UC Santa Barbara > History Department > Prof. Marcuse > Presentations Page > Technology in the History Classroom (Feb. 2002)
CHSSP Technology Seminar
[Fall 2002 CHSSP Homepage]
UCSB, Feb. 23, 2002
Marcuse homepage, UCSB History Dept.
created Feb. 23, 2002; last update Oct. 9, 2007 [links updated]; 5/1/5/10 links
re: Online education added
11/4/15 more links updated
I. Different meanings of "technology in the classroom"
- Students using computers
- to run software (word processing, drawing, presentation, games)
student projects may be one of the most educational uses of computers!
- to access the internet
- finding information (ease of access, multimedia formats)
- communicating with others (including presenting their own projects)
- interactive sites: educational projects, textbooks
- Teachers using technology with students
- for "synchronous" (in-class) multimedia presentations to students
powerpoint and web-based [like this one] are most widely used
- creating widely accessible repositories for class materials
for example my own class pages: Western
Civ [2000 class; see 2006 World History], Holocaust
to sites, textbook,
communication [subsections have been changed]
- Teachers using the internet for preparation
- finding information and ideas
how to find sites, and evaluate content [Part II below]
- communicating with others [not today]
- finding appropriate web sites for classroom use
these will yield A2-subject guides
how to evaluate design [Part III: main part of today's talk]
II. Finding and evaluating web content
- Three ways to find sites: search engines, subject guides, referring sites
- search engines: google (system
for ranking pages), altavista
- subject guides: yahoo Cold War; Berlin
Wall category; search
- referring sites: see bottom of John
Ball's Berlin Wall
- Evaluating content:
- Content evaluation
checklist (by Univ. of N. Carolina) [11/4/15: link updated to web archive version; see also How to Evaluate Web Resources by Who Is Hosting This, 2015--with nice infographics and a text version below it]
[10/9/07: UC Berkeley's website evaluation guide]
Deerfield, Mass. museum's criteria
- How did you find it?
- links in: links are recommendations; annotated links (example: Randy
Bass, Georgetown; 2007 link)
- search engine results are rankings, esp. on google
(age of page, "relevance," number of links to, where those
links are from, number of viewers)
- Public vs. private vs. commercial: study the URL (web address):
[tip for PC users: right-click a page or link, go to properties, cut and
- NEH: EdSitement,
has History & Soc. Studies area
- AskERIC: Educational
Resource Information Network (1998 sponsors; 2007 about)
(US Dept. of Education and Syracuse Univ: Education, technology)
subject guide: social
studies (show examples of Q and A=resources)
database of questions and answers: How
to develop a lesson plan
database of lessons plans (Balkans)
- Commercial sites: bigchalk.com [2007: now ProQuestK12.com]:
The Education Network -- let's explore this one
(this is an example of bad design and absent content!)
- Who created it? Who sponsors it? (Very hard to tell: partners)
- What unique content does it have?
Smithsonian Folkways Recordings: are they there? No (only one!).
Compare the catalog
list at the Smithsonian site.
- How easy is it to navigate? Awful.
- Compare it to the private (non-commercial) UK Schoolzone
lesson plan, from educationworld.com)
- Find reviews of the site, or see what awards it has won
- Example: Columbus' voyages
review of Pickering's site by Barbara
Feldman's "Surfing the Web with Kids"
compare to other pages on Columbus: LOC
exhibition at ibiblio.org (overview)
- Example: Berlin Wall (google
comprehensive but unknown: berlinwall.ws [webarchive version, 2002-04 only]
History Web; Chris
[try URLs: berlinermauer.de,
berlinwall.org [a high school], .com--not
- Evaluate the design of the site.
