Teaching History in the Digital Age

(I’m sorry that this blog post is late. I’ve fallen a little behind this week, and now I have the time to get caught up.)
This week’s readings largely examine the strengths and weaknesses for using digital web-based media in the teaching and learning of history. With that in mind, the web is a fascinating tool for students and educacators alike. However, like with any source of information, one needs to know how to use it in the right manner to encourage the right way learning.

A good reminder of how the web can be used as a wonderful tool for learning is exemplified in the article: Who Killed William Robinson? Race, Justice and Settling the Land: A Historical Whodunit. In this article, written by Terry Crowley of the University of Guelph, she (possibly a he?) examines a website created by Ruth Sandwell and John Lutz that seeks to give students the tools for solving the 1868 murder of William Robinson, an African-American man who was in the process of returning to the states to see his wife and children before his untimely death. A Penelekut Indian was then tried and hanged for the murder. The website then asks students to try and solve the case based on the primary and secondary sources that are provided by the website. The students are then able to draw their own conclusions based on what they have gathered from the details of the crime. This type of research project is successful in many ways. First, the students seem very excited to take part in a project that allows them to think for themselves, rather than having somebody else dictate what they should or should not believe. Second, the project seems fun, which keeps the students focused and ready to work. Third, the assignment also raises a larger issue of imperialism and race relations in America during the mid-nineteenth century. The end result places students right at the center of the investigation and after the assignment has been completed, the students are dumbfounded as to why they cannot come up with a clearcut verdict of whodunit. This gives the students an idea of the challenge for historians who study the past, which is: The information presented to historians is often confounded and sometimes does not serve the truth. Even so, students were allowed to present thier side of the story, without the intervention of the professor. This is the beauty of studying history in a web-based environment.

Another aspect of the web, as shown through Dr. Kelly’s article For Better or Worse? The Marriage of the Web and Classroom, is that most students who surf the web try to answer questions that they have in mind, rather than what questions their professor would like them to answer. This can be quite beneficial, or detrimental, depending on how one views it. Should the students need for learning supersede the way the class ought to be taught from the professor’s viewpoint? This is, I believe, the proverbial question that we must ask our educators, and I believe this question is of great importence due to the fact that many students are now finding most of their information from the web. In a sense, students now have the ability to teach themselves. Should this be a concern among educators? My answer is both “yes” and “no.” I completely agree with Dr. Kelly when he draws this conclusion: “A second positive finding is that exploring on the web does seem to encourage original thinking about the past.” This is a very noteworthy finding for the reason that it is my belief that most students do develop what we call “original thinking” about the past, but how do students distinguish between the good, bad and the ugly ways of using the web? This is a drawback for learning from a web-based environment, and one that educators should be particularly aware of.

Are we giving students much more credit than they deserve? Is the web an averse tool that should be locked away in a shed somewhere in rural Kansas? No, but if we don’t teach our students how to use the web, then Kansas may not seem like such a bad idea.

In general, the readings for this week ask these important questions: What is the right way of teaching history? What effect does the scholarship of teaching and learning history have on students? And, what is the purpose, or the role, of the teacher in the classroom?

Due to the paucity of literature on the scholarship of teaching and learning history, many educators may not have the slightest clue on how to teach in ways that would yield effective results in learning. In a discipline such as history, which requires a mastery of skills in language and communication, good teaching is integral. These articles give a good explanation as to why good teaching is so crucial to the intellectual development of the student.

In David Pace’s article, “The Amateur in the Operating Room: History and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” he examines the role of scholarship of effective teaching and learning and its role in training the educator on how to develop the necessary skills for effective teaching. At the heart of his argument, Pace brings up a good point when he discusses the need for teachers to have a good take on what kinds of historical ideas are students bringing into the classroom? He states this is necessary “to develop better strategies for introducing students to a deeper understanding of the past.” In relation to developing better strategies for students, he also believes that the teacher should be aware of the certain learning needs of the students; not all students have been taught the same way in previous classes, especially in high school curricula. If this kind of methodology is implemented, one should be led to believe that the potentiality that learning will take place would be very high. However, since education begins at such a young age, many rising college students may have certain “historical stereotypes” or bad feelings about history, which increases the need for well-natured and effective teachers during those early years. This is why the push for scholarship in the learning and teaching of history is so vital. (more…)

Has anybody figured out how to use footnoting while writing in the blog? Or, am I being ignorant to think that we can footnote?

