The best way to use video in teaching history is short student-created segments for direct instruction. This post discusses what a group of teachers at the Education Study Group found works best for at-risk populations.

At my school, the figures are dismal: On the first day of school, you look at 23 students. Seventeen didn't eat breakfast at home, 16 struggle with English, five are designated Special Needs. On the last day of school, you still have 23, but nine of the faces changed without warning at some time during the year, due to high student mobility.

I'm not making excuses. To not acknowledge these hard facts would be educational malfeasance. It's where you start—with the student. Untangling these elementary students and teaching them to be lifelong learners of history is the goal, all the while striving to ensure they get what they need to pass NCLB requirements. In this environment, the correct use of video can be a lifesaver. In general, a large percentage of at-risk kids learn visually, in short bursts which can be repeated, at will. The Internet and digital video have made this a wonderful option.

When a short (two- to five-minute) video is played in class, we (the Education Study Group) recorded the highest student attention. Use a clip six to eight times in one lesson, and one gets the same attention numbers. This works with video clips from “expert” sources such as Discovery Education and some YouTube and TeacherTube videos, but the attention is heightened if the videos are created by students.

Our research found this is the best time to provide direct instruction. After the facts have been downloaded into your students' brains in this manner, then the discussion, examples, and inferences can be accomplished more easily.

If the same videos are put online where they can be accessed by the students, those who need to review can repeat the videos over and over. When the direct instruction video is played it triggers the ancillary information provided in class. Conversely, if the videos are of ancillary information and the direct instruction was provided via lecture, less is recalled by review of the videos.

Knowing the critical information is in the videos and online allows students to watch and interact in class, rather than take notes—an important element for success in at-risk populations.

Having students construct their own learning of history by building a video is great stuff, but many teachers do it backwards. They teach their regular lesson (lots of words, worksheets, and note taking) and then do something with technology as a "synthesizing" activity. That's not where technology goes. The research of Sugata Mitra and his "Hole in the Wall" experiment showed us that students should work in teams when using technology. In his experiment he placed computers throughout different remote regions of India and children were able to teach themselves to use the equipment, in small groups, without any external instruction. It is the research on which the global “one laptop per child” initiative is based.

In our research, we’ve taken that model and applied it using authentic publishing. We define "authentic publishing" simply by the fact that, once content is published, it can be Googled. There is a palpable difference in a student’s incentives when what they publish can be seen by a massive audience outside their classroom. When publishing information about U.S. history, for a project on the American Revolution for example, students (even very young students) get the added responsibility that people in the United Kingdom will actually be able to read what they write. They take care not to offend their audience. They understand they will be judged against everything out on the Internet, not just against their classmates' or teacher’s expectations. It energizes their writing, and spurs broader research.

Most important, it is completely self-initiated. Students review one another’s work without being directed to do so. They comment on one another’s work using the available tools (almost all online technologies have a comments feature). They learn from one another, and in the process of creation of the project, take those lessons and adapt and apply them to their own work. This collaborative learning is done, for the most part, without it being assigned, or even encouraged (though we do suggest teachers encourage this behavior).

We've done research over the past three years on how students use media at home. We find if they make it and publish it authentically, they review it repeatedly in production, and then at home with friends and family. We've found students watch their own media 25 or 50 times. And they repeatedly watch the media produced by other students in the class.

In one example, students were given a page to complete in a subject-specific wiki. They were shown the tools and allowed to use whichever media they wished. They worked in teams to accomplish their goals, even though they each had a separate page. The assignment was classical, with a standard rubric that could be used for any writing assignment. Teachers didn’t need to change the assignment parameters from what they would have assigned for a paper and pencil version. It was the medium which changed the paradigm.

What was most telling was students' activity at home. To a student, they would go home and review their page. They would show it to their brothers, their sisters, their friends, and parents. They would then look at the pages of each of the other students in their class. Then they would come in the next day and say something to the effect of, "I've got some new ideas on how to make my page better. Are we going to work on the wiki today?"

This example was a second-grade class with predominately special needs. Imagine the same activity, with worksheets. "A student goes home and reviews their worksheet, shows it to their siblings, friends, and parents. Then reviews the worksheet for everyone else in their class." It would never happen.

