer is interacting with a text. Students will also need some practice with the platform, but one “practice assignment” is likely sufficient. Eli Review has very clear support documents.

Reviewers have a variety of tools at their disposal. In-text markup tools are available if the document is submitted in the preferred in-browser text editor, and there are fields for overall commentary aligned with the instructor’s assigned task. A variety of methods are available, including rubrics and Likert scales, along with open-entry text boxes. One drawback is the lack of rigorous version control. The user may have to rely on their own locally-saved document to maintain a true ‘original.’ However, with the robust level of feedback, I would call the impact of that drawback minimal.

Eli Review costs $25 per semester, with discounts for full-year subscriptions and institution-level contracts. Given the power of the platform, the ability for instructors to shape tasks towards specific outcomes, I believe that for a course focused on writing and revision, this cost is a worthy investment. The highest learning curve is for an instructor, but the learning happens once. When the instructor has the assignments shaped to her liking, the assignments can be recycled and revised as necessary.

Conclusion

Of the four tools I investigated, Eli Review seems to be the most potentially impactful platform for responding to writing. While Quip provides a useful set of tools for responding to writing, the cost feels too substantial for the return. Slack is a more affordable option, but works only as an extension to platforms like Office365 and Google Docs. The extension may be helpful, but the impact is not significant enough to warrant the extra time setting up the program or teaching it. Github has some potential for collaboration in building documents, but would need significant work to adapt the coding-oriented structures to writing. Eli Review, though costly, provides the most well-rounded suite of tools for both instructors and students to shape response, engage in dialogue with the text and with other reviewers, and provide substantive guidance to the writer.

-Michael Goldberg

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my first post, my DH capstone project is a little different than most. In a few months, I will run a weeklong summer camp, in partnership with the Iowa Youth Writing Project (IWYP). Participants—all of whom will be young women—will talk about body image, explore the function of photography as an art medium, and reflect on their identities. The end result? Each participant will create a “disembodied self portrait” (a photograph that represents her, without her physical presence in the image) and a brief reflection to explain the image. These photographs and reflections (all anonymous) will be featured as a gallery at FilmScene. They will also appear on a WordPress site. 

Since my last blog post, some of my attention has been dedicated to putting up a WordPress site. As you can see from the images below, the blog itself is minimalist. As I noted in my first post, I want the blog to be simple and easy to navigate, and I want the images to capture attention. You can still click the “About” link in the menu for more information about the project, but chances are, once the images are actually in place, you’ll find yourself more interested in looking at the anonymous self-portraits and reading the accompanying reflections. 

In all honesty, my pace has been pretty slow throughout the semester. I assumed this would happen to some degree, because so much of this project depends on the work I do in the summer. I can’t populate this site until I have the images and reflections. As a result, it’s made it difficult for me to have a sense of accomplishment at the end of this capstone. I’m trying to frame the capstone around the creation of an actual digital gallery, but again, because the gallery is designed to prioritize the girls’ images over anything else, it’s difficult for me to actually appreciate what I have so far. 

Moving forward, my biggest concern is finalizing a clear lesson plan with enough flexibility to accommodate for the inevitable rabbit holes we’ll fall down. I want to have enough flexibility that, if the workshop attendees are especially interested in one area of the project (photography, say, or art), we have the time and the ability to really explore that. I hope that this workshop will serve as a good example of designing a collaborative project–I don’t want these girls to be my students so much as my co-collaborators, co-thinkers, and co-doers.

I think this project has a lot of potential moving forward. It can serve as inspiration for people to design similar projects, perhaps for different audiences. More importantly, though, I’d like it to serve as an invitation to rethink what a “digital humanities” project should look like. I’ve appreciated the support I’ve received from the Studio with this work, as nobody told me it wasn’t “digital” enough for a capstone project. I feel like I’ve had the space to really meld my own interests in embodiment, photography, and life writing with the digital humanities certificate, and for that, I am grateful. I can’t wait to see how this project develops over the summer!

