Il progetto Digital WHOmanities: buone pratiche per la pedagogia digitale nell'era della pandemia
10.6092/issn.2532-8816/11829
Questo contributo si propone di entrare nel dibattito in corso sulle criticità della pedagogia digitale attraverso la presentazione di Digital WHOmanities, una serie di conferenze e workshop online tenuti presso l'Università di Bologna. L'apprendimento a distanza è diventato uno degli argomenti più discussi nelle istituzioni educative durante la diffusione del Covid-19, rivelando una discrepanza tra il rapido sviluppo della tecnologia e la capacità degli ambienti di apprendimento di adattarsi a questa svolta. In vista di questo dibattito in corso, Digital WHOmanities ha cercato di definire la figura complessa e sfaccettata dell'umanista digitale e di fornire un quadro metodologico che potesse favorire ulteriori iniziative accademiche online. In particolare, l'accurata organizzazione dei tempi e dei contenuti e l'adozione di approcci sincroni e asincroni hanno evidenziato l'efficacia di una didattica digitale flessibile.
text/html
2532-8816
11829
10
en
Mattia Spadoni
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Umanistica Digitale
education
The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era
Text.Serial.Journal
https://umanisticadigitale.unibo.it/
Reviews and reports
2021-09-09
2020-11-25
2021-09-09
2021-09-09
451-460
Um. Dig.
Mattia Spadoni
2021/09/09
10.6092/issn.2532-8816/11829
451
Università di Bologna
2532-8816
10
education
en
460
The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era
https://umanisticadigitale.unibo.it/article/view/11829/13128
   Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021
D. Apolloni, M. Corbellini, L. Giagnolini, A. S. Lippolis, F. Mangialardo, C. T. Pedretti, E.
Peruch, G. Renda, M. Spadoni – The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era
DOI: http://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2532-8816/11829



The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
             Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era

  1
   Davide Apolloni, 2Milena Corbellini, 3Lucia Giagnolini, 4Anna Sofia Lippolis, 5Francesca
    Mangialardo, 6Carlo Teo Pedretti, 7Eleonora Peruch, 8Giulia Renda, 9Mattia Spadoni

                                    University of Bologna, Italy
                         1davidemaria.apolloni@studio.unibo.it
                             2milena.corbellini@studio.unibo.it
                              3lucia.giagnolini@studio.unibo.it
                             4annasofia.lippolis@studio.unibo.it
                         5
                          francesc.mangialardo@studio.unibo.it
                           6carloteo.pedretti@studio.unibo.it
                            7eleonora.peruch@studio.unibo.it
                              8giulia.renda2@studio.unibo.it
                             9mattia.spadoni@studio.unibo.it




       Abstract

This paper aims to enter the ongoing debate about the critical issues of digital pedagogy through
the presentation of Digital WHOmanities, a series of online conferences and workshops held at
the University of Bologna. Distance learning has become one of the most discussed topics in
educational institutions during the spread of Covid-19, revealing a discrepancy between the rapid
development of technology and the ability of learning environments to adapt to this turn. In
view of this ongoing debate, Digital WHOmanities tried to define the complex and multifaceted
figure of the digital humanist and to provide a methodological framework that could foster
further online academic initiatives. Specifically, the accurate organization of timing and contents
and the adoption of synchronous and asynchronous approaches have highlighted the
effectiveness of flexible digital didactics.
Questo contributo si propone di entrare nel dibattito in corso sulle criticità della pedagogia
digitale attraverso la presentazione di Digital WHOmanities, una serie di conferenze e workshop
online tenuti presso l'Università di Bologna. L'apprendimento a distanza è diventato uno degli
argomenti più discussi nelle istituzioni educative durante la diffusione del Covid-19, rivelando
una discrepanza tra il rapido sviluppo della tecnologia e la capacità degli ambienti di
apprendimento di adattarsi a questa svolta. In vista di questo dibattito in corso, Digital
WHOmanities ha cercato di definire la figura complessa e sfaccettata dell'umanista digitale e di
fornire un quadro metodologico che potesse favorire ulteriori iniziative accademiche online. In

                                               451
    Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021


particolare, l'accurata organizzazione dei tempi e dei contenuti e l'adozione di approcci sincroni
e asincroni hanno evidenziato l'efficacia di una didattica digitale flessibile.