On the first day of spring break, it rained. Two students published videos on their pages that day. It's the power of publishing—authentic (Google-able) publishing—which provides the incentive, the power to this learning engine.

Our research illustrates students should construct their own visual media, developing parts of the direct instruction for the lesson. If they publish it authentically, they are motivated to excel due to a larger audience of peers and through competition with classmates. And they voluntarily review the material repeatedly.

As a primary school teacher my focus is on building basic academic skills in ways that are developmentally appropriate for my students. That means we focus most of our time on reading, writing, and math while ensuring that we have chances to play and explore our world.

As one can imagine, this leaves little time for social studies and science. I have standards and objectives to teach in these areas, but they are prioritized below the others. As a result, I look for ways to integrate them into other parts of our day.

Some ways to do so are obvious. When we are working on nonfiction reading skills I carefully choose books about Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, or life in the past. As we explore writing reports I will gently nudge my students towards something about the past that has caught their interest. I stock my classroom library with biographies, history trade books, and historical fiction at appropriate reading levels. I choose read alouds that offer a window into the past, such as Potato: A Tale from the Great Depression by Kate Lied, Train to Somewhere by Eve Bunting, or books from the American Girl or Magic Tree House series.

In addition to those options, I also try to integrate our exploration of history into other areas. One way I do so is to have my students talk to family members and adults in the school about their own histories. Homework might be to ask someone in the family how their experience in school was different from that of my students or what going to the movies was like when they were young. During our morning meeting the next day we’ll talk about what their family members shared with them.

We study data and graphing in math in first grade and I use this as a chance to learn about the past. My students will fan out around the school and interview teachers, administrators, secretaries, lunch room helpers, and custodians about their lives in first grade. They might ask how many channels they had on TV then, did they wear seat belts or ride in car seats, how many telephones were in their house, etc. (I do try to send my students off to interview only those staff members old enough to make a difference here. Our just-out-of-college teachers won’t offer answers different enough to be noticeable.) Then we graph the answers they got from staff members and my students’ answers and look at the differences.

History is fascinating to young children, but it is also very nebulous. They struggle to understand something they can’t see. I try to build it into our days throughout the year to ensure that we are talking about and exploring history as much as possible. I want to correct misperceptions, expose them to surprising ideas, and generally encourage an interest in understanding how our world has changed over time.

Early elementary studies in history often focus on specific people. As students mature they are able to explore history over the course of periods of time and consider how certain events impacted other times and people. However, our youngest students do not have the necessary background knowledge and life experience to do so. As a result, early elementary history standards tend to be about individuals from the past.

My 1st graders study George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington Carver, at least according to our state standards. My school district has added Eleanor Roosevelt to that list, one assumes in order to have at least one woman. The standard relates to U.S. leaders and their contributions to our country.

I don’t think anyone would argue that the above individuals contributed to our country. However, I do think there are concerns with this approach. While heroes taught in this way can be inspirational, I believe we are setting our students up for disappointment in those heroes when they find out they were, in fact, human. In addition, making them too heroic risks many students today finding them not inspirational but intimidating, or at least unrelated to their own lives.

I believe that one of the benefits of studying how individuals have contributed to our country is to show children the possibilities for their future. My students, however, will not see themselves in any of these people. The majority of these individuals lived in prosperous situations, at least as adults. We can study Franklin and Lincoln’s early years with limited financial resources, but they are still white men, and a log cabin doesn’t resonate with a child living in an apartment with two other families. Carver also rose from difficult circumstances, but they are circumstances that are very difficult for young children to understand. My students are mostly first-or second-generation immigrants. They speak another language at home. They will struggle to see similarities between their lives and the individuals we study.

Also, studying individuals through their contributions shows one side of them only. Washington and Franklin certainly did contribute significantly to the development of our country. However, the way they are presented to young children suggests a near perfection to these men, a lack of complexity. In a few years, when they learn more about them, these students will be shocked to learn that Washington owned slaves and that Franklin fathered an illegitimate child, whose mother’s identity is unknown. We teach about Lincoln’s rise from difficult financial circumstances to become president of the United States. Students learn that he abolished slavery. They see him as a savior for an entire group of people without recognizing the complexities of his views on race.