III. Guidelines for good design
- Web style guides: Yale,
Library of Congress (table
- Richard E. Mayer (UCSB, Psychology), Multimedia Learning (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2001), esp. chapter 11: "Principles of Multimedia Design"
(pp. 183-194) ($21; $17
at bn.com, $13
- Randy Bass at Georgetown Univ., Engines
of Inquiry: A Practical Guide for Using Technology to Teach American Culture
advantages video page)
- Lawrence J. Najjar (Georgia Tech), "Principles of Educational Multimedia
User Interface Design," formerly at: http://wearables.gatech.edu/papers/larry.html
list of resources
- Presumption for history-social science classrooms (depends on grade level?):
Building understanding more important than acquiring information
If yes, look at Richard Mayer's four-part model (chapter 3):
- 2 input channels: eyes and ears (visual and auditory)
use each for a DIFFERENT type of mental processing
preferable: verbal narration with images; non-verbal sounds and text
- 2 processing methods: non-verbal and verbal
interaction between the two requires ACTIVE THINKING
- Focus on what users need, not what technology can do
Example of the opposite: newseum
in Arlington, VA
- Design/evaluation principles
- Multimedia: Words and images are better than words alone
- Proximity/Integration: The closer together words and images are,
closeness both in time and in location
- Modality: Spoken words MAY BE better than written text
- input in ears leaves eyes free to examine images, BUT
- being able to determine pace can be more important
(inexperienced vs. average vs. experienced learners)
- narration harder to review
- Personalization: narration in conversational style, "on-screen
(like that annoying paperclip in microsoft Word 2000)
- Redundancy: Stick to the core: exclude extraneous words, sounds,
- supportive vs. seductive images (example: student
Berlin Wall project)
avoid "seductive" images and sounds
(intent: focus attention, heighten interest)
- text OR narration, but not both (film subtitle principle)
- Interactivity: learners control, manipulate, and explore; tasks
- Sites to examine:
Holocaust: many excellent features
very glitzy and tech-savvy, but awfully confusing
(for kids, too? exploration principle?)
- Dachau Scrapbook:
super content, good navigation, but form?
- Deerfield, Mass.
- Niels Bohr Archive
(1941 meeting with Heisenberg) (awkward
Segue to group work: Information, Emotion, Impact
Handouts: list of sources in packet; questions
- Information: acquisition of knowledge; connections to prior knowledge
- Emotion: motivating learners; connections to significant interests
- Impact: learning outcomes--do thrills increase knowledge or understanding
2010 Discussion of Online Education in the UC System: some links
of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis
and Review of Online Learning Studies," 2009 US Department of Education Report,
93 page pdf.
- Exhibit 1: List
of 6 Types of Online Learning & Face-to-Face equivalent
(p. 5 of report, 24 of pdf)
- Exhibit 3: Studies
included in meta-analysis and effect sizes (pp. 21-26
of report, 41-46 of pdf)
- Abstract: More than 1000 studies from 1996
through July 2008 screened to include those that
contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition,
(b) measured student
(c) used a rigorous research design, and
adequate information to calculate an effect size.
51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis.
Finding: on average, students in online learning conditions
performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference
between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes ... was larger
in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online
and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face.
These blended conditions often included additional
learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control
conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated
with blended learning should not be attributed to the media per se.
An unexpected finding was the
small number of rigorous published studies
contrast online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12
students, so results are derived
for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training,
- Main points from the narrative review of experimental and quasi-experimental
studies contrasting different online learning practices (p. 18):
and purely online learning conditions implemented within a single study
generally result in similar student learning outcomes.
- Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to
influence the amount that students learn in online classes.
- Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control
of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.
- Providing guidance for learning for groups of students appears
less successful than does using such mechanisms with individual learners.
- General conclusion of the study:
- In comparisons of “blended” vs. face-to-face instruction: “blended
instruction has been more effective, providing a rationale for the
effort required to design and implement blended approaches. Even
when used by itself, online learning appears to offer a modest advantage
over conventional classroom instruction.
- “In many of the studies showing an advantage for online
online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent,
curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of
elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have
included additional learning time and materials as well as additional
opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning
advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning
is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than
is face-to-face instruction” (19).
- “In addition, although the types of research designs used
by the studies in the meta-analysis were strong (i.e., experimental
or controlled quasi-experimental), many of the studies suffered
from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention
rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in
many cases, potential
bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and
Courses – Request for Academic Senate Guidance,"
Dec. 2009 UCSB administration questions with regard to how online courses
might be integrated into the curriculum (.doc file)
of California Considers Online Classes, or Even Degrees: Proposal
for virtual courses challenges beliefs about what an elite university is—and
isn't," by Josh Keller and Marc Parry in Chronicle of Higher Education,
May 9, 2010. With list
of possible online courses, and current systemwide annual
The Future: A Virtual University of California,"
Bob Samuels Changing Universities blog, May 13, 2010