Response #5

Hammond, T.C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Digital history with student-created multimedia: Understanding student perceptions. Social Science Research and Practice, 4(3), 139-150. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/4.3.14.pdf

            This article was a qualitative research piece that examined the practice of digital history in the classroom.  The authors defined digital history as “the study of the past using a variety of electronically re-produced primary source texts, images, and artifacts as well as the constructed historical narratives, accounts, or presentations that result from digital historical inquiry” (139).  Researchers observed student use of Power Point and PrimaryAccess (a program for creating digital documentaries) in two different urban schools in Virginia.  For their assignment, students constructed presentations in the character of someone living during a particular period or event (e.g., a northern white abolitionist during the Civil War) (142).  Ultimately, the researchers wanted to explore student perceptions about the technology and the effect of those perceptions on their learning, and paid special attention to the teaching of content.  They concluded that students exercised some agency over the curriculum through their creativity with the unique aspects of the assignment.  Students generally did not view the technology as innovative: the researchers noted that PowerPoint was like a “cultural norm” with students, and that many kids referred to the digital documentary software as “glorified PowerPoint with sound” (147).  Nevertheless, they engaged the assignment and even contradicted the expectations of their teachers.  For instance, many students searched for images outside of the collection provided, and prompted the teacher to supply more images for the documentaries.  Similarly, one middle school teacher expressed surprise when more students than expected worked on their projects outside of class (146-147).

However, the main thrust of the article was that while the use of technology piqued student creativity, their creative energies were geared more towards the aesthetics of their presentations rather than more substantive engagement with content.  Student repetition or reiteration of the teacher’s instruction was the general pattern, with little exception.  The assignment may have had students constructing their own narratives, but the learning of the content was not “constructivist”—rather, it resulted in the rehashing of information with minimal critical thinking (147).  The study affirmed the view of the researchers that technology “cannot lend itself to a particular outcome” (147).  In other words, classroom technology is a valuable tool that can guide students towards critical thinking about content, but it does not guarantee this.

This article was good reminder of the danger of being too didactic as a teacher.  I imagine that it is fairly easy for a history teacher to be concerned with covering curriculum and, consequently, to overemphasize getting the “facts” right at the expense of higher-level, critical thinking.  One of the interviewed students described history class as “just purely facts that you memorize” (146).  This is the last thing I would want to hear as a history teacher.  Of course, learning inevitably requires some degree of memorization, or a basic ability to recall information—whether it is dates and events in history, the plot of a novel in English class, or the formula needed to solve a math problem.  But in the case of history, such memorization is secondary to the goal of providing students with ways to think thoughtfully and critically about the past.  “Good” history teaches one how to interrogate a source; ask meaningful questions; synthesize information; and how to construct and judge arguments by harnessing the “facts.”  It is an active process that involves doing.  For teachers, it seems that one of the major challenges is to maintain a balance between curricular obligations and dynamic approaches to presenting the curriculum.  Technology is certainly an excellent tool that an educator can use to guide students into practicing good history (or, more broadly, higher level thinking).  It is important to remember, though, that technology does not necessarily translate into better student engagement with content, and that the teacher’s challenge lies in combining the two.  Put another way, the use of technology should help students become better “doers” of history.