As a historian, I am embarrassed to admit that I’ve never taken the time to think about how I learn history. I’ve always approached history somewhat at face value while never really thinking to myself: “Why does this interest me?” And then I begin to wonder why I never had the passion to study history before I came to college? Did it have to do with the way the information was presented to me? Did I all too often focus on the content as opposed to grasping the big picture? The answer to all of these questions is yes, and overwhelmingly so.

It became clear to me why I was never really interested in studying history as a young child after reading portions Sam Wineburg’s book, Historical Thinking And Other Unnatural Acts. In short, his writing focuses on how educators and students think about history and how history gets represented in colloquial terms. The point at which I became fascinated with history was also at the point when I started thinking about history differently. Instead of approaching history as just a set of facts that somehow share a common linkage with one another, I began to envision a story replete with mesmerizing detail. This approach enabled me to wrap my brain around the facts more effectively. My overall point is that Wineburg’s book offered more than just a good critique on historical thinking; the points he brought up in the book helped me realize how I, myself, became a historical being. It was not through memorizing content; rather, it was from grasping the context, or the big picture, that reared me towards learning just how to learn history.

In Lendol Calder’s article, “Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the Historical Survey”, he addresses similar points in reference to Wineburg’s book. In his article, he quotes Wineburg as follows: “The problem with students is not that they don’t know enough about history. The problem is that they don’t know enough about history in the first place.” (Wineburg, 1.) These are exactly my sentiments, as well. As educators, how do we teach students to become historically minded without first laying the groundwork? This question must raised in the minds of educators who are trying to figure out a way to get their students more involved in the classroom. If things were my way, I’d want to do away with the ritualistic textbooks that only adhere to a strict code of promoting factual knowledge, and replace them with texts that strive to challenge the students’ ability to think analytically. For instance, instead of multiple-choice exams, I would have each student read an article and write a short essay based on their reactions. Of course, the students would be assigned readings out of the textbook, but the main point of the exercise would not be to memorize the content, rather the students would be able to discuss what they’ve read in written form, and/or orally. By doing this, I would hopefully be striving to teach them how to think critically. I feel as though the general high school cirriculum fails to challenge its educators at being able to teach history in such a way that is conducive to learning. The argument may ensue that the average high schooler’s mind is not capable of being able to think critically. In my opinion, this way of thinking amounts to hogwash. How can we put a finger on what is the right or wrong way of teaching? How can we say that one way of teaching should be better suited for learning if other methods of teaching have not been introduced into the classroom? This may be a rant, but I feel it’s worth noting, especially since Calder believes firmly in using the right methods of teaching, or pedagogy, in the classroom.

So, what is the verdict? Should learning the context play a more significant role than learning content in the ways of historical thinking? I believe so, because like I said before, I did not enjoy history until I was able to think of history as a story, nor was I able to derive meaning from what I was reading through remembering only the facts. Do I think that learning history in a contextual manner would be suitable for the young, future historian? I would certainly like to believe so.

quote taken from:
Sam Wineburg, “Probing the Depths of Students’ Historical Knowledge,” AHA Perspectives, 30 (March 1992), 1.

This post is merely a late reflection of last week’s discussion.

World History has been burgeoning on the horizon for twenty-plus years now, so why has it been overlooked by many university curriculums? Is it a funding issue that places the importance of other history courses over World History courses? Or, is World History deemed “too broad” for future scholars who are interested in pursuing it as a career?

In last week’s seminar, we talked about how Western Civ. classes are becoming more obsolete as the standards for learning in the classroom have shifted. In my view, the push for teaching Western Civilization to students essentially undermines what it means to be American. Of course, we cannot understand American History without knowing a little about European History, yet we cannot circumscribe to teaching just Western Civ. to students, which is why I believe that World History should be considered as an alternative for schools that have traditionally mandated the Western Civilization course as a requirement for students.

Is this a reasonable idea, or am I falling off of the deep end? I believe that teaching World History to students may make history more adaptable to the ever-increasing diversity in the classroom.