Up to this point in the course, we have learned how digital technology has re-shaped the traditional pedagogy of historians. Digital media as a tool for learning has made information more accessible and readily available for the historian. This post will look at a few of the projects that the Center of History and New Media at GMU has worked on in the past, as well as analyze their strengths and weaknesses…(well mostly strengths.)
The first project that we will look at is called World History Sources and is located at this link: World History Sources. Upon first glance, the site looks very easy to navigate. There is not a lot of clutter, which makes a world of difference when trying to access the various sources one would need to conduct research. For instance, the links on the main page of the website provide access to more specific information. This is very helpful when doing research for an essay because the user does not have to sift through a lot of pointless information just to find something on say, Trade in World History. What is also quite effective about the website is that it offers interactive multimedia features to help one analyze specific aspects of World History, such as music. By actually hearing and seeing the music played, the historian may arrive at a better analytical interpretation of the music, as opposed to just reading about what’s being played. The ease at which one can navigate this site also matched with the interactive features makes World History Sources a full-fledged winner.
The next CHNM project that we need to look at is called Women in World History. This site is configured in the same vein as World History Sources, however, this time around this particular website offers a more specific theme in World History. Even though this website is in a narrower focus, it doesn’t detract from the wealth of information that it provides. I’ve traditionally found it quite a pain to conduct detailed research on women and their overall impact on history. I felt this website made things similar when it came to directing my research to a specific area or timeframe of which to study.
I’m sorry, but I do not have anything bad to say about these two websites. This may make me a lousy critic in that regard, but I have spent endless hours on various other databases just trying to find good research material. I found both of these websites to be very informative, interactive, and frustration-free. Sure, they may not have every ounce of research material under the sun, but they certainly do provide a good basis at which to start.
The final project that we should look at is called DoHistory. This interesting site allows the viewer to “piece together the past from fragments that have survived.” I really like the idea behind this website, but I must say that it could’ve been fleshed out a bit more. Its not to say that this project lacks information, as it gives great advice on how to start a family tree, create a historical film, and how to use primary sources. I just wished that the site had more to offer in these categories. Instead, I found that I was more often than not directed to other outside links. On a more positive note to end with, the site also asks the question: Who was Martha Ballard? The site attributes her diary as a surviving memoir of life in 18th century America. I found that this was the most attractive feature of the website.
These CHNM projects provide a glimpse of what is happening at the forefront of digital technology in the study of history. I’ll leave everyone with this question: Where do we go from here?
Matt –
Where do “we”, indeed, go from here? We have focused on these web sites, so of which are incredible not just in the data that can be accessed but aslo the teaching or learning benefit offered by the sites. Reviewing these sites has certainly got our minds thinking about how to further the use of digital media for teaching and learning history. I assumed taht is the “we” to which you were referring. But your blog made me think about the other “we”, us. I wonder where does the historian go from here. Will more historians in twenty years be primarily digital historians? Will you and I evolve with them? See you in twenty!
Comment by Gary — October 17, 2006 @ 6:57 pm