 Good morning everyone. We're going to go ahead and get started. We are in the Archives and Digital Humanities project briefing and this session started as two separate sessions and we are put together. So we've got a lot of presenters today. So we're going to get started right away. First speaker up is going to be Charlotte Munoz, and then I'll speak following Charlotte. And then we have the team from the University of Iowa who will follow us and then we'll leave time for questions. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Once again, my name is Charlotte Munoz, and I'm a Council on Library and Information Resources Postdoctoral Fellow in Digital Scholarship. I'm here to talk to you today about the Latina History Project, or LHP. It's an exciting initiative in Archives and Digital Humanities currently in motion at Southwestern. Co-directed by Southwestern faculty members Dr. Brenda Sendejo of Anthropology and Dr. Allison Kaefer of Feminist Studies, the LHP aims to enhance undergraduate education in Latina history in Central Texas. As part of my contribution to the project, I'm working with two fantastic interns pictured here. They're juniors at Southwestern, and we are exploring and processing primary source materials pertaining to Southwestern's own Latina histories. The students have graciously given me their permission to make their images public. So you'll see a number of pictures of them in action, since part of my goal today is to make the logistics and components of the project visible to you. The Latina History Project brings together stakeholders from across campus, including faculty members in Fine Arts, Anthropology, and Feminist Studies, Archivists in Special Collections, and Liberal Arts undergraduates. Over the course of my first semester working on the project, the LHP has emerged as a useful test case of what a balanced small-scale collaboration between the library and academic departments can look like. In my affiliation with the Department of Research and Digital Scholarship in the Smith Library Center, I play an intermediary role, gauging, mediating, and balancing the interests of these various stakeholders. Focusing on this intermediary role, I'll describe the project, then offer a few considerations for targeted digital humanities projects that hinge on the participation of academic libraries. At the outset of the project in September, Dr. Mary Visser and the Fine Arts Department provided the LHP with a trove of primary source materials relating to an important aspect of Southwestern's own institutional history as it connects with Latina history. During the early 1990s, Dr. Visser collaborated with Lupita Barrera Bryant to curate a photography exhibition at Southwestern. According to the bilingual invitation pictured here, the exhibition includes images of, quote, contemporary women of Mexican descent who have contributed to the emerging culture of Texas and the nation. The box of materials Dr. Visser provided includes separate information folders for each woman, photograph for the exhibit, negatives of all the portraits taken, and materials that Visser and Barrera Bryant researched to prepare the exhibition. In conversation with the student interns and with the faculty project directors, we determined that the students and I would inventory the materials and organize them into protective mylar sleeves and acid-free boxes. We would identify potential items for digitization and plan an online OMECA exhibit of selected materials as a digital project for the spring semester. So they're all manner of fascinating items in the collection of materials provided by Dr. Visser. And I'd like to give you a granular example of an artifact that the students continually return to, which is the 1991 Austin Hispanic Directory, Community Resources and Features Annual, subtitled, Bilingual Yellow Pages for Consumers and Tourists. Using an archival artifact analysis worksheet, which I worked up based on similar worksheets available through the National Archives website. The interns have made several compelling observations about the artifact. They discussed that the cover of the directory, which is an attractive bright blue, appeals to a wide Austin audience. In addition to being free, all capitals exclamation point, the directory is bilingual and targets, quote, consumers and tourists. One intern pointed out that the various crests on the cover refer to Mexico, Spain and the U.S. To her, the fact that the crests are arranged prominently around the Texas Lone Star suggests the cohesion of these nationalities within Texas. The students agree that the sense of cohesion and integration carries throughout the whole of the directory. They discussed that as it features prominent professionals in education, politics, law, banking, culture and hospitality. The directory portrays the Austin Hispanic Community of 1990-91, not as a marginalized population, but as a fully incorporated, professionally accomplished, very central part of the Austin population at large. So at the same time that we're exploring and processing the materials from Dr. Visser, we're also exploring Southwestern's own special collections for holdings, pertaining to Latino-Latino history. Catherine Stallard, director of special collections and Doreen Priebotz, archives assistant, have provided crucial support for the project, identifying pertinent holdings, and providing