Research

Inquiry into Digital Teaching Collections

Inquiry into Digital Teaching Collections assesses the current use of digital resources in instruction and interest in expanded Digital Collections functions by University of Maryland faculty. In proposing the idea of Digital Teaching Collections, the University Libraries seek to increase awareness and use of Special Collections holdings and Digital Collections contents. Prior to developing Digital Teaching Collections, Special Collections and Digital Programs & Initiatives at University Libraries are examining digital pedagogy, surveying the current landscape of instructional use of digital collections by humanities and social science faculty (potential Digital Teaching Collections users), and collecting proposals for increased functionalities of Digital Collections.

Literature Review

Digital Pedagogy Instructional Use of DC Interface Design

Digital Pedagogy
The leading refrain to come from digital pedagogy publications for the last two decades is that technology will only benefit learning if it is chosen specifically because it supports the pedagogical application and content (Laru, 2012). Much of the publications regarding the use of Digital Humanities projects in the classroom reinforces this. Subject matter research on digital practices produces numerous case studies on the effectiveness of specific projects but rarely is it possible to find general articles about subject specific digital pedagogical practices (McBride, 2004). Researchers agree that digital content is rarely enough to support learning, “some type of facilitation in online environments is necessary” (Laru, 2012, 36). As Ellis pointed out back 1996, “the emergence of library technology initiatives in the humanities furnishes many opportunities to expand and redefine the role of the library” (526) which makes now an exciting time for libraries. Libraries today have the content and experience with digital collection to implement Web 2.0 technology thereby greatly enhancing digital collections and creating Digital Teaching Collections.

One area where research into digital pedagogies is just starting is the integration of Web 2.0 technology tools with educational content. Case studies on individual instructors’ successes and failures at implementing Web 2.0 practices in the classroom have been on the increase for the last two years. Articles delving into pedagogical failures (King, 2011) are less useful for the purpose of implementing Digital Teaching Collections than those that demonstrate the difficulties but find some measure of success in Web 2.0 technology implementation. It seems that the common misstep is once again failing to align instructional goals with the appropriate digital tools (King, 2011; Laru, 2012).

The benefit of integrating Web 2.0 software applications into instructional activities is that it encourages collaborative learning, knowledge building, and transformative creation of the content in the digital medium (Laru, 2012). Faculty that succeed in improving their instruction through the implementation of Web 2.0 tools into their teaching take the time to design specific learning tasks using technology to increase students’ knowledge. The courses use web-based resources. Content created by students during the course is open to fellow students. Projects have collaborative authorship, but editing tools reveal what was contributed by whom. An air of open-endedness and lack of finality is maintained in the final products (Laru, 2012).

Digital pedagogy supports the application of Web 2.0 technology into digital projects for instructional use. It is important that there should be some customization allowed so that instructors can include the interactive features that support their subject matter and instructional aims. Digital content and instructional spaces only succeed in increasing student learning when they are used purposefully to carry out specific learning tasks.

References

Ellis, S. (1996). Toward the humanities digital library: Building the local organization. College & Research Libraries, 57(6), 525-34.

King, P. C. (2011). Technology and teaching philosophy. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(20), 161-168. DOI:10.2190/ET.40.2.f

Laru, J., Naykki, P., & Jarvela, S. (2012). Supporting small-group learning using multiple web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29-38.

McBride, K. D. (2004). Visual media and the humanities: A pedagogy of representation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Digital Pedagogy Interface Design

Instructional Use of Digital Collections
While research demonstrates that conscientious use of digital content and tools can increase student learning, prior to implementing Digital Teaching Collections Special Collections needs to know more about the current status of use of digital materials in higher education courses. There is really only one study that has attempted to research “The use of online digital resources and educational digital libraries in higher education” (2008) by McMartin, Iverson, Wolf, Morrill, Morgan, and Manduca. While this work is the only study of its kind, it produces nearly as many questions as it answers. However, it can help Special Collections to understand the likelihood of interest in Digital Teaching Collections and provide some recommendations for Digital Teaching Collection implementation.