       Introduction

With the sudden eruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, the question of education in the
“information ontology”([4];[5]), which so far has been tackled too shyly, emerged as a debate of
the utmost importance.
The state of exception imposed on teaching has revealed, more than just a technical inadequacy
of instructors, a discrepancy between the pace of change and the ability of educational
institutions to absorb and re-articulate this turn. A fracture has been exposed, revealing the innate
separation between what we can do with technology, and how technology is understood within
the institutional ecosystem. Action is running ahead of thought, in the sense that “we know no
longer what we do” ([9]). Thus, avoiding to understand and see the implications of our own
actions, “[...] making that blindness a structural feature of inattentive and procedurally focused
systems of education, threatens to reinforce and extend that myopia” ([10]: 236). The deeper
digital devices get embedded in our life without a pre-emptive recognition and a collective effort
from educational institutions to achieve a common ground, the harsher this fracture will grow.
Educational systems are doomed to a premature obsolescence, and their own practices and
theories will suffer from monadic seclusion.
This cogitation should be all the more compelling if we are talking about the Digital Humanities
(hereon DH) domain. A quantitative study over the comparative frequencies of the terms
“pedagogy” and “research” conducted by [7] into two volumes recognised as references in the
field of DH (Blackwell Companion to Digital Humanities and Companion to Digital Literary
Studies) has revealed an astounding difference in the occurrences of the terms in the academic
debate: while “research” occurs 504 times throughout the books, “pedagogy” occurs a mere total
of 8 times. In its sparse appearances, the ghost of (digital) pedagogy seems to gain the ancillary
status of an afterthought, far behind discussions of theories and research practices in the field of
DH. As Hirsch states, “[...] to bracket pedagogy in critical discussions of the digital humanities
or to completely exclude it from these discussions reinforces an antagonistic distinction between
teaching and research, in which the time, effort, and funding spent on the one cannibalizes the
opportunities of the other”([7]: 5).
Moreover, opposing technics to a supposed natural state – that is, claiming that we can freely
choose to embrace or avoid technology as an external corpus – underpins a narrative that views
technics as a mere and neutral instrument, thus leading to naive ethical (and ontological)
assumptions. Digital pedagogy should start to embrace the idea that we co-evolve, both
cognitively and ontologically, “with the technicity of tools and external archival mechanisms
(such as language and culture)” ([16]: xv) and technology itself is embedded in our being not
just as a cultural practice, but as the foundational element that builds the horizon of existence,


                                                452
    D. Apolloni, M. Corbellini, L. Giagnolini, A. S. Lippolis, F. Mangialardo, C. T. Pedretti, E.
    Peruch, G. Renda, M. Spadoni – The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
                                                                   Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era

developing our experience of temporality and spatiality 1. Education is both “the foundational
and most significant system of subjectification in society” ([8]: 318) and the place “where
calendary and cardinal devices are learned and interiorised” ([14]). That said, learning in a digital
environment should not take over traditional education, but has to be seen as a prominent and
viable part of its evolution.
Taking this into consideration, we have collected our first-hand experience in developing an
ongoing digital experiment of workshops and conferences about the state of DH during the
pandemic crisis. This unexpected challenge has quickly led us to rethink our approaches to digital
pedagogy, both as students and as curators. Through this logbook we aim to provide not just a
chronicle of our failures and achievements, but also a vivid interpretation of our emerging role
as digital humanists. Indeed, the starting point of Digital WHOmanities, as the wordplay
suggests, is the desire of catching a momentary glimpse of the digital humanist’s true identity.
While this may seem an unattainable hope, we believe that by trying to grasp the fleeting form
of the digital humanist, we will obtain – if not answers – a set of operative questions for the times
to come. What emerges almost spontaneously from our recognition is that digital humanists
could be patient weavers, sewing back this rip between action and thought.
Here we present an attempt to highlight the light and shade of distance learning, and a brief
proposal of principles and methodologies that could help to develop a shared view and a common
ground beneath digital educational practices.



