The increased popularity of desktop documentary making among both teachers and students in history classrooms warrants an examination of its integration into classroom instruction. This multiple case study focused on two secondary students in an AP European History course during a unit that featured desktop documentary making. Employing Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical framework, this study revealed that the students constructed historical narratives with multiple web-based encounters that affected their composition over a span of time. Whenever students experienced tensions in their narrative process, the students made historical judgments that furthered the narrative process. These judgments were, at times, based on evidence, and at other times devoid of evidence. These findings suggest that students may form baseless historical conclusions when given creative freedom in a desktop documentary making assignment. The challenge for history teachers and teacher educators who seek to integrate desktop documentary making into their instructional repertoire is to balance the need to provide students with creative freedom while creating an instructional setting that effectively and efficiently addresses students' historical understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonK. C. & LevstikL. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
BoothM. (1993). Students' historical thinking and the national history curriculum in England. Theory and Research in Social Education, 21(2), 105-127.
3.
BuckinghamD. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
4.
ColesR. (1997). Doing documentary work. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
CoventryM., FeltonP., JaffeeD., O'LearyC., WeisT., McGowanS. (2006). Ways of seeing: Evidence and learning in the history classroom. Journal of American History, 30(6), 1371-1402. doi: 10.2307/4485897
6.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
7.
DrakeF.D. & NelsonL.R. (2009). Engagement in teaching history: Theory and practices for Middle and secondary teachers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
8.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to development research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
9.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY., MiettinenR., and PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
11.
FehnB. (2011). Learning to teach history through documentary making: A history teacher's professional development. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 36-47.
12.
FehnB., JohnsonM., & SmithT. (2010). Far beyond show and tell: Strategies for integration of desktop documentary making into history classrooms. Social Education, 74(2), 101-104, 116.
13.
FehnB. & SchulJ.E. (2011). Teaching and Learning Competent Historical Documentary Making: Lessons from National History Day Winner. The History Teacher.
14.
FersterB., HammondT., & BullG. (2006). Primaryaccess: Creating digital documentaries in the social studies classroom. Social Education, 70(1), 147-150.
15.
FischerD. H. (1971). Historians' fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought. New York: Harper & Row.
16.
GaddisJ. L. (2002). The landscape of history: Flow historians map the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
HammondT. (2008). “So what?” Students' articulation of civic themes in middle-school digital documentary projects. In McFerrinK. (Eds.)et al., Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 4875-4880). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
18.
HoferM. & SwanK. O. (2006). Standards, firewalls, and general classroom mayhem: Implementing student-centered technology projects in the elementary school classroom. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(1), 120-144. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/
19.
HoferM., & SwanK. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200.
20.
HoltT. (1990). Thinking historically: narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
21.
JenkinsR. (1991). Re-thinking history. New York: Routledge.
22.
KaptelininV. & NardiB.A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
23.
KearneyM. & SchuckS. (2005). Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning with student-generated video, In KommersP. & RichardsG. (Eds.), Proceedings of ed-media 2005 world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications. Norfolk, VA: AACE.
24.
KoehlF. & LeeJ.. (2009). Digital History: Researching, Presenting, and Teaching History in a Digital Age, In LeeJ. & FriedmanA. (Eds.), Research on Technology in Social Studies Education (pp. 253-269). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
25.
KozulinA. & PresseisenB. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky's and Feuerstein's perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67-75. doi:l 0.1207/s 15326985ep3002 3
26.
Leont'evA.N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
27.
Leont'evA.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
LévesqueS. (2008). Thinking historically: Educating students for the twenty-first century. University of Toronto Press.
30.
MerriamS.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
MitryJ. (1990). The aesthetics and psychology of cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
32.
MurrayJ. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: The Free Press.
33.
NashG.B. & CrabtreeC. (1994). National standards for United States history: Exploring the American experience; grades 5–12. Los Angeles: National Center for History in Schools.
34.
O'LearyC. (2006). Connecting to the Public: Using New Media to Engage Students in the Iterative Process of History, Journal of American History, 92(A), 1396-1402.
35.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
36.
RothW. (2004). Activity theory and education: An introduction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(l), 1-8. doi: 10.1207/s 1 5327884mca 1101_I
37.
RothW. & LeeY. (2007). “Vygotsky's neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), pp. 186-232.
38.
SchulJ. E. (2010). Necessity is the mother of invention: An experienced history teacher's integration of desktop documentary making. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 14-32. Retrieved from http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/ijttl.html
39.
SchulJ.E. & MontgomeryT. (2011). Beyond Bedrock: The case for including desktopdocumentary making in the development of history teachers, The Southern Social Studies Journal, 36(2), 39-58.
40.
SeixasP. (1993). The community of inquiry as a basis of knowledge and learning: The case of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 305-324. doi: 10.2307/1163237
41.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42.
SwanK., HoferM., & SwanG. (2011). Examining authentic intellectual work with a historical digital documentary inquiry project in a mandated state testing environment. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(3), 115-122.
43.
VanSledrightB. (2002). In search of America's past: Learning to read history in elementary school, New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
45.
WertschJ.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
WertschJ. V. & TulvisteP. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), pp. 1-10. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.28.4.548
47.
WhiteH. (1987). Metahistory: The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48.
WineburgS. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87. doi: 10.1037/00220663.83.1.73
49.
WineburgS., ReismanA. & FogoB. (2007). Historical evidence and evidence of learning. International journal of social education, 22(1), 146-156.
50.
Yamagta-LynchL.C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451-484.
51.
YeagerE. A. & DavisO. L.Jr. (1996). Classroom teachers' thinking about historical texts: An exploratory study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24, 146-66.
