History teaching has remained at the forefront of national debates for decades, with respect to both the content, standards of testing and retention by students. At the heart of this issue of how history should be taught lies the surmise that we hope to introduce historical thinking into young minds so that it leads to better and informed citizens of tomorrow. That it would lead to more avenues of research, arriving at processes or methodologies for undertaking it and thus sustained interest. Hence, the fundamental prerogative should be to evolve standards for historical thinking, which is such a complex and overarching concept so hard to define, almost to the point of being as vast as the subject of history itself! Basic parameters for developing historical thinking exist, such as Reference to Multiple Accounts, Analysis of Primary sources, Understanding Historical Context, Claim and evidence connection as well as sourcing, in addition to which are those of causation, assimilation of secondary sources, etc. However, adapting these to an actual history class within a vast curriculum could prove to be challenging. So although the will to inculcate such modules for historical thinking have been yearned for among history teachers, the actual applicability remains elusive.
As has been reiterated through the many readings, the methodology of lecturing at students has had little impact on the interest of the subject or retention of the subject matter. As Sam Wineburg in Crazy for History observes – Technology may have changed since 1917, but the capacity of the human mind to retain information has not. In order to incorporate historical thinking into teaching methodologies, with the availability of technological advances it should, ideally, lead to immersive experiences that allow the student to interpret and learn history better. One of the first benefits of use of digital media was the improvement of access and retrieval of primary sources such as digitized printed primary source material. With greater and easier access to digital material, more time could be focused on sifting through this immense material now retrievable with a few clicks. The incorporation of walk throughs and virtual museums, self-guided audio tours and interactive games have all aided in enriching experiences that could provide imaginative interpretation by students and perhaps give them a glimpse of historical context as historians see it through patina-tinted glasses. The pandemic years further hastened this march towards a digital interpretation of the history world, and in a sense awakened us it to its unlimited possibilities. However, whether all these actions led to greater understanding and retention of history remains to be documented. Although teachers have access to digital tools there is a disconnect in understanding how to use them and incorporating these within teaching methodologies, coupled with issues of covering the curriculum in requisite time. Thus, even though the access and retrieval processes have reduced the time required to study sources, the basic material has grown exponentially necessitating only a skimming of subjects.
Additionally, fundamentally the teaching methodology of listening to someone lecture, (or as in the case of use of digital tools – viewing videos), has remained the same. This is particularly evident in elementary and middle schools (here I use the example of public schools in Northern Virginia), where although not a single teacher is talking throughout the class but makes use of infographics, it is essentially the same typology of teaching. In recent years, collaborative presentations are being introduced but these are often optional and offered only to advanced classes. For example, the fifth grade advanced academic class was asked to prepare a physical exhibit portraying records of the survivors of the Titanic, such as diaries or journals. Most did primary source evaluation and the poster board exhibits were remarkably well made, given the time allotted for the project and the age of the students. However, this opportunity wasn’t given to other students within the same grade. Another subject was explored in the same school but this time on ancient China and the option was offered to the entire third grade. This time the digital exhibits were far more varied, but utilization of the digital component severely limited in terms of its adaption, as only presentation tools such as google slides were used.
It is understood that such a limited examination of teaching tools cannot be the basis for empirical data derivation, but it does provide some indication of inherent underlying issues, chief among which is the narrow understanding of digital tools available to teachers. This informs their mode of instruction, which in turn influences the quality of the outcome. Hence it is evident that although a whole host of digital pedagogical resources are available to history teachers, there is a lack of training to utilize these tools. If the past is a foreign country, according to David Lowenthal, is digital history a foreign language?