<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Smattern on Journal of Digital Humanities</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/smattern/</link><description>Recent content in Smattern on Journal of Digital Humanities</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/smattern/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Evaluating Multimodal Work, Revisited</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-multimodal-work-revisited-by-shannon-mattern/</link><pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-multimodal-work-revisited-by-shannon-mattern/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Two years ago I was preparing for a semester in which all of my classes involved “multimodal” student work — that is, theoretically-informed, research-based work that resulted in something _other_than a traditional paper. For years I’d been giving students in my classes the option of submitting, for at least one of their semester assignments, a media production or creative project (accompanied by a support paper in which they addressed how their work functioned as “scholarship”) — but given that this cross-platform work would now become the &lt;em&gt;norm&lt;/em&gt;, I thought I should take some time to think about how to fairly and helpfully evaluate these projects. How do we know what’s &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>