As we study these individuals in my 1st-grade classroom we create a data retrieval chart to which we can continually refer. It includes their names, the dates of their lives, their contributions, and other interesting facts. I include the other interesting facts for two reasons. The first is that my students are often fascinated by things that aren’t really contributions and we need a place for those. Second, this is a window of opportunity for me to highlight human aspects of these individuals. Through the resources we use to study these leaders—books, videos, websites—I can draw out interesting facts that might surprise my students. I can point out that George Washington was a slave owner and we can talk a bit about that. We can count how many elections Abraham Lincoln lost on his route to the presidency. We will list on our chart their contributions and many positive or neutral interesting facts, but I will attempt to ensure that the men and women we study are seen as people, people who gave much to our country but who were still human beings.

As teachers we have a responsibility to know more about the individuals we teach than the standards state. While the complexities of people may be more than young students can grasp, we can be more careful about how we present individuals. It is easy to glorify historical figures but we should present them as human beings and look at their achievements through that lens. That will help our students see the possibilities in all they have to offer.

For those of you who couldn’t make it to Chicago on January 7 for our workshop, “Teaching the Past in a Digital World: New Perspectives for History Education,” at the American Historical Association (AHA) Annual Meeting, you not only missed the balmy 50 degree temperatures (not bad for Chicago in January!), but also quite a few great resources worth sharing. Here’s a recap:

After a welcome by Anne Hyde of Colorado College, I provided a brief overview of Teachinghistory.org. With about half the audience already familiar with the site, I was able to get everyone up to speed and highlight a few new features, including the newly unveiled Favorites tool, as well as the new Spotlight Pages. Responding to a commonly asked question about world history, I highlighted the many teaching materials and best practices that can apply to all historical topics, whether you teach the American or the French Revolution.

Fitting for Chicago, Dr. Daniel Graff from the University of Notre Dame introduced ideas and resources to help teachers integrate labor history into their teaching. He provided a packet of primary sources that participants analyzed in small groups and then discussed as a whole group. The workshop helped me see new classroom connections for bringing labor history into discussions about slavery, women’s history, and the civil rights movement.

My colleague, Rwany Sibaja, presented an interactive workshop with handouts on teaching American history with digital tools. He introduced the participants to Vimeo, Prezi, and Animoto among others. I always learn new things from my Teachinghistory.org colleagues (Rwany introduced me to Prezi last year) and you can check out some of his write-ups on various tools in our Tech for Teachers section.

Next up, Paul Kolimas of Homewood Flossmoor High School moderated a session with fellow Homewood Flossmoor High School teachers Jeff Treppa and John Schmidt. They offered a presentation on a “new school” approach to the classic research paper. It was interesting to see how their techniques related back to Teachinghistory.org’s emphasis on historical thinking skills. The audience had lots of questions, so they definitely hit on a popular topic.

Molly Myers of Lindblom Math and Science Academy then turned our attention back to digital tools, focusing her talk on how she uses technology for the 3 c’s: collaboration, communication, and community building. Her presentation helped me see a lot of new possibilities and I particularly loved hearing how Molly turned to Twitter to get input from teachers on #SSChat about how they use digital tools for her presentation.

We ended the workshop with an inspiring talk by Patricia Nelson Limerick, vice-president of the AHA’s Teaching Division and professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She titled her talk, “Facing Down Fear: Innovation, Experimentation, and Adrenaline in the Teaching of History.” The talk lived up to the title. She spoke about the importance of trying new things, even things you might fear such as using new technology. She also talked about the importance of personal connections in the classroom (and in life) and raised the question of whether digital tools enhance or distract us from these personal links. She graciously agreed to write up her talk for Teachinghistory.org, so look for her post in the coming weeks.

So from adrenaline to Vimeo, we covered a lot of ground in Chicago. Our next stop? Kansas City for the National Council for History Education conference, March 22-24. Hope to see you there!