According to McMartin, et al (2008) approximately sixty percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents to their survey believed that digital resources added “great value” to their instruction. This was true across the board of respondents which included new and experienced faculty, public and private institutions, two and four-year colleges. In addition to higher education faculty members agreement on the value of digital resources, their use of the resources was also remarkably similar (McMartin, et al, 2008), even across disciplinary boundaries. One of the greatest challenges brought forward by McMartin, et al’s study was the pattern of participants’ failure to distinguish between types of online digital resources, such as digital libraries, web pages, online journals, etc. Most faculty were not conscious of using specific digital libraries or digital collections at all (McMartin, 2008).

Beyond looking at who was using what when it comes to digital resources, McMartin, et al also sought to understand barriers to use of digital resources. The researchers acknowledge that “The rapid acceleration of information available via the internet makes locating high-quality, accurate, and truly useful educational resources challenging for teachers and learners. Educators, in particular, need efficient and reliable methods to discover and use … materials that will help them” (McMartin, et al, 2008, 65). Survey respondents to McMartin, et al. reported lack of time as the chief obstacle which might seem at odds with their response that digital resources were of great value to them (2008). The fact that faculty also listed lack of availability of useful sources as a significant barrier can help flesh out this response (McMartin, et al, 2008). It would appear that faculty could not find ‘useful materials’ within the time that they had allotted for search.

However, on a positive note for librarians, survey participants were interested in more or better training on finding and using digital resources in the classroom (McMartin, et al, 2008). The barriers listed by faculty to their use of digital resources for instructional purposes no longer seem to be a lack of motivation. It would appear that the chasm of the Technology Adoption Model has been breached and now nearly all faculty are using digital resources (as they have the time and ability to find).

McMartin, et al’s outlook is much cheerier than that of McEachron, Bach, and Sualo’s findings about barriers to digital innovations in teaching amongst higher education faculty. McEachron, et al’s results include a range of the old stereotypes. Most critical to the implementation of Digital Teaching Collections and the University of Maryland are: faculty who teach mainly in isolation and have little or no opportunity to share technological innovations through inter-personal contact, limited resources at the personal and institutional levels dedicated to improving teaching, a mismatch between technology tools and faculty developed course goals, and inadequate information on the technology, its principles, and context (McEachron, Bach, & Sualo, 2012).

These findings joined with McMartin, et al’s results suggest that the use of digital resources and instructional technology would increase if instructors had easier access to digital resources and training with Web 2.0 technology tools for instructional purposes. McMartin, et al point to the digital images and historical documents available in digital collections as a prime starting point for increasing instructors’ awareness of the digital resources available.

Currently McMartin, et al’s survey participants rely on trusted sources (though this is not defined) and personal networks to find digital resources. If they did search the internet for resources, faculty members would start by Googling a known resource to search for related objects (McMartin, et al, 2008). This search process is what led to instructors having difficulty telling what type of website the digital resource came from. What also came through in the research was that instructors were unlikely to develop learning activities based around the digital resources. Typically these objects were used for lecture or recommended as study aids. Faculty reported using scholarly resources more frequently than images or historical documents (McMartin, et al, 2008). This is probably because articles are relatively easy to find in library databases or online journals.

While the McMartin, et al article proved a great source of information about faculty use of digital resources for instructional purposes, Special Collections should go forward with a similar survey of the University of Maryland’s faculty prior to the design and implementation of Digital Teaching Collections. The McMartin, et al article is nearly five years old and appears to be the only research of its scope and scale. Additionally, the research is looking solely at digital resources not at the technology tools that would support instruction using digital resources. The innovation at the heart of Digital Teaching Collections is a merger of digital resources and Web 2.0 technology which will improve student learning.

References

McEachron, D. L., Bach, C., & Sualp, M. (2012). Digital Socrates: A system for disseminating and evaluating best practices in education. Campus-wide Information Systems, 29(4), 226-237.

McMartin, F., Iverson, E., Wolf, A., Morrill, J., Morgan, G., & Manduca, C. (2008). The use of online digital resources and educational digital libraries in higher education. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 9(1), 65-79.