        The project

Digital WHOmanities is a project conceived and developed by a group of students of the
International Master Degree in Digital Humanities and Digital Knowledge at the University of
Bologna, with the support of programme coordinator Prof. Francesca Tomasi and the
sponsorship of FICLIT (Filologia Classica e Italianistica) Department of Excellence MIUR.
The project was born out of a necessity to create a meeting spot between digital humanists and
the job market, the latter intended as both public institutions and private companies involved in
the lifecycle management of cultural objects. We wanted to build a place for meaningful
conversations around the professional identity of the digital humanist, talking with experts and
stakeholders about knowledge, competences and know-how required to operate at the
intersection between humanities and computer science technologies.

        Contents
The project was directed at two different target audiences. The first one was represented by
students and people interested in understanding the various fields of application of the DH and


1   Cf. “tertiary memory” in [15].

                                                453
   Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021


the possible paths that a specialist in this field can take in the job market. The second target
consisted of public institutions and private companies who wanted to know more about the
professional figure of the digital humanist and how it could be integrated in the work process.
The main focus of the project was thus to create a contact point between digital humanists and
the stakeholders from the digital culture market sector. Since digital humanists place themselves
at the intersection of humanities and computer science, they can take advantage of live interviews
and workshops with experts to gain a deeper understanding of problems and opportunities
related to digital culture. At the same time, Digital WHOmanities intended to dialogue with the
stakeholders about which practical and theoretical skills they expect to find in a digital humanist
and whether they can be achieved through university studies only. These objectives have been
carried out through case study discussions and workshops that will be examined in the following
sections.
Fundamental attributes of DH are interdisciplinarity, and the coexistence of various fields of
study and related applications of different technologies. In our opinion this aspect, if on the one
hand determines the richness of DH, on the other hand it contributes to a vague picture of the
digital humanist. Since our aim was to highlight the proficiencies and know-how of digital
humanists and make their professional profile clearer, we decided to focus on those domains that
were the most structured in our study programme and are generally acknowledged as stand-alone
learning areas by experts:
    •    Galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM);
    •    Computational linguistics;
    •    Web technologies;
    •    Digital publishing.
Our choice criteria for speakers consisted in gaining a representation as balanced as possible of
each of the aforementioned areas, resulting in about two or three sessions for each sector.
Furthermore, we involved stakeholders from both the public and the private sector so as to
compare differences and similarities in the respective approaches to DH.
Specifically, we invited guests from: University of Bologna, University of Venice, Franco Angeli
publishing house, CLUEB publishing house, Promemoria group, IBC (Istituto per i beni
artistici, culturali e naturali), MiBACT (Italian cultural ministry), Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
(national library of Bavaria) and CELI. A full list of our guests is available on our website.

        Strategy and methods
The initial project was a one-day event at the University of Bologna. Unfortunately, the spread
of Covid-19 confronted us with two possibilities: either cancel the event or adapt it to a digital
environment. We opted for the second – more challenging – option with the goal of maximising
attention and interaction.
We decided to transform the original time span of the event into a cycle of meetings, one per
week, to cover a month in total. Each appointment was further split into two phases: a freely
                                               454
  D. Apolloni, M. Corbellini, L. Giagnolini, A. S. Lippolis, F. Mangialardo, C. T. Pedretti, E.
  Peruch, G. Renda, M. Spadoni – The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
                                                                 Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era