a helpful orientation to special collections in the reading room. They're also providing invaluable opportunities for the interns to help enhance access to these holdings. So the interns are bringing their impressive Spanish language skills to bear transcribing a 1984 oral history interview with Concepción López, who moved from Mexico to Georgetown in 1920, at which time he was one of only four Mexicans living in Georgetown. The interview was take place in both Spanish and English, was conducted by Lori Rothhammer, who was an undergraduate history student at Southwestern at the time of the interview. The students are working with an MP3 version of the interview in order to minimize wear on the cassette tapes pictured here, but transcribing and translating the Spanish portions of the interview into English, they're improving the accessibility of the oral history for researchers, hearing impaired users, and non-Spanish speaking users. As part of the Latina history project then, the students have opportunities to not only analyze primary source materials, but to preserve and enhance access to these materials as well. In the process of working so closely with the archives, the students are raising generative questions that resonate far beyond Southwestern special collections, taking on broader meaning both in terms of Central Texas Latina history and in terms of archival practice. For example, the interns have observed that special collections holdings pertaining to Latina Latino history are relatively scant, and they wondered whether Southwestern special collections could accept, catalog, and steward Dr. Visser's box of materials relating to the 1992 photography exhibition, given the clear relevance of the materials not only for Central Texas Latina history, but also for Southwestern's own institutional history. Questions like these allow us to approach the big issues, archival provenance, Latina representation, and then put them in conversation with each other. What does it mean that an important Central Texas archival collection has only limited holdings pertaining to Latina Latino and Mexican American communities? So reflecting on the Latina history project so far, one takeaway is that having a designated intermediary can ensure a productive library and archives reliant digital humanities project that is mutually beneficial for library, faculty, and student stakeholders. Certainly this kind of intermediary work costs time and staff resources in terms of management expertise. So as collaborations between archives and academic departments continue to develop a pace, it's important to establish protocols and deliberately earmark faculty, staff, and archivist time to plan projects that will adequately meet the programming objectives of all collaborators on a given project. Mediating interactions within the project, within the Latina history project between students, archivists, and faculty, my primary responsibilities include identifying the needs and interests of each stakeholder and finding ways to structure the project in such a way that the tasks and objectives simultaneously meet the needs of multiple stakeholders. In this case, the student interns need a meaningful learning experience. The archives have bilingual and Spanish language holdings that require transcription and translation in order to be more accessible to users, and our faculty collaborator has valuable primary source materials that need preserving and part through digitization. In the process of doing skilled work to enhance access and special collections, the student interns on the project are building trust and a relationship with the archivist there. Given their contributions to special collections, it is my hope that down the line in the spring, the students might be more likely to get permission to use special collections digitization equipment under my supervision to build out other aspects of the Latina history project. So it's a delicate dance choreographing, all premised on various exchanges of skills and services between archivists, undergrads, and faculty members. If you'd like to learn more about the ins and outs and nuts and bolts of the Latina history project, I blog about it and other archives oriented digital humanities projects I'm working on at Southwestern at archiveseducate.com. It's a screenshot of the blog up here. Much of this presentation is based on blog posts that I've posted there. I also tweet about archives and education at my personal account, handle at archiveseducate, and in my capacity as a social media manager for the Department of Research and Digital Scholarship at Southwestern, and that's handle at su underscore rads, r-a-d-s. I'd love to connect with any and all of you interested in archives and education. So please do reach out if you're so inclined and thank you for your time. A little switching, changing. So I'm Mary Ailings. I'm from the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, and I'm going to be talking about Hack FSM. We lost our slides. Okay, I can see that. So this was a DH hackathon that we did in April to engage students in working with archives. And I want to start by talking a little bit about DH. You hear a lot about it these days, what it means, what it doesn't mean, attitudes ranging from skepticism to full buy-in. But in the simplest terms, it is humanities-based research done using digital methods and