I believe that the accessibility and interactivity of DH projects make for valuable teaching tools. I one day hope to integrate DH into my teaching practice in a way that builds students’ digital and historical literacy skills. With my project, I see myself using this map as a means of teaching primary source analysis. Reading a historical text is a valuable and essential skill. I do not mean to belittle traditional sources or analysis. But, introducing a primary source like Vancouver’s logbook via a mapping project can generate more stimulating historical thought and discussion. For example, it offers variation to the rote and repetitive gauntlet of essays, quizzes, and tests that exists in many classrooms. Differentiating forms of assessment is associated with higher student engagement and bridges gaps for students with different learning needs. As such, the medium becomes essential to understanding the message. I chose a map for a reason—to visually convey the spatial distribution of Indigenous peoples across Puget Sound in a way that text on a page cannot. It would be impossible to conceive where, precisely, my map’s points without a visual. In this respect, my map is as much a learning and teaching process as it is an object. Maps, by their very nature, are more than objects. They can reveal unanticipated and unintentional realizations. Actually seeing something may uncover questions or conclusions that a student may otherwise never have considered. Thus, integrating this project into my future classroom opens up an entirely new means by which students can extract and create historical argument and meaning.
I envision a lesson plan wherein students are paired up and given a point on my map to critically read and discuss with their partners. Such an activity helps nurture students’ collaborative and interpersonal skills in addition to the usual academic skills, all in a format that is novel, accessible, and engaging. It could also be worthwhile to give two groups the same passage—one from the original text and one a point on my map—and see if their assessment differs based on the medium. Beyond traditional scholarship and soft skills, this could be a springboard for students to delve into digital scholarship themselves. Using my project as a “formula,” so to speak, I might assign students a brief passage and ask them to locate a certain point from said passage on a map - say, Lexington and Concord or Plymouth Rock and Watson’s Hill. Using the data that students provided, I could enter said points into ArcGIS and quickly run a cost-path analysis in front of the class. Students could then use the resulting visualization to ask questions and think critically about history as spatial as much as temporal, tying in constructivist and experiential learning models. Provided the technical side of it runs smoothly, this activity could be a pleasant demonstration of what digital humanities methodologies are capable of should students hope to pursue it.
It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention potential difficulties with integrating my project into teaching pedagogy. Firstly, access to ArcGIS and other digital tools into the secondary classroom is limited by available resources. To be blunt, it may be difficult for school districts to allot funding towards new, nontraditional, and expensive programs such as these, especially at a time when school funding is a critical issue. And, secondly, using ArcGIS and other tools is not easy. This project was a welcome challenge for me, and I still have plenty to learn. But, introducing these methodologies to a large, general education classroom may be too high of a hurdle for many students. As much as I would like to introduce all learners to the potential of digital scholarship, it is essential that I, as a teacher, ensure that all students are supported in receiving an appropriate and accessible education. With this in mind, I will need to one day consider how and when, specifically, I can best weave digital methods into my classroom.