Digital Pedagogy Instructional Use of DC

Digital Teaching Collections Interface Design
The interface is a critical component to any digital product and the success of Digital Teaching Collections will in large part rely on an intuitive interface. As Chen points out “designing effective systems that allow access to information spaces is a complex problem” (2008, 253). For information to be meaningful it is not enough for an individual to be presented with it; they must be helped along the path to full engagement with the information. This can be done solely by an instructor, but it should be helped along by the medium of the information especially if that medium is digital. More and more the digital interface is fading from notice as attention is devoted to digital content and the user’s interaction with it, Web 2.0 technology tools (Earnshaw & Vince, 2008). This transition is effecting digital collections of libraries and museums and was part of the impetus for the development of Digital Teaching Collections.

As digital collections / libraries become more ubiquitous it is even more critical that a user-friendly interface provides access to digital collection resources (Shiri, 2008). Key digital design principles to consider with the interface for Digital Teaching Collections are: constraints (what a user is allowed to do), mappings (directional cues for the user), visibility (of key features), consistency (of navigation and layout), experience (what the user already knows), affordance (suggested use of design), and simplicity (Chen, 2008). In addition to design consideration there is also the issue of usability. Digital Teaching Collections will need an interface that integrates Nielsen’s components of a system’s usability including: learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction (Ferriera & Pthan, 2005).

Beyond these basics for good and usable interface design, consideration of the purpose of Digital Teaching Collections needs to be taken into account. This means providing not just the content, but integrating Web 2.0 tools to support learning and assessment (O’Connor, 2012). The below graphic demonstrates all aspects that a Digital Teaching Collection interface needs to consider.

(O'Connor, 2012, 5)

When it comes time to actually design the interface Palaigeorgiou, Triantafyllakost, and Tsinakos (2010) suggest integrating participatory design into the process. Participatory design utilizes the involvement of potential users in the design decision making process. In the case of Digital Teaching Collections this would include both University of Maryland faculty and students. Palaigeorgiou, Triantafyllakost, and Tsinakos (2010) use the ascendency of constructivist approaches to learning to justify the inclusion of students into the design of Virtual Learning Environments. The inclusion of both instructors and students would prove beneficial and potentially increase the likelihood of use of Digital Teaching Collections amongst faculty.

The final design consideration for Digital Teaching Collections is if and how to make Digital Teaching Collections accessible through the University of Maryland’s ELMS. As Earnshaw and Vince (2008) state “shared services are expected to reduce duplication, increase efficiency, improve standardization, provide improved services to users, and facilitate sharing of best practice and latest products” (244). While they were speaking of sharing across institutions it seems even more critical for a single university to be able to integrate its services. Additionally the ELMS system already includes many Web 2.0 tools which could hopefully be integrated into Digital Teaching Collections rather than trying to build Web 2.0 tools specifically for Digital Teaching Collections. Though the interoperability between Digital Teaching Collections and ELMS would undoubtedly be a very tricky programming problem (Vikus, 2008). The end result would potentially be a marketable product, or a very nice Open Educational Resource.

References

Chen, S., et.al. (2008). Cognitive implications of information spaces: Human issues in the design and use of electronic library interfaces. In R. A. Earnshaw. J. Vince, & R. Carr (Eds.), Digital convergence: Libraries of the future. London: Springer.

Earnshaw, R. & Vince, J. (2008). From the information age to the intelligence age: Exploiting IT and convergence. In R. A. Earnshaw. J. Vince, & R. Carr (Eds.), Digital convergence: Libraries of the future. London: Springer.

Ferreira, S. M., & Pithan, D. N. (2005). Usability of digital libraries: A study based on the areas of information science and human-computer-interaction. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(4), 311-323.

O'Connor, E. (2012). Next generation online: Advancing learning through dynamic design, virtual and web 2.0 technologies, and instructor “attitude”. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(1), 3-24.

Palaigeorgiou, G. G., Triantafyllakos, G. G., & Tsinakos, A. A. (2011). What if undergraduate students designed their own web learning environment? Exploring students' web 2.0 mentality through participatory design. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2),146-159. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00382.x

Shiri, A. (2008). Metadata-enhanced visual interfaces to digital libraries. Journal of Information Science, 34, 6, 763-775. doi: 10.1177/0165551507087711

Virkus, S., et.al. (2009). Integration of digital libraries and virtual learning environments: a literature review. New Library World, 110, 136-150.

