Data Mining

Within the last couple decades, technology has significantly altered the way we research, and technology continues to impact how we collect data. Search engines have greatly simplified the process of finding and linking data. Dan Cohen and William Turkel discuss data mining within this context. Their articles got me thinking the most, so I will just focus on them. In Cohen's article, From Babel to Knowledge, it's interesting that he points out the relationship between research, analysis, and time. This was not his main point, but it really struck me. Since information is so easy to instantly obtain today, historians spend less time doing research. This frees up a lot of time, which allows deeper analysis of the data found. While Cohen doesn't mention this, I have noticed that history involves so much more today than ever before. A great deal more is expected of historians now. For example, a common theme in all of my classes is that we tear historical monographs apart that do not represent both sexes and as many races and classes as possible, depending on the available data from that time. In the past, works that only considered white, upper class men dominated history. Diversity didn't explode in American History until after the 1960s. Historians are expected to include and represent as much as possible in their work today, and I think our quicker research tools has liberated (sometimes feels like shackled!) our analyses in this way. Because of technology and search engines, we have more time for further research and analysis, which enables historians to be so inclusive. Cohen seeks to extend the historian's search and lights the path to do so, which is helpful and insightful.

In Turkel's blog, he discusses the fact that AOL released their user search data in 2006 and relates this to Public History. People were still using AOL in 2006? I thought it died out of popularity at least by 2000, as Google began claiming the search engine reigns. Apparently some people were using AOL, because three months of data was presented from over a half a million users. Anyway, AOL ended up withdrawing the data (who would have thought: sensitive information about the randomly numbered users could be figured out...). But anything that has been on the internet, stays on the internet somewhere. Turkel demonstrates how easy one can manipulate the AOL data for the use of historians and how much insight such data can give. I found it interesting that by analyzing what people are searching, you can understand how they perceive and search for history. This is very useful to a public historian, who is trying to reach their audience in the best way. If we can think like them and know what they are searching...we can better engage our audience in history exhibits! Turkel seems to have a sense of humor, since he lastly points out the AOL user's obvious concern with privacy based on the search data. This made me laugh anyway, but that could be because I'm a terrible person that sometimes laughs at the ironic misfortune of others.

Digitizing the Learning Process?

In my graduate class about digital history, we utilize Twitter (some students more than others, of course). My group, Team Playboy, uses Twitter to quickly update and question each other on our progress. Twitter is an easy and quick way to keep all group members on the same page. Many students tweet their class blog so other classmates can easily access them, but this also has the possibility of networking students to a larger interested or professional group by the use of hashtags (such as #digitalhistory or #history). During class, my professor opens her Tweet Deck on the projector so that everyone can view it. Students tweet questions and information during discussion and lecture. This can be helpful, because students are able to tweet their ideas before forgetting them (my mind is easily sidetracked during discussions, for many reasons), and with the questions/thoughts visible to everyone, students can ponder the tweets a bit before they respond, or before the tweet is even acknowledged. The most effective use of Twitter I have seen in class is when a student could not be physically present, she was digitally present. She contributed to class discussion through Twitter, while multiple students tweeted her back to keep her involved. This digital dialogue was immediate and viewed by the entire class on the projector.

I am fascinated by creative uses of technology to educate and disseminate information; this is one of the many reasons I'm studying Public History. Based on my experiences with Twitter and graduate school thus far (I had a grand total of two tweets prior to my enrollment in grad school), I consider Twitter an intriguing tool. In the effort to gain another perspective, I found Eva Kassens-Noor's article,"Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets." While I have linked the article, you may not be able to view it since it is a scholarly work; I accessed it through UNC Charlotte's library. This is a great article that begins by explaining formal and informal active learning, along with the advent of Web 2.0. Active formal education is exactly what one expects in higher education. This includes engaging the student during class, such as a class debate. Informal active learning, then, is involving students in the learning process outside of class. It seems active learning is the opposite of a professor lecturing AT you for hours on end, never allowing the student to participate. Twitter, YouTube, blogger, and Wikipedia are some examples of websites possible because of Web 2.0 and are also potential tools for informal active learning. The author then discusses her small classroom comparative study to gain some insight about the pros, cons, and most suitable environments for the use of Twitter in increasing active and informal learning. Ultimately, Kassens-Noor concludes that Twitter is an effective active and informal learning instrument that has some advantages over traditional methods, yet some disadvantages exist. She explains:

The advantages lie in that Twitter can foster the combined knowledge creation of a group better than individuals’ diaries and discussion, because Twitter facilitates sharing of ideas beyond the classroom via an online platform that allows readily available access at random times to continue such discussion. The disadvantages of Twitter lie in constraining critical thinking and self-reflection because of the tweets’ character limit.

