I am putting on my historian hat to analyze a website and, perhaps, a trend.
The site is called TwHistory (here's the About page). The idea is that you recreate historical events by having participants use primary source documents to create tweets. It is certainly a Student Learning Outcome everywhere to have students use primary sources, but there is some discussion among historians about how best to do it. Many documents are written in archaic language, using slow-letter communication patterns we no longer use. That can make them hard for students to understand. One reason for TwHistory seems to be to "bring life" to documents and events.
According to their FAQ:
TwHistory is based on the idea that historical reenactments can take
place online and have positive effects for all involved. In school
settings these virtual reenactments can increase engagement while
providing opportunities for students to research personal journals and
other primary source documents.
I heard about this project at the New Media Consortium Symposium last month and posted a bit about it as part of my review (it's at the end of the post). I had promised the presenters I would think about the concept, because I confessed it bothered me. They were not historians, and wanted input.
I asked a lot of questions at their session about how the historical sources were used -- many students seemed to use actual excerpts from the documents for their posts, which of course are limited to 140 characters. Others posted about what was happening, the context. Some of these tweets used modern net-speak (you know, LOL for laugh out loud, BTW for by the way). I had a bit of trouble with the idea of Lincoln posting "87 yrs ago dudes created new nation", but thought maybe I was being a fuddy duddy.
Some of the simulated events were deliberately done on certain dates, with certain posts written on the corresponding days of historical events (such as posting on April 9 to report Lee's surrender 144 years earlier on that day). That was interesting, like anniversaries.
I had previously been accidentally exposed to the idea of historical tweets on Twitter itself, where for awhile I enjoyed following President Harrison. In other words, I very much like the idea of historical figures tweeting. It was very fun. So I needed to explore my gut reaction against the reenactments, and posting on sites in my discipline for Pedagogy First! gives me that opportunity.
So...I took a look today at the Gettysburg scenario. I admit to some enchantment at "seeing" the characters from history come to life in little posts, communicating with each other. Instead of reading a whole document, such as a letter or diary entry, the short format forces a communicating style that is much more direct than it actually was in the 19th century. Nevertheless, there was much that sounded 19th century, that clearly came directly from documents. It was delightful to read what was happening!
What's created here is clearly story-telling. History is partly story-telling, but it is also making meaning from past events as recorded in documents. It seems to me that the story itself, told this way, could have an entirely different meaning than the actual events support. Abraham Lincoln could have written a letter to a general on a particular day, but it might not have arrived for weeks, so having Lincoln and the general communicate via Twitter makes a false impression, even if the messages are spaced out by the same number of weeks. The fact that communication was not this direct had an extraordinary impact on events. People could not read each other's diaries and letters to other people.
Sort-of 13th century armor,
but not really.
(http://www.sca.org/officers/media/images.html
|
|
This brings up, for me, interesting questions about the use of new internet communications for the teaching of history. For student engagement, I can easily see how a TwHistory reenactment project could be enlightening, but it seems on the same level as something like the Society for Creative Anachronism, the members of whom frequent Renaissance Faires. Many of them love history, and SCA says they are an "Organisation dedicated to researching and recreating pre-17th century European history." They are history enthusiasts rather than scholars, and I often see their membership wearing clothes from the 16th or 18th century or, even more often, clothing loosely based on designs from these centuries but no more authentic than a stage costume, complete with contemporary interpretations. As with costume designers for theatre, many are very well read in the period, and I have nothing against SCA or Civil War reenactors or anyone making history come alive -- on the contrary. One of my favorite places in the world is the Modern History Gallery at the Royal BC Museum, where I can wander a 19th century street. I'm also quite partial to New Orleans Square at Disneyland.
Those are places to experience what certain elements of the past might have been like, rather than places to do history as a student. TwHistory seems to be the SCA version of history, but developed deliberately as a scholarly project inside schools.
There are also parallels to the History Channel, a popular television channel that features documentaries, most of which focus on the sensationalist aspects of historical events. This make history interesting, it is said, as if it isn't otherwise. The result is a lack of depth and perspective, the kind of thing that is gained by careful, deep reading of multiple sources, both primary and secondary. Historians develop theses about the past, and prove them with evidence. While perhaps not scientific in the same sense as a laboratory science, there is a methodology that is inherent in the discipline.
TwHistory teaches students one aspect of the method, the use of primary sources within a historical context. But recreation/reenactment is not really historical analysis -- it is great for history buffs, but not so much for students studying history as a discipline. I'm not sure where the lines are exactly, between engagement in the events of history and actual inquiry, but I don't think TwHistory crosses fully into the discipline the way it should with young historians. I remain deeply uncomfortable with it.
[Please forgive the double-post -- I wrote this for Pedagogy First! but decided it should also go on my online teaching blog.]
Recent Comments