Literature Review

Findings

Conclusions

Methodology

Survey

Focus Group / Interview

Survey
I chose two hundred fifty four (254) University of Maryland Humanities and Social Science faculty to email an invitation to participate in the Digital Teaching Collection Survey based on stated research and teaching interests from their department profile web page. Each selected faculty member received a personalized and a department level invitation. Eight (8) responded directly to me stating that as of the end of the 2013 Spring semester they were either no longer employed by UMD or had an out of office reply covering the entire summer. This dropped the potential respondent pool down to two hundred forty six (246). Fifty-five Humanities or Social Science faculty members responded making for a twenty two percent (22%) return rate.

Survey Questions

What department(s) do you teach in at the University of Maryland?
Do you currently use any of the following digital editions of “primary source” resources for instructional purposes?
1. Digital Libraries
  1. Examples: Hathi Trust, Internet Archive
2. Historical Databases
  1. Examples: 17^th-18^thCentury Burney Collection Newspapers, Access to Archival Databases, America’s Historical Newspapers, 18^th Century Journals, Periodicals Index Online, Gallica
3. Digital Collections
  1. Examples: UMD Libraries Digital Collections, American Memory, Digital Sanborn Maps, Archives Unbound, Empire Online, Black Abolitionist Papers, Perseus Digital Library, African Online Digital Library, Women and Social Movements in the United States
4. Digital Humanities Projects
  1. Examples: Making the History of 1989, Old Bailey Online, The William Blake Archive, Herman Melville’s Typee, Emily Dickinson’s Correspondences, Inventing Europe
Have you ever used University of Maryland Libraries Digital Collections items as a resource for instructional purposes?
If you answered no, why haven’t you?
1. Content not relevant to my courses
2. Prefer layout / interface of other digital collections
3. Wasn’t aware that UMD Libraries Digital Collections existed
4. Other: fill in the blank
How do you typically find the digital resources that you assign in your classes?
1. Search Engine (Google)
2. Colleague’s Recommendations
3. Academic Journals
4. Social Media Outlets
5. Other: fill in the blank
Please select which of the following are factors in selecting a digital resource for instructional purposes.
1. Freely accessible on the web (no copyright restrictions)
2. University of Maryland Libraries subscription service therefore students will have free access
3. Breadth of content (the number of items available)
4. Depth of content (the variety and analytical complexity of items of available)
5. Ability to create your own collection of resources within the larger digital collection
6. Ability for students to interact with the resources
  1. Examples: transcription, context notes, tagging, 3-D view (if applicable), etc.
7. Ability for students to interact with one another
  1. Examples: tagging, commenting on digital resource items or collections, responding to instructor provided questions about the digital resources, etc.
8. Other: fill in the blank
Would you be willing to participate in this study further by contributing to a focus group discussion on digital collections for instructional purposes?

Focus Group / Interviews
Six survey participants volunteered to participate in a focus group. However, once the semester had started only three were actually able to participate and I was unable to coordinate a time when all could be present. For these reasons I conducted interviews with the three volunteers. One of the volunteers was able to facilitate a meeting between myself and the College of Arts and Humanities Collegiate Council. At this meeting I presented my research questions to the faculty which elicited a few helpful responses and a great deal of interest in University Libraries’ Special Collections.

Literature Review

Methodology

Conclusions

Findings

Survey Responses

What department(s) do you teach in at the University of Maryland?

Survey Responses by Department

Departments	Total
African American Studies	1
American Studies	5
Art History	3
Classics	5
English	12
Government	2
Historic Preservation / Architecture	2
History	6
Interdisciplinary	5
Jewish Studies	1
Journalism	6
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	4
Women’s Studies	3

Departments by Number of Responses

Departments	Total
English	12
History	6
Journalism	6
American Studies	5
Classics	5
Interdisciplinary	5
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	4
Art History	3
Women’s Studies	3
Government	2
Historic Preservation / Architecture	2
African American Studies	1
Jewish Studies	1

Breaking the respondents down by subject area reveals that the highest numbers of respondents were from expected departments of English and History. Five of the respondents have teaching responsibilities in multiple departments.


Departments
Interdisciplinary (Art History / Archaeology)
Interdisciplinary (Classics / History)
Interdisciplinary (English / iSchool)
Interdisciplinary (English / Journalism)
Interdisciplinary (History / Asian American Studies / American Studies / Religious Studies)

Do you currently use any of the following digital editions of “primary source” resources for instructional purposes?