tools and using digital research materials. So to support DH, you need scholars to ask the questions. You need digital collections to help them answer them, and technical tools and expertise to enable that work to happen. So we need all three of these to keep our digital stool from falling over. So at Berkeley, we have great partners in this work. Digital Humanities at Berkeley Initiative is one that is focusing now on tools and support for DH practitioners on campus. And the library has been partnering with them to support DH fairs, events, trainings and workshops over the past year and a half. And DH at Berkeley was just awarded $2 million by the Mellon Foundation, thank you very much, to carry on and expand this work. So we expect really great things to happen in the DH space. So DH at Berkeley, the work we've done with them to date has been really exciting and positive in terms of engaging faculty and graduate students and even staff. But it hasn't always filtered down to the undergrad level. So last spring, the DH at Berkeley group in the Digital Humanities Working Group on campus came up with the idea of doing a hackathon. And as the discussions evolved, we decided that the Bancroft Free Speech Movement Archive would be a great area to focus on. And so the hack FSM was born. The original site was built in the early 1990s, very outdated, and the 50th anniversary was coming up this fall. So it was a great time for us to give it a fresh look. We started planning in February 2014 and it launched on April 1st, which was just an eight-week planning phase, which was quite a steep timeline. And one of the first hurdles we had to get over was explaining to people what a hackathon is and is not. And we think of a hackathon as a positive creative process where developers and technical staff get together and come up with build web apps in a very short time period, 24 to 72 hours. And usually involves one or more developers as part of a team and they're competing for a prize. So the outcomes can be a useful application or just sort of an R&D for ideas that can be expanded on later. So we had to do some explaining about the hackathons that were less about this and more about this. And we learned a lot from hackathons in local government, from other libraries and other universities that helped us inform our own. So the goals were many. At first we wanted students to have, to build something that had a humanities focus that wasn't just a technical solution. The teams had to be between one and four people and had to include at least one humanist. And the sites they built had to be able to address a humanist research question. We hope this would encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and get students to not only engage with content but to engage with each other to build a bridge between or across that technical humanist divide. The hackathon ran from April 1st to April 12th and so we wanted to give teams a longer coding periods to more fully develop their ideas and spend more time communicating across the divide. We also hope the longer coding period would encourage women to participate. So they sometimes are put off by the 24 to 72 hour hackathons where people eat pizza, drink Red Bull and sometimes forget to bathe. So we hope the extended timeframe in addition to healthier foods like fresh fruit would be encouraging to get them to participate. For the library it was an opportunity to explore using APIs to expose our data which is something we hadn't done yet. And then of course the main outcome was to develop a new interface to the free speech movement digital archives. We didn't expect to get a fully functioning site in 12 days which in fact we actually did. But we really wanted to see how students would interpret and provide access to the information. And then finally the free speech movement anniversary this fall was a great opportunity to engage the students, undergrads and grads alike around the topic to highlight the collection and raise awareness of the event and it's deep ties to the student community, their history and the power of their voices. And in fact today is the anniversary, the 50th anniversary today of the academic senate agreeing to back the student demands in the free speech movement protest. So a big victory in 1964. Alright so what we provided to the students first of all was a site that we had all of the basic information registration, schedules, rules, judging, information about the API, mentors and so on. We provided an API, sorry an Apache solar API that was managed through an API central service so that we could assign and manage API keys to provide access to the content. We had mentors from industry, faculty and archives who helped support the hackers. We provided a course communication platform called Piazza so students could contact mentors and organizers and we could post all the answers to every registrant. We held kickoff events in the library with speakers which had time to mingle, to eat pizza and fruit, form teams and start coding. And at the end of 12 days we had a final event on Cal Day which was a public day on campus that was held in our iSchool where the sites were judged on presentation and technical criteria. We also offered workspaces in our new social sciences D lab and in the library for students to work. And of course we offered cool prizes. We had first place winners got MacBook Airs