My post on strategies and rubrics for evaluating multimodal student projects has been adapted and republished in the Journal of Digital Humanities. This probably isn’t the most riveting thing I’ve ever written, but I hope it’s at least somewhat useful. It has been for me and (I hope!) my students.
This new issue of JDH contains several great articles on evaluating/assessing Digital Humanities work. The editors explain:
Some scholarly societies, universities and colleges, and departments have called for a redefinition — or at least an expansion — of what is considered creditable scholarship. There have been scattered initial attempts to understand how digital scholarship might be better assessed, but the editors of JDH felt, and many of our readers agreed, that there was not a single place to go for a comprehensive overview of proposals, guidelines, and experiences. We attempt to provide a single location here, with an issue and living bibliography that will grow as additional examples are published across the web.
The various posts address the support needed for, and collaboration involved in, DH projects, as well as the need to give credit to a wider range of collaborators and contributors; and several focus on processes of peer review and standards for tenure and promotion, including guidelines put forward by several professional organizations. A few, mine included, talk about evaluating student work.