The use of “Happy Holidays” versus “Merry Christmas” in the history of the New York Times. Created using the NYT Chronicle website.
Prompt: Write a blog post in response to our class on digital history.
Last time in our Social Studies Methods class, we found ourselves trying many new things. From participating in a twitter chat, to exploring websites likeGapMinder, NYT Chronicle, and Google Ngram Viewer. These tools, while interesting to use in making comparisons also present new ways of examining information.
When I first took a look at each of these sites, I had fun seeing that you can take different pieces of information and see how they might relate with each other. I saw how you could take a site like NYT Chronicle and search words like “Happy Holidays” and “Merry Christmas” and examine their usage throughout the history of the New York Times. It showed how word usage and word choice are important things in our culture and history. With something like a Twitter chat, I saw the chance for easy collaboration and reflection on how I am doing as a teacher. Twitter chats present the chance for interaction on a scale that goes beyond the classroom.
I would like to use these tools in my own future classroom. I find that these tools offer the chance for students to look at information and make inferences about what that information tells us about history. If you take the example mentioned in the previous paragraph, then it could become an example where I ask students why we added the use of “Happy Holidays” in our writing. I might also ask students why usage of “Merry Christmas” has seemingly gone up over time. In learning about these different sites, I have found that there are plenty of new resources emerging to get students engaged and asking questions related to history and social studies.
File:CyborG dc.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACyborG_dc.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/CyborG_dc.jpg By Kaio oliveira santos (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsPrompt: Write a blog post in response to our class on digital history.
Let’s start by getting this out of the way. There is not fundamental difference between “Digital History” and “Regular History.” Although the tools have changed, the underlying assumptions stay the same. Through critical analysis of a variety of sources, contextualized with background knowledge, and investigated with the skills of a seasoned detective, students will build historical understanding. That has not changed. What has changed are the tools by which this is accomplished. Although these tools confront us with significant challenges, they also provide an exciting new experience. In some ways, this experience is an even purer way to study history. Though gatekeepers of knowledge have been a bastion of higher education and philosophical debate for centuries, there is nothing intrinsic in them linking them indelibly to history done “the right way.” Digitization equals democratization. The challenge of moving forward is how to embrace these new technology, held in our hands and connected to our minds, while minimizing the risks and maximizing the incredible potential inherent in their capabilities.
Of course, there are both risks and challenges associated with embracing technology. Those who argue that the human brain has not evolved to efficiently cope with the incredible amount of information we are subject to on a daily basis are correct. That was not our evolutionary past. However, it may well be our evolutionary future. We stand at a precipice of incredible change. It is up to us to recognize our current limitations and carefully guard against the documented, harmful effects of too much stimulation – especially for children. Yet we must also realize that the future does not lie in the past. Books are being rapidly replaced by websites, podcasts, web journals, and more. The ability to push our historical understanding by engaging with multiple sources and viewpoints, especially beyond those of the intellectuals or elites, broadens historical inquiry into a truly humanistic endeavor.
In the classroom, this may take on varying forms. I honestly believe that, as future generations become more akin to the digital world, they will evolve the mechanisms needed to deal with the information overload we now face. However, the truth is, we don’t have that capability yet. Therefore, we must be careful. Use technology, but guided with great care. Evidence suggests that humans have not truly evolved the capability to multitask. Therefore, let us not pretend that our children can. When they are splitting their attention, they are missing information. Teach them technology, but also teach them moderation and focus.
To close, let us realize that there is no use fighting the inevitable. In fact, doing so may harm us in the long run. Realize that technology has an incredible potential to revolutionize our lives for the better. Yet before we dive headlong into this frenzy, let us take a step back and asses our current situation. We are at a cusp in our evolution and we have not evolved sufficiently to become truly digital creatures. Yet even when we do, there are so many incredible mechanisms our evolution has given us. We should not abandon the lessons of the past for a forgotten future, nor should we forget the potential of the future for the comfort of the past. Instead, we should move forward with caution and anticipation, welcoming the promises of the digital age and the true democratization of history.