accessible live interview with the speakers in the early morning, and a restricted workshop led by
the same guests later on in the day. We organized the interview in the form of a Q&A to give
the speakers the chance to introduce themselves and their career, reflect on their area of
competence and allow the audience to ask questions.
The workshop consisted of an introduction to the project by the speaker, the practical work of
the group and a final session to share results and impressions. We decided to keep the number
of participants low on purpose and, in some cases, we even split them in smaller groups to allow
for a better sense of involvement.
In planning the structure of the event, a requisite was to engage the audience in a strongly
interactive experience. Aware of the difficulty of participating in digital initiatives that are carried
out for long periods of time (e.g., conferences that last entire days with almost no breaks in
between presentations), we decided to limit the duration of both the interviews and the
workshops to a maximum of one and a half hours.
As a result, we could experience the advantages of alternating a synchronous with an
asynchronous modality, combining the live experience of the conferences with the possibility of
having access to materials after the events. Indeed, while the videos of the interviews and the
materials of the workshop were made available online through our channels after the end of the
live event, the workshops were not recorded, thus remaining a unique and very personal
experience for the participants.
During the pandemic, the importance of the relation between a synchronous and an
asynchronous teaching method became even more evident: for example, as reported by [3], a
high number of Italian universities initially opted for a mixed methodology of teaching, and it
became clear that an asynchronous approach could be a great supplementary system in traditional
teaching, even if not a substitutive one. We believe that different modalities can be diversely
effective depending on the aim for which they are employed; therefore, we should think in terms
of adaptation, not of replacement. In our case, the coexistence of more than one approach proved
to be efficient and productive.
The theoretical discussion over the DH took great advantage from being available to the public
also after the end of the events, while the restriction of the workshops to a limited number of
registered participants allowed us to offer them some preparatory material, to reveal in advance
the tools for the laboratory and to be supported by our speakers during the workshop. In doing
so, the acquisition of practical competences proved more effective, as we could verify through
the participants’ feedback.
We used Streamyard for the simultaneous broadcast of the live interviews on our YouTube
channel and Facebook page, both specifically created for the event. In addition, Streamyard
allowed us to go live together with the speakers to moderate the speech. For the workshops we
chose to use Microsoft Teams for its functionalities and the possibility to split the group into
smaller rooms. Our speakers used GitHub and Google Colab to share materials and work
collaboratively. GitHub was also used to create the website of the project.

                                                 455
    Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021


Since communication with the public was a key aspect for the success of our event, we used the
Facebook page and a Twitter account in order to promote our initiative and reach the broadest
audience possible. We published posts and tweets once a week, and we provided the possibility
to register to a newsletter to update the participants and whoever was interested.

       Realization of the event
In order to adapt to the dynamism of the digital environment and to the way content is accessed
on platforms like Facebook and YouTube, we decided to set up the speakers’ presentations in a
20-minute interview format, where the guests discussed both with the interviewers and the public
their role in the DH with respect to their working environments.
The theoretical claims that were made during the interviews were then put into practice by the
guests and/or their colleagues in the interactive sessions of the workshops. Basing these laboratory
sessions on the concepts of “project-based learning” and “learning by doing” [11] and on the
subsequent need for communication and interaction, booking in advance was required in order
to contain the number of participants. Attendants were provided beforehand via email with the
link to the Microsoft Teams room dedicated to the activity and, if available, with preparatory
materials for the workshop. Depending on the type of workshop proposed by stakeholders,
individual subgroups were sometimes created to carry out specific tasks.
As organizers, we participated actively not only to coordinate the tasks and to monitor the
situation, providing help to the participants when needed, but also to receive immediate and
reliable feedback. As a consequence, we were able to understand and to experience the event from
the point of view of the participants, and thanks to a dynamic approach, we were able to adjust
and refine several unsatisfactory aspects.



       Evaluation and discussion

One of the most important aspects in creating a service aimed at making any educational impact
on a target is assessing in an iterative way people’s personal experience. After each session, we
took into consideration the most critical and positive aspects and evaluated them in a quantitative
and qualitative manner. A more general assessment was then carried out at the very end of the
conference series, to understand if the idea and its realization format could be proposed again
and be fruitful in the future.
As previously mentioned, we were mainly concerned with participants’ interest and interaction.
In terms of quantitative evaluation, we relied on YouTube and Facebook analytics to get
evidence-based feedback concerning the live event. Mailchimp analytics helped us assess the
general engagement with current and future project activities.
The number of views for each interview, both during the live streaming and after its completion,
exceeded our expectations. Considering the fact that Italian was the only official language of the
event, it was impressive to get over 160 participants following all the live sessions. Moreover, the