and second place winners got iPad Minis so that was definitely good. Alright so how did it go? Well we had 13 teams who registered, 10 checked in their code and 8 ultimately presented. The winner was pretty clear from the presentations and you can see them standing there with their little certificates. A team of four including one humanist. We had a good crowd for the presentations because it was Cal Day we had a lot of people come in and check it out. And also two of the original FSM activists came and helped to give out the prizes. And it was really exciting because they are also donors of a lot of the material that we have and hope to have in the future. So we went from a site that looked like this very Dino Web 1990s look very static to this in 12 days. Pretty exciting, nice interface, aesthetically pleasing, easy to use, nice little timeline. It's up online you can go check it out. So the outcomes post-hack. Following the event we asked students to take a survey and invited them to lunch to tell us about their experience. They said they took part mostly because the content was interesting. They liked the challenge we gave them and of course there were good prizes. But what surprised us is they said they would have done it without the prizes because good content and a good challenge is worth working for. So that was really a good lesson for us. They also said they learned a lot about the free speech movement and archival materials both of which they knew nothing about at the beginning. So that was a plus. We got a lot of great publicity on campus. We actually made the front of the Berkeley website and that doesn't usually happen for a special collection. So that was exciting. And we met all of our initial goals and then some to pull off a campus wide hackathon in eight weeks was exciting. But it was more gratifying to see the students what they were able to produce. Some of the products included a simultaneous text editing environment. One was a research dashboard. There are lots of creative solutions that came out of 12 days of a development. And on top of it we had 25 percent women participants which is great. So whatever we did there worked. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery our anthropology museum held their hackathon in September and was largely based on our own. So we excited about that. One of the negatives was that the price giving there were apparently rules about how much you can give to each student annually which the air books or MacBook Airs exceeded. And we didn't discover this until too late. And so I had to cut through a lot of red tape to get the prices to students about two months after the event. And then while our plans had been to put up the first and second place winning sites we were only able to put up the first place site. While the code was well documented there were some fixes that needed to happen with the second place site. We never heard back from the developer so the site still remains undeployed. So overall the successful outcomes of the project the most successful was the student engagement as well as engaging faculty and staff. The best aspect of this was that students from across disciplines came together to build something. And yes that is a humanist hugging a developer in the upper right corner. So while the main work product of the Hackathon was a website the greater product was that developers and humanists learned to communicate. And isn't that partly what digital humanities is about. Humanists and technologists working together learning from and collaborating with each other in the process of building new scholarly products. So by engaging students in digital humanities through this project we could be informing the graduate students faculty and researchers of tomorrow. Hopefully events like Hack FSM can prepare them for future collaborations in a research environment where such interdisciplinary projects are more common. And speaking of collaborations here's a shout out to all the people and all the units or actually all of the folks who participated and supported this project across the campus. So it was a great collaboration across just our institutional organization as well. And then finally here's our white paper. So all the gory details are outlined here in incredible detail. So please take a look and read more about what we just whizzed through in this presentation. Thank you. Turn it over to Jen or Tom. OK. My name is Tom Keegan. I am the head of digital research and publishing at the University of Iowa Libraries. We have a three part presentation this morning. I'm going to talk a little bit about some background to the DIY history project. And then my colleague Jen Wolf will talk about the building of that and the implementation of that project. And then I will come back and do kind of the faculty piece. I'm just a bit of background in addition to being the head of DRP. I am transitioning out of being a faculty member in the Department of Rhetoric. So you'll hear a little bit from me both on the mass digitization side and then the pedagogical implementation using that archive in the classroom. So I want to start with demographics and just to set the stage. Iowa as you probably know is a large research university in the upper Midwest. 