Types of Digital Repositories Instructors Currently Use

Digital Repositories Utilized	Total
Digital Collections	21
Digital Libraries	14
Historical Databases	13
Digital Humanities Projects	12
Blank	23

Types of Digital Repositories Instructors Currently Use by Department

Departments	Digital Libraries	Historical Databases	Digital Collections	Digital Humanities Projects	Blank
African American Studies					1
American Studies	1	1	2		3
Art History		2	2		2
Classics	1	1	4	2
English	5	3	5	5	3
Government					2
Historic Preservation / Architecture			1		1
History	2	3	2	1	3
Interdisciplinary	3	1	3	3	1
Jewish Studies		1			1
Journalism	3	1	3	3	1
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	1				3
Women's Studies			2	1	1

Have you ever used University of Maryland Libraries Digital Collections items as a resource for instructional purposes?

Faculty Respondents Use of UMD Libraries Digital Collections

UMD Digital Collections Usage	Total
Non-use of UMD Digital Collections	35
Use of UMD Digital Collections	19
Blank	1

If you answered no, why haven’t you?

Reasons for Not Using UMD Libraries Digital Collections

Non-Users	Total
Wasn't Aware	18
Irrelevant	16
Wasn't Aware & Irrelevant	4
Prefer Other	0

Reasons for Not Using UMD Libraries Digital Collections by Department

Departments	Wasn't Aware	Irrelevant	Wasn't Aware & Irrelevant	Other
African American Studies			1
American Studies	2	1
Art History	2
Classics		2		2
English	5	3		3
Government	1
Historic Preservation / Architecture		1	1
History		2		1
Interdisciplinary				1
Jewish Studies	1
Journalism	1	1	1	2
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	1	2	1
Women's Studies

Other Reasons for Not Using UMD Libraries Digital Collections by Department

Departments	Wasn't Aware	Irrelevant	Other
Classics			Haven't thought about it.
Classics			Haven't thought about it.
English			Content not relevant to my courses.
English	✓		Dubious
English		✓	I've only just started teaching at UMD.
History			Just have not gotten around to it. Hope to do so in future.
Journalism			Don't know much about.
Journalism			Don't know much about.

How do you typically find the digital resources that you assign in your classes?

Search Strategies for Instructional Digital Resources

Finding Digital Resources	Total
Multiple	37
Google	36
Colleague's Recommendation	31
Journals	27
Other	10
Social Media	10
Blank	6

Reasons for Not Using UMD Libraries Digital Collections by Department

Departments	Google	Colleague	Journals	Social Media	Other	Blank
African American Studies			1
American Studies	3	1	2		2	2
Art History	2	2	2
Classics	4	3	4	1		1
English	7	8	5	2	2	1
Government	1		2
Historic Preservation / Architecture	2	1			1
History	3	2	2	2	3	2
Interdisciplinary	5	4	4	1	1
Jewish Studies		1
Journalism	5	3	2	2		1
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	3	3	2	1		1
Women's Studies	1	3	1	1	1

Other Reasons for Not Using UMD Libraries Digital Collections by Department

Departments	Google	Colleague	Journals	Social Media	Other
American Studies	✓				Research port
American Studies	✓		✓		WorldCat
English					I encouraged UM to purchase them.
English	✓				Scholarship in print.
Historic Preservation / Architecture	✓				JSTOR
History	✓			✓	From experience in Libraries such as the British Library, the Library of Congress or the Folger.
History		✓	✓	✓	Librarian's recommendations.
History	✓	✓			UMD Librarians.
Interdisciplinary	✓	✓			Discipline specific websites.
Women's Studies		✓			Librarian's recommendations.

Please select which of the following are factors in selecting a digital resource for instructional purposes.