                                               456
    D. Apolloni, M. Corbellini, L. Giagnolini, A. S. Lippolis, F. Mangialardo, C. T. Pedretti, E.
    Peruch, G. Renda, M. Spadoni – The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
                                                                   Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era

number of views increased over the weeks and months after the live streaming, meaning that the
interest remained constant through time.
As already reported, live sessions were also broadcast on Facebook, even though a lower number
of participants was involved. This is probably due to the fact that Facebook is not recognised nor
appreciated as a streaming platform: people would rather follow live streams on YouTube, which
remains therefore the most effective real time video sharing website.
Another quantitative sign of engagement concerns users’ interaction during live interviews:
participants questioned our speakers at least once in each conference, showing an active
involvement even when the time constraints could have appeared discouraging.
At the very end of the conference series, in order to collect additional qualitative data, we
submitted a questionnaire created with Google Forms to the general public to collect feedback
about both interviews and workshops and the overall event. Specifically, we wanted to assess:
     •    effectiveness of the communication strategy;
     •    format approval;
     •    contents satisfaction;
     •    knowledge and skills achievements;
     •    willingness to be involved in related events sponsored by the group.
The answers (id.) were few (20 out of 86 workshop participants) but extremely positive, and gave
us a clear idea of the interest shown for future events 2.
Final feedback, coming from the speakers, highlighted the appreciation and originality of our
method, showing participants’ willingness to be involved again in future initiatives.
This experience gave us the opportunity to tackle the advantages and disadvantages of online
learning from an organizational standpoint. When people’s attention is difficult to catch,
technology undoubtedly offers opportunities and channels for dialogue, but physical interaction
remains an essential component to good communication and understanding. These
considerations are true both from the point of view of the speaker and of the public: talking and
listening in front of a screen will always lack that level of interconnection that only attendance
in person can create. We strongly believe in the importance of physical interaction in teaching,
so the event was initially conceived as a face-to-face meeting. However, the circumstances forced
us to remodel our program, giving us the possibility to create a model for digital didactics.
The experience of Digital WHOmanities allowed us to establish which factors should be
prioritised in the organization of an event of this kind, and which are the benefits and drawbacks
of using digital tools. Given these considerations, we suggest a model that can be adapted to
specific needs for planning ahead a digital event:


2   For some of them the impact was so positive that they cited us during their university application for
    the DHDK Master Degree at the University of Bologna.
                                                   457
    Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021


     1.   Analysis of the goals of the event: clearly identify the goals to achieve with the event. We
          aimed at creating an interaction-oriented environment to share knowledge and raise
          awareness between DH professionals and newcomers, geared towards a dialogue
          between the job market and the University.
     2.   Analysis of the audience: identify the audience, understand their needs and provide
          solutions. Firstly, we wanted to help new DH professionals and enthusiasts understand
          which are the opportunities within the job market. To do so, we provided real-life
          examples of DH careers through the interviews and invited professionals to carry out
          hands-on activities during the workshop. Secondly, we wanted to raise awareness
          among employers of the public and private sectors about the role and competences of
          the digital humanist. The workshops represented an opportunity for the latter to
          show some DH competences in action.
     3.   Analysis of the competitors: learn from others that operate in the same field and build a
          common ground or differentiate from them. An analysis of existing e-learning proposals
          was necessary before we could create ours. From this analysis, we gained insight into
          the difficulty to reconcile daily commitments with a whole day of full-immersion
          activities, besides their unsuitability to the digital environment. For this reason, we
          opted for small and concentrated time intervals.
     4.   Modular organization according to competency: in a multidisciplinary team, it is necessary
          to assign different roles according to different competencies. DH are multidisciplinary by
          nature, and so was our team. As a result, each event day was organized in a multi-
          thematic way, allowing each member of the team to act as a mediator and integrate
          the speakers’ competencies.
     5.   Planning of the speakers’ presentation: provide a standard framework for the organization
          of the speech and workshop; maintain a continuous dialogue to model the contents of the
          intervention. We provided speakers with guidelines for planning the interview and the
          workshop, both to organize a structured intervention and to help participants prepare
          in advance for the practical activity. Despite the standard framework of operation, we
          left enough freedom to the speakers, while continuing to act as mediators.
     6.   Analysis of the tools: analysis of existing solutions for e-learning and online streaming 3.
     7.   Communication: define how to address the audience in order to raise attention and
          develop interaction. Nowadays, business happens in social networks, especially for
          what concerns those fields operating in digital environments. For this reason, we have
          decided to exploit social media as our main mean of communication. To keep viewer
          attention, we introduced fixed time constraints that allowed for breaks between
          activities.




