This project review asks you to identify and review a project of significance in the Digital Humanities, with a focus on the significance, methods, tools, and values of the project. Your goal in reviewing a project is to assess a project according to its own goals and aims and as it embodies the values, goals, and best practices of Digital Humanities.
Required Elements
Your review will consist of seven required elements and two context components:
- (0) Title Slide with Context
- (1) Overview & Significance of Project
- (2) Methodology of Project
- (3) Transparency in project
- (4) Openness of project
- (5) Audience
- (6) Peer Projects
- (7) Evaluation
- (8) About your project
Your final finished project will live on a WordPress web page public to all
Schedule
Your project review is due at 11:59 pm on 11/14. Here are the dates and deadlines for the project’s elements:
10/29: Team formation and Project selected, reported on Team document
10/31: Roles, Initial draft of project, tools, disciplines, corollary projects (stub slides identifying project, tool(s), disciplines, corollary projects (2))
11/1-11/4: Your team must defend its proposal in conference on or before this date (at least half team must be present for conference). Sign up for a proposal defense date.
11/7: Complete draft due, with reviewable content
11/8-11/10: project draft conference (at least half team must be present for conference). Sign up for a conference date.
11/10 & 11/11 Peer Review
11/10 Report Draft
11/11 or 11/12 Report conference
Teams
You will work on a team in this project review to identify and select a project and then prepare a review. Your team can have no fewer than 3 members and no more than 7.
Grades
Your project will be graded according to (a) content (40%) reflecting your analysis and description of the tool you select; (b) writing composition of slides (30%), including the required elements of visual and word-based information; (c) the written composition of the 1 page report and website(10%); your engagement in the process (20%). A team will share a grade on each component.
Process (6 @ 20% total):
Stub Slides
You will build stub slides for each of the required components (0-7) above by 10/31. For each slide you need bare content (name of project, name of tool, etc). Required components include project, methods, tools, disciplines, values, audience, corollary projects
Project defense and building
Your project must be defended in conference on or before 11/4. In the defense conference, I’ll assess the suitability of the selected project and the team. Sign up via meet me (Sign up for a conference date)
Complete Draft
A complete draft is due 11/7 end of day; it must include full content, visual design, and links in each of the required pages/sections. It will be qualitatively assessed in conference
Draft Review Conference
You will meet to discuss your progress as a team for a 30 minute conference with your profs no later than 11/10 Sign up for a conference date.
Peer Review Feedback
Your team will give feedback to another project’s team on D2L Rules:
- The team should review the draft website in the following areas
- Overview & significance. Does this section establish with expertise the reviewed project’s area, goals, and significance? Is the project described adequately so that reading this page is a good introduction and description of the reviewed project?
- Methodology. Does this section adequately detail *how* the reviewed project accomplished its project, _or_ adequately point out that the reviewed project fails to convey its methodology?
- Transparency. Is transparency practiced and achieved and made significant to the users?
- Openness. Does this project adequately use openness, for itself, its research, and its publications?
- Audience. Does the project identify the audience of the reviewed project and how they use/contribute to the project?
- Peer projects. Does your project locate similar peer projects and compare/contrast this project from the peers?
- Does the evaluation adequately evaluate the above areas and communicate that evaluation clearly and directly?
- Aesthetics & usability of slides. Does the team make an aesthetically pleasing, contemporary and up-to-date feeling slideshow that is easy to use, or are there areas of concern that undercut the look, feel, or usability of the site? Do the different pages reflect a unified or disparate design approach?
- Interconnectedness and Visual representations. Is text on the site deeply referenced and hyperlinked, with the first mention of every relevant proper noun/name linked to a reference? Do the pages visualize the reviewed project adequately?
- A separate post on each criterion above is required, submitted to the discussion forum for the team’s project (posts about team x goes ino forum on team x). Each team member must make at least one post to the review to get credit for the review. Individual grade possible.
- The deadline for review is end of day 11/11, 1159 pm.
Report Draft & Conferences (combined)
Your written report, under a page, will communicate the project results and findings. It must be drafted by 11/10 and conferenced on 11/11 or 11/12
Content: Qualitative Assessment 40%
Your project is due at 11:59 on 11/14. We’ll review your work after that date and give you a numerical grade and qualitative feedback.
Writing: Qualitative Assessment 30%
I’ll give feedback on the quality and style of writing in the slides
Report and Webpage 10%
The quality and style of the report and page sharing the slides and report will be assessed qualitatively at 10% of the final project grade
Process
Six elements combine to equal 20% (3.33% each) of the final grade for the project. Not qualitatively assessed.
Late work will lose 5 points per calendar day past the deadline before receiving an F on day 5.
