Historians have been moving to a more digital world with different items being done to help historians be able to put the information that they have researched out to the world. In the Blevins article, it makes remarks about the 2008 comment that historian Tom Scheinfeldt made that the practices done by historians were moving away from the big ideas about the ideology or theory and moving toward the emphasis on the “forging new tools, methods, materials, techniques, and modes or work.” With the 2015 American Historical Association (AHA) Conference, there were 20 different panels on digital history, which is an astonishing number among the other projects that were used in the Conference.

In the Brennan article, it is discussed that the most important thing that needs to be recognized is that projects and research that may be available online, but that the status doesn’t inherently make the work digital public humanities or public digital humanities. These public history and humanities practices being done are placed in the communities, or other public audiences, at their core. Research projects, online textbooks, tools, course websites, online journals, or social networks are not inherently “public” digital humanities projects merely because they have a presence on the Web. With these changes made, more digital projects are being done to help the public learn about the new practices done, that are benefiting the public in multiple ways.

The teachings that were done to college students in the 90s have definitely become more digital 10 to 15 years later, granted that those projects in the 90s mostly used those archival records that were mostly used for assigning those published document collections, making copies of the unpublished materials gathered in research done by those students and other professors. These documents that were used by professors and students became beneficial for lectures and discussions going forward. That is talked about in the McClurken article and seems to lead to this further assessment of the information that was collected by professors and students.

In the past few years, the number of disruptions has been mostly focusing on race that is falling within digital humanities, with these having taken place on Twitter. The disruptions led to the engagements in panels and other sources alike that can be looked at further on. These disruptions have produced some conversations about topics such as race in digital humanities that needed to be more cohesion in the projects that are presented. These disruptions that are happening to the Digital Humanities side of things has definitely caused this sense of debate between historians that are trying to make a difference in the world.

The teachings that needed to be done for college students and the advances that were made in the field have definitely caused this sense of a rework in the history courses being taught in colleges through the last couple of years. These learning goals that were being set up with these history courses that mostly began with: introducing students to a broad historical theme in an area, expose students to the importance of the historical project, and sharpen students’ critical thinking skills around the evidence gathered and are used for argumentized in discussion and assignments. Through the years, however, professors have been running into issues with meeting those goals for students to reach. Practical training then led to teachings being pushed to the smaller, upper-level history courses where the time can be spent discussing, researching, and writing about a set of topics drawn to the particular sub-fields in history.