Emma Anderson
Source: Christopher Saladin and Shana Crosson, “Spatial Approaches to the Past: Story Maps in the History Classroom,” The History Teacher 55, no. 1 (November 2021): 35-59.
“…In each class, the instructors felt that Story Maps transformed the way students analyzed primary sources, the types of historical conclusions they developed, and the way they communicated this information….”
Christopher Saladin and Shana Crosson, “Spatial Approaches to the Past: Story Maps in the History Classroom,” The History Teacher 55, no. 1 (November 2021): 55.
In the quote provided, Saladin gives a clear conclusion to the deeply exposed classrooms of professors who used StoryMaps in their classrooms. The entire reading pushes an idea of exportation in being a teacher and being open to exploring and experimenting with new technology, even if you or your students initially believe it to be useless. With the students ultimately gaining so much more knowledge, they highlight this week as we as students and future teachers learn about a new online site (OMEKA) and explore other online platforms for our personal lesson plans.
“…Our conclusions are drawn from the students’ written responses, discussion session, instructor interviews, and our own observations in working with three specific history courses (…) the assignments we designed for each course reflect the range of how we have applied Story Maps to different time periods or fields and, in each case, students transformed how they do history through their role as map makers…”
Christopher Saladin and Shana Crosson, “Spatial Approaches to the Past: Story Maps in the History Classroom,” The History Teacher 55, no. 1 (November 2021): 37-38.
Looking specifical at course one, I found it interesting how they drew their conclusion on such a complexly made assignment. I think this raised a question for me as to if the style in that conclusion was drawn was different and if the same results would occur. Similarly to this, I wonder: if the topic of the subject entirely changed, would there still be the same “positive” result? I find it hard the think about how StoryMaping as a whole can be judged solely off on 3-course studies all of which are very similar in subject. I think having future testing or observance of the program on math or sciences would be interesting to see if spacial thinking in that style helps those subjects as well.
“…Chambers also found grading these assignments challenging. Unlike an essay, she had to evaluate additional elements, including map pop-ups, images, scale, and different writing styles...”
Christopher Saladin and Shana Crosson, “Spatial Approaches to the Past: Story Maps in the History Classroom,” The History Teacher 55, no. 1 (November 2021): 43.
I found be quote above to be very interesting because I believe it to be widely acknowledged by the majority of teachers. Many interesting projects would make the information more understandable and digestible for students, even creating better analysis. And yet, due to the major Con of grading, classroom time management, and styles of testing, classrooms are forced to limit new styles of projects and learning. I think that this also, although not focused on, hints at a larger issue of how students are tested on their knowledge of the subject, with organic and spacial thinking, although being taken highly by students, lack school board room support.
I think this week’s reading allows us students and future teachers to expand the style of teaching we do, looking online to relieve these stresses.