She supports some of the same things I realized in my own experience, yet she further points out that the assignment given in a class dictates the effectiveness of Twitter. For example, if an assignment involves a lot of critical thinking and reflection, Twitter would not be a suitable tool. Of course, we must keep the limitations of this small study in mind. I still think this article brings some valid information to the table, much of which my informal learning experience supports. Twitter is certainly a beneficial tool for the classroom, inside and out. Based on Kassens-Noor's article, it seems the instructor needs to understand how and when to use Twitter to further engage students and help prepare them for the increasingly digital world in which we live.

Politics, Technology, and the Historian

While corporate scandals, such as CEO John Thain spending $35,115 on a toilet for his office in 2009, have been in the news during this recession, it seems many Americans do not expect similar issues to arise within institutions that preserve and disseminate intellectual information, such as the Smithsonian. At least, I hadn't thought about it until reading this article from the American Historical Association. Until he resigned in 2007, Lawrence M. Small was secretary of the Smithsonian Institution's board of regents for eleven years. Along with many other poor decisions, Small engaged in "lavish expenditures such as a $13,000 conference table, two $2,000 chairs, and $31,000 for upholstery during renovations of Small's office at the Smithsonian. Small also received over $1 million in reimbursement over a six-year period for use of his home for Smithsonian-related activities." Small's resignation and 'legacy' resulted in the need for a new, trustworthy secretary. The author of this article, Lee White, argues a historian should hold this position, instead of a scientist. Scientists have disproportionally held the secretarial post in the past, and I agree with White that a historian is a wiser choice. While it has no bearing on how corrupt they are, I think the training a historian endures allows them to accomplish the tasks of a Smithsonian secretary more effectively than a natural scientist. Politics are a powerful portion of history, so historians have deeply analyzed and reanalyzed various political environments in various times and places. This understanding best prepares the historian for such a position in the intensely political world we live in today.

Another article I read from the same AHA page mostly considers the impact of technology on history and information through other works. The article was written in 2007, and as the editor ponders this question: "Will the advent of better handheld e-book readers that can hold dozens of books portend the death of the old-fashioned book or the printed journal?", I became acutely aware that I was reading from my Kindle. This article was published only five years ago, yet I just read it on my Kindle Fire, a now popular e-book device that also integrates applications (apps) and the internet (essentially transitioning it into a tablet). And considering the fact the editor anticipates e-readers storing "dozens of books", it is clear that even the writer discussing the quick growth of technology and the resulting impacts could not imagine the widespread devices we use on a daily basis, or fully comprehend the immediacy of technological effects. My Kindle Fire has the capacity to store thousands of books. At the moment, my brain is struggling to let this contrast between the expected and the surpassing reality sink in, and this is coming from a person who works with technology and readily assumes its perpetual and brisk change.

While most of the other points the editor mentions seem to be old news now, the editor does contrast linear reading with different methods of online reading. I hadn't given this much thought before, but what if linear reading becomes a traditional way of learning, or becomes obsolete? It seems my generation has largely embraced new forms of technology; tablets and smartphones (including the explosion of Apple products) are immensely popular. Even though I am fascinated by technology, I was initially skeptical of e-books. I thought there would be a disconnect in my comprehension when using an electronic device to read, since it lacks pen to paper contact and the navigation throughout the book is so different (but still a linear progression). I actually acquired my Kindle from my Grandma as a graduation gift, in part because she enjoys her Kindle so much. This certainly demonstrates the influence of technology and its ability to transcend generational differences. Now that I've owned a Kindle for a few months, I'm beginning to prefer my Kindle over paper books. I definitely prefer the Kindle editions of the historical monographs I've been reading for graduate school. I am able to work through e-books much faster, since I can quickly type notes within the book, and if I'm not sure of the meaning of a word, I can simply rest my finger on the word and the definition pops up. I am able to stay immersed in my reading with my Kindle, while I am easily distracted when constantly cycling through the monograph I'm reading, my notepad for notes, and my laptop for Google/Dictionary. So, if tablets, e-readers, and even smartphones (with their apps/internet access) continue to increase in popularity, will the way we read and learn eventually shift away from a linear progression? The possibilities for different ways of absorbing information using the internet and technology are endless. As our society becomes increasingly digital with new techniques for dissemination, will analog forms such as history books and physical museum exhibits coexist or become obsolete? What will we see next? Or should we (most likely) waste our time guessing?