31,000 students 55 percent of them come from in state 33 percent from the United States in general and 12 percent excuse me international. And in the library we have four million volumes top 20 in materials expenditures among US public US research institutions. So that's just where we're coming from which I'm sure many of you can identify with. However with respect to this particular archive it was as my boss Paul Soderdahl likes to say when we started the digitization process it was a leap of faith. So it took about six years to start digitizing mass digitizing the archives without clearly knowing. And I think this is what some of what we hear today and you've already heard this without knowing exactly where it's going to go or who's going to use it. And it's an ongoing question. So we have I want to talk to show you a graph that Paul put together for in terms of digital library growth. And here you see over the course of 10 years a million items is the growth you see there. So part of the digitization project or the guiding principles for our digitization project came from a combination of the Google books initiative. The Hathi Trust and the kind of guiding principle there being a mass digitization. So don't be picky at the outset about what we're putting into the process and don't be afraid to scale. In particular though when you start curating the collections our attention and this is where you know Jen will come in. We're on or in particular some of the stuff that we were most interested in doing with the manuscript archives. And of those manuscript archives the things and Gem will tell you about this too the things people like our wars in terms of narrative content that they're willing to transcribe. So the Civil War letters and the end iris and on the heels of that DIY history kind of got the ball rolling in terms of a project that would get some traction with our users. And the idea here was that we take this content pair it with the Iowa digital library. Add engagements and what you get is DIY history and out of that partnering with Iowa digital engagement and learning of which I'm a co-director. You get these archives flowing into the classroom. So turn it over to Jen who's going to talk to you more specifically about DIY history. Hi I'm just going to give you some really quick background on transcription crowdsourcing in Iowa. We began our first project in 2011 as an experiment. We were looking for a cheap and easy way to make digitized letters and diaries full text searchable while also attracting some publicity. We weren't really sure anyone would be interested but it's turned out to be one of our most successful projects ever. Currently as of this morning we're closing in on 52,000 pages transcribed. We've received national and international press over the years most recently in the form of a listicle that appeared on Buzzfeed two months ago. We were five of the 13 things for board history lovers. And thanks in large part to that we had one of our bus busiest months ever. And these statistics would actually be bigger except that buzz after Buzzfeed the crowd transcribed everything on the site. We had had a brand new collection with 3,000 pages and they completed it in like 48 hours. It's a little catastrophic success. So we've gotten the transcriptions and the publicity we had originally been looking for. But what we hadn't been expecting was the deep level of engagement from our users, the connection they feel with the documents and the investment they make in the project. With the letters and diaries in particular a big part of the draw is the narrative nature of the text. People keep transcribing because they want to find out what happens next. And there's just something about performing the activity of transcription and making a real contribution to scholarship. It gets people returning to the site again and again in a way that we've never seen by just putting digital collections up for browsing. So among all the success we've had a major failure in that we were reaching a worldwide audience online but we weren't getting much use on campus. The site seemed a natural fit for the classroom but we couldn't seem to find a way in. And that all changed thanks to a collaboration with two of our rhetoric faculty members, Matt Gilchrist and Tom. And they had noticed that kids today are on their digital devices all the time but once they walk into a college classroom it can be a little like a time capsule from the 20th century. So now Tom will speak on his work to innovate teaching using digital resources like DIY history. So this I can speak I think more candidly or frankly about. So when I, I've been at Iowa for 13 years, I was there as a graduate student working on my PhD in English. When I finished that degree I moved over to the rhetoric department where the curriculum is fairly set in terms of projects that we expect students to complete. It's two papers, two essays and two speeches which I had already done that as a grad student so it wasn't new and it certainly wasn't interesting. And with my colleague Matt Gilchrist we were sitting around and we were talking about what we could do as far as unburdening ourselves of the, you know, grading dull stuff. And we also as faculty members had a mission that, you know, as rhetoricians, as rhetoric faculty members, something we were trying, you know, learning objectives that we were trying to convey. And so among those, and unfortunately, you know, rhetoric and I'm sure other departments feel this way are expected