Selection Factors

Selection Factors	Total
UMD Subscription	41
Free on Web	33
Depth	24
Breadth	19
Personal Collections	15
Interactive Collections	9
2.0 Collections	5
Other	7
Blank	10

Selection Factors by Department

Departments	Free	UMD Libraries	Breadth	Depth	Personal Collections	Interaction w/ Resource	Web 2.0	Other	Blank
African American Studies								1
American Studies	3	3	2	3	2	1	1
Art History	1	2	2	3	1			1
Classics	3	4	1	2	2				1
English	6	10	4	6	4	2	1	1	2
Government		1			1
Historic Preservation / Architecture	2	1
History	3	4	2	2	1	1	1	2	1
Interdisciplinary	5	5	3	4	2	3	1	2
Jewish Studies	1	1
Journalism	4	4	3	2	1				2
School of Languages, Literatures, & Cultures	3	3	1			1			1
Women's Studies	2	3	1	2	1	1	1

Other Selection Factors

Departments	Other
African American Studies	Relevance to course.
Art History	I am in the midst of creating an on-line catalogue of Dutch paintings at the National Gallery of Art that will provide opportunities for students to do many of the things that you list above. This catalogue will go on-line next spring.
English	Applicability to my course.
History	Importance of collection for doing original, creative research.
History	Relevance to topic.
Interdisciplinary	Accessibility and ease of use for undergraduates who are non-experts, quality of search function, quality and transparency of curation and editing, pedagogical value in generating interpretative debate and engaging students, good Zotero integration for students.
Interdisciplinary	Increasingly the ability to analyze, manipulate, and visualize large datasets will be an important variable/consideration in what digital collections I use for teaching and research.

Would you be willing to participate in this study further by contributing to a focus group discussion on digital collections for instructional purposes?
6 Volunteered! (1 American Studies, 2 History, & 3 English)

Survey & Interviews Summary
UMD Humanities and Social Science faculty appreciate the UMD Libraries! They use subscription resources for instructional purposes and value librarians’ recommendations of digital resources. However, most are unaware of UMD Libraries’ Digital Collections (and by extension Special Collections). Faculty members are open to being contacted by Special Collections Librarians about collections that are relevant to the courses that they teach. Technologically savvy instructors would like to be able to create teaching sets of digital collections materials and to be able to integrate that content into Canvas for the convenience of their students and the Web 2.0 interactive features that the LMS provides. Instructors stated that Digital Collection items needed to provide enough metadata (context) for students to understand the object. Additionally, they want Digital Collections to be very intuitive to use so that it is not necessary to dedicate significant amounts of teaching time are not spent demonstrating how to search and interact with Digital Collections. Those who are less adept with technology expressed the attitude of “I don’t know what I don’t know”. This statement was explained to mean that the instructor was not familiar with University Libraries Digital Collections Contents and had not adopted Web 2.0 pedagogical practices, but was open to learning more about both Special Collections materials and how such instructional strategies would benefit his/her students.

Literature Review

Methodology

Findings

Conclusions

The notion of Digital Teaching Collections is an integration of Web 2.0 technology tools with digital collections for instructional purposes. The development and implementation of Digital Teaching Collections by University of Maryland Libraries is a very ambitious project. As the literature review demonstrates digital resources only benefit instruction if the technology aligns to instructors learning aims and learning activities are designed which take the strengths and weaknesses of the technology into account. Both the literature review and UMD faculty survey responses support the claim that more instructors are using digital resources in their classroom, but there is still much room for growth. Faculty use subscription resources for instructional purposes. However, most are unaware of the University Libraries’ Digital Collections (and by extension Special Collections).

Technologically savvy instructors would like to be able to create teaching sets of digital collections materials and to be able to integrate that content into Canvas (UMD’s LMS) for the convenience of their students and the Web 2.0 interactive features that the LMS provides. Instructors stated that Digital Collection items needed to provide enough metadata (context) for students to understand the object. Additionally, they want Digital Collections to be very intuitive to use so that it is not necessary to dedicate significant amounts of teaching time are not spent demonstrating how to search and interact with Digital Collections. Those who are less adept with technology expressed the attitude of “I don’t know what I don’t know”. This statement was explained to mean that the instructor was not familiar with University Libraries Digital Collections Contents and had not adopted Web 2.0 pedagogical practices, but was open to learning more about both Special Collections materials and how such instructional strategies would benefit his/her students.

Digital Programs & Initiatives should follow up with faculty members who volunteered about extending UMD Libraries Digital Collections functionalities.This could be a core group of faculty members who can serve as a participatory design group in the design and early implementation stages for Digital Teaching Collections. Digital Teaching Collections are an inspiring idea; however, it is important to remember that they are just one tool for instructors to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by students.