I missed class on Tuesday night because I was in Dallas at a conference. I delivered a talk on utilizing Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, podcasts, social networking, etc.) to enhance learning in the classroom. Here's the main point of my presentation: As a workplace learning professional, I am pretty good at delivering effective learning in a classroom or via self-paced web-based training. However, these formal learning events is maybe 10-15% of a worker's time. The other 85-90% of the time is filled with "unstructured learning" — informal learning that happens when one looks up information on the internet, or asks a colleague how to do something, or reads a book to learn more about a topic. Until now, it has been very difficult for me to affect that unstructured learning. But Web 2.0 changes all of that by giving me tools to guide learning outside of the classroom or other formal, structured learning event.
In my talk, I then proceeded to give examples of the different types of Web 2.0 technologies and how to apply them to workplace learning. I even used this blog as an example of how to use a blog to extend discussions beyond the classroom. On the whole, I believe the presentation was well received by the audience — I got good comments on the evaluation forms, anyway. I was surprised at how many people had actually been experimenting with one or more Web 2.0 tools. There's a heck of a lot of hype surrounding these technologies, enough to intimidate most people from trying them out for themselves. But that's really the only way you can get to know the tool and then start to see how to use them to encourage or enhance learning.
My focus on Web 2.0 and learning this week reminded me about Gaddis' assertion that "the single most important thing any historian has to do, whether in the classroom or in scholarly monographs or even as a television talking hear, which is to teach [emphasis in original]." (page 149) Teaching is the reason I have embarked on this journey towards being an Historian in the first place. It's a real thrill (to me, anyway) when I discover a new way to teach, and these new technologies have exciting potentials to revolutionize how learning is delivered. I believe that Web 2.0 has much to offer us as historians.
What concerns me, however, is the predicable (but nevertheless disappointing) resistance to new ideas by the institution known as the Academy. This goes back to our discussion last semester about Manan Ahmed’s The Polyglot Manifesto. Ahmed is concerned (and rightly so) that the Academy is improperly valuing these new technologies and the mastery of them. Without beating a completely frayed and ratty cliché, Web 2.0 offers a new paradigm for teaching history, one that can shatter the rut of the classroom and put History lessons in a medium that young minds instinctively grasp. But, it seems, the Academy is not interested.
And now, finally, I'm getting to the point about GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and their significance to historical research. If I only get credit for the number of words I write in scholarly journals or monographs, why am I going to waste my time entering data in a cross-referenced database that includes geographical, economic and meteorological data points? As Ahmed puts it, "No extra points come tenure time...." I think Anne Kelly Knowles has collected enough reasons in this week's reading for me to have hope that time spent populating a GIS with datapoints can be time well spent. The research outlined in the chapters in this book are a fantastic inspiration to me — I am finally seeing historical research through technology in action!
And if one of the core competencies of Web 2.0 is control over expanding and expandable data — as Tim O'Reilly put it: "control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them" — then GIS represents those very data sources. It also represents a way of quantifying history, which addresses Gaddis' assertion that history is more like a physical science than a social science. With a well-rounded GIS, historians can examine the interdependency of variables, causation, contingency, and counterfactual scenarios in an effort to better understand the how and why of history. This, then, is the real value of GIS for history.