Two semesters ago, I had the opportunity to co-teach a course in the College of Education with my advisor and another graduate student. This course, Approaches to Teaching Writing, is designed to give foundation and practical knowledge and praxis to students who might be teaching writing in their future. Most of our students were aiming to be secondary English teachers. Through the semester, we engaged in classic revision processes for their various course papers. Students were assigned groups, shared writing with each other in and out of class, gave substantive feedback, and went through several drafts.

Our syllabus had a session devoted to Writing Technology. When I asked my advisor what that meant, she discussed how computers should have revolutionized the teaching of writing, but those changes never came. We had several papers discussing the topic, and planned to engage the students in some conversation. I started wondering what else we might do. K-12 schools are increasingly digital, with 1:1 computer-to-student programs, Google classrooms and other learning management systems becoming the primary delivery mode, and constant attempts to engage students in technology as a tool, not just a gaming or communication device. I wondered if we could try to imitate the revision processes we already did in class, but in a fully digital space.

For both experiments, we used Office365, which offers shared online document editing. Groups were managed through ICON, so only assigned group members had access to the document. For the first experiment, done asynchronously, each group was given the same writing sample, borrowed from an 8^th grade history teacher. Basic student information was provided, and students were asked to interact with the text as if they were in a peer conference. Students were given the week between class meetings to read and respond to the sample text, and also respond to their classmates’ responses. The second experiment was done synchronously, with students reading a single text in the classroom and holding a discussion about the text, like a workshop circle, on a shared Office365 document. Bot experiments resulted were robust dialogues with the text and with one another without sharing the same space. While the readers were physically disembodied, their voices were actively engaged within the space of the text.

We took this experiment to the Conference on College Composition and Communication this spring. There, speaking to composition and rhetoric teachers, we ran the second experiment again using Google Docs. Among the first questions asked was “Why Office365?” The answer is simple: it was the most convenient. We knew students had access, we knew we had access, and we knew it could do roughly what we wanted. But that’s not good enough.

I am interested in the power of a digital space on the process of writing. I wonder how digital tools could impact the revision process, how the sort of disembodied reviewer positions the writer differently than an in-person reviewer. Most immediately, I am curious if there is a tool that makes this process fluid, dynamic, and allows for conversation between reviewer and text as well as between reviewer and reviewer. For my project, I intend to take a close look at three products that could serve this purpose, review them, and determine if any are better and more accessible than the tools I have already used.

-Michael Goldberg

The project I am presently pursuing revolves around the ancient site of Susa, Modern Sush, also known as Suse, Shush, and Susiana. The site, has been excavated sporadically since 1897 by French Archaeologists under the Ministry of Culture, the latest occurring in 2010. Susa has largely been left out of the Near-Eastern literature, even though some of the major canonical works come from this site. This project, which will eventually become part of my PhD thesis is multifaceted encompassing both the building of a catalogue raison’ of archaeological materials and artistic works, and the mapping and 3D visualization of the site.

This semester, my focus will be largely on cataloguing the copious amounts of metadata and beginning the mapping side of the project. I have encountered a significant number of issues, some of which include a lack of significant metadata, as well as imagery about the site and the location of these objects.

While the material data is located primarily in three locations at present, the British Museum, the Louvre, and Iran either at the Tehran National Museum, or the Susa Archaeological Museums, the standards of documentation fail to remain constant across these institutions. This makes it very difficult for other researchers, as well as myself, to maintain a standard or consistent format of metadata. Until I visit these museums, and see the documentation and material objects for myself, it may be impossible to account for every category of metadata for every piece available. I expected some of this, as I have been researching this material for sometime, but am somewhat horrified that these museums have neither spent the time or had the initiative to correct this within their own collections, or across institutions.

This part of the project is very tedious, with significant work just coming from the input of data in a single location. To do this, I am presently using the upgraded OMEKA program, as well as Excel. This is standard until this information can be uploaded to a website completely dedicated to either an single project or the site material itself, which is where I hope this project leads.

