Some weeks this semester, I have puzzled over how I might use the tools or methodology under discussion in my own work. Not this week. The use of digital tools for teaching is an extremely accessible topic. It is easy to get excited about ways to use new media in teaching.
Of course “digital pedagogy” is not a panacea. In fact, I think there are some examples on our “explore” list that don’t use the media well. But done well, course websites and digital tools have a great potential to engage students and to open up communication between teachers and learners in new ways. David Pace’s “Amateur in the Operating Room” is a great reminder that the digital is not an end in itself. His argument doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with digital pedagogy. Digital tools can be used in the pursuit of expertise in teaching, but other methods may be just as useful.
I wonder if it is accurate to say that the history web and the scholarship of teaching and learning history are two areas that have grown up together, intertwining and in conversation, but not the same thing. Cohen and Rosenzweig’s “No Computer Left Behind” certainly asserts that the internet puts increasing pressure on more traditional pedagogies. Dissatisfaction with multiple choice assessments did not begin with the internet age, but the ready access the web provides to factual information further discredits learning that focuses on the recital of facts. Their article doesn’t say that the solution is teaching with digital media. In fact, it concludes with a call for increased human effort in assessment. So, the key is to use the technologies intentionally as part of a thoughtful plan with specific goals.
One clear advantage of using the internet in teaching is the ability to provide convenient access to a variety of texts, images, and audio/visual media. From the earliest examples from our readings to the newest—all provide easy access to texts, if you have a computer handy. And the online environment is great for images. The reproduction of images always suffered in the era of photocopied course packs, and I remember hours standing in a hallway studying review images tacked on the wall for art history exams. Convenience and fidelity of reproduction are clear assets to the online environment.
Interactivity is more recent element that is becoming important in teaching in the digital environment. We’ve already talked in class about the fuzziness of the word ‘interactive’, and this post is not going to clear up the issue. The exercises on the World History Matters site are technically interactive. You click on something, then something else happens. But the exercises don’t seem to encourage much thought. The “what can maps tell us?” exercise uses a classic example (Snow’s Broad Street Fountain), but the information given is so circumscribed that it is hard to see what t learning is encouraged. Very little reflection is required to think that a map might be most useful for organizing information about location. And if you did perhaps choose another category, say ‘family wealth’, the response tells you that you are incorrect and then cites information that you did not have access to. This exercise is worlds away from the intention and scope of the Who Killed William Robinson? website, but I think you could improve the exercise by making it more open-ended. You could provide primary sources to illustrate the information available to Snow or summarize data about the age, gender, and household wealth of the victims so that students could look for patterns (or the lack of patterns) themselves. Then, use the map and ask students to explain their reasoning.
Of course, I am basically describing an entirely different site. One that probably has some element of human interaction behind it, perhaps something like Pace’s online assignments in his J300 course. The human aspect seems key to supporting the kind of learning we want to encourage. I don’t see how one can teach historical reasoning exclusively through machines. That way leads to the same Scantron-style frustrations described by Cohen and Rosenzweig. Using new media to provide resources, set up exercises and facilitate communication — these areas seem ripe for continued exploration. Technologies that connect students and teachers in new ways are very interesting to me, but there is so much more to learn about their efficacy. The HASTAC blog posts included people talking about having office hours online (via IM, Facebook, etc.). This sounds like it could be useful, and at least one person had anecdotal evidence that this kind of interaction encouraged greater participation in face-to-face office hours. Jeremy Boggs’ class site includes Twitter feeds from his students. That could encourage camaraderie among the group, but does it have a real learning objective (beyond familiarization with a popular web 2.0 tool)?
I believe the promise of digital pedagogy is completely intertwined with plain-old pedagogy: in the design of online tools and archives, in the way digital tools are used to connect teachers and learners online, and in the way digital tools and methods are combined with more traditional forms of interaction such as classroom discussion and written evaluations.