by their colleagues in the institution to do everything for students in terms of critical writing and reading and research and public speaking. And so you take, rhetoric is a required course at the University of Iowa so all undergraduates have to take it. So the idea is that you get bathed or baptized in the waters of rhetoric in your first or second semester and then you're done, you're good, which is not true but that's what the belief is. Along the way we started asking ourselves how do we actually achieve these objectives without using some 19th or 20th century pedagogical models. And so one of the required speeches, we said, oh, how do we fix this? This is really dull, we don't want to do this. And how do we actually get students to do research, not Google stuff, not ask students to find a set number of sources, but to engage with the research process in a way that maybe is not obvious. If we request research of them, when we do that, they don't want to do it. They don't want to, rhetoric is required so they don't want to be there to begin with initially, right? It seems like an adversarial setup. So we started talking with Jen and a colleague of ours who is now in another position, another institution, Kelly McElroy. So Jen and Kelly said we have this awesome project but how do we find our way into the classroom? And so Matt and I said well let's see what we've got here. And the letters turned out to be fantastic. Once we started seeing opportunities to apply high impact practices, which I'm sure is a term people are familiar with. The first we thought was a participatory culture. What we saw in DIY history is that they were crowdsourcing the transcription. So here is a project that invited the public to come in and participate. That scales down to the classroom really easily. It's not hard to ask students to find a letter in an archive. And we curate it. Jen did a wonderful job identifying, you know, to have a librarian identify something that students would think was interesting. And we started initially in our first semester with something called the Pioneer Lives Collection, which is a bunch of collections from Scandinavian immigrants in Iowa writing home in English. That worked out really well. And we hit true pay dirt the next semester when we started using World War II letters. Evelyn Birkby, who is an Iowan homemaker and still writes a newspaper column, had donated her papers among them a World War II scrapbook that included letters from half a dozen service men to whom she wrote letters during the war, and they wrote back. So we had their letters. She'd saved them. And my colleague Matt and I started asking students to look through these letters, which were held from public view, because this is the problem, right? With a crowdsource project, students identified letters they want to transcribe. They procrastinate the next day when they go back to transcribe it. Some history buff has beaten them to it. So we kept these from public view. They identified letters and they started transcribing. So here they were working on a project that, you know, we sold to them as a public humanities project. At the same time, they are enacting a reversing of the flow, where we think pedagogically about there's this, at its worst, a custodial nature to the humanities, where we have it, we're tending to the flame, and you're teaching students about the flame. Don't touch it. Just look at it and admire it. And then it's like six or seven years from now, you might apply the things we're telling you about. We didn't like that model. It puts the onus on us. We didn't want to be delivering constantly to them, and it bores the students. So here were students transcribing these letters, and they were becoming experts on it over time. And they became experts about the transcription because the research piece started to come in. So as they transcribed, we asked them to think rhetorically about what the writer was doing. So we asked them to write 400 words of rhetorical analysis. In addition, we asked them to write 400 words of historical contextualization. So if in these World War II letters, for instance, you have servicemen writing about, they're at these bases and they're going to plays or movies, the students don't know what these things are. So we'd say, okay, we'll go start researching this. And we made resources available and kind of curated a set of resources. And so students would go out and start to research things they didn't recognize. If there was no touchstone in the letter, so Pearl Harbor, that's a touchstone. If there wasn't something identifiable that the student could go and research, there was at the very least a date. And if you're lucky, a date and a place. But a date was suffice because with a date, you can start researching what was going on globally at the time. You could juxtapose the local and the global. And so here the student is able, which is something we like students to think about because the global doesn't really exist for students. It's very hyper-local when you're 18 years old. So we got them involved in that process. So here they were doing 400 words of rhetorical analysis, 400 words of historical contextualization and slowly becoming the generators of content for conversations we'd have in the classroom. And this all started, remember, with a manuscript archive. And that imbued them with a sense of a positional