3   See §2.3 for a list of tools that we employed and the reasons why we chose them.

                                                  458
  D. Apolloni, M. Corbellini, L. Giagnolini, A. S. Lippolis, F. Mangialardo, C. T. Pedretti, E.
  Peruch, G. Renda, M. Spadoni – The Digital WHOmanities Project: Best Practices for Digital
                                                                 Pedagogy in the Pandemic Era

       Conclusions

Digital WHOmanities was born to encourage a theoretical reflection on the role of the digital
humanist in the job market. Starting from the interaction with those professionals who witnessed
the birth and still happen to be involved in the ongoing affirmation of DH as an independent
field of research, we were able to harvest the outcomes of a fruitful conversation and make them
available to a curious and engaged public. For what concerns the overall digital learning
experience, the development of the key points described in §3, together with the combination
of synchronous and asynchronous approaches, proved to be not just a viable but also an efficient
teaching choice when flexibility is required. On the other hand, we also acknowledged some of
the limits and caveats of online learning. The difficulty in building and maintaining the
conditions for inclusion in terms of teacher-student interaction as well as peer interaction affirms
the importance of their physical actualization.
The success of the initiative during a time of social and technical acceleration due to the Covid-
19 crisis proved the urge to further develop these considerations in the future, with the hope to
spread awareness on the priority of a continuous dialogue between disciplines and pedagogy as
the first step towards a new sense of community.



       References

[1] Allegrezza, Stefano, ed. Book of Abstracts of the 8th AIUCD Conference on Pedagogy,
    Teaching and Research in the Age of Digital Humanities. Udine: AIUCD, 2019.
    http://aiucd2019.uniud.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AIUCD2019-BoA_DEF.pdf.
[2] CREIF. “Infanzia, famiglie, servizi educativi e scolastici nel Covid-19,” 2020.
    https://centri.unibo.it/creif/it/pubblicazioni/servizi-educativi-e-scolastici-nel-covid-19-
    riflessioni-pedagogiche.
[3] Fiorentino, Giuseppe, and Enrica Salvatori. “La didattica a distanza, dall’emergenza alle
    buone pratiche.” Umanistica Digitale 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2532-
    8816/10872.
[4] Floridi, Luciano. “Against Digital Ontology.” Synthese 168, no. 1 (2009): 151–78.
[5] Floridi, Luciano. The Philosophy of Information. Oxford, New York: Oxford University
    Press, 2011.
[6] Gray, J. “What Versus How: Teaching Digital Humanities After COVID-19 – KCL
    Digital Humanities.” KCL Digital Humanities (blog), 2020.
    https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/ddh/2020/05/04/teaching-digital-humanities-after-covid19/.
[7] Hirsch, Brett D. “Digital Humanities and the Place of Pedagogy.” In Digital Humanities
    Pedagogy, edited by Brett D. Hirsch, 1st ed., 3:3–30. Practices, Principles and Politics.
    Open Book Publishers, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vjtt3.5.

                                               459
   Umanistica Digitale – ISSN: 2532-8816 – n. 10, 2021


[8] Knox, Jeremy. “Posthumanism and the MOOC: Opening the Subject of Digital
     Education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 35, no. 3 (2016): 305–20.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-016-9516-5.
[9] Lewin, David. “‘They Know Not What They Do’: The Spiritual Meaning of
     Technological Progress.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 25, no. 3 (2010): 347–62.
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2010.516537.
[10] Lewin, David, and David Lundie. “Philosophies of Digital Pedagogy.” Studies in
     Philosophy and Education 35, no. 3 (2016): 235–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-
     016-9514-7.
[11] Markham, T. “Project Based Learning.” Teacher Librarian 39, no. 2 (2011): 38–42.
[12] OECD. “A Framework to Guide an Education Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of
     2020,” 2020. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=126_126988-t63lxosohs&title=A-
     framework-to-guide-an-education-response-to-the-Covid-19-Pandemic-of-2020.
[13] Sciumbata, Floriana. “Students of Humanities and Digital Skills: A Survey on Italian
     University Students.” Umanistica Digitale 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2532-
     8816/9877.
[14] Stiegler, Bernard. “Our Ailing Educational Institutions – Bernard Stiegler.” Culture
     Machine (blog), 2003. https://culturemachine.net/the-e-issue/our-ailing-educational-
     institutions/.
[15] Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford
     University Press, 1998.
[16] Wolfe, C. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.


Last accessed: 2021/08/17




                                           460
