I continue to be impressed by my cousin, Leslie Madsen-Brooks, who is currently on the history faculty at Boise State University. To be more accurate, we are first cousins, once removed.
She’s very much on the cutting edge of integrating digital technologies into higher education, and seems to be constantly demonstrating ways it can be done.
This is the first part of a long post on her blog, ClutterMuseum.com, which I found most interesting.
I found myself in a meeting on Friday with several science faculty, and I had the opportunity to share with them what I’m doing in my Digital History course this semester. When I mentioned in particular that my students were mapping the neighborhood’s irrigation ditches, an engineering professor asked me how they were doing that. I said I had a student minoring in GIS and she’d likely in the end use Google Maps or maybe even Illustrator just to indicate where the water flows through the neighborhood and where it disappears underground.
She clarified her question. “No. . . How do you get your students to do things you haven’t taught them to do? If we ask our students to do something new, they say they can’t do it because we haven’t yet taught them how to do it.”
I pointed out that history, and the humanities more generally, provided students with plenty of opportunities to take initiative in research and communication, and that we tried to cultivate independent thinking in our students. Plus, I try to model this spirit of inquiry in the classroom. I pointed out (once again) that I’m a history professor without any degrees in history, and I’m a technologist without any formal training in that field. I’ve decided to eschew impostor syndrome in favor of openly making up my projects and career as I go along.
The professors seemed a bit flabbergasted. Maybe they hadn’t ever considered the humanities as anything other than courses that taught students grammar and asked them to read a lot.
In that previous post on instructional design, she described transforming one of her classes into a grand learning lab. What fun this must be for the students!
I completely blew up my digital history course a few weeks into the semester. I began the course with a traditional syllabus packed with readings and marked by some practice, but on student request, I changed the course so that 85% of the work—and thus of students’ grades—is connected to a single large project. You can check out the new syllabus, but you’ll find most of the course now consists of in-class work days for the 11 undergraduate and 5 graduate students in the course.
In the summer, a resident of Boise’s Central Rim neighborhood approached me about helping her and her neighbors better understand the history of their irrigation system, the Lindsey Lateral. The neighbors believed some residents hadn’t been getting all the water to which they are entitled, while other yards in the neighborhood were completely waterlogged and some basements flooded. The neighbors wanted an historian to trace the history of their water rights so they could make a case for various agencies or individuals to fund repairs to the ditches and canals that run through and under the subdivisions that constitute the Central Rim.
I admitted I’m no legal expert and instead offered to use the neighborhood as a subject in my Digital History course.
That course introduces students to the digital humanities and asks them to consider the various issues and potential opportunities at the intersection of digital technologies and our understanding of the past. In a previous iteration of the course, I had students interview digital humanists, explore exactly how far they could get with their research if they used only digital primary sources, build augmented reality tours, and write grants.
This semester, students have elected to focus almost entirely on the Central Rim Neighborhood project. That meant exchanging a lot of great course content and additional topics for hands-on skill-building, but I’m fine with that. Now students are working in teams to interview neighbors (with some of these captured on video as mini oral histories), document the history of irrigation, trace the development of the neighborhood from the first irrigated orchards to suburban subdivisions, and explore the evolution of the neighborhood into a particularly close-knit community where neighbors not only know each others’ names, but also know a lot about one another.
She then rattles off a list of things the students are learning as the work in teams on pieces of the larger project. From the looks of it, there’s probably much more learning going on than in the typical class of professorial lectures. Don’t you wish college was like this when you were there?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

As often happens, I take a different view. That’s what makes it fun and informative for me to read this blog! It’s interesting that people on the political left usually seem to favor the “open classroom” concept, whereas people with a conservative viewpoint seem to favor a traditional approach to how a course or classroom should be managed. In the 1960s and 1970s the same dispute was raging on college campuses and in the field of teacher-education. I do think the title of this blog entry is erroneous: it’s not an issue of defending the humanities; rather, it’s an issue of what is the best way for a teacher to organize the way subject matter is taught, whether it’s in the humanities or in the sciences.
Here’s an article I wrote which was published 40 years ago.
“A Defense of the Teacher as Taskmaster (Choreographer of Student Learning)”
http://tinyurl.com/6tpx9cr
And another one published only 30 years ago which is quite humorous with lots of zingers that will offend the “open classroom” zealots:
What’s Wrong with Humanistic Education?
http://tinyurl.com/7ketbde
Some of the items which I also authored, which are mentioned in the footnotes to those two articles, can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/pv8fx
Your cousin appears to be a flexible innovative educator. Lucky students!