The second part of this project involves a mapping component. The lack of specific find data complicates this significantly, though I am learning how to work around these issues by exploring various mapping programs and interfaces. Working with the Studio’s GIS Specialist Rob Shepard, we have begun to define what it is I want to accomplish with this, as well as what program would work best. Because there is almost no mapping data, I will have to use MyMaps to create a base layer upon which to work. Eventually this will be uploaded to QGis or ArcGIS where it can be added to, and where a 3D model can be placed. My first task in this part is to build the basemap, which is what I am presently working on for this part of the project. Thanks to Google Maps which has a relatively good map of the site, I am able to accomplish this fairly easily and straightforwardly, however I will note that other areas of the site are not as well preserved, so when it comes time to map those sections that may present more of a challenge.

-Rachael Maxon

My PDH certificate capstone project isn’t like most. I’m not building an interactive map or an archive, and I’m not learning R (thank goodness). Rather, I’m using WordPress as a tool to increase audience and add permanence to what would otherwise be a small, ephemeral project.

Here’s the rundown: In July 2019, I will run a weeklong summer camp, in partnership with the Iowa Youth Writing Project (IWYP). Participants—all of whom will be young women—will talk about body image, explore the function of photography as an art medium, and reflect on their identities. The end result? Each participant will create a “disembodied self portrait” (a photograph that represents her, without her physical presence in the image) and a brief reflection to explain the image. These photographs and reflections (all anonymous) will be featured as a gallery at FilmScene.

Unsurprisingly, many of my concerns aren’t about the digital aspects of this project. While it’s true that I might have to use Adobe Photoshop to crop images, and I am building a WordPress site to house the images in an online gallery, my bigger concerns are things like publicity. How do I get the word out? Luckily, because I’m running it through IYWP, they’ll promote the free camp, and because we’ll hold it at the Iowa City Public Library, their calendar will hopefully also attract potential participants. In addition to that, I’ve reached out to G! World, a local organization that provides support and a safe environment for learning, reflection, and exploration for young girls, particularly young women of color. I’m hoping that between these three outlets, I’ll be able to generate enough interest for my camp.

Right now, my main tasks are twofold:

Task one is to build a lesson plan for the workshop. In my case, it means working backward, thinking through what I want participants to have achieved by the end of the week and determining how they can best reach those goals. It means, again, using other people as resources. IYWP has put me in contact with past camp instructors, who have generously offered their materials for my reference. In case I needed a reminder of how accommodating, generous, and supportive my fellow UI graduate students are, there we go.

Task two is the digital component. As I mentioned, I’m creating a WordPress site to function as an online gallery, so even after the girls have celebrated their artistic excellence and self-reflection through the physical gallery, they’ll still have access to the work they’ve produced. I also hope that the online site can give other people interested in similar projects a framework and reference point, as well as a foundation for a more digitally focused project. Right now, I’m grappling with two big tasks for my website. The first is to determine the look and feel of my site. I am aiming for a minimalist, gallery vibe, and luckily, there are some themes that align with my interests, but part of my task is then to go through the theme options and figure out what I have to sacrifice with each option and which one makes the most sense. Once I have a theme, my next task is to design a sitemap. I want this site to be minimalist with an “about” section and not much else, to reproduce the sensation of being at a gallery. I want the girls’ photographs and words to be the focal point, but I also want to provide enough background and direction that if someone were to reference this site for a future project, they would have the tools they need to build from it. I think this is where the digital component really comes in handy—it gives the project a seemingly endless life and reach, whereas the in-person gallery (though impactful for the audience and empowering for the participants) is short-lived and limited. In short, I need the site to be attractive and clean, but also functional and informative. There’s a balance between modeling from a gallery space and still conveying the appropriate background for those who visit the site without any context.

I’m really excited about where this project will take me. It will give me the space to work with multiple community partners in Iowa City, to engage with a non-university student base through my workshop, and to think about the complexity and opportunities of an in-person project with a digital component.