Dr. Bohannon was speaking my language with her short talk on digital natives, digitial literacy, and a sort of alternative and/or flipped approach to teaching first year composition. It was the most informative session for me and I want to follow her work on digital literacy which is and will be a huge field for research in teaching and learning in secondary education. My question to her, and I hope I get to ask her, how much does her department of DH and the KSU department of curriculum and instruction talk to each other? Surely they are trying to learn about her work in digital literacy and maybe she could benefit from learning what they know about pedagogical knowledge.
Later: I just received an answer from Dr. Bohannon. She took classes in the college of edu to learn how to write programmatic objectives that are measurable. She wants to work on fostering interrelationships between the humanities departments and the education departments and believes DH its the platform on which to build it. She said to her knowledge there are no projects by colleges of education and humanities departments for pedagogy. As noted by articles on DH, the university departments are too fortified and need more interrelationship.
Though I had notes from the plenary by Dr. Miller, now they pale in comparison to Dr. Adams’ and Dr. Bohannon’s talk. What is most telling about DH is this: “What will measure success in the future is ’12 people have adopted my code base for their project,’ not in what journal have you published.”
Dr. Adams wins the best pun/ quotes: “There is an ungodly amount of Biblical texts…” “I don’t think anyone of us has divinity telling us what passage to read to give us meaning as did St. Augustine, but we do have computational tools to help us.” His project is fascinating. The larger implication is that the sort of metadata his project provides can help students learn to read– in the broad definition of the word “read”, which is interpreting meaning from close and distant reading.