authority that they could speak, frankly, and knowledge about the thing we had asked them to research and discuss, which is what you want to instill in your students when they're rhetoric students. I'm not interested in talking about controversies. I'm not interested in some pretend curriculum or to imagine yourself in a position. I want you to take ownership of the thing and speak confidently and persuasively about it. That's all rhetoric is. And they do it every day. It's just you have to help them see the fact that they are already in that rhetorical position. So to help facilitate that authority, we asked them also to create screencasts. So this would be like a Ken Burns effect, and so we'd have them do a screencast, two minutes, super short, a sentence, right? Or just pan across the letter and talk about either the difficulty of the transcription process, something interesting they found in their research for an audience. And this is the problem with students is that you need to get them thinking about audience. When they write, take one is always successful because they're their own audience. They're not skilled readers necessarily, and so anything that's written looks excellent. When you ask them to record themselves, take one is never sufficient. If you want a student to edit, ask them to film themselves or record their voices. They will always, always edit that. So they started kind of curating these materials. And then they would give a live presentation. So we had multiple, we remediated this experience over and over again. And what we found and what you'll see I think in the comments is that students really enjoyed this experience. They may have been intimidated at first, but the process gave them a sense of ownership that made them excited to do research and excited to do work and confident in what they had to say. On our side, and the longer I'm at Iowa and the kind of different positions I've had, it isn't just a pedagogical teacherly role. I also see these students becoming future donors, which may sound manipulative, but they've got to pay it forward or pay it back. So this adds the student retention because students feel empowered in the classroom. It doesn't slow down time to degree, which is what innovation often gets castigated for doing. So it's like, I have this great new idea. It's like, how long will that slow down the time to degree? We can't implement it. And they come out feeling good about their initial college experience. Keep in mind, these are freshmen who are doing this. So I would rather have a student who's entering college have this relatively awesome experience where they have ownership of their education, which is something I'm constantly reminding them they need to do for themselves because I don't want to have conversations about their grade because at some point, for better or worse, I tell them you don't have your teachers, so you need to take responsibility for what you're doing. And this is what we end up with. So I won't talk over much. We can talk in the Q&A if you want about the design of the project, but it's totally scalable. So for those who are interested in doing something like this, you can have one student do it. You could have, and we have had about 300 or so across a number of sections do it. It is open source. You can find our assignments, documents at the Ideal website, which is at ideal.uiowa.edu. We list, and we have a variety of projects that were, and we just open source them. There's no reason in teaching to keep it to yourself. I have this great project. You can't see it. It's not a model that we adhere to. And then we tend to use a four-way curriculum. Obviously, that could be adapted. And you see it deals with transcription research, multimodal composition, as I've pointed out. And then we tend to push these things to the web. Our students upload to a YouTube account, and they do sign releases. So we get around FERPA for those who care about that stuff. Students want to show their work, which I don't know. Students want to share their essays or something. So these are just some comments from students, and you'll see that for those who are thinking, well, how do we get them to screencast the technological stuff? We do have support from librarians who walk them through the research process, looking at how to use an archive, what is an archive. But also we have something called Student Instructional Technology Assistance, when we first started this, helped us get situated in the classroom teaching students how to use things like iMovie and whatever software fit the role. And more so than me, and we put this in here because more so than me telling you that this matters to students. What we do at the end of the project is always have them reflect on it in a course blog. So they are constantly posting to the course blog. I don't trade in paper outside of, well, the archive is digitized too, so I don't trade in paper at all. So this is what students are reflecting on after the process is over. And this is what we wanted. We wanted rhetorically deaf students who understand research to be something that is not strictly removed from the archives and only in Google. It's something much more powerful than that. And introducing them to the libraries at a very early stage in their academic careers. And that is the last slide. With that, I want to turn it